• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

If you could put D&D into any other non middle ages genre, what would it be?

I'll just add that Edge of the Empire has a lot of firearms (or lazers or whatever), and essentially uses HP under a different name (wounds).

I think anyone making the argument that D&D is incompatible with firearms for HP reasons is frankly ridiculous (they already exist and mostly work).

You could probably make a good argument for saying firearms don't work in D&D because of reasons related to "taking cover," but D&D has rules for that too, it's just people don't use them as much because a lot of combat is melee.
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
Star Wars is a prime example of the being no one correct approach. Edge of Empire and Star Wars D20 used hp, Star Wars D6 did not.
 
My points is that hit points are intrinsically linked to the question of tactics in the gameplay.
Sure. Focus fire is the obvious example - hp damage imposes no penalties, so, focusing on one enemy at a time is always the best tactic, and accepting hp damage in return for enabling some other objective is often a pretty easy choice.

That is, you can always skip minding cover if all you stand to lose is a couple of hit points. Yes, in the long run you can't afford to lose hp carelessly, but skipping cover is a definite choice to weigh against getting to your destination quicker.
Nod. That kind of pedantic player calculation, though, actually can enable a genre-appropriate action on the part of the hero - apparent 'risk taking' or 'bravery' (the /player/ know the PC will just lose some hps - but lose some hps, in the fiction, looks like taking a deadly risk and barely getting away with it).

PS. As always, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with using hit points for a gunpowder game.

I'm only trying to bridge two different viewpoints by explaining why resistance against hit points have real solid origins, rather than it being just "wrong"
In that sense there's no 'wrong' just inconsistent. It's inconsistent to get exercised about hp loss not being a sufficient disincentive against breaking cover in a western, but not about it not being a sufficient disincentive to say, charging a horde of orcs in fantasy.

Hit points are a very abstract mechanic, and can be used a lot of different ways to enable a lot of pretty cool in-game narratives. But there's a habit of thinking of them in a much more narrow, and internally inconsistent way.

But remember you don't need to reinvent the wheel here. The problem has been tackled before. You know, by other games.
And that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is using D&D in other genres, not converting D&Ders to other systems that aren't as bad as it at a given genre.


But do you really need to? I think the thing that bothers me most about this "D&D doesn't work with guns" is that unless you assume fully automatic weapons and an unlimited ammo supply, guns are really all that much different in game terms than what we already have. Particularly if you limit to 19th century or earlier tech, they really aren't all that much more effective.
One reason I have for the opinion that D&D can work fine with firearms - to that point, is that I've done and seen it done a lot the last, oh, going on 10 years, now, I guess.

For instance, back in 2010, I started playing in a campaign that brought PCs together from alternate worlds. I chose to pay a Cleric who was an Old-west fire & brimstone preacher. He didn't happen to be carrying a gun when he got sucked into the campaign's setting, so it was a non-issue. Later, closer to Paragon, the story worked around to an old-west world (with a zombie apocalypse), and we picked up a Ranger (who was literally a Texas Ranger), using a re-skinned superior crossbow with increased-RoF-feats as his Winchester.

Introduce firearms to D&D without a hitch a few times, and you start to get over the dogmatic horror of the idea that was the norm back in the day.
 

Satyrn

Villager
Do you ever wish forum posts were like Facebook posts, where you could turn off commenting on posts you create? And just let them die and be forgotten?

That’s how I’m feeling about this one. Went off the rails right away. I don’t know, maybe I’m at fault for presenting a discussion idea I thought would be fun to talk about without realizing how fast it would degrade into an off topic back and forth. It was supposed to be about what other genre/setting/era outside of traditional D&D might be fun for you to play with the D&D rules, and it immediately got stuck on the guns in the Wild West and how D&D sucks for that.

If you think D&D rules don’t work for that, good for you. Then don’t talk about it. Talk about what setting/genre you think would be fun. And if you can’t think of one, then this thread clearly isn’t for you. Anything else is threadcapping.

I swear, we can’t even have a basic discussion of “I think this would be fun” without people chiming in to say how that’s wrong, how it sucks, etc.
Hey, at least your thread got replies! Nobody replies to mine :.-(
 

Satyrn

Villager
Danggit, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]! You weren't supposed to go respond to the thread. Now I can't whine so loudly about being ignored. :uhoh:
 

S'mon

Legend
I'd like a 5e adaptation for running generic space opera science fantasy; something a lot like Starfinder say.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
In that sense there's no 'wrong' just inconsistent. It's inconsistent to get exercised about hp loss not being a sufficient disincentive against breaking cover in a western, but not about it not being a sufficient disincentive to say, charging a horde of orcs in fantasy.

