What Do You Do For: GUNPOWDER

[Celebrim]

Is this any different from a player wanting to 'improve on' the existing spells and magic items in absurd ways?

It's very different in that the player knows both the limitations of the technology and that the technology can be improved and how the technology can be improved.

'My character already knows fireball, so he's going to spend some time deconstructing the spell and create a version that causes a mere 20 degree temperature increase inside the skulls of its targets. Seeing as this spell applies less heat to a smaller volume, it should be a level lower.'

This argument is based on assumptions about the technology which cannot necessarily be justified. In particular, in the example the character is trying to develop a spell which causes a physical effect and doesn't depend on line of sight. (You can't see inside the skull.) The DM is perfectly justified in ruling that this is an Epic effect (go looking through the spell list for things that cause a physical effect and don't depend on line of sight), not telling the player that this is in fact an Epic effect, set the spellcraft DC to 60 or so, and letting the player waste as much research time as they want.

Why is technology fundamentally different from magic? (especially when you consider the D&D rule set rather explicitly treats magic as technology).

It's not important whether it is or not. What is important is that players know much more about how technology works than they know about how magic works, and there are much easier options for a DM setting limits to how magic works that don't break the internal consitancy of the game than there are for a DM to break the laws of physics without breaking the internal consistancy of thier game. In fact, I'd say the average DM can't explain why a gun doesn't work in his campaign world. This is why typically DM's avoid introducing explosives into a campaign world. Once you admit the existance of explosives, it becomes very difficult to restrict guns except by fiat. You can do it, but it isn't necessarily intuitive how you'd do it.

A really smart DM would simply put a stop to that kind of group dynamic.

You know, I've been justly accused of alot of things - arrogance, bombast, nerdiness, being over confrontational, and so forth - but I'm fairly widely considered to be a 'smart' guy. Do not assume that you can just control that sort of group dynamic by simply trying to get the players to act reasonably (for example, by pointing out that thier players couldn't possibly know what they know), because first of all, its a not a grey issue (no DM insists that a character not know anything that the player knows), and second of all its a bad idea to turn the situation into some sort of contest of wills which is exactly what it will turn into when you just flat out tell a player 'No.'.

See my above point about magic. Wouldn't that same hypothetical player try to design unbalancing spells?

Probably. That sort of player is always trying to game the DM and I pity the poor inexperienced DM that tries to control one, but as I said magic and technology are very different cases. That sort of player will probably try to claim that his character background qualifies him for bonus feats at first level, but I would hope even innocent DM's would see through that argument. (If not, the answer is some tactful variation on, 'You can write a background for a high level character and attach it to a 1st level character, but you can't then claim that in doing so your character is high level or even that you wrote a good background. If you want to have a character that has survived alot of hardships, play my game and you'll have lots of chances, but don't invent the hardships and imagine that you survived them. 'K?')

"All the player erudition in the world can't turn a DM's 'no' into a 'yes'."

And all the DM 'No's' in the world can't make a player play the game in a functional social manner, which is why its widely accepted wisdom that you shouldn't tell a player 'No'. Look it up.

"So you know of three dysfunctional campaigns. That only shows you've had a run of back luck with your gaming groups."

No, it shows that I've had alot of experience.

"There really shouldn't be any need for this, assuming you're playing with reasonable people and/or friends."

What I've discovered over the years is that even your friends can be unreasonable at times. This is especially true if you are playing with a group of really smart people.

"If you've gotten to point where you need to defend your decisions as DM as if you're defending a thesis or presenting a case in court, you should step back a moment and address the underlying problems in the way your group relates to each other."

If you think, "I'm the DM so this is the way its going to be." is an elegant way to address the inevitable table conflicts, then you haven't been doing this for long.

Anyway,guns...I'd also add simple yet funky mechanic to differentiate firearms from human-powered missile weapons, like making them touch attacks at close range (and normal attacks beyond)

Suggestions like this suggest to me that you've not been playing as long as I have. Touch attacks (meaning armor becomes absolutely irrelevant) are just a bad idea. Consider the multiple threads on whether spells that allow this are fundamentally broken.

 

[Mallus]

It's very different in that the player knows both the limitations of the technology and that the technology can be improved and how the technology can be improved.

In both cases the player seeks an advantage. In both cases the DM has to decide how the player's knowledge applies, if at all, to the game environment.

