I think anything that one player may achieve may pass the "Background & Knowledge" Check. If the Character have the resources and the knowledge for that, is the first check, the second step is if the Character have the enough environment and resources to try to do that this is the second check, and finally if the story allowed this i mean the conditions of time, others NPC, others Characters allow this kind of idea , a NPC may oppose or make hard to achieve a lot of things, this is a good resource to intervene in what is going on using the game itself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
----[ Storing Arcane Knowledge since i have the opportuniy ]----
Consistently telling your players flat out NO... is bad advise.
I am genuinely surprised by the amount of posters here advising you to just flat out say "NO",and to shut your player down hard.
DND is at its core a game of make believe and improv... at their root, your responses should come in 2 versions: Yes, and... No, but....
When she put forth the idea about steam engines...Admittedly, that's likely well to advanced at this stage for your world... rather than simply saying...NO! Consider a response along the lines of:
"No, a steam engine is far to advanced at this stage of development, but maybe something closer to the current tech level? Perhaps something like the corkscrew, or maybe a hydraulic lift at the docks that simply fills a chamber when the tide comes in causing it to rise."
after all... the Romans had indoor pluming nearly 2000 years ago...
The main reason I would disagree with your take is because it opens the door too widely into all sorts of nonsense. A submarine for example. The first ones were made of wood granted but it still wasn't even a concept that could realistically be acted on until the 1700s. The main reason here is that there are fundamental principles that need to be understood to take something from concept to application.
Without knowledge of gas, how it moves, and that different gases have different densities a hot air balloon simply cannot exist. Now that's some pretty important iterative steps that need to be discovered and understood before a relatively simple technology can be developed. Therefore, in a world where technology has not progressed enough to understand the gaseous state of matter (in real life around 1600s) saying that oh yeah, you can't have a plane but maybe instead a hot air balloon is still just as wild a concept. In such a case saying an absolute no is the only option.
Part of the problem comes in that some people describe D&D as a system in which anything can happen. That's just wildly inaccurate. It is a system with limits. Now, like applying cheats to a video game maybe you and the rest of the group enjoy the freedom to do wacky stuff is fun. For many though, it's not. Many people garner enjoyment from the ability to overcome the challenges laid before them (the sense of accomplishment derived from success). For the anything can happen (and indeed even the improv/storytelling angle) there are better systems to use. FATE, FUDGE, and GURPS all come to mind.
Returning to the OP issue at hand though, I agree the word choice of 'No' isn't a great one. Instead, I'd be asking 'and how did your character come up with this idea?'. Once it shakes out that it's impossible (and the players realise that) I would chime in with some OOC stuff that it is important for everyone to remember the difference between what the player knows and understands and what the character knows and understands. What the character is doing, is in effect, metagaming. So, I'd handle it in the same way as if the character acted upon knowledge they couldn't have. If I describe a large green scaled creature which looks similar to a large lizard, a character may never have encountered a Guard drake. If they immediately say, 'oh guard drakes are weak to...' it's the same type of metagaming. We wouldn't stand for that, so we have to treat impossible technological knowledge in the same way.
Consistently telling your players flat out NO... is bad advise.
I am genuinely surprised by the amount of posters here advising you to just flat out say "NO", and to shut your player down hard.
DND is at its core a game of make believe and improv... at their root, your responses should come in 2 versions: Yes, and... No, but....
When she put forth the idea about steam engines...Admittedly, that's likely well to advanced at this stage for your world... rather than simply saying...NO! Consider a response along the lines of:
"No, a steam engine is far to advanced at this stage of development, but maybe something closer to the current tech level? Perhaps something like the corkscrew, or maybe a hydraulic lift at the docks that simply fills a chamber when the tide comes in causing it to rise."
after all... the Romans had indoor pluming nearly 2000 years ago...
The main reason I would disagree with your take is because it opens the door too widely into all sorts of nonsense. A submarine for example. The first ones were made of wood granted but it still wasn't even a concept that could realistically be acted on until the 1700s. The main reason here is that there are fundamental principles that need to be understood to take something from concept to application.
