• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.

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

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
And IMO the game works even better if some of those things are modified to be perhaps a bit less simplified and-or a bit more realistic.

Ease of recovery is trivially simple to alter. Armour actually works not too badly as is. The turn-based system can be made much less rigid simply by rerolling initiative each round (and allowing ties). Adding a wound-vitality or body-fatigue system to HP in the name of realism is easy - it must be, 'cause we've done it and we ain't no hifalutin' game designers. :)

As for firearms, I certainly perceive them in reality as being more deadly than melee weapons: if I'm unarmed and someone's pointing a gun at me from beyond my reach I'm screwed, but if someone rushes at me with a sword I feel like I've at least got a chance to do something about it.
About your last paragraph, I disagree. Handguns in particular are inaccurate and under powered. There is also the situation of the shooter having "the bead" on you, which is not a given.
 

Paul Farquhar

Explorer
I disagree with your implied definition of genre, which seems muddled with setting. The wild west is not a genre! It's a setting.


But I haven't read the entire thread yet, so maybe I am not fully understanding your position.
The Old West is a setting, Western is a genre. Or perhaps more accurately, two genres.

Personally, I wouldn't want to set a game in the Old West anyway, I have never liked either version. But the 1st edition DMG did talk about a cross-over with Boot Hill.
 

Jacob Lewis

Explorer
Ok. So firearms don't work in D&D because we can't accurately portray them like we see in the movies??! :confused:

First, movies aren't very accurate. Second, D&D is even less accurate than movies. Third, its a GAME. Games are usually designed to be balanced, challenging, and/or fun. There is no point insisting that rules for firearms needs to be realistic and accurate in a game where sword damage, armor class, and hit points are abstract numbers that don't add up to simulation.

But it is a game, so anything is possible. You want firearms for 5e? I'm sure it can be done, if it hasn't already. Lets try a more positive approach. Here's one idea based on some of the current discussions:

Firearms
Proficiency: Just like martial weapons and tools, characters must have proficiency in Firearms to use their proficiency bonus. In a typical D&D setting where firearms are not common, this option may not be available for any class. Instead, it may be gained by acqquiring a specific background, or as a feat. Other settings or campaigns where firarms are more common may make this more accessible by including it with certain classes or more backgrounds.

Damage: Guns are the great equalizers. Make it as potent or better than the best weapons in the game. I suggest 2d4, 2d6, 2d8 and 2d10 for various types and sizes. No ability modifiers unless as a special feature or option, like a feat. The more powerful ones will also have other drawbacks to keep things balanced, such as slow reloading, limited ammo, rarity and cost, and unrelaibility.

Dangerous: Guns have a higher probability for a critical hit because it can penetrate most armors better than any normal weapon. But attack bonuses undermines the value of armor (and other defenses), while higher crit bonuses will inflate the already inflated damage dice. A better solution could be more "old school" with a higher crit range. (i.e. score a critical hit on an attack roll of 15-20, for example). Auto hit, but only double damage if roll equals or exceeds target AC.

Unprdictable: Balancing all this out is the misfire or jam potential. Mirror the high crit with a equal high fumble (i.e. firearm suffer a malfunction on an attack roll of 1-5). The weapon becomes useless for the rest of the encounter unless the character can fix it with an appropriate check(s), usually takes at least one full round.

You can go hogwild with variations and options at this point, but something like this seems workable. It is balanced with controlled accessibility and tempered by risk/reward potential. And it should wok within the design constraints without upsetting balance.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
You are making massive assumptions about what "most" people think without any evidence.

If you use D&D rules you are going to get an action movie feel, but action movies can be set in any setting.
If you use D&D rules you are not getting the kind of tactical gameplay people expect when they learn firearms are involved, as evidenced by this very thread.

You might get Commando though. I leave it up to you to take that as a recommendation or a warning.
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
Increasing the damage is functionally identical to reducing your hit point total.

Come on, just admit that it is the damage model that is important here. D&D uses one fundamentally incompatible to most people's expectations on firearms, because they assume cover and tactical movement should be more important than melee.

At it's core, D&D features a very primitive damage model. Then it adds a lot of mostly magic to spruce it up. And yes, it needs to be simple to not bog down the full game with Elves, Dragons and Wizards.

But when you strip all that away, as I presume you would for a Wild West game, all you keep is a damage model that encourages you to act in a way more in line with the way Conan the Barbarian acts than the way sheriffs and outlaws act.
The damage model of dnd, with more damage but not more HP, would encourage shooting your high damage at others from behind cover.

Ya know, like in a shootout.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Now you're just trying to tell people they're playing the game badwrongfun, so good luck with that.
You really don't see the irony in you making this statement, do you? I'm not accusing anyone of badwrong. That's you. You were the one that said people expect/play wild west a certain way. You did it again a few posts below this one I quoted. All I did is say that assumption is wrong. I'm not saying people who play that way are wrong, I'm saying it's wrong to assume that's what everyone wants or does.