The DM is perfectly justified in ruling that this is an Epic effect...snip

I was only trying to illustrate my point. Asking to develop the 2nd level head-baking spell is a ridiculous request (much like asking to develop a Howitzer). There's no need to justify saying 'no'.

If a dinner quest asked if they could steal my flat-panel TV, I wouldn't launch into a detailed explanation of property rights and the Protestant work ethic...

What is important is that players know much more about how technology works than they know about how magic works... snip

Here's the crux of our disagreement. You're operating under the assumption that knowledge confers authority to a DM. I'm not.

It's utterly irrelevant how much science, hard or soft, my players know. It has no bearing on the amount of narrative authority --including the right to control the game world's physics-- my players give --take special note of the verb-- me.

My players give me sufficient authority to run the game. I don't win that win that authority in an argument, I don't prove it somehow. And I only earn it the sense that I've demonstrated my ability to provide an enjoyable gaming experience.

I've been justly accused of alot of things - arrogance, bombast, nerdiness, being over confrontational... snip

I won't argue with that.

Do not assume that you can just control that sort of group dynamic by simply trying to get the players to act reasonably

I worded that poorly. What I should have said is that a smart DM only games with reasonable people. I can't control anyone else, but I can control what situations I put myself in.

Probably. That sort of player is always trying to game the DM and I pity the poor inexperienced DM that tries to control one... snip

Hey, we agree. I while I can't say I pity, I do sympathize with green DM's who have to endure belligerent twits, unless of course, they continue to endure them, in which case they deserve what they get.

And all the DM 'No's' in the world can't make a player play the game in a functional social manner

Why would you socialize with people who, by your own admission, can't function is a social manner? Game with affable, reasonable people. This advice also applies to drinking. More so, in fact...

No, it shows that I've had a lot of experience.

Yes. With bad groups.

I've had different experiences. And I think our anecdotes just canceled each other out.

What I've discovered over the years is that even your friends can be unreasonable at times. This is especially true if you are playing with a group of really smart people.

Hey, we agree again. But that still doesn't invalidate my point. Every social situation should have a baseline of decorum.

If you think, "I'm the DM so this is the way its going to be." is an elegant way to address the inevitable table conflicts, then you haven't been doing this for long.

I could respond, "If you feel the need to constantly 'justify' the rulings you make as DM to a group of unreasonable and combative players, you're doing this the wrong way."

And about 16 years, give or take, not that its particularly relevant. My current campaign is just over 3 years old, and you can read the, if I do say so myself, terrifically entertaining take on it written by one of the players in the Story Hour in my sig.

Suggestions like this suggest to me that you've not been playing as long as I have.

That may be true. But statements like...

Touch attacks (meaning armor becomes absolutely irrelevant) are just a bad idea.

... suggest to me that you're not quite as adept with the 3.x rules as some of the people game with. They all go for sky-high touch AC's...

Consider the multiple threads on whether spells that allow this are fundamentally broken.

I've seen touch attack/ray spells used without problems for years.

 

[Arkhandus]

There's nothing arbitrary or unfair, and nothing that a player can really argue about, with the DM asking for a Knowledge (Technology), Knowledge (Firearms), or Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering) roll and, based on the result, telling the player "Sorry, but your character doesn't have the deep knowledge and understanding of physics and alchemy to make this technological leap. He tries to theorize a method of making guns work that way, but finds it beyond his current expertise in mechanical and alchemical matters."

Unless you stupidly set the DC at something like 20 or 30, in which case you deserve to acquiesce and submit to the player's demands when he manages to succeed at such a roll. For a low-tech society, lacking modern know-how, info-sharing, and context, devising more modern kinds of firearm technology is going to be an Epic skill check DC. Also, y'know, a few hundred years worth of intermittent arms races, gun improvements, and scientific discoveries. On top of the centuries (IIRC) that the Chinese had been developing gunpowder into effective firearms beforehand. Joe Adventurer the kinda-sorta proto-chemist-engineer doesn't have a snowball's chance in all the Nine Hells of covering that much technological and scientific ground in his mortal lifetime. Not as long as someone even half-competent and half-independently-thinking person is wearing the DM hat.

