Scientific "Tricks"

[Celebrim]

Sadly, the wizard analogy is weak. Well, for some genres it might not be, but I'm thinking Trek, etc, here. Scotty doesn't run around throwing fireballs, and Spock doesn't run around summoning treants and creating walls of stone. Science is more grounded than magic, even in Star Trek.

It's not that 'science' is more grounded than magic, because it isn't. A simple perusal of the works of Iain M. Banks will show that science as a literary trope is less grounded than magic. Magic is more limited. All you do is throw out the 'sufficiently advanced science' card.

The problem with the wizardry analogy is that science is more sharable than magic. No one expects that if the wizard gives you a ball of bat guano and sulfur that you can throw a fireball. Using one requires esoteric knowledge. But science creates the expectation of 'push button fireball shooters' in a way that magic doesn't. Even if it takes esoteric magic to make a phaser, viewers have the expectation of 'point and shoot' in terms of using the phaser. The equivalent of the Wizard in terms of battle field control is the guy with a power suit bristling with weapons and gizmos, which unfortunately isn't the same thematic trope and more important isn't a trope that seems to be unique to the concept. Why can't everyone wear armor bristling with weapons and gizmos?

Traditionally, if you want wizards in your science fiction, you convert your science fiction to science fantasy by directly adding the wizards and then giving them a science fiction name - like psionics, psychics, jedi, etc. These are directly magic using wizards with all that implies, but given a costume to let them fit in better. I should note that even Star Trek does this. Spock is the wizard (and an Elven Wizard to boot), and he has various esoteric powers like Vulcan mind meld, Vulcan grip, etc. McCoy is the cleric. Later on you get Worf as the half-orc. True science fiction is rarely found in mass market media, as fantasy is just easier for most people to 'get'.

 

[nomotog]

Lots of cool ideas!

I guess the question is "What do Spock, Bones, and Scotty contribute?" Other than fisticuffs.

The difficulty is coming up with stuff that doesn't make them the 1e-2e cleric that everybody hated playing. Enabling your friends to have fun isn't fun.

Sadly, the wizard analogy is weak. Well, for some genres it might not be, but I'm thinking Trek, etc, here. Scotty doesn't run around throwing fireballs, and Spock doesn't run around summoning treants and creating walls of stone. Science is more grounded than magic, even in Star Trek.

I was actually thinking of star trek when I suggested re-braining wizard spells. If you have ever played star trek online, they have a science officer class that basically acts as a wizard cleric combo. They do all kind of tricorder tricks like sending exothermic induction fields (fireballs), or stasis fields (hold person) They mechanically function like spells, but thematically they are acts of science.

The science officer and the wizard get more alike when you think about it too. Both need to keep their spell component pouch / tricorder on them to perform their tricks. You can even employ mechanics were they they have to gather materials from the environment. The wizard will be gathering rare holly leaf. The science officer is rare atomic particles. Both can even learn new tricks by studying or finding documents.

 

[Morrus]

yeah, it's a flavour thing. I'm cognizant of the fact that unexplained magic is narratively no different to unexplained science. My hope in this thread was to circumvent that cliche and take a look at specific flavours of science - in particular the Star Trek type stuff you tend to see on TV, which is clearly much more restrained than the excesses of D&D magic. If you feel differently that's fine, and that could form a wonderful thread, but I kinda specifically want a certain subset of ideas in this thread.

 

[DireWereTeddy]

The problem I see is that nothing I come up with has any reason to be restricted to "non-combat" scientist types. With that said, most of the ideas I've had are all variations of the 'attribute/skill check to get a bonus' sort. For example, a biology check to recognize the weak spots on the enemy, gaining a bonus to damage, or a geology check to recognize weakness in the terrain to trigger a minor rockfall onto the enemies. Mostly ideas that have been shared already.

 

[Morrus]

The problem I see is that nothing I come up with has any reason to be restricted to "non-combat" scientist types. With that said, most of the ideas I've had are all variations of the 'attribute/skill check to get a bonus' sort. For example, a biology check to recognize the weak spots on the enemy, gaining a bonus to damage, or a geology check to recognize weakness in the terrain to trigger a minor rockfall onto the enemies. Mostly ideas that have been shared already.

In 4E terms, I guess that's the warlord stuff. I'm not a fan of that as a player, personally - it's useful, but it's less fun than other combat roles. But I think you're probably right that if I want to avoid scientists casting fireballs and walls of ice, that's the other viable approach.

 

[nomotog]

OK you don't like the tricorder idea. Well I do have more ideas.

One class Idea I have been thinking about for awhile would be an inventor class. (I was actually thinking about it for a D&D game, but should work in a future game.) They would be able to make more powerful then normal items and use them. To address the old issue of one inventor making a bunch of items to pass out to people, I was going to have invented items basically require extra actions to operate and then give the inventor class an ability that lets them do these extra actions as free actions. A X-ray scope could be used by anyone, but for most people, it requires an extra action to dial in the proper range.