Hit points are a very abstract mechanic, and can be used a lot of different ways to enable a lot of pretty cool in-game narratives. But there's a habit of thinking of them in a much more narrow, and internally inconsistent way.
And there's a habit of narrowly accusing people that protest against hit points of being inconsistent in order to more easily dismiss their very valid concerns.

Stop making it only about double standards. It is perfectly valid to not want to use hit points because of how that changes the game compared to games without them.

I might add: Just as it perfectly valid to ignore the impact of those changes because of simplicity (hp is if nothing else easy), familiarity (everyone you play with know D&D already) or simply because you've never tried any other game. Just to mention three reasons; I'm sure there are more.

And that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is using D&D in other genres, not converting D&Ders to other systems that aren't as bad as it at a given genre.
You tell me this as of you didn't see me stopping that sidetrack short. So I'll simply say I agree.
 
And there's a habit of narrowly accusing people that protest against hit points of being inconsistent in order to more easily dismiss their very valid concerns.
Stop making it only about double standards.
Valid concerns can be expressed without relying on double standards. It's not that hard a bar to clear.

And, answering concerns in detail is not dismissal.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You're talking about the ducking and weaving that's implied but not actually governed by the rules.
No I'm not, which is why.........................what I described was explicitly NOT ducking and weaving. I said moving forwards and backwards. Watch a combat sometime. The combatants will move sometimes dozens of yards while fighting. What they do not do is sit in one spot not moving and just swing at each other.

But why would I be talking about that?
Dunno. I'm not talking about that, either.

I'm obviously talking about movement at range; very simply which square on the battlemat your character occupies.
And I was obviously talking about movement during melee. The squares a melee combatant occupies during a melee would also change significantly in a typical combat.

D&D isn't about typical combats.

If every hit carries the potential to ruin your day (whether through pain penalties or outright unconsciousness) you're that much more likely to choose the longer, safer path to the position where you can engage the opposition.
This also applies to melee. Every single hit carries the potential to ruin your day(whether through pain, penalties or outright unconsciousness), so melee combatants are also that much more likely to move around in order to avoid swings.

If, on the other hand, only the last hit carries any consequences (which is the case in games with energy shields or hit points) you're that much more likely to take the direct path and just soak the incoming damage, thinking perhaps the time saved will make up for the increased risk of hp loss.

This really is very simple stuff.
Yep. And it quite simply applies equally to both ranged and melee weapons.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Valid concerns can be expressed without relying on double standards. It's not that hard a bar to clear.

And, answering concerns in detail is not dismissal.
This thread sure fails to keep those apart. It is full of people that can't or won't understand there's more to "hit point scepticism" than simplistic double standards.

I have provided the explanations needed. Not sure you're in a position to claim this is such a breeze...
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
No I'm not, which is why.........................what I described was explicitly NOT ducking and weaving. I said moving forwards and backwards. Watch a combat sometime. The combatants will move sometimes dozens of yards while fighting. What they do not do is sit in one spot not moving and just swing at each other.



Dunno. I'm not talking about that, either.



And I was obviously talking about movement during melee. The squares a melee combatant occupies during a melee would also change significantly in a typical combat.

D&D isn't about typical combats.
My point is that any movement not modeled by D&D is "ducking and weaving" even if it means backing up a staircase and then climbing back up.

And how that isn't relevant. Since it isn't modeled.

What is relevant is the player's choice; how to move his or her character across the battle map.

I'm claiming that the damage model impacts the player's decisions for movement.

One damage model leads to a more cautious, natural mode of movement; the other doesn't.

Since you didn't understand the difference, you were able to draw a likeness between melee and ranged.

But as I've explained, that was not my argument.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
D&D is pretty decent at many things, but being overly realistic simulation of combat of virtually any kind is not one of them. Are there other games that are better at modeling real combat of various types? Absolutely. But being a realistic simulation or supporting and encouraging any specific fighting style whether that's taking advantage of cover and advancing cautiously or mimicking fencing along a 45 ft long line does not necessarily make for a more enjoyable experience for the majority of people.

Reality can be quite boring, I prefer D&D's simple to run reasonably fast paced combat.
 

MarkB

Hero
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] I still feel that your argument that D&D favours moving to close in to melee rather than using cover feels more like theory crafting than actual gameplay practice. But even conceding that it might occur in standard D&D, I still don't see that it will be a factor in a Western setting.

In a Western setting, ranged combat is king. Your primary damage dealers are pistols and rifles and shotguns, with things like knives and tomahawks coming in second and also being throwable.