If a player gets uppity at their character not being able to make advanced firearms, remind them that they are not their PC, and that is why their PC has the fighting skills to slay a tyrannosaurus rex single-handedly with nothing more than a pointy stick, whereas the player most certainly could not. If their PC is a spellcaster instead, then point out that their PC knows tons of arcane formulas and eldritch secrets that bend reality visibly to his or her will, even though the player knows nothing of the sort.


On the subject of firearms = touch attacks? Hells no. Bad, bad, bad idea. Doesn't make sense anyway. (The dragon has four times the natural armor of what a suit of full plate would grant, but it's still as easily wounded by bullets as a human? The psion has twice full plate's armor bonus from a force effect, but the bullet still penetrates it just as easily? Pfffft)

The DM is perfectly justified in ruling that this is an Epic effect (go looking through the spell list for things that cause a physical effect and don't depend on line of sight), not telling the player that this is in fact an Epic effect, set the spellcraft DC to 60 or so, and letting the player waste as much research time as they want.

No, that would just be asinine. Teleport or Plane Shift doesn't require line of sight, for example. And just because there might not yet be a printed spell that does something vaguely similar, does not mean it should be impossible pre-Epic level. This has more to do with wasting people's time and behaving spitefully, than it does with anyone having fun at the game table, which is the entire point of games (to have fun).

there are much easier options for a DM setting limits to how magic works that don't break the internal consitancy of the game than there are for a DM to break the laws of physics without breaking the internal consistancy of thier game. In fact, I'd say the average DM can't explain why a gun doesn't work in his campaign world.

Oh? Physics is a house rule. Lots of stuff in D&D doesn't follow physics. As long as you aren't saying there's no gravity (or something similarly omipresent in daily lives), or that water isn't wet, or air isn't breathable to humans , there shouldn't be a problem. You can say that gravity has to do with the interaction of elemental Earth and elemental Air, and nothing to do with mass or physics, and it won't break the game or make problems with verisimilitude. People aren't falling left instead of down when they fall off a cliff......unless you're in Limbo or something, maybe.

Guns don't work in the setting? Easy. "Sorry, but sulfur has different properties in the game world. It doesn't help with exploding stuff." Or "Unfortunately, in the game world, sulfur (or whatever substance the PC is trying to use) doesn't burn explosively, but slowly and weakly. It's a strange form of elemental Earth. You're not going to be launching any projectiles with it." Chemistry is as much a houserule and physics, in D&D. Scientific elements aren't necessarily the same as the D&D elements. If they want to argue, have them explain how Fire Elementals burn all the time without any fuel, and being formed of pure elemental Fire, and have minds, and are solid enough to hit people with physical, bludgeoning, impact. If they can't, since it's impossible from a real-world point of view, say "Well, gunpowder has the same problems in this setting as fire elementals would have in our world."

Or whatever.

 

[Celebrim]

Guns don't work in the setting? Easy. "Sorry, but sulfur has different properties in the game world. It doesn't help with exploding stuff." Or "Unfortunately, in the game world, sulfur (or whatever substance the PC is trying to use) doesn't burn explosively, but slowly and weakly. It's a strange form of elemental Earth. You're not going to be launching any projectiles with it." Chemistry is as much a houserule and physics, in D&D. Scientific elements aren't necessarily the same as the D&D elements.

Believe me, I've wrote the treatise (go back to my first post and see me saying exactly these sorts of things). But my point that you are quoting was made not in context of defending the fact that guns don't work in a setting, but assuming guns do exist (which is what this thread is about), defending that muskets work in the setting but that a breech loading cartridge rifle doesn't. Once you introduce an explosive to the setting, then guns become much harder to explain out of existance. Not impossible, and I'm sure someone as cunning as yourself can find away, but harder.

And the problem is not with the DC that is set, because the incremental improvements are not hard and any hard core min/maxer will beat any DC you are likely to set, but that the incremental improvements are hard to discover. It's not that you need to set something like DC 40 or DC 50 (which is ridiculous BTW, because it implies that progress is impossible), but that you need to set hundreds of idea rolls (each requirinig days of research time taking 20) as hurdles. That's where the smart player is going to get you. He's going to argue for 1 roll at some high DC, when what it should be is many rolls at a moderate DC. Skill isn't the issue. Time is. It took alot of time not because it need really smart people (what the PC will argue) but because it took alot of work and trial and error (what the PC is going to try to short cut using his OOC knowledge).

