[Grim Tales] Using GT for sci-fi?

[Hammerhead]

On a more personal level, how would you change the weapon design mechanic to reflect the existence of better ones in the future?

This is pretty much the cardinal rule of sci-fi GT: you don't. Let your 2d6 damage pistol represent the heavy maser pistol or whatever, and the 1d10 damage pistol be the light maser pistol. The 2d10 rifle is the maser rifle, naturally. And the grav-mace should have stats like a mace, and the monofilament-edged katana should do 1d10. The game ultimately remains the same, the same balances are in place (like the MDT), and it represents the least amount of work.

 

[Victim]

On a more personal level, how would you change the weapon design mechanic to reflect the existence of better ones in the future?

You don't.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You don't-- and here's why I think you don't.

I hate to say it but... (gulp) think in terms of the real world.

A weapon in the real world is a tool with several really simple design considerations.

Its purpose is to incapacitate the enemy, and it needs to do this as efficiently as possible.

Any energy spent over and above its intended purpose is an unnecessary inefficiency.

We're not necessarily just talking in terms of energy or resource expenditure with regards to the weapon and its ammunition (if any). You also have to consider things like its portability, its delivery systems, and its cost.

All of these things contribute to the "evolution" of weapons in such a way that they will always find the most efficient design.

Clearly, it's possible to build an advanced, futuristic weapon that does 4d6 damage. The problem is that 4d6 damage is "too much" with respect to the neutralization of human opponents. 2d6 works just as well. (Don't make me veer off into a discussion of hit points and what they represent-- accept it as truth that a 2d6 weapon is deemed sufficiently "deadly.")


So if Company A makes a weapon that does 4d6 damage, and Company B makes the exact same weapon that deals 2d6 damage in a more efficient way (less gunpowder in the ammo, lesser drain on the omega-zorper batteries, whatever) then the design that wins out will be the 2d6 version. It's as deadly as it needs to be.

And, of course, you always contend with Physics. The energy you get out of a weapon cannot be greater than the energy you put into it. Conserving this energy isn't important only to the weapons manufacturers of the day, its an imperative to the universal laws of physics.

Now, obviously, bigger, more bad-ass weapons exist for specialized purposes. You could, of course, choose to wade into every firefight with an RPG instead of a 9mm. But again, the point is that the 9mm is the more efficient design for killing human opponents, so that will be the weapon that is most likely to see widespread use.

 

[Andur]

The only reason I can see to use deadlier weapons is if one uses an Armour as DR rule. Then the extra d(x) is basically the armour penetration aspect of the weapon system.

Also remember that a 2d6 is the base damage a weapon deals. With the right circumstances and feats one can easily quintipple the damage, and that's without a crit.

 

[Hammerhead]

A weapon in the real world is a tool with several really simple design considerations.

Its purpose is to incapacitate the enemy, and it needs to do this as efficiently as possible.

Any energy spent over and above its intended purpose is an unnecessary inefficiency.

Of course, your logic is based around a setting where humans are the only things running around. But what about universes with Aliens or Pitch Black Death Creatures running around? The 2d6 damage isn't really enough in those situations. Wouldn't weapon designers try to pack as much power into as small a package as possible, to deal with those kind of threats?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Of course, your logic is based around a setting where humans are the only things running around.

Well, no, it wasn't based on a setting at all. It was based on the real world.

But what about universes with Aliens or Pitch Black Death Creatures running around? The 2d6 damage isn't really enough in those situations. Wouldn't weapon designers try to pack as much power into as small a package as possible, to deal with those kind of threats?

Yes, they would. I said as much.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

That's an interesting stance. What surprises me about it is that it runs counter to the only Scifi RPG I ever played, Traveller, where weapon damage scaled significantly with tech level.

What about armored opponents? Wouldn't that create an imperative to make more powerful weapons? That's certainly the way it was in Traveller. Imperial Marines carried plasma rifles so they could take out opponents wearing battle dress... and woe to you if you got shot by one when you were unarmored.

Ken

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

What about armored opponents? Wouldn't that create an imperative to make more powerful weapons?

Yes, it would. I said as much.

That's certainly the way it was in Traveller. Imperial Marines carried plasma rifles so they could take out opponents wearing battle dress...

Then one would assume that Imperial Marines more frequently encountered opponents in battle dress than without. Otherwise they wouldn't be issued plasma rifles, for the same reason that today's marines aren't ubiquitously equipped with M60's, despite its performance advantages.

 

[Victim]

I assumed that weapon damage remained fairly static because defensive technology advances as well. Weapons, armor, stats, etc remain the same in context. Granted, that means you have to make stuff up when wildly different tech levels interact. However, you don't have to explain why top of line laser pistols are no better than 9mm pistols either.