So, in this setting, where's the motivation to charge into melee? What purpose is there in a character running around in the open? Sure, the HP model may somewhat mitigate the downside of such a tactic, but what's the upside? Why wouldn't people make tactical use of range and cover in those circumstances?
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
@CapnZapp I still feel that your argument that D&D favours moving to close in to melee rather than using cover feels more like theory crafting than actual gameplay practice. But even conceding that it might occur in standard D&D, I still don't see that it will be a factor in a Western setting.

In a Western setting, ranged combat is king. Your primary damage dealers are pistols and rifles and shotguns, with things like knives and tomahawks coming in second and also being throwable.

So, in this setting, where's the motivation to charge into melee? What purpose is there in a character running around in the open? Sure, the HP model may somewhat mitigate the downside of such a tactic, but what's the upside? Why wouldn't people make tactical use of range and cover in those circumstances?
There's a couple of problems with that in a D&D/fantasy setting. There are a lot of monsters that won't be stopped by a few bullets. That troll is going to laugh at you while it charges into combat to rip you to shreds. A bullette is still going to pop up in the middle of your party and ruin your day. A T-Rex is still going to eat you. I've played in a few range heavy parties, they still have to deal with melee because the encounter distances tend to be fairly short and many monsters don't have ranged attacks or are significantly better at melee.

But I do agree. If you don't allow the sharpshooter feat, there's no reason to not snipe at each other from cover. Advance in units with one group under 3/4 cover readying an action to shoot anyone that pops up while another group advances would be a valid tactic. Make the assumption that fantasy armor is effective against firearms (or come up with more modern equivalents) and you're done.

But would it be fun? Would you still be supporting different character types like tank warriors? A lot of video games that have firearms still have tanks simply by having characters that have heavy weapons and armor and pretty much just stand out in the open blasting away. Or you just hand-wave some stuff and encourage melee combat because it's fun like TV/movies do in everything from Star Trek to Arrow to anything where the hero is a martial arts expert.

In any case I don't think you'd have to change all that much, just figure out how to make strength based characters reasonably effective at ranged combat, give your orcs firearms and be done with it.
 
Last edited:

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
Of course...

An argument could be made- possibly quite strongly by the OP- that a Wild West situated in a D&D style fantasy world might not have invented gunpowder due to the ubiquity of magic.

There might still be an analogous situation to the shootout at high noon, but it would involve spell casting or use of magical items.

See also Murlynd.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Of course...

An argument could be made- possibly quite strongly by the OP- that a Wild West situated in a D&D style fantasy world might not have invented gunpowder due to the ubiquity of magic.

There might still be an analogous situation to the shootout at high noon, but it would involve spell casting or use of magical items.

See also Murlynd.
Or Eberron or ... well any number of fantasy novels. In my world gunpowder exists but as a weapon? Not particularly useful. Want flash/bang stuff that will frighten your enemies? Cast some low level spells. Start to make gunpowder useful? Some wizard somewhere is going to invent a "spark" cantrip that seeks out gunpowder to ruin your day, or just cast heat metal on your gun to have it go off when you don't want it. But basically early firearms are so much less effective than even low level spells that it's never been developed much beyond fireworks.

I do the same thing with steam power ... it could exist except that things that approximate life have a tendency to develop a will of their own. Not often, but often enough to discourage it.

The other option is that it just doesn't work. Nobody ever said in a world of dragons that chemistry works exactly the same or that stable gunpowder could be developed.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
This thread sure fails to keep those apart. ...
This thread is about what other genres would you like to apply D&D mechanics to. Not a discussion on how D&D rules suck for genre X or to discuss the merits of HP.

Every thread you start, at some point you tell anyone who disagrees with you to stop posting. Now, I won’t ever ask people to leave if they don’t agree with me, but I will ask to remain on topic and not to threadcap. So maybe you should follow your own advice that you keep telling everyone else to do in threads you create.

Wishful thinking on my part? Probably.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
D&D is pretty decent at many things, but being overly realistic simulation of combat of virtually any kind is not one of them. Are there other games that are better at modeling real combat of various types? Absolutely. But being a realistic simulation or supporting and encouraging any specific fighting style whether that's taking advantage of cover and advancing cautiously or mimicking fencing along a 45 ft long line does not necessarily make for a more enjoyable experience for the majority of people.

Reality can be quite boring, I prefer D&D's simple to run reasonably fast paced combat.
This is a straw man. You don't need D&D or hit points to run reasonably fast paced combat. Nobody has called for an "overly realistic simulation".

The difference is instead the hit points itself. The presence of absence of a "backpack shield generator" informs how your characters act during play.

Neither is bad. But disregarding criticism against one as merely a call to "modeling real combat" is.
 

Advertisement

Top