If they want to argue, have them explain how Fire Elementals burn all the time without any fuel, and being formed of pure elemental Fire, and have minds, and are solid enough to hit people with physical, bludgeoning, impact.

Go read my first post again and tell me that I've a problem inventing/coping with a universe that runs on different physical premises.

No, that would just be asinine. Teleport or Plane Shift doesn't require line of sight, for example.

Yes, but neither are accurate and more importantly, they are 5th and 6th level spells, which puts them up at the level were 'save or die' spells become available anyway. So if I can justify to the player that his save or die spell is _at least_ as difficult of an effect as Baneful Polymorph or Disentigrate or similar high level spells, and has no more dramatic effects than that then the problem we are talking about goes away.

In fact, your counter-argument is exactly the sort of responce I the DM would hope for from a player, because I can nail you with your own argument. "Gee. Your right. Ok, you've discovered a new 6th level spell - 'Brain Fry'. I'll get back with you on the mechanics next session."

 

[Pierce_Inverarity]

Guns:some history and my rules

Two things to consider...

Guns became the dominant battlefield weapon for many of the reasons cited above, but another major factor for it's dominance was the massed infantry volley; specifically the way it cut down cavalry. This had the effect of rendering charging horseman (i.e. knights, chevaliers) obsolete.

While guns were comparatively simple to use, they were not simple to manufacture. Before you can begin to make anything like a late 1700's musket, which had a three shot a minute rate of fire (this is highly trained soldier), you have to first be able to make fine machining tools and quality steel in large quantities. Neither of which can be done without blast furnaces, which you also have to invent. Boring a straight hole into a bar of high quality steel is non-trivial and took centuries to perfect. Prior to the innovations in gun manufacture of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, guns were all hand made. Bullets were hand cast and had to specifically match the caliber of the gun, which varied from gun to gun. You can't even consider making breach loading guns until you can mass produce standardized parts, which is going to require most of the innovations of the industrial revolution including steam power (or a magical substitute).

Lastly, IMC, guns are somewhat common (martial weapons), but they are all unique hand crafted items (so no massed infantry), very expensive. They have a 3 Full round action reload time, and do (1-12) 19-20/x3 or (1-20) 19-20/x3 of damage. The most important reason they haven't overwhelmed the campaign is that a 6th level sorcerer with fireball or lighting bolt has greater firepower, and by the time the characters reach mid-levels, there are much better ways of doing lots of damage.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Guns aren't that much trouble

All those other nifty things you can do with gunpowder, now those will give you a headache

 

[Celebrim]

I thank you have your history right in the facts, but I'm not sold on your interpretation of them.

Two things to consider...

Guns became the dominant battlefield weapon for many of the reasons cited above, but another major factor for it's dominance was the massed infantry volley; specifically the way it cut down cavalry. This had the effect of rendering charging horseman (i.e. knights, chevaliers) obsolete.

Not really until the 18th century or so (plenty of cavalry charges often successfully until then), and not much more so than the crossbow or the longbow obseleted the cavalry charge when deployed with sufficient mass (Agincourt, Crecy, etc., etc.).

Besides which, the real death of massed cavalry charges is disciplined heavy infantry. Whenever a nation can field a large amount of disciplined heavy infantry, the unorganized charge becomes obselete as a tactic period.

Neither of which can be done without blast furnaces, which you also have to invent.

You are talking about a world that can smelt adamantium, and can open gates to the plane of fire. Someone is going to know how to make a blast furnace.

You can't even consider making breach loading guns until you can mass produce standardized parts, which is going to require most of the innovations of the industrial revolution including steam power (or a magical substitute).

You don't need steam power to produce standardized parts. You can go by a hand crafted AK-47 copy in wide swaths of Asia and Africa that was made using techniques available in the 18th century. Granted, the quality of the metal is not so great (but it could be, they just use scrap because its cheap), so the rifles rust easy and are prone to vibration and the tolerances tend to make for even more erratic fire than normal for the '47, but there is really nothing about them that couldn't be made by a 17th century blacksmith. The secret to standardized parts is not steam power, but high quality measurements and drafting and getting your toolsmiths to conform to a unified standard. Standardized parts are largely social technology, not physical technology. Toolsmiths aren't going to want to produce standardize parts because it makes the work less rewarding, in the long run less demanding, and ultimately they will correctly recognize that it will push the value of thier trade downward in the socio-economic heirarchy. The real value of the wages of thier craft will fall because it will be easier to train people how to do it. Toolsmiths will become as interchangable as the parts that they make. Eventually, the craftsman will be replaced by a laborer on the assembly line with a fraction of his knowledge and skill - and therefore demanding a fraction of the pay.

