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

FaerieGodfather

Born in the Soul of Misery
No. That's precisely what it doesn't handle well.

When you have one or two "shots" per turn at say 5th level that deal 1d6 or 1d8 you're not simulating guns. I don't know what you're simulating, but it isn't bullets. Even a "crit" with a gun is so minimal damage as to make a mockery out of the lethality of firearms.
See, posts like this are why firearms rules are complete nonsense in most D&D-derived works. They're not magic death wands.

If you get a bullet in the brain, heart, or lungs you are probably going to die in a matter of seconds. If you get a bullet in the intestines, without medical attention, you are probably going to die within a matter of days. Take a hit anywhere else... well... you're just not going to die at all.

They're a lot like daggers, really.

Main difference between the two is that a non-lethal firearm attack is somewhat more likely to cause permanent, debilitating inuries-- the kind of realistic injuries that the D&D rules deliberately do not model.

There is no point at which D&D's modeling of weapons and injuries even approaches realism. Firearms only appear to be more unrealistic because we are more familiar with their portrayals in the media.
 

CapnZapp

Hero
The entire *point* of having hit points in fantasy RPGs is to enable mighty melee heroes.

In real life, entering a sword skirmish is incredibly risky, and the notion that "as long as you're skilled you'll do alright" is nonsense. The reason "name" characters survive medieval fights is because they're kept out of the worst fighting.

So level 1 D&D heroes are actually quite realistic, at least compared to higher levels: that d8 can come up a 1 and you shrug it off, and it can come up a 8 and end you, right there.

The reason firearms feel off is because you're changing the *genre*.

Change the genre and you need to change the damage model. In the Western genre it's important that each shot has a chance of killing you, however small (for the heroes). A game without levels or massive hit points, but with something like fate or drama points to separate the heroes from the mooks works better because you have changed the genre.

*That's* why firearms has never felt right in D&D.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
The entire *point* of having hit points in fantasy RPGs is to enable mighty melee heroes.

In real life, entering a sword skirmish is incredibly risky, and the notion that "as long as you're skilled you'll do alright" is nonsense. The reason "name" characters survive medieval fights is because they're kept out of the worst fighting.

So level 1 D&D heroes are actually quite realistic, at least compared to higher levels: that d8 can come up a 1 and you shrug it off, and it can come up a 8 and end you, right there.

The reason firearms feel off is because you're changing the *genre*.

Change the genre and you need to change the damage model. In the Western genre it's important that each shot has a chance of killing you, however small (for the heroes). A game without levels or massive hit points, but with something like fate or drama points to separate the heroes from the mooks works better because you have changed the genre.

*That's* why firearms has never felt right in D&D.
Warhammer 2nd ed did it well with exploding dice - any attack could kill you. Even a stray dart from a goblin could be fatal.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
No. That's precisely what it doesn't handle well.

When you have one or two "shots" per turn at say 5th level that deal 1d6 or 1d8 you're not simulating guns. I don't know what you're simulating, but it isn't bullets. Even a "crit" with a gun is so minimal damage as to make a mockery out of the lethality of firearms.
I'm not sure why you think a hit from a longsword swung in anger is less lethal than, oh a 9mm parabellum? That can easily hack off a limb or pierce an organ.
 

MarkB

Hero
No. That's precisely what it doesn't handle well.

When you have one or two "shots" per turn at say 5th level that deal 1d6 or 1d8 you're not simulating guns. I don't know what you're simulating, but it isn't bullets. Even a "crit" with a gun is so minimal damage as to make a mockery out of the lethality of firearms.
In which case it makes just as much of a mockery out of the lethality of swords, or axes, or bows, as any one of those will kill you in a single solid hit. Even in the real world far more people survive firearm wounds each year than are killed by them, and in heroic fiction such as action movies the protagonists will have huge volumes of lead fired in their direction through the course of the movie.

Using the same rules for guns as for any other lethal weapon in D&D doesn't alter the game's realism one bit.
 

CapnZapp

Hero
Warhammer 2nd ed did it well with exploding dice - any attack could kill you. Even a stray dart from a goblin could be fatal.
Even more importantly, WFRP had Fate Points, which is something you need to separate the heroes from the mooks when you don't have Conan's 145 hit points.

So, yes, WFRP is a better framework to base a Old West game with gunplay on, than D&D.

Not because D&D is bad, or because it's worse than WFRP. It's not.

But because they support different genres.