Man, this never gets old, does it? You make sweeping generalizations about people and assume what you want is the only true way and everyone else must play like how you want, and every time it gets called out how that's not true, you act like they are making a personal attack on you or people like you. Every. Freaking. Time.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
About your last paragraph, I disagree. Handguns in particular are inaccurate and under powered. There is also the situation of the shooter having "the bead" on you, which is not a given.
They are underpowered and inaccurate compared to larger caliber rifles, but not to melee weapons. Handguns can be accurate out to 100m if you're really good (most have a max effective range of 50m, but that's for the average Joe), and getting hit by a .44 will ruin your day in a hurry. Handguns don't have the velocity of a rifle cartridge, but that doesn't mean they aren't powerful. I'm not going to give the ballistics details here, because I've done it numerous times in the past and no one ever seems to remember. Suffice to say, I've seen a 15 shot shot group at 100 yards with a Colt Navy Revolver all land inside a 16" radius. But the bottom line is handguns are a lot more useful and powerful than people assume.
 

77IM

Explorer
Maybe this isn't the thread to be brainstorming Western Genre Rules, but I can't help myself...

Assume a guns do reasonable damage similar to melee damage (d8 for a pistol, d10 for a rifle, or thereabouts).

Aim: If you don't move on your turn, your ranged attacks deal double damage.
Flat-Footed: If you didn't move on your previous turn, all ranged attacks against you deal double damage.

(Translation: During a "duel at high noon" you are each dealing each other 4x damage.)

Cover: If you have 1/2 cover, attacks that hit you deal 1/2 damage. If you have 3/4 cover, attacks against you deal 1/4 cover. Cover still gives you the normal AC bonus, too!

(Translation: Running for cover becomes extremely important, to cancel out the x2 damage that comes from enemies aiming at you, and from you aiming at enemies. Consequently, once the encounter devolves from a duel into a gunfight, everyone dives for cover, and tries to sneak around and flank each other. This is extremely true to the Western genre in my experience -- our protagonists crouch behind barrels, having conversations while getting showered with splinters, while the villains creep around on rooftops. Flanking is a risk because you might be caught out in the open.)

(If your opponent is constantly behind cover, closing to melee range might seem like a good idea -- except, if your opponent has a firearm, they can pop a few shots at you while you approach, and with double damage...)​

OK, so maybe this isn't the best system (lots of multiplying fractions, and remembering who moved last round) but my point is that the tactical options available affect the tactics used -- so if D&D favors melee, there may be ways to change that without jacking up firearm's base damage or reducing everyone's hit points.
 

Paul Farquhar

Explorer
If you use D&D rules you are not getting the kind of tactical gameplay people expect.
Which people? Who? Where is your evidence for all these people who expect tactical play when there are firearms but that expectation magically vanishes when there are no firearms?

I count two or three in this thread, with five or six arguing the opposite. That's not "most".

Anecdotally, in the 1980s and 90s I switched from AD&D to Traveller, then Golden Heroes (A superhero RPG) then FASA Star Trek and WEG Star Wars. These where all RPGs with firearms/energy weapons etc, and none of them went in much for tactical play.

Well, apart from the Kirk roll in Trek...
 
Last edited:

Tony Vargas

Villager
Yes, he's essentially Conan throwing rocks.
Hey! That's type-casting!
...poor Arnie...

The point is: when most people mention a modern game with insurgents or drug dealers, Commando is not what they have in mind, and D&D is not an obvious fit.
In other words, the setting suggests different ways to play.
Yeah, I get it. D&D incentivizes certain tactics, strategies, modes of play, whatever you want to call it. 5e give the DM a /lot/ of latitude, though.

The game may incentivize toe-to-toe damage-trading (I'm not so sure it does, but for the sake of argument), and the player may thus declare a simple action in accord with the reality that doing damage is a sloggy sort of thing. The DM, though, gets to narrate the results of that action...

FREX:
Player (with bored resignation*): "I guess I shoot the guy in front of me again." "Hit AC 19 for 15 damage."
DM (with unbridled enthusiasm): "You dash across the dusty street of Tombstone, fanning your six-gun as you go! The bandidos scatter for cover, the one you were aiming at dives behind a water trough your .45 slugs dash fountains out of the water as he cowers behind it. He hasn't got much fight left in him! Bullets whiz by as the others return fire, but your gunfighter's finely honed instincts allow you to all but complete avoid them - you wince as one goes straight through your Stetson, that was too close! Um, take 12 damage." "Next!"
Player 2 (with stunned incredulity): "That was, like, nothing like what he said he was doing."


