2: damage. In the west, getting shot was going to take you out of the fight, dead or not. D&D sees people shrug off hits from a greataxe.
This one is not an issue. Hit points are an abstraction and do not equal physical damage. They can be glancing blows, hits that might hurt without killing you, twisting out of the way, and general fatigue and a bit of luck. They don’t mean you took the brunt of an axe blow 10 times. They mean you managed to avoid it 9 times before number 10 actually hit you. There’s no reason that system can’t work with guns.
It is an issue, because the abstraction doesn’t feel anything like gun combat. It feels like an ongoing melee.
Even if you look at cinematic gun combat, the general feel is that combatants are working out ways to avoid getting shot. When they get shot, they are basically out of combat. Having a pool of HP that gradually get less does not simulate this feel at all.
2: damage. In the west, getting shot was going to take you out of the fight, dead or not. D&D sees people shrug off hits from a greataxe.
This one is not an issue. Hit points are an abstraction and do not equal physical damage. They can be glancing blows, hits that might hurt without killing you, twisting out of the way, and general fatigue and a bit of luck. They don’t mean you took the brunt of an axe blow 10 times. They mean you managed to avoid it 9 times before number 10 actually hit you. There’s no reason that system can’t work with guns.
It is an issue, because the abstraction doesn’t feel anything like gun combat. It feels like an ongoing melee.
Even if you look at cinematic gun combat, the general feel is that combatants are working out ways to avoid getting shot. When they get shot, they are basically out of combat. Having a pool of HP that gradually get less does not simulate this feel at all.
It works fine, you just have to narrate it properly. STA is all about shooting (when it comes to combat) with melee being the ultimate last resort. It has a health system that explicitly smells you that you are not hit until you drop to 0. Your "HP" is called stress. When someone succeeds with their attack against you (but doesn't reduce your stress to 0), they're not hitting you, they're hitting close to you, causing you to become stressed. The more stressed you are, the more likely you are to make a mistake (not mechanically represented on a gradient or anything). When you hit 0, it's when you are so stressed that you finally make a fatal mistake and get hit, either knocking you out or killing you.
That's not awfully far from 5e either. In 5e, due to the nature of combat and armour, blows can connect, but they are deflected by armour, shields, parries or are just glancing blows. You never actually hurt in anyway until they're down to half health, then you can start narrating damage. Really, the only time a blow should properly connect is the one that drops you to 0HP.
A Western should be narrated similarly. Unlike STA, a shot doesn't necessarily instantly disable, so you can have grazes and flesh wounds. A shot can graze your skin without much ill effect, so you can do that, but most should just be causing you stress until it finally properly hits you when it drops you to 0HP.
So really, a Western should be dealt more or less how you should be dealing with 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
For a one-shot? Sure, it can work just well enough. The Lost Mines of Phandelver adventure in the original 5th Edition Starter Set was in similar tone to a Spaghetti Western, particularly in the town of Phandalin. But if you want to run a campaign with this one-shot being the prequel, it would be better to play a different system where people has done the work to make sure the whole Wild West stuff functions. Others have suggested Deadlands, but I hear Aces & Eights is a good game though from what I understand it's far more about simulation than fantasy.
In regards to introducing inexperienced players though, I'd introduce them to a playable-out-of-the-box adventure rather than something that's going to require no small amount of reworking and additional content that isn't in the books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
It works fine, you just have to narrate it properly. STA is all about shooting (when it comes to combat) with melee being the ultimate last resort. It has a health system that explicitly smells you that you are not hit until you drop to 0. Your "HP" is called stress. When someone succeeds with their attack against you (but doesn't reduce your stress to 0), they're not hitting you, they're hitting close to you, causing you to become stressed. The more stressed you are, the more likely you are to make a mistake (not mechanically represented on a gradient or anything). When you hit 0, it's when you are so stressed that you finally make a fatal mistake and get hit, either knocking you out or killing you.
That's not awfully far from 5e either. In 5e, due to the nature of combat and armour, blows can connect, but they are deflected by armour, shields, parries or are just glancing blows. You never actually hurt in anyway until they're down to half health, then you can start narrating damage. Really, the only time a blow should properly connect is the one that drops you to 0HP.
A Western should be narrated similarly. Unlike STA, a shot doesn't necessarily instantly disable, so you can have grazes and flesh wounds. A shot can graze your skin without much ill effect, so you can do that, but most should just be causing you stress until it finally properly hits you when it drops you to 0HP.
So really, a Western should be dealt more or less how you should be dealing with 5e.