Without knowledge of gas, how it moves, and that different gases have different densities a hot air balloon simply cannot exist. Now that's some pretty important iterative steps that need to be discovered and understood before a relatively simple technology can be developed. Therefore, in a world where technology has not progressed enough to understand the gaseous state of matter (in real life around 1600s) saying that oh yeah, you can't have a plane but maybe instead a hot air balloon is still just as wild a concept. In such a case saying an absolute no is the only option.
I appreciate where your coming from, truly, and I agree with some, but this is a strawman. Making the jump/comparison from the "water screw" to a "Submarine" or "hot air balloon" (both invented in the 1700s and nearly 4000 years AFTER the pully system or 2000 years after the Water Screw) is unfair and a little disingenuous. I think we are all in agreement here that something along the lines of a Submarine or a Steam Engine would be well out of line and you likely would tell your player NO, that's not even in the scope of possibility, BUT something like Archimedes water screw would be more reasonable. (it would likely have little to no mechanical impact or advantage on gameplay, is far more realistic in time line, and would still allow the player to fulfill their desired gameplay aspect out of this game. Its impact would largely be cosmetic and purely narrative. As the GM you should not be allowing players to just break the game with nonsensical inventions, that provide absurd mechanical benefits. )
I feel as though most people are assuming "Inventions" must be something resembling steam punk vibes and era, and I encourage people to roll back the clock much further.
I'm also seeing it mentioned rather frequently by posters, that the PC is a Ranger not an Artificer. As such, this somehow denotes that the PC is incapable of having an original idea, or thinking critically. Its a silly notion. Sure, they may not have the skills to actually create it or the resources, but I already addressed this aspect in my initial post. Additionally, if this is something the PC wants to pursue moving forward, she could simply multiclass into Artificer. Thus, narratively denoting the "progress" she is making and experience and renown as an inventor.
I understand not everyone agrees with me on this thread, and that's fine. However, I've yet to see a good reason why to straight shut down this creative input from the player. Assuming as the DM your doing your job and tempering anything to outrageous. Which ultimately leads to the root question I feel as though we haven't asked.
Are the Rangers actions bothering any of the other players at the table? If the answer is no, and they are having fun, then she is not the issue. The DM is. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. it just is what it is. Admittedly I may be off base here, but In this scenario, it seems like the DM is frustrated that the player is making changes to HIS/HER homebrew world. Getting the players excited to engage with your world is a blessing and should be actively encouraged to get them to want to make the world their own. Feel like they are a part of it, have stake in it, want to see it grow and flourish. That way you can come as the BBEG and take those things from them. MWuhahahah..... Evoking real emotion towards the villain.
If her actions ARE causing problems with the other players, then like we've all said at some point in this thread, pull her aside and talk to her.
Returning to the OP issue at hand though, I agree the word choice of 'No' isn't a great one. Instead, I'd be asking 'and how did your character come up with this idea?'. Once it shakes out that it's impossible (and the players realise that) I would chime in with some OOC stuff that it is important for everyone to remember the difference between what the player knows and understands and what the character knows and understands. What the character is doing, is in effect, metagaming. So, I'd handle it in the same way as if the character acted upon knowledge they couldn't have. If I describe a large green scaled creature which looks similar to a large lizard, a character may never have encountered a Guard drake. If they immediately say, 'oh guard drakes are weak to...' it's the same type of metagaming. We wouldn't stand for that, so we have to treat impossible technological knowledge in the same way.
I mostly agree with you here. I also touch on this in my initial post, about talking to the player outside the game. I too try to educate my players when they are unknowingly META...ing? (Yes, I just made up my own verb)
Consistently telling your players flat out NO... is bad advise.
I am genuinely surprised by the amount of posters here advising you to just flat out say "NO",and to shut your player down hard.
DND is at its core a game of make believe and improv... at their root, your responses should come in 2 versions: Yes, and... No, but....