D&D is built from the ground up to support fantastical heroes. Conan is one example, but really, he's at the lower end of the power spectrum. At higher levels, Vishnu the Avenger (medieval gore warning!) is a better example.

But very few Old West stories are about that, or even anything close to it. Even the most mythical of Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns don't have him kill more than a few dozen enemies, and he is seldom invincible to their attacks.

Conclusion: The Wild West is not the same genre and is best played using a different rules engine. Does that mean you aren't allowed to use D&D? Of course not, but don't tell me I didn't warn you when you feel your D&D firearms work wonky!
 

CapnZapp

Hero
I'm not sure why you think a hit from a longsword swung in anger is less lethal than, oh a 9mm parabellum? That can easily hack off a limb or pierce an organ.
Why are you discussing real life here?

The entire point of D&D (=hit points and levels) is to ensure that longswords don't hack off limbs (off of heroes).

If you play a game where a rifle can kill you from 250 yards, yes, feel free to also allow a sword to cut your head off.

But comparing the D&D Longsword to the Old West Colt Peacemaker is a mistake, since now you're comparing apples (a genre that borders on superheroics) to oranges (a genre that's quasi-gritty). They're the same genre just like Conan and the Three Musketeers are the same genre, that is to say not at all. (Discussing genre as in rpg implementations now, not genre as in literary works)

If you want quasi-gritty swordplay you don't pick D&D (unless you're barred from leveling up :) ).

If you want legendary gunplay, D&D works alright I guess, but that is not what most Old West aficionados are looking for.
 

CapnZapp

Hero
In which case it makes just as much of a mockery out of the lethality of swords, or axes, or bows, as any one of those will kill you in a single solid hit. Even in the real world far more people survive firearm wounds each year than are killed by them, and in heroic fiction such as action movies the protagonists will have huge volumes of lead fired in their direction through the course of the movie.

Using the same rules for guns as for any other lethal weapon in D&D doesn't alter the game's realism one bit.
Another post that doesn't seem to realize the genre shift.

In D&D, when a level 8 Fighter is attacked by a few goblins with shortswords, their effects are akin to being shot by nerf guns, that is to say, they're an inconvenience but hardly fatal.

Does anyone consider this a "mockery of shortswords"?

Of course not.

The reason D&D "mocks" firearms but not axes or bows is because the genre has shifted.

You expect a Wild West revolver to be (way) more lethal than a (D&D) shortsword.

This would suggest you would expect a Wild West longsword to be (way) more lethal than a (D&D) plasma rifle.

And that's exactly what you're getting.

So before you respond to posts discussing "illogical mockery" it pays to think about genres! :)
 

CapnZapp

Hero
Another aspect is distance, or range.

The closer the range, that is the more emphasis on melee, the more historic the game, and the greater the acceptance for "taking a dozen hits without flinching".

The longer the range, that is the more emphasis on tactical movement and cover, the more modern the game, and the lesser acceptance for "taking a dozen hits without flinching".

There are exceptions of course.

But take John Wick as an example. Note how it likes its "melee gunplay", which fits right into this exact model.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
My issue with D&D rules in other genres is challenging the characters at higher levels given their HP and damage dealing increases. In the Age of Sail setting, for example, how does that work out? Or do campaigns need to be level limited?
Well, first off just because it's an Age of Sail setting doesn't mean conventional adventuring can't exist. In such a campaign the early levels could be maritime or navy based*, with the characters moving farther away from that as they advance (either that, or becoming fleet commanders etc.).

* - it'd be easy, for example, to run U1-3 Saltmarsh series with the characters based on ships rather than onshore. Ditto X1 Isle of Dread or any other adventure set near the sea.
 

Derren

Adventurer
The best game of SR I was ever in was run using M:tA (oWoD Storyteller), so, IDK, a very different dynamic from the native system may not be such a bad thing...
oWoD is not D&D.
D&D, especially the current edition, has the problem that the non combat part is very underdeveloped and because of the leveling system tied to combat power. That makes several archetypes in SR impossible and also complicates the non combat gameplay in SR which depending on the playstyle can be as important if not more so than combat.
And speaking of combat, the SR system is done so that everyone is a glass cannon without much healing, so you have to pick your fights and complete runs as fast as possible. D&D is pretty much the opposite where PCs are big HP bags with lots of healing and the entire combat system being designer around fighting encounter after encounter and crawling through dungeons. That gives a very different, and imo worse, dynamic than what SR has.
 