Sorry, but I just disagree, It isn’t anything about narration. It is just a poor fit for the feel people want in a western game. You may say you can run it that way, but I don’t think I’d want to play in that game. I'd rather play with a game system that is more bespoke to the genre. D&D isn’t that system.
If you play a game like Traveller by contrast, players tend to spend more time planning ambushes and Initiative becomes more significant. The approach and mindset of players is different. However anybody tries to narrate D&D, they’ll still be approaching combat in the same way they do in the fantasy genre.
There's a game (video game? can't quite remember) out there that uses gun fight "damage" as a reduction in "luck", with an "HP" of '0" meaning the character got shot and taken out of combat. (I think it was a developer interview regarding a popular video game franchise, but darned if I can remember which.)
d20 is extremely versatile, but the names of the mechanics must be customized for the setting.
Even in D&D, misses and hits aren't exactly that if you want to be more realistic. It's more about whether the attack does any damage. A gargantuan beast in melee range cannot be "missed" with a melee weapon (exceptions excluded) but a "hit" might do no damage at all, and that's where d20 comes in with the attack roll with an impossible to miss attack doing no damage instead.
So yes. You can use the d20 system of the SRD for an Old West setting.
Are there better systems out there for an Old West setting? That's difficult to say.
There's an Old West/Steampunk/Black Magic property out there (again, darned if I can remember the name... and I just saw it) that doesn't use the d20 system. It sounds complicated, but after I see it, it probably makes more sense and isn't as complicated as it sounds. (Different skill check die depending on the ability and proficiency with the ability but also a d6 luck die that is always rolled and added with each check. Skill checks include attack checks, too.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I think OP already knows D&D isn't a Western simulator. They're not trying to run the most Western game of all time and choosing D&D for its Western-ness, they're trying to run a D&D game with cowboy hats and six-shooters. And yes, of course it'll work. D&D is pretty flexible as long as you're looking for a game that tracks a series of challenges usually involving combat, with a group of heroes who have limited resources with which to handle them.
You could give your players free reign to reskin their starter weapons as guns. To give them a mechanical incentive, you could let them change the damage type -- technically a buff, but small enough that you don't need to worry about it. Quarterstaff -> Boomstick, which fires blanks that are so loud they can deal thunder damage to a target within 5ft. Longsword -> Stake launcher, which fires wooden stakes to kill vampires, like a ballistic knife (real weapon, very spooky). Whatever, it doesn't need to make perfect sense, it's about the aesthetic. If you do this, make sure to go out of your way to respect the narrative: If the stake launcher is used on an enemy within 5ft of a wall, you should really have them get pinned to the wall. I know that's a buff, I don't care, it's awesome. Right? You wouldn't tell the players in advance or invent special rules, you just keep your eyes open for cool moments and say yes whenever you can.
I'm currently playing in a game set in a Wild West-inspired setting; we're even streaming on twitch and youtube. For the most part it's just been about flavor... rather than try to replicate all the specifics of a Western, instead we treat it more like a fantasy world in Western times. It's overtly a sequel to an earlier campaign we were playing, where enough time has passed for industrialization to start affecting the world, and for handguns to become commonplace. Still, the world mostly still runs on fantasy rules... magic is still well known and is usually the go-to for solving problems... guns aren't that much more powerful than bows and arrows in the hand of a skilled user, and most town guards still at least carry spears or swords. It's worked surprisingly well... Westerns and Fantasy stories have a lot of overlap in tone and themes. There's a lot of focus on remote villages regularly in need of protection from outside forces, whether it be natural or threats from other groups. There tend to be wandering heroes who excel in combat far beyond what a normal citizen could accomplish. Even though more technology exists in Westerns, the heroes are still often forced to rely on their wits and survival skills... the fact that the locomotive exists doesn't make much of a difference when you're out in the middle of the desert trying to survive.
The main issue is that, at the end of the day... especially if you're using unmodified 5e rules, it will still feel like a fantasy game with a Western coat of paint. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily, but if you want to play a Western game that replicates the feel of going on a rootin', tootin', gunslingin' adventure, it will always feel just a bit off.
2: damage. In the west, getting shot was going to take you out of the fight, dead or not. D&D sees people shrug off hits from a greataxe.
This one is not an issue. Hit points are an abstraction and do not equal physical damage. They can be glancing blows, hits that might hurt without killing you, twisting out of the way, and general fatigue and a bit of luck. They don’t mean you took the brunt of an axe blow 10 times. They mean you managed to avoid it 9 times before number 10 actually hit you. There’s no reason that system can’t work with guns.
