|
Post by DM Kiado on Dec 16, 2015 18:51:59 GMT
It's been cranking in the back of my mind for the past couple days. I keep thinking of one way a recurring meteor storm might happen than I realize some problem with that idea. It's a great bit of thought experiment. They're just falling rocks that are moving at some relative velocity (which describes pretty much all matter). It seems like it should be a simple matter but it's deliciously complicated once you get down to the details. I'm at the point where I'm considering running some simulations in Universe Sandbox (it's a super inexpensive gravity/system/galaxy simulator on Steam) just to see if I can cause conditions like that. Sandbox doesn't really do collisions or tidal forces but it's a simple way to figure out lagrange points at least. My own setting was a little simpler to figure out. I've planned for a moon to hit its Roche limit (the point where the tidal forces are stronger than its internal gravity and the body breaks apart). Most it became a nice, pretty ring but some size-able chunks fall to the planet and create a short period (of about a century) of "Well crap." Those chunks would have a lot of mass but they wouldn't have the same relative velocity as a typical meteor. So while there's ample reason for the sentient species to claim the sky is falling, I think it's also perfectly reasonable that much of the ecology would probably survive. Of course, for something that dramatic there'd be some pretty drastic adaptation and that's something I enjoy playing with too. The campaign picks up a couple thousand years later when the survivors have all developed and adapted separately from one another. For all intents and purposes, they're different species by that point. It's a notion I've been working on for a long time so I was pretty pleased to see Stephenson's take on a similar idea in "Seveneves." In any case I suspect this is beyond the purview of most world building (at least for D&D) but I enjoy it for its own sake. I have to say, I have nearly fired up Universe Sandbox for this one as well.
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Dec 16, 2015 21:36:55 GMT
I have to say, I have nearly fired up Universe Sandbox for this one as well. If you're ever particularly bored, I love taking the model of the Sol system and then flinging a random, giant exo planet across the orbital plane. It's like shooting pool with planets except everything goes hilariously screwy. So far as Steampunkery goes, does anyone else think that if steampunkers can build airships then maybe they could build some sort of space ship? That might only be believable in a setting where steampunk runs on magic more than steam but then you could send your PCs to the moon to recover the McGuffin artifact needed to slay the beast/save the world/impress the cheerleader.
|
|
|
Post by DM Kiado on Dec 16, 2015 21:55:53 GMT
If you're ever particularly bored, I love taking the model of the Sol system and then flinging a random, giant exo planet across the orbital plane. It's like shooting pool with planets except everything goes hilariously screwy. I find making the mass of the Earth huge is fun too. Watching our simulated demise as the solar system crashes into Earth. So far as Steampunkery goes, does anyone else think that if steampunkers can build airships then maybe they could build some sort of space ship? That might only be believable in a setting where steampunk runs on magic more than steam but then you could send your PCs to the moon to recover the McGuffin artifact needed to slay the beast/save the world/impress the cheerleader. I don't know man. Maybe it's just me, but I think "space" or at least as we have it in our universe is out of the realms of Fantasy. Games like Numenera can pull it off because of the established high-tech/low-tech world, but that isn't Steampunk. I mean could you? Or course, it's your creation. I don't think I would though. Space is an instant death place for mortals, they wouldn't have any reasonable idea what they faced going there, and they would be working against forces they can't perceive. (As I write this it sounds like D&D.) I think in a D&D setting you use Planes instead of "outer space". I think I am just trying to make excuses to not mix sci-fi (under the guise of Steampunk) with my fantasy RPG.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Dec 16, 2015 22:04:48 GMT
So far as Steampunkery goes, does anyone else think that if steampunkers can build airships then maybe they could build some sort of space ship? That might only be believable in a setting where steampunk runs on magic more than steam but then you could send your PCs to the moon to recover the McGuffin artifact needed to slay the beast/save the world/impress the cheerleader. I don't know man. Maybe it's just me, but I think "space" or at least as we have it in our universe is out of the realms of Fantasy. Games like Numenera can pull it off because of the established high-tech/low-tech world, but that isn't Steampunk. I mean could you? Or course, it's your creation. I don't think I would though. Space is an instant death place for mortals, they wouldn't have any reasonable idea what they faced going there, and they would be working against forces they can't perceive. (As I write this it sounds like D&D.) I think in a D&D setting you use Planes instead of "outer space". I think I am just trying to make excuses to not mix sci-fi (under the guise of Steampunk) with my fantasy RPG. Spelljammer.
|
|
|
Post by DM Kiado on Dec 16, 2015 22:06:56 GMT
Exactly, my least favorite just for those reasons. So unliked I didn't even think about it. (Although the Illithids are cool in that.) Edit: While everyone else was on a Spelljammer kick, I was pumping out Dark Sun campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Dec 16, 2015 22:40:34 GMT
I think I am just trying to make excuses to not mix sci-fi (under the guise of Steampunk) with my fantasy RPG. I can see you point. I don't know that it's that clear cut to define genres by the props and environment. The classic example is "Star Wars" is often described as being a "sci-fi" but narratively it is as straight-up fantasy as anything Tolkien ever wrote. It may be personal preference but I find it easier to define genres by their narrative elements. I don't suppose it really makes the distinctions any clearer. I want to say that "Fantasy" is quintessentially about entertainment and "sci-fi" is fundamentally about exploration (of space, humanity, concepts, etc) but where's the line between those two? "Genre" is probably one of those concepts that just gives you a headache if you think about it too much (like continent or planet). In any case, I can understand why having mages zooming between planets in steampunk ships while using some major spells to shield themselves from cosmic radiation might be pushing some boundaries. I've only come across Spelljammer in this community so I'm not terribly familiar with it but it seems interesting on the outset.
|
|
Samuel Wise
Demigod
Ready to Help...