MarkB

Hero
Another post that doesn't seem to realize the genre shift.

In D&D, when a level 8 Fighter is attacked by a few goblins with shortswords, their effects are akin to being shot by nerf guns, that is to say, they're an inconvenience but hardly fatal.

Does anyone consider this a "mockery of shortswords"?

Of course not.

The reason D&D "mocks" firearms but not axes or bows is because the genre has shifted.

You expect a Wild West revolver to be (way) more lethal than a (D&D) shortsword.

This would suggest you would expect a Wild West longsword to be (way) more lethal than a (D&D) plasma rifle.

And that's exactly what you're getting.

So before you respond to posts discussing "illogical mockery" it pays to think about genres! :)
The "D&D doesn't do guns well" comment that I originally responded to was in reference to using D&D in a Space Opera setting, not a Wild West one. Space Opera isn't too far removed from high fantasy when it comes to the durability of its heroes.

And even in a Wild West setting, do you really want that level of lethality in an RPG? In pretty much any RPG player characters are meant to survive dozens of battles without dying. If you make the revolvers in your Wild West setting routinely lethal, the only way the PCs get to survive long-term is if they miraculously dodge every single one of the hundreds of bullets that will have been fired at them during that time.
 

CapnZapp

Hero
And even in a Wild West setting, do you really want that level of lethality in an RPG?
Nothing I've said suggests real lethality.

We're talking about guns that "mock" you.

The difference is between a system where you're hit (but shrugs it off) and a system where you're not hit.

D&D is an example of the first one. No matter how you spin it, a bullet is never going to cause serious harm to a level 8 character.

In other games that bullet WOULD have killed you, were it not for the small fact that you spent a Hero point and it really didn't.

Different approaches for different genres. One is not better than the other, just better suited to a particular genre.
 

akr71

Explorer
I'd like to run a bronze age Mediterranean campaign, one that mixes in Mesopotamia, Egypt and Babylon. You know, as true to the Bronze Age Mediterranean world as vanilla D&D is to Medieval Europe. :cool:

An Age of Sail campaign would be cool too - my son really wants me to run a pirate themed campaign.

Gamma World for 5e would be a blast too.
 

Laurefindel

Explorer
So I ask of you, if you could take D&D's default middle age fantasy and push it into another genre, what would it be, and which edition's rules would you use? And tell me why it would be awesome. :)
hum, lets see what D&D has to offer.

- a class system emulating an easily quantifiable "zero-to-hero" trope, and clear character archetypes
- an abstract damage/health system without specific injuries where "are you dead?" is a simple yes/no question
- characters that can go through a lot of damage/punishment as they gain levels without being inconvenienced
- easy access to healing. Even without magic, the rest mechanics is generous in that regard
- a cyclic limited resources system renewable through simple rest
- magic. D&D has magic that obeys specific rules and limited resources. You can refluff spells as weird science, psionics, or mutant powers, but the specific nature of spells and limiting nature of spell slots remain. You can remove it altogether, but you just chopped 50% of the game right there, so why use D&D?
- a short-ish list of wide-broad skills
- a very detailed combat system, a very simple exploration system, and an even simpler social interaction system.
- emphasis on individual actions (coordination of teammates as opposed to group actions)

So with that in mind, everything with the word "fantasy" works rather well, whether it is in space, in a pseudo-medieval earth-like setting, in a Princess of Mars planet-fantasy type etc.

everything historical "but with magic!" can work too, as long as you can accept the resource-limited aspect of magic (too bad Harry Potter cast expeliarmus last round, now he's out of magic!)

Everything pseudo-medieval with a twist, like a Dark Crystal setting, or anthropomorphic settings like Humblewood or mouse guard work rather well too.

Most Japanese-animation genre can easily fit the system too.

some weird science genres can work, like Girl Genius gas-lamp fantasy. Again, anything where you can justify your scientist running out of science will work ("what do you mean I can't use another battery for my fireball cannon!?!")
 
Last edited:

Giltonio_Santos

Adventurer
Imo that won't work very well.
D&D is much too inflexible to handle the full spectrum of SR gameplay and the combat system would create a completely different dynamic than what SR goes for.
I think you're probably right, but I wouldn't be too worried about emulating SR gameplay, I just want 5e rules for orcs and shamans in cyberpunk Earth. :)
 

Advertisement

Top