When she put forth the idea about steam engines...Admittedly, that's likely well to advanced at this stage for your world... rather than simply saying...NO! Consider a response along the lines of:
"No, a steam engine is far to advanced at this stage of development, but maybe something closer to the current tech level? Perhaps something like the corkscrew, or maybe a hydraulic lift at the docks that simply fills a chamber when the tide comes in causing it to rise."
after all... the Romans had indoor pluming nearly 2000 years ago...
How about "No, but this world hasn't developed any sort of technology like that nor the ideas or concepts needed to create that technology. If you would like, your character can spend downtime researching and experimenting then record your results for future generations so that the world might eventually develop technology."
"No, but " is a very useful tool and the DM and players work together to create the story and narrative. However, the DM is responsible for the world building and adjudicating the character interactions with the world. The players are responsible for role playing their characters in the context of the world the DM describes for them. The DM doesn't tell the players what decisions their character should make. Why should the player be able to dictate design characteristics of the world by trying to fundamentally change its nature through meta-gaming knowledge the player has about technology?
Does the player get to say that there is a nearby country that is a true democracy where the leader is elected every year? If not, why can a player tell the DM that gunpowder exists and that it is used for weapons in this world? This is exactly what the player is doing when saying they want a gun for their character.
The basic existence of certain items in a world implies a vast number of supporting technologies. The answer "No" from the DM is quite acceptable when the request the player is making is intended to fundamentally alter the game world where the adventure is taking place. Sometimes the DM doesn't care, sometimes the DM doesn't mind changing the world to suit the desires of the player, in which cases they might say "Yes" or "No, but". However, in many cases, specifically like this one, the DM doesn't want certain types of technology available in the world at all, it doesn't fit the narrative, world interactions, or other aspects of the world that has been created for the characters to interact with. In cases like this, "No" can be the correct answer while "No, but" means the DM will at least partially change the properties of the game world to suit the players wishes which is the same as the DM telling the player what their character will do and the player saying Ok.
------
So, how could the OP's player's request be answered?
1) Player requests a gun.
DM: Hmmm, well there aren't any guns in this world nor the technology needed to produce them. The knowledge to make gunpowder doesn't exist. However, you want something that looks and feels like a gun, you can use the stats of a light crossbow since whatever it is would definitely need loading and ammunition. Early guns also weren't very accurate but we can stick for the light crossbow for now. Since there isn't any gunpowder, we need some sort of propulsive force. I'd suggest that you came up with a small magic that you could cast into the breach of your weapon which can be used to push a projectile out the other end. The magic doesn't do much in the open, it is only useful in a small confined space. The weapon is a metal tube about 4'-5' long with one end open and a "breach" on the top near the other end. Drop a projectile in, use your magic touch on the breach while aiming it and it fires the projectile.
To make the weapon more versatile, the metal tube can be considered a quarterstaff when not being fired. Alternatively a knife can be attached near one end turning the tube into the equivalent of a spear.
If all the player wants is something that looks and feels like a gun. That works. However, the weapon isn't based on technology, it is based on magic.
2) Player wants to introduce all sorts of other technologies and industry.
DM: Hmmm ... why does your character want to this? Knowledge is quite limited in this society, few are educated, and most do not have the time needed to research and understand natural science, never mind try to come up with applications for that knowledge. I don't see any problem with your character spending their free time working on some sort of research but changing the technology of the world will take generations if it is possible at all. If that is still something your character wants to pursue we can chat about it but perhaps consider it from the character's perspective. You, as the player, have a lot of knowledge about what is possible with science, the scientific method, research and technology. However, the characters and NPCs in this world don't have that basis. They don't know what is possible and don't have any insight that might lead them to making it possible.