Posts: 989
Favorite D&D Class: Warlock
Favorite D&D Race: Mousefolk
|
Post by Samuel Wise on Dec 16, 2015 22:45:46 GMT
Exactly, my least favorite just for those reasons. So unliked I didn't even think about it. (Although the Illithids are cool in that.) Edit: While everyone else was on a Spelljammer kick, I was pumping out Dark Sun campaigns. One of the reasons I prefer to go with "Neo-Victorian" rather then "Steampunk". It shifts the focus from the actuall technology to the Old Victorian culture instead. The Steam Technology becomes almost like background noise to a Fantasy campaign. Similair to many Final Fantasies that are completely Fantasy, but have the level of Technology that they do.
|
|
|
Post by DM Kiado on Dec 16, 2015 22:46:09 GMT
I think it's a personal preference thing. As a DM, I would never run a space based D&D campaign. I would run another system made for that in lieu of it. One the other hand, if you invited me to a D&D game with these concepts I would most likely jump in and play out of curiosity alone. Spelljammer was made for 2E Advanced D&D, never checked on ports to 3 or 3.5/Pathfinder, because it doesn't interest me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelljammer
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Dec 16, 2015 22:48:46 GMT
My favorite 2E setting was Planescape. Still have (most) of that box set kickin' around. I liked Dark Sun too, but never got to run or play a game in it.
|
|
|
Post by DM Kiado on Dec 16, 2015 23:44:33 GMT
My favorite 2E setting was Planescape. Still have (most) of that box set kickin' around. I liked Dark Sun too, but never got to run or play a game in it. I found the 2e Advanced Monster Manual for Dark Sun while moving. Could do some easy porting of the monsters to 5E and probably will for one of the worlds I am planning in my Warsong homebrew.
|
|
|
Post by thugcorecowboy on Dec 17, 2015 21:49:29 GMT
This was a great podcast being both a dragonlance fan and someone who's lost a year or two playing wow I've noticed a commen theme with steampunk in these medevil settings and that's how silly it is I'm not knocking the humor I really do enjoy the dragonlance stories with the tinker gnomes but I always wondered why there seems to be a certain theme of magic being better and more reliable than technology idk maybe things have changed to be honest the last time I played was back when 3rd edition just came out and so I'm not really up with what kind of settings have been released since that era but still I always thought it would be cool to make the tech more reliable and play it as a answer to magic like a place where mages are the ruling class and the pcs need to use this new technology to over throw they're arcane over lords which brings me to another thought has anybody ever created a enginer type class that was more serous than a gnomish/goblin tinker
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Dec 17, 2015 22:33:21 GMT
Back in 3.0 there was a prestige class called Maestro that focused on crafting but the only place I've ever run across it was... PHB2? The only other class I can think of that has anything to do with crafting things is Artificer (from any Eberron setting). Artificer does an acceptable job of bringing some crafting to the gameplay but I'd hesitate to call it good. Crafting on the whole seems to be a pretty cumbersome thing to do in any D&D edition and classes based on Crafting (even a few homebrew ones I've tried) don't seem to hold up so well. Crafting's a big thing to me both in and out of my games so that aspect of D&D has generally been a bit disappointing.
So far as the magic:technology dichotomy, I suspect it comes down to what the author knows and what they expect the audience to know. Technology is understood to varying levels by more or less everyone. Everyone knows how a hammer works. Lots of people know how a car works. A relatively few people know how the cellular network works. But by definition nobody knows how magic works. So the author can make up whatever they like and just slap "Because Magic" on it.