It should be no real surprise then that standardized parts were first invented in France, but first actually used in America.

As for your gun rules, they sound pretty good to me and they certainly seem like they'd be meeting your design goals.

 

[Celebrim]

All those other nifty things you can do with gunpowder, now those will give you a headache

Heh.

Maybe. Certainly explosives make for alot of creativity, but I think as long as you don't take Hollywood's word for what blackpowder can do, you'll be fine.

Hollywood explosions are always all consuming in thier destructive power, but when's the last time you saw a car wreck that produced a towering fireball?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Maybe. Certainly explosives make for alot of creativity, but I think as long as you don't take Hollywood's word for what blackpowder can do, you'll be fine. Hollywood explosions are always all consuming in thier destructive power, but when's the last time you saw a car wreck that produced a towering fireball?

I have quite a good grip on the real power of blackpowder and I despise the Hollywood depiction of explosives.

Problem is both I and more than half of my group are prior service. Even relatively primitive low-yield explosives can be used to do very entertaining things if you're creative. Once knowledgeable players start trying to apply the same tricks with this new "blackpowder" stuff in the campaign it can quickly get waay out of hand.

Note my example of the wagon carrying a massive shaped wall-breaching charge. Or the example of impromptu creation of a linear-charge mineclearing device using animal intestine to hold the powder and an orc shotput for weight. Then there's the claymore.

Eventually I had to say that's it, no more blackpowder in future campaigns cause nobody could help but put RL experience into play.

 

[Celebrim]

I have quite a good grip on the real power of blackpowder and I despise the Hollywood depiction of explosives.

Problem is both I and more than half of my group are prior service...

Ahhhh.. yeah. That's the problem you have when you play with highly knowledgable people. They know alot of stuff.

Note my example of the wagon carrying a massive shaped wall-breaching charge. Or the example of impromptu creation of a linear-charge mineclearing device using animal intestine to hold the powder and an orc shotput for weight. Then there's the claymore.

Well, even granting that what you have experience with is guncotton (3 times as powerful as black powder), and even granting that what's in a Claymore is (correct me if I'm wrong here) RDX which is a whole different ball game when it comes to gas velocity, yeah, a claymore like device could be a potential problem.

But still, for the sake of argument, I'm not entirely convinced you could build one with black powder, at least one that works like a claymore, because to achieve the force of detonation you'd need to get it to work you'd have to bind the powder pretty tightly, and that would destroy the physics that make a claymore work in the first place. So, a pipe bomb, sure, you can do that with black powder, but I'm not convinced of a claymore. And even if I was, I'm not convinced of its ability to penetrate plate outside of 30 meters or so.

Ditto with shaped charges. Again, to get a shaped charge to work, you need an explosion that happens almost simultanously throughout the charge. That doesn't happen with black powder. The sodium nitrate and desiel fuel with a bit of powdered nails and aluminum charges that you are used to improvising as breaching devices have a rate of burn thats like nine times what you get with black powder (you can grind black powder really fine to get the grains to pack to partly offset that, but that's a good way to blow yourself up). So to get your shaped charge to work, you'd have to build a massive sturdy chest shaped like the charge you wanted to create, and pack it tightly with fine grained powder, then transport it without it getting rained on and so forth. And the thing is, I think I could handle that sort of thing. It's no worse than the typical plan of cammando team of flying invisible PC's that storm the barbican and open the gates for the army advancing undercover of obscuring mist.

And I'm inclined to think your animal intestine idea doesn't work at all. You get an explosion with all the force of a firecracker, because animal intestine doesn't bind black powder tightly enough to keep it from blowing apart and just burning. And the weight required - look it up in the manual - would prohibit the breaching effect I think you are going for.

Eventually I had to say that's it, no more blackpowder in future campaigns cause nobody could help but put RL experience into play.

Yeah, I know the feeling. I did play with a guy who was demolition and airborne trained, but fortunately the whole explosive thing never came up.