You can also look at mass effect. In addition to space magic, it also has a few tech classes. They have the ability to micro forge devices in their onmi tool that work like mini rockets or basically fireballs *shrug*, reprogram weapons and shields with extra abilities, or hack robot enemies and other tech devices. (Mostly making them explode.)

Hacking is kind of a really fruitful place to explore. I hack that camera to see around the corner. I hack that turret gun to attack that guy. I hack that door to open it. You can have different levels of hacks too. A basic hack might just shut down the robot. An advanced hack will let you take over and control the robot. Then a master hack lets you over clock the robot increasing their speed and attack.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Depending on the tools at their disposal, a scientist or engineer might be able to:

1) "find weakness"- ID for himself or others the weak points in a foe or structure that would make blows more effective.

2) "create weaknesses"- instead of damaging a foe or other target, they may be able to degrade their defenses or structural integrity

3) "area control"- change the environment to the advantage of the scientist and/or his allies

4) "deus ex machina"- an expansion of 1, the scientist finds and identifies a way to solve the problem in one fell swoop...though it may take time to set up.

 

[DireWereTeddy]

In 4E terms, I guess that's the warlord stuff. I'm not a fan of that as a player, personally - it's useful, but it's less fun than other combat roles. But I think you're probably right that if I want to avoid scientists casting fireballs and walls of ice, that's the other viable approach.

From what I recall, the warlord gave those bonuses to the other party members. And I agree, I find focusing on that style of combat role is less fun. I don't mind doing it some, but I wouldn't want to focus on it.

However, what I meant was taking those actions to gain the benefit for themselves, though they could also have the option to provide a slightly lessened benefit to their allies.

For example:
Anticipate Movement: With a successful skill check, you can anticipate your foe's next move. You gain +2d6 on attacks against that foe this turn. Alternatively, you can give an ally a bonus of +1d6 on attacks their next turn.

Pinpoint Weakness: With a successful skill check, you locate a weak point on the enemy and an opening to take advantage of it. You deal +2d6 damage on a successful attack this turn. Alternatively, you can give an ally a bonus of +1d6 damage on a successful attack their next turn.

The problem I'm encountering is that most of my ideas aren't really tricks that would (or even should) be limited just to engineers/scientists. I think a lot of the problem can be solved in encounter design by giving the engineer/scientist something to do while the combat oriented characters are busy fighting. Disarm a bomb, open a door, download the schematics, upload a virus. I might have to delve into TV Tropes or watch some sci-fi/modern movies or shows to see if I can find any ideas for tricks.

 

[Celebrim]

The problem I'm encountering is that most of my ideas aren't really tricks that would (or even should) be limited just to engineers/scientists.

Again, the fundamental problem is that one of the big differences between magic and science is that science doesn't require esoteric or gnostic knowledge which cannot be shared. In magic there is some sense in which YOU are doing things. In science, you aren't the important actor - the universe is. There is nothing special and esoteric about your knowledge or you yourself in science. Wizards are 'special people'. Scientists at a fundamental level, really aren't.

Note that we can use this standard to recognize when magic is being given the color of science - which happens a lot in say comic books.

At some level there is a valid concept called 'combat engineer', and presumably some day their might be combat programmers and combat scientists. But this would be as much about knowledge of how to use certain specialized gear as it would be anything. And most of what a combat engineer does is concerned with preparing a battlefield, not what they actually do in battle. When actually in battle, combat engineers mostly fight like regular infantry (though in practice, rather smart infantry that has Engineering degrees, see US Combat Engineers during the battle of the bulge). But all this would involve a pretty drastic shift in how RPG encounters generally play out. You'd need to adopt a trope similar to that in the TV Series 'The A-Team', where every episode involves the team finding a defensible location and having sufficient time to dig in before the enemy forces arrive, before 'Combat Engineer' would be a relevant skill set.

I think a lot of the problem can be solved in encounter design by giving the engineer/scientist something to do while the combat oriented characters are busy fighting. Disarm a bomb, open a door, download the schematics, upload a virus. I might have to delve into TV Tropes or watch some sci-fi/modern movies or shows to see if I can find any ideas for tricks.

Encounter design can fix many things, but it won't cause people to choose to be scientists. It's more what you do after they've chosen to be scientists to give them needed spotlight.

 

[Derren]

I don't see scientists doing "I don't believe its not a combat maneuverer" science maneuverer.
They fight differently. Leave combat to the soldiers and let scientists and engineer do their own stuff. Making them pseudo soldiers just devalues them in my eyes. And those players who find everything but combat boring? Just let them all play soldiers.