Just consider the invention of the stirrup for riding animals. Paired stirrups are credited to being developed in the first few centuries AD in China and the knowledge didn't reach Europe until the middle ages. Stirrups are a very simple piece of technology that augments the saddle making it much easier to ride and control animals. This is a small, incremental advancement that had a substantial impact but it wasn't developed everywhere. Similar ideas appeared initially in India but sometimes it was one stirrup to just assist in mounting or just a loop of rope. The point is that even small technological advancements can be hard. Since your character doesn't know what a gun is, or what technology is, I'm not sure how they can have a goal of creating those things. The best option would likely be to research natural science and see if that leads anywhere.
I appreciate where your coming from, truly, and I agree with some, but this is a strawman. Making the jump/comparison from the "water screw" to a "Submarine" or "hot air balloon" (both invented in the 1700s and nearly 4000 years AFTER the pully system or 2000 years after the Water Screw) is unfair and a little disingenuous. I think we are all in agreement here that something along the lines of a Submarine or a Steam Engine would be well out of line and you likely would tell your player NO, that's not even in the scope of possibility, BUT something like Archimedes water screw would be more reasonable. (it would likely have little to no mechanical impact or advantage on gameplay, is far more realistic in time line, and would still allow the player to fulfill their desired gameplay aspect out of this game. Its impact would largely be cosmetic and purely narrative. As the GM you should not be allowing players to just break the game with nonsensical inventions, that provide absurd mechanical benefits. )
Are the Rangers actions bothering any of the other players at the table? If the answer is no, and they are having fun, then she is not the issue. The DM is. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. it just is what it is. Admittedly I may be off base here, but In this scenario, it seems like the DM is frustrated that the player is making changes to HIS/HER homebrew world. Getting the players excited to engage with your world is a blessing and should be actively encouraged to get them to want to make the world their own. Feel like they are a part of it, have stake in it, want to see it grow and flourish. That way you can come as the BBEG and take those things from them. MWuhahahah..... Evoking real emotion towards the villain.
So, yeah, I get what you mean about the Archimedes screw, but there is an equivalence there. To get to that point you need an understanding of how water moves. Maybe not on a molecular level, but you need to have some understanding of fluid dynamics. It is certainly a genius invention given that no observation of the material or natural world would give you a natural inspiration. In short only someone having spent a long time working on and around the movement and control of water would be in the position to understand the principles behind it. It's little wonder then that the Eygptians, masters of agriculture and irrigation are thought to have developed the technology.
Here's the question though, in a world where water can be controlled, moved, heck even created through magic...why would the screw have been developed. More than that, I get what you're saying about a ranger. And I actually agree. A ranger after all will have spent countless time observing the natural environment and utilising it for their purposes. I can see how a ranger might develop a technology based off observation of the natural world. I could easily see a ranger having developed Velco by looking at plants, or even efficient oars and rudders by observing whales and fish. I could even see so far as a ranger plucking a seed from a maple tree and handing it to an artificer trying to discover flight and adding their observations.
The screw though is not based on such an observation of the natural world. Which is why I'd suggest such a specific technology would be unlikely to be developed by a ranger. Moveover with Control Water, and Create/Destroy Water being an ability in this world and certainly within easy reach of the Ranger as a spell...would the screw even be invented?
Of course, I fear at this point we're debating how many angels might dance on the head of pin.
The core of the issue seems to be in how the matter is dealt with. I think what this discussion really demonstrates, and demonstrates well is that there are as many different stylistic ways of being a DM as there are DMs. I've run into that player who claims that they're going to try and persuade or seduce a particular NPC despite the fact said NPC would never change their mind. Literally in that case a player decided they wanted to try and get the king to hand over their crown and the throne. It doesn't matter how convincing or charming a character is that's just never going to happen. As such, I've been left with no choice but to say to said player 'no, you can't roll for it'. It's that experience which has led me to hold my opinion that sometimes no is the right answer. Of course, in the main the old improv fallbacks of 'no but/yes and' are good. Having run a theatre company, having taught drama, and having taught writing and English, more often than not 'Yes and' has a nasty habit of devolving into the most absurd of situations. In healthy play we set boundries through lines and veils or X/O cards, in the rules if you run out of spell slots there is no other way of casting for some characters.