It is an issue, because the abstraction doesn’t feel anything like gun combat. It feels like an ongoing melee.
Even if you look at cinematic gun combat, the general feel is that combatants are working out ways to avoid getting shot. When they get shot, they are basically out of combat. Having a pool of HP that gradually get less does not simulate this feel at all.
And in cinematic melee combat, people are working out ways to avoid getting stabbed, so I’m not sure what the difference is here. Hit points are an abstraction and do not equal physical damage. It means any number of ways of avoiding that physical damage until, finally, you are too tired, or your luck runs out. The concept works just as well (or as poorly) for any type of damage, be they swords, arrows, lightning bolts or bullets. Fighters have more hp than wizards because they spend more time training for fights and are better able to avoid incoming attacks, and because they are better able to shrug off a grazing blow here and there, not because they have thicker skin.
2: damage. In the west, getting shot was going to take you out of the fight, dead or not. D&D sees people shrug off hits from a greataxe.
This one is not an issue. Hit points are an abstraction and do not equal physical damage. They can be glancing blows, hits that might hurt without killing you, twisting out of the way, and general fatigue and a bit of luck. They don’t mean you took the brunt of an axe blow 10 times. They mean you managed to avoid it 9 times before number 10 actually hit you. There’s no reason that system can’t work with guns.
It is an issue, because the abstraction doesn’t feel anything like gun combat. It feels like an ongoing melee.
Even if you look at cinematic gun combat, the general feel is that combatants are working out ways to avoid getting shot. When they get shot, they are basically out of combat. Having a pool of HP that gradually get less does not simulate this feel at all.
And in cinematic melee combat, people are working out ways to avoid getting stabbed, so I’m not sure what the difference is here. Hit points are an abstraction and do not equal physical damage. It means any number of ways of avoiding that physical damage until, finally, you are too tired, or your luck runs out. The concept works just as well (or as poorly) for any type of damage, be they swords, arrows, lightning bolts or bullets. Fighters have more hp than wizards because they spend more time training for fights and are better able to avoid incoming attacks, and because they are better able to shrug off a grazing blow here and there, not because they have thicker skin.
You are just repeating the same argument. The abstraction of D&Ds HP is irrelevant if the structure of combat remains as it is.
Gun Combat is predicated on the notion that if somebody hits from a distance they are out. The back and forth of a D&D combat, with feints and parries and the like being abstracted into the HP system is fine. However, modern gun combat is more about cover fire, maneuvering into position and strategic advantage due to ambushes and the like. D&D simply doesn’t operate that way. Moreover, the classic Mexican standoff situation is impossible to rationalise into an abstract HP system.
And in cinematic melee combat, people are working out ways to avoid getting stabbed, so I’m not sure what the difference is here. Hit points are an abstraction and do not equal physical damage. It means any number of ways of avoiding that physical damage until, finally, you are too tired, or your luck runs out. The concept works just as well (or as poorly) for any type of damage, be they swords, arrows, lightning bolts or bullets. Fighters have more hp than wizards because they spend more time training for fights and are better able to avoid incoming attacks, and because they are better able to shrug off a grazing blow here and there, not because they have thicker skin.
You are just repeating the same argument. The abstraction of D&Ds HP is irrelevant if the structure of combat remains as it is.
Gun Combat is predicated on the notion that if somebody hits from a distance they are out. The back and forth of a D&D combat, with feints and parries and the like being abstracted into the HP system is fine. However, modern gun combat is more about cover fire, maneuvering into position and strategic advantage due to ambushes and the like. D&D simply doesn’t operate that way. Moreover, the classic Mexican standoff situation is impossible to rationalise into an abstract HP system.
I'm repeating the argument because its still true. You are dodging and weaving. You are getting grazed but still fighting. Its no different than damage from an arrow or crossbow bolt. Getting "hit" doesn't have to mean getting hurt. It never has meant that in any edition. And the analogy can still work in this one.
And your ideas about gun combat are simply your opinion. It doesn't have to be that. It can be whatever you want it to be in the game. In fiction, which is the more relevant comparison, there are countless examples of the hero taking a few bullets and carrying on. Whether or not that could do so irl is irrelevant, this is a game coupled with a story, and so they can. D&D is not and does not try to be an accurate combat simulator. It abstracts everything to make it a fun game. Those abstractions can easily carry over to other weapons.
We don’t need people trying to lecture others about what is an opinion or not. Everything here is opinion. What we need to have a fruitful conversation is to acknowledge points raised.