Ok. So firearms don't work in D&D because we can't accurately portray them like we see in the movies??! :confused: First, movies aren't very accurate. Second, D&D is even less accurate than movies.
Prettymuch. And making them "realistic" would only deepen the problem. Modeling genre expectations gives you more verisimilitude than modeling reality. (cf "Reality isn't Real" trope... if you dare.)

Third, its a GAME. Games are usually designed to be balanced, challenging, and/or fun.
Games that don't have "D&D" on the cover, sure. D&D, it turns out, to be acceptably familiar enough to its fans to have a shot at commercial success, must be designed to be imbalanced in specific ways. In the case of 5e, it seems to be (im)balanced to err a bit on the side of "too easy" (at least, according to some vocal detractors - I don't see it much, IMX, but I've mostly run it at very low levels, as AL and con organizers seem to always want intro games to be 1st level - and I can see why on a theoretical/technical level) which might, indeed, make combat not seem too much like an action movie.


The damage model of dnd, with more damage but not more HP, would encourage shooting your high damage at others from behind cover.
Ya know, like in a shootout.
Nod. The problem is that when you push the d20 towards the edges, you get a lot of missing - which is boring/frustrating - and who finally takes that high-damage hit and goes down gets very random.

Which people? Who? Where
Those people, over there :waves vaguely in no particular direction:: - the ones playing Squad Leader.
 
Last edited:

Satyrn

Villager
Yeah, I get it. D&D incentivizes certain tactics, strategies, modes of play, whatever you want to call it. 5e give the DM a /lot/ of latitude, though.

The game may incentivize toe-to-toe damage-trading (I'm not so sure it does, but for the sake of argument), and the player may thus declare a simple action in accord with the reality that doing damage is a sloggy sort of thing. The player, though, gets to narrate the results of that action...

FREX:
Player (with bored resignation*): "I guess I shoot the guy in front of me again." "Hit AC 19 for 15 damage."
DM (with unbridled enthusiasm): "You dash across the dusty street of Tombstone, fanning your six-gun as you go! The bandidos scatter for cover, the one you were aiming at dives behind a water trough your .45 slugs dash fountains out of the water as he cowers behind it. He hasn't got much fight left in him! Bullets whiz by as the others return fire, but your gunfighter's finely honed instincts allow you to all but complete avoid them - you wince as one goes straight through your Stetson, that was too close! Um, take 12 damage." "Next!"
Player 2 (with stunned incredulity): "That was, like, nothing like what he said he was doing."
I don't understand what you're trying to say with this, what that example is meant to illustrate.
 

Satyrn

Villager
"DM Narrates Results" gives the 5e DM tremendous latitude to inject genre into his game - any genre. :D

Not all players may 'get' it, though. ;(
Okay, that explains it. Although I'll ignore all the terrible bits in your example that would serve as good examples of what I avoid as a DM and leave to the players to narrate for themselves, I understand what you're saying now and even agree.
 

Tony Vargas

Villager
Okay, that explains it. Although I'll ignore all the terrible bits in your example that would serve as good examples of what I avoid as a DM and leave to the players to narrate for themselves, I understand what you're saying now and even agree.
Yeah, it was kinda a tongue-in-cheek example... I should try to be more serious... sometimes...

...not right now.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
My post in my OP: I'd really love to hear how you would apply D&D rules to a different genre.
Last 8 pages: That would never work


Should have been expected, really...
 

Satyrn

Villager
Yeah, it was kinda a tongue-in-cheek example... I should try to be more serious... sometimes...

...not right now.
Don't be serious on my account! No. Wait. You should be serious. Always. I hate competition.

But it wasn't even the example that hampered my understanding of what you were trying to say. I simply couldn't piece together what you were saying before the example. I think it was mostly because you said "player" but meant "DM:"

The game may incentivize toe-to-toe damage-trading (I'm not so sure it does, but for the sake of argument), and the player may thus declare a simple action in accord with the reality that doing damage is a sloggy sort of thing. The player, though, gets to narrate the results of that action...
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
The damage model of dnd, with more damage but not more HP, would encourage shooting your high damage at others from behind cover.

Ya know, like in a shootout.
More damage and same hp. Or same damage and less hp.

You're saying that D&D would work, just remove the defining features of D&D. Gotcha
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
You really don't see the irony in you making this statement, do you? I'm not accusing anyone of badwrong. That's you. You were the one that said people expect/play wild west a certain way. You did it again a few posts below this one I quoted. All I did is say that assumption is wrong. I'm not saying people who play that way are wrong, I'm saying it's wrong to assume that's what everyone wants or does.

Man, this never gets old, does it? You make sweeping generalizations about people and assume what you want is the only true way and everyone else must play like how you want, and every time it gets called out how that's not true, you act like they are making a personal attack on you or people like you. Every. Freaking. Time.
Thank you for making it personal. Makes it easy to skip your posts.
 

Advertisement

Top