At this point I'm trying to explain rationale to you so that people hopefully see I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but rather have a reason. I'll leave my reply at this and say that despite the disagreement I do see where you are coming from and you're clearly a thoughtful DM who your players are fortunate to have.
"yes, and..." is the right path 90% of the time in improv such as D&D. however, "no, you can't roll for it" is the DMG answer to questions like "i persuade the king to give me the throne." there's just not a 1 in 20 (or even 1 in 400) chance the sultan would randomly agree to let jafar marry jasmine (without magical intervention) out of the blue. not every skill check is a walk-up carnival game with a big prize bullseye. not even if your background is essentially your parents purchasing for you the first level of another class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
In addition to the varied and useful discussion and advice above:
A PC creating a gun in this context is a weapon that is far more likely to explode than actually work, but even if it doesn't explode it would misfire a very high percentage of the time. If it does fire, it would be unlikely to be accurate. If the character has a magic spell to use to create an explosion as the accelerant, that spell would be far more reliable and effective than trying to use it to make a gun work.
I like the idea of letting the player build it and try it, but I would have them roll every time they try to use it and have a results table - say a D6 with 1 being it explodes and destroys the weapon, 2-4 being a misfire, a 5 being a shot with -2 to hit, and a 6 being a normal attack and damage. This way the player has the fun of creating something interesting and novel and testing it, but the consequences will limit use in the game but within the player's choice and control.
With the setting you described, I highly doubt they would have the ability to create a firearm that would work. Players would be far better off looking to magically improve a weapon such as a crossbow or to magically imbue arrows or bolts for added utility and effect.
With regards to the misfiring aspect, make it abundantly clear how likely it is. When they first shoot the gun, ask them to roll a d4. If they rol la 1, then a 4 will blow them up, and vice versa (the first shot works and warns them). Then tell them "The gun smokes and you fancied you may even have seen a crack flash for a second, but it holds together for now."
That instantly tells them there's a 1 in 4 chance of it exploding. it also protects them from exploding with the first shot, which would feel rubbish.
I'm going to firstly address the point a few people are getting hung up on about them being a Ranger. There's nothing that says Ranger can't possess these ideas, nor intellect and ability to pull it off, the same goes for any other class in the game (though it would be atypical of the Ranger class fantasy). Their stats, proficiencies, background and the present have a far greater impact on their ability to pull it off than their class. Do they even have enough years left of their life to see their training, theories, blueprints, prototypes and production through to the end? Can their character even communicate their ideas to other people to begin building them? Think of it like a 'tech tree' in a video game like Civilisation: before they can learn how to make a steam engine, they must first learn how to tie a rock to a stick, for example. At least one of those should be a barrier, and I say should because you're the DM, this is your setting, and you decide what is and is not within the realms of possibility.
Having said that, a Ranger whose training was long ago (if they were attentive during the tutelage mentioned in their background) may well have been forgotten most of it. Their ideas could simply be "wouldn't it be cool if..." which are then promptly dismissed for wasting the intelligentsia's time.
I'm not against saying 'no', but I'd prefer that be done out-of-character (OOC) or out of session and just remind them of the setting. Who knows, maybe when the campaign's over and another one begins several hundred/thousand years into the future, the Ranger-o-Tron Steam Train may be where this new adventuring party meets.
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."
Having thought about this myself (alongside engineering friends), by RAW it is possible to have the materials for a steam engine provided solely through arcane means. HOWEVER, it is specifically ONLY able to be done by an Artillerist Artificer using their Arcane Cannon. with a Decanter of Endless Water. Otherwise you can't have a long lasting heat source or a fuel supply, and the Artillerist is limited by their spell slots as to how many hours the engine can run (1 hour, with an additional hour by burning a slot).
The point being, it may be possible, but to do so is an incredibly niche situation that the player would have to build their character around, and need certain items to do. Ultimately it is all up to the GM (being you), but something as massive as steam power should have been brought up before the campaign started.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, and:
Occassionally telling your players flat out NO is good advice.