Simply parroting out ‘it’s an abstract system’ does nothing to address the issue that D&D does not feel anything like modern gun combat or a game system that is even meant to feel that way. If that is all you have say, then this conversation is pretty much done.
Ok, the original question was could D&D work for a western shoot’em up game - answer - yes it will work. Further answer - it will work but not real well and there are other game systems and game combat mechanics that will work much better.
Now it’s up to the OP to decide what they want to do.
It is an issue, because the abstraction doesn’t feel anything like gun combat. It feels like an ongoing melee.
Even if you look at cinematic gun combat, the general feel is that combatants are working out ways to avoid getting shot. When they get shot, they are basically out of combat. Having a pool of HP that gradually get less does not simulate this feel at all.
It works fine, you just have to narrate it properly. STA is all about shooting (when it comes to combat) with melee being the ultimate last resort. It has a health system that explicitly smells you that you are not hit until you drop to 0. Your "HP" is called stress. When someone succeeds with their attack against you (but doesn't reduce your stress to 0), they're not hitting you, they're hitting close to you, causing you to become stressed. The more stressed you are, the more likely you are to make a mistake (not mechanically represented on a gradient or anything). When you hit 0, it's when you are so stressed that you finally make a fatal mistake and get hit, either knocking you out or killing you.
That's not awfully far from 5e either. In 5e, due to the nature of combat and armour, blows can connect, but they are deflected by armour, shields, parries or are just glancing blows. You never actually hurt in anyway until they're down to half health, then you can start narrating damage. Really, the only time a blow should properly connect is the one that drops you to 0HP.
A Western should be narrated similarly. Unlike STA, a shot doesn't necessarily instantly disable, so you can have grazes and flesh wounds. A shot can graze your skin without much ill effect, so you can do that, but most should just be causing you stress until it finally properly hits you when it drops you to 0HP.
So really, a Western should be dealt more or less how you should be dealing with 5e.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
For a one-shot? Sure, it can work just well enough. The Lost Mines of Phandelver adventure in the original 5th Edition Starter Set was in similar tone to a Spaghetti Western, particularly in the town of Phandalin. But if you want to run a campaign with this one-shot being the prequel, it would be better to play a different system where people has done the work to make sure the whole Wild West stuff functions. Others have suggested Deadlands, but I hear Aces & Eights is a good game though from what I understand it's far more about simulation than fantasy.
In regards to introducing inexperienced players though, I'd introduce them to a playable-out-of-the-box adventure rather than something that's going to require no small amount of reworking and additional content that isn't in the books.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Sorry, but I just disagree, It isn’t anything about narration. It is just a poor fit for the feel people want in a western game. You may say you can run it that way, but I don’t think I’d want to play in that game. I'd rather play with a game system that is more bespoke to the genre. D&D isn’t that system.
If you play a game like Traveller by contrast, players tend to spend more time planning ambushes and Initiative becomes more significant. The approach and mindset of players is different. However anybody tries to narrate D&D, they’ll still be approaching combat in the same way they do in the fantasy genre.
There's a game (video game? can't quite remember) out there that uses gun fight "damage" as a reduction in "luck", with an "HP" of '0" meaning the character got shot and taken out of combat. (I think it was a developer interview regarding a popular video game franchise, but darned if I can remember which.)
d20 is extremely versatile, but the names of the mechanics must be customized for the setting.
Even in D&D, misses and hits aren't exactly that if you want to be more realistic. It's more about whether the attack does any damage. A gargantuan beast in melee range cannot be "missed" with a melee weapon (exceptions excluded) but a "hit" might do no damage at all, and that's where d20 comes in with the attack roll with an impossible to miss attack doing no damage instead.
So yes. You can use the d20 system of the SRD for an Old West setting.
Are there better systems out there for an Old West setting? That's difficult to say.
There's an Old West/Steampunk/Black Magic property out there (again, darned if I can remember the name... and I just saw it) that doesn't use the d20 system. It sounds complicated, but after I see it, it probably makes more sense and isn't as complicated as it sounds. (Different skill check die depending on the ability and proficiency with the ability but also a d6 luck die that is always rolled and added with each check. Skill checks include attack checks, too.)
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I think OP already knows D&D isn't a Western simulator. They're not trying to run the most Western game of all time and choosing D&D for its Western-ness, they're trying to run a D&D game with cowboy hats and six-shooters. And yes, of course it'll work. D&D is pretty flexible as long as you're looking for a game that tracks a series of challenges usually involving combat, with a group of heroes who have limited resources with which to handle them.