Personally, I get tired of that approach quickly. I want to know how everything's working. How is the mage levitating? What happens to the energy of the fireball? I appreciate a high level of detail and consistency in the setting but the prevailing wisdom would have it that I'm an outlier in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Dec 17, 2015 23:06:30 GMT
Back in 3.0 there was a prestige class called Maestro that focused on crafting but the only place I've ever run across it was... P Personally, I get tired of that approach quickly. I want to know how everything's working. How is the mage levitating? What happens to the energy of the fireball? I appreciate a high level of detail and consistency in the setting but the prevailing wisdom would have it that I'm an outlier in that regard. Have you read The Kingkiller Chronicle books by Patrick Rothfuss? IMHO, he strikes the best balance between the concepts of "mechanical magic" and "because magic". Both exist in the world of his books, and both behave by their own set of rules. Early D&D actually had a fair bit of mechanical stuff surrounding magic. In 1st and 2nd editions, before the Wizard/Sorcerer split, Magic Users were able to cast spells only under certain restraints: They had to be able to speak the words of the spell, they had to be able to move freely to make the proper stances and gestures for the spell, and they (often) needed a material component that would be expended when the spell was cast. On top of that, they had to spend a lot of time poring over their spellbooks memorizing spells; the more powerful the spell, the longer it took to memorize. Then once they cast the spell, they immediately forgot it! So each spell could be cast only once, provided you had all of the right components, ccould speak, weren't wearing constricting clothes or armor, and had the spell memorized. In the event their spell was interrupted (say, by an attack) they would lose that spell and need to memorize it again. Some spells took multiple rounds to cast too, so if you got interrupted at the wrong moment, you might even lose the material component. That's not a lot of "why", but there sure is a lot of "how" there... Personally, I find it kind of sad that a lot of that flavor has been removed from recent editions. I'm not so attached to the whole "Vancian" magic thing, but casting feels a little too easy in 5e.
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Dec 17, 2015 23:46:21 GMT
Have you read The Kingkiller Chronicle books by Patrick Rothfuss? IMHO, he strikes the best balance between the concepts of "mechanical magic" and "because magic". Both exist in the world of his books, and both behave by their own set of rules. Indeed I have! I'm having a hard time recalling the specifics of magic in his world but I remember appreciating it. I -expecially- remember liking the Artificery Guild at the Academy. That place was awesome. Early D&D actually had a fair bit of mechanical stuff surrounding magic. In 1st and 2nd editions, before the Wizard/Sorcerer split, Magic Users were able to cast spells only under certain restraints: They had to be able to speak the words of the spell, they had to be able to move freely to make the proper stances and gestures for the spell, and they (often) needed a material component that would be expended when the spell was cast. On top of that, they had to spend a lot of time poring over their spellbooks memorizing spells; the more powerful the spell, the longer it took to memorize. Then once they cast the spell, they immediately forgot it! So each spell could be cast only once, provided you had all of the right components, ccould speak, weren't wearing constricting clothes or armor, and had the spell memorized. In the event their spell was interrupted (say, by an attack) they would lose that spell and need to memorize it again. Some spells took multiple rounds to cast too, so if you got interrupted at the wrong moment, you might even lose the material component. That's not a lot of "why", but there sure is a lot of "how" there... Personally, I find it kind of sad that a lot of that flavor has been removed from recent editions. I'm not so attached to the whole "Vancian" magic thing, but casting feels a little too easy in 5e. I only have 3.0, 3.5, and 4e to compare it to in my experience but, at least as a DM (I still haven't -played- in 5e) I've been appreciating the take on Magic on the whole. A couple of my players seem to be having a hard time absorbing the lack of buff stacking or how magic items aren't raining from the sky anymore. But from my perspective, watching them play, I can see them considering their choices, equipment, and options a lot more than they used to. Simplifying and streamlining the magic for 5e has, at least from my perspective, shifted magic closer to play on the play:mechanic spectrum. That said, most of the requirements you describe are still there in 5e. Every spell except Beast Sense, Counterspell, Demiplane, Friends, Hypnotic Pattern, Illusory Script, Minor Illusion, Mislead, True Strike requires a verbal component and many require material components. I think it could be successfully argued that it's our tendency as DMs to hand wave those requirements that's made them less prominent in later editions.
|
|
tribalityshawn
Commoner
Rolling those dice.
Posts: 22
Favorite D&D Class: Rogue
Favorite D&D Race: Halfling
|
Post by tribalityshawn on Dec 18, 2015 14:34:55 GMT
This was a great podcast being both a dragonlance fan and someone who's lost a year or two playing wow I've noticed a commen theme with steampunk in these medevil settings and that's how silly it is I'm not knocking the humor I really do enjoy the dragonlance stories with the tinker gnomes but I always wondered why there seems to be a certain theme of magic being better and more reliable than technology idk maybe things have changed to be honest the last time I played was back when 3rd edition just came out and so I'm not really up with what kind of settings have been released since that era but still I always thought it would be cool to make the tech more reliable and play it as a answer to magic like a place where mages are the ruling class and the pcs need to use this new technology to over throw they're arcane over lords which brings me to another thought has anybody ever created a enginer type class that was more serous than a gnomish/goblin tinker Nice. This is a good idea. Take down Magicratic overlords using the power of tech. Very punk. I think the silly gnomes is a way to limit "steampunk" to a certain area or people in an otherwise fantasy setting such as Dragonlance or my current kitchen sink homebrew campaign setting. My tinker gnomes are far less silly, but the tech has really only been introduced to a couple of cities at this point in the timeline. I think it's important for DMs to be able to introduce tech however they like - but you can't just throw an airship into a fantasy setting and call it steampunk/neo-victorian, there is more to it than that for sure. Gnomes are an easy way to dip a toe into the "steam"-tech pool.
|
|