Hi, there
I think anything that one player may achieve may pass the "Background & Knowledge" Check.
If the Character have the resources and the knowledge for that, is the first check, the second step is if the Character have the enough environment and resources to try to do that this is the second check, and finally if the story allowed this i mean the conditions of time, others NPC, others Characters allow this kind of idea , a NPC may oppose or make hard to achieve a lot of things, this is a good resource to intervene in what is going on using the game itself.
----[ Storing Arcane Knowledge since i have the opportuniy ]----
The main reason I would disagree with your take is because it opens the door too widely into all sorts of nonsense. A submarine for example. The first ones were made of wood granted but it still wasn't even a concept that could realistically be acted on until the 1700s. The main reason here is that there are fundamental principles that need to be understood to take something from concept to application.
Without knowledge of gas, how it moves, and that different gases have different densities a hot air balloon simply cannot exist. Now that's some pretty important iterative steps that need to be discovered and understood before a relatively simple technology can be developed. Therefore, in a world where technology has not progressed enough to understand the gaseous state of matter (in real life around 1600s) saying that oh yeah, you can't have a plane but maybe instead a hot air balloon is still just as wild a concept. In such a case saying an absolute no is the only option.
Part of the problem comes in that some people describe D&D as a system in which anything can happen. That's just wildly inaccurate. It is a system with limits. Now, like applying cheats to a video game maybe you and the rest of the group enjoy the freedom to do wacky stuff is fun. For many though, it's not. Many people garner enjoyment from the ability to overcome the challenges laid before them (the sense of accomplishment derived from success). For the anything can happen (and indeed even the improv/storytelling angle) there are better systems to use. FATE, FUDGE, and GURPS all come to mind.
Returning to the OP issue at hand though, I agree the word choice of 'No' isn't a great one. Instead, I'd be asking 'and how did your character come up with this idea?'. Once it shakes out that it's impossible (and the players realise that) I would chime in with some OOC stuff that it is important for everyone to remember the difference between what the player knows and understands and what the character knows and understands. What the character is doing, is in effect, metagaming. So, I'd handle it in the same way as if the character acted upon knowledge they couldn't have. If I describe a large green scaled creature which looks similar to a large lizard, a character may never have encountered a Guard drake. If they immediately say, 'oh guard drakes are weak to...' it's the same type of metagaming. We wouldn't stand for that, so we have to treat impossible technological knowledge in the same way.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I appreciate where your coming from, truly, and I agree with some, but this is a strawman. Making the jump/comparison from the "water screw" to a "Submarine" or "hot air balloon" (both invented in the 1700s and nearly 4000 years AFTER the pully system or 2000 years after the Water Screw) is unfair and a little disingenuous. I think we are all in agreement here that something along the lines of a Submarine or a Steam Engine would be well out of line and you likely would tell your player NO, that's not even in the scope of possibility, BUT something like Archimedes water screw would be more reasonable. (it would likely have little to no mechanical impact or advantage on gameplay, is far more realistic in time line, and would still allow the player to fulfill their desired gameplay aspect out of this game. Its impact would largely be cosmetic and purely narrative. As the GM you should not be allowing players to just break the game with nonsensical inventions, that provide absurd mechanical benefits. )
I feel as though most people are assuming "Inventions" must be something resembling steam punk vibes and era, and I encourage people to roll back the clock much further.
I'm also seeing it mentioned rather frequently by posters, that the PC is a Ranger not an Artificer. As such, this somehow denotes that the PC is incapable of having an original idea, or thinking critically. Its a silly notion. Sure, they may not have the skills to actually create it or the resources, but I already addressed this aspect in my initial post. Additionally, if this is something the PC wants to pursue moving forward, she could simply multiclass into Artificer. Thus, narratively denoting the "progress" she is making and experience and renown as an inventor.