You could give your players free reign to reskin their starter weapons as guns. To give them a mechanical incentive, you could let them change the damage type -- technically a buff, but small enough that you don't need to worry about it. Quarterstaff -> Boomstick, which fires blanks that are so loud they can deal thunder damage to a target within 5ft. Longsword -> Stake launcher, which fires wooden stakes to kill vampires, like a ballistic knife (real weapon, very spooky). Whatever, it doesn't need to make perfect sense, it's about the aesthetic. If you do this, make sure to go out of your way to respect the narrative: If the stake launcher is used on an enemy within 5ft of a wall, you should really have them get pinned to the wall. I know that's a buff, I don't care, it's awesome. Right? You wouldn't tell the players in advance or invent special rules, you just keep your eyes open for cool moments and say yes whenever you can.
I'm currently playing in a game set in a Wild West-inspired setting; we're even streaming on twitch and youtube. For the most part it's just been about flavor... rather than try to replicate all the specifics of a Western, instead we treat it more like a fantasy world in Western times. It's overtly a sequel to an earlier campaign we were playing, where enough time has passed for industrialization to start affecting the world, and for handguns to become commonplace. Still, the world mostly still runs on fantasy rules... magic is still well known and is usually the go-to for solving problems... guns aren't that much more powerful than bows and arrows in the hand of a skilled user, and most town guards still at least carry spears or swords. It's worked surprisingly well... Westerns and Fantasy stories have a lot of overlap in tone and themes. There's a lot of focus on remote villages regularly in need of protection from outside forces, whether it be natural or threats from other groups. There tend to be wandering heroes who excel in combat far beyond what a normal citizen could accomplish. Even though more technology exists in Westerns, the heroes are still often forced to rely on their wits and survival skills... the fact that the locomotive exists doesn't make much of a difference when you're out in the middle of the desert trying to survive.
The main issue is that, at the end of the day... especially if you're using unmodified 5e rules, it will still feel like a fantasy game with a Western coat of paint. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily, but if you want to play a Western game that replicates the feel of going on a rootin', tootin', gunslingin' adventure, it will always feel just a bit off.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
And in cinematic melee combat, people are working out ways to avoid getting stabbed, so I’m not sure what the difference is here. Hit points are an abstraction and do not equal physical damage. It means any number of ways of avoiding that physical damage until, finally, you are too tired, or your luck runs out. The concept works just as well (or as poorly) for any type of damage, be they swords, arrows, lightning bolts or bullets. Fighters have more hp than wizards because they spend more time training for fights and are better able to avoid incoming attacks, and because they are better able to shrug off a grazing blow here and there, not because they have thicker skin.
You are just repeating the same argument. The abstraction of D&Ds HP is irrelevant if the structure of combat remains as it is.
Gun Combat is predicated on the notion that if somebody hits from a distance they are out. The back and forth of a D&D combat, with feints and parries and the like being abstracted into the HP system is fine. However, modern gun combat is more about cover fire, maneuvering into position and strategic advantage due to ambushes and the like. D&D simply doesn’t operate that way. Moreover, the classic Mexican standoff situation is impossible to rationalise into an abstract HP system.
I'm repeating the argument because its still true. You are dodging and weaving. You are getting grazed but still fighting. Its no different than damage from an arrow or crossbow bolt. Getting "hit" doesn't have to mean getting hurt. It never has meant that in any edition. And the analogy can still work in this one.
And your ideas about gun combat are simply your opinion. It doesn't have to be that. It can be whatever you want it to be in the game. In fiction, which is the more relevant comparison, there are countless examples of the hero taking a few bullets and carrying on. Whether or not that could do so irl is irrelevant, this is a game coupled with a story, and so they can. D&D is not and does not try to be an accurate combat simulator. It abstracts everything to make it a fun game. Those abstractions can easily carry over to other weapons.
We don’t need people trying to lecture others about what is an opinion or not. Everything here is opinion. What we need to have a fruitful conversation is to acknowledge points raised.
Simply parroting out ‘it’s an abstract system’ does nothing to address the issue that D&D does not feel anything like modern gun combat or a game system that is even meant to feel that way. If that is all you have say, then this conversation is pretty much done.
Ok, the original question was could D&D work for a western shoot’em up game - answer - yes it will work.
Further answer - it will work but not real well and there are other game systems and game combat mechanics that will work much better.
Now it’s up to the OP to decide what they want to do.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The video game mentioned was the Uncharted series, if anyone cares.