Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3366551" data-attributes="member: 4937">The biggest problem I've seen with the introduction of gunpowder into games is the players using OOC knowledge to try to game the presence of the gunpowder.  In other words, regardless of the tech level you introduce, the players are going to try to invent howitzers, anti-personel mines, machine guns, etc."My character thinks gunpowder is really neat and has alot of potential, but that its presently being used in a suboptimal way.  I want to learn about gunpowder and see if I can make improvements..."A really smart player is going to be hard to thwart in this without creating a huge argument.  He's going to argue that his Int 20 12th level Wizard with max ranks in Alchemy and Knowledge (Engineering) ought to be a rather impressive inventor, which is a rather reasonable position, and that each incremental invention (match locks, wheel locks, flint locks, rifling, breech loading) is perfectly reasonable.  And if he doesn't have a character with high ranks in Alchemy and Knowledge (Engineering) he's going to argue that he ought to be able to hire one, and he's going to argue that many of the major problems with developing firearms in the real world aren't really problems in the fantasy world because, for example, a Dwarven metalurgist can already produce steel of as high (or even higher) quality as modern processes, and techniques already exist for forging large iron objects (for example see the precence of iron golems) and that these techniques could be readily adopted to cannon manufacturing.Plus, any player that goes this route is almost certainly going to take the time to make himself an expert in gunpowder production techniques and early modern firearm crafting, and will be able to stymy demands for any degree of detail with 'my character thinks it will be a good idea to...'.  Don't assume that you can out knowledge a player.Even the 3rd edition mechanics may be fighting against you here, because if you insist (perfectly reasonably) in 'idea checks' to come up with inventions, you are almost certainly going to be met with a high int character using magical buffs to increase his intelligence and 'taking 20' on his idea check by conducting research.And I'm not basing this on a single case either, lest you think I'm dealing with a single degenerate player.  I know of at least three campaigns that went this route because the player(s) wouldn't be reasonable and not use his OOC knowledge, and the DM couldn't control it without the player getting upset that the DM was unreasonably trying to stifle his character/railroad/etc.My solution to this has always been to insist that the chemistry/metalurgy/physics of the D&D universe only appears to be similar to that of the real world, but at a fundamental level - atoms and molecules - is nothing at all alike.  I typically point out several experiments in early science - such as the 'caloric' experiment or LaVoisiers demonstration that the ashes of an object weigh more than the object - will produce very different results in D&D than in the real world.  In this way, I invalidate a player's OOC knowledge and can even (if I'm annoyed) justify it going dangerously wrong.  But even this might not stop a determined player in 3rd edition, precisely because the presence of skill and ability checks give them a work around that players didn't have in 1st edition.  A determined player in 3rd edition could fill in the gaps in his OOC idea with IC knowledge, so be ready for that.  If you reach that point, the other way to go about this is insist research is time consuming and expensive.  This however never thwarts determined power gamers, so beware.</blockquote>

Verification