I understand not everyone agrees with me on this thread, and that's fine. However, I've yet to see a good reason why to straight shut down this creative input from the player. Assuming as the DM your doing your job and tempering anything to outrageous. Which ultimately leads to the root question I feel as though we haven't asked.
Are the Rangers actions bothering any of the other players at the table? If the answer is no, and they are having fun, then she is not the issue. The DM is. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. it just is what it is. Admittedly I may be off base here, but In this scenario, it seems like the DM is frustrated that the player is making changes to HIS/HER homebrew world. Getting the players excited to engage with your world is a blessing and should be actively encouraged to get them to want to make the world their own. Feel like they are a part of it, have stake in it, want to see it grow and flourish. That way you can come as the BBEG and take those things from them. MWuhahahah..... Evoking real emotion towards the villain.
If her actions ARE causing problems with the other players, then like we've all said at some point in this thread, pull her aside and talk to her.
I mostly agree with you here. I also touch on this in my initial post, about talking to the player outside the game. I too try to educate my players when they are unknowingly META...ing? (Yes, I just made up my own verb)
How about "No, but this world hasn't developed any sort of technology like that nor the ideas or concepts needed to create that technology. If you would like, your character can spend downtime researching and experimenting then record your results for future generations so that the world might eventually develop technology."
"No, but " is a very useful tool and the DM and players work together to create the story and narrative. However, the DM is responsible for the world building and adjudicating the character interactions with the world. The players are responsible for role playing their characters in the context of the world the DM describes for them. The DM doesn't tell the players what decisions their character should make. Why should the player be able to dictate design characteristics of the world by trying to fundamentally change its nature through meta-gaming knowledge the player has about technology?
Does the player get to say that there is a nearby country that is a true democracy where the leader is elected every year? If not, why can a player tell the DM that gunpowder exists and that it is used for weapons in this world? This is exactly what the player is doing when saying they want a gun for their character.
The basic existence of certain items in a world implies a vast number of supporting technologies. The answer "No" from the DM is quite acceptable when the request the player is making is intended to fundamentally alter the game world where the adventure is taking place. Sometimes the DM doesn't care, sometimes the DM doesn't mind changing the world to suit the desires of the player, in which cases they might say "Yes" or "No, but". However, in many cases, specifically like this one, the DM doesn't want certain types of technology available in the world at all, it doesn't fit the narrative, world interactions, or other aspects of the world that has been created for the characters to interact with. In cases like this, "No" can be the correct answer while "No, but" means the DM will at least partially change the properties of the game world to suit the players wishes which is the same as the DM telling the player what their character will do and the player saying Ok.
------
So, how could the OP's player's request be answered?
1) Player requests a gun.
DM: Hmmm, well there aren't any guns in this world nor the technology needed to produce them. The knowledge to make gunpowder doesn't exist. However, you want something that looks and feels like a gun, you can use the stats of a light crossbow since whatever it is would definitely need loading and ammunition. Early guns also weren't very accurate but we can stick for the light crossbow for now. Since there isn't any gunpowder, we need some sort of propulsive force. I'd suggest that you came up with a small magic that you could cast into the breach of your weapon which can be used to push a projectile out the other end. The magic doesn't do much in the open, it is only useful in a small confined space. The weapon is a metal tube about 4'-5' long with one end open and a "breach" on the top near the other end. Drop a projectile in, use your magic touch on the breach while aiming it and it fires the projectile.
To make the weapon more versatile, the metal tube can be considered a quarterstaff when not being fired. Alternatively a knife can be attached near one end turning the tube into the equivalent of a spear.
If all the player wants is something that looks and feels like a gun. That works. However, the weapon isn't based on technology, it is based on magic.
2) Player wants to introduce all sorts of other technologies and industry.
DM: Hmmm ... why does your character want to this? Knowledge is quite limited in this society, few are educated, and most do not have the time needed to research and understand natural science, never mind try to come up with applications for that knowledge. I don't see any problem with your character spending their free time working on some sort of research but changing the technology of the world will take generations if it is possible at all. If that is still something your character wants to pursue we can chat about it but perhaps consider it from the character's perspective. You, as the player, have a lot of knowledge about what is possible with science, the scientific method, research and technology. However, the characters and NPCs in this world don't have that basis. They don't know what is possible and don't have any insight that might lead them to making it possible.
Just consider the invention of the stirrup for riding animals. Paired stirrups are credited to being developed in the first few centuries AD in China and the knowledge didn't reach Europe until the middle ages. Stirrups are a very simple piece of technology that augments the saddle making it much easier to ride and control animals. This is a small, incremental advancement that had a substantial impact but it wasn't developed everywhere. Similar ideas appeared initially in India but sometimes it was one stirrup to just assist in mounting or just a loop of rope. The point is that even small technological advancements can be hard. Since your character doesn't know what a gun is, or what technology is, I'm not sure how they can have a goal of creating those things. The best option would likely be to research natural science and see if that leads anywhere.
So, yeah, I get what you mean about the Archimedes screw, but there is an equivalence there. To get to that point you need an understanding of how water moves. Maybe not on a molecular level, but you need to have some understanding of fluid dynamics. It is certainly a genius invention given that no observation of the material or natural world would give you a natural inspiration. In short only someone having spent a long time working on and around the movement and control of water would be in the position to understand the principles behind it. It's little wonder then that the Eygptians, masters of agriculture and irrigation are thought to have developed the technology.
Here's the question though, in a world where water can be controlled, moved, heck even created through magic...why would the screw have been developed. More than that, I get what you're saying about a ranger. And I actually agree. A ranger after all will have spent countless time observing the natural environment and utilising it for their purposes. I can see how a ranger might develop a technology based off observation of the natural world. I could easily see a ranger having developed Velco by looking at plants, or even efficient oars and rudders by observing whales and fish. I could even see so far as a ranger plucking a seed from a maple tree and handing it to an artificer trying to discover flight and adding their observations.
The screw though is not based on such an observation of the natural world. Which is why I'd suggest such a specific technology would be unlikely to be developed by a ranger. Moveover with Control Water, and Create/Destroy Water being an ability in this world and certainly within easy reach of the Ranger as a spell...would the screw even be invented?
Of course, I fear at this point we're debating how many angels might dance on the head of pin.
The core of the issue seems to be in how the matter is dealt with. I think what this discussion really demonstrates, and demonstrates well is that there are as many different stylistic ways of being a DM as there are DMs. I've run into that player who claims that they're going to try and persuade or seduce a particular NPC despite the fact said NPC would never change their mind. Literally in that case a player decided they wanted to try and get the king to hand over their crown and the throne. It doesn't matter how convincing or charming a character is that's just never going to happen. As such, I've been left with no choice but to say to said player 'no, you can't roll for it'. It's that experience which has led me to hold my opinion that sometimes no is the right answer. Of course, in the main the old improv fallbacks of 'no but/yes and' are good. Having run a theatre company, having taught drama, and having taught writing and English, more often than not 'Yes and' has a nasty habit of devolving into the most absurd of situations. In healthy play we set boundries through lines and veils or X/O cards, in the rules if you run out of spell slots there is no other way of casting for some characters.
At this point I'm trying to explain rationale to you so that people hopefully see I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but rather have a reason. I'll leave my reply at this and say that despite the disagreement I do see where you are coming from and you're clearly a thoughtful DM who your players are fortunate to have.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
"yes, and..." is the right path 90% of the time in improv such as D&D. however, "no, you can't roll for it" is the DMG answer to questions like "i persuade the king to give me the throne." there's just not a 1 in 20 (or even 1 in 400) chance the sultan would randomly agree to let jafar marry jasmine (without magical intervention) out of the blue. not every skill check is a walk-up carnival game with a big prize bullseye. not even if your background is essentially your parents purchasing for you the first level of another class.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
In addition to the varied and useful discussion and advice above:
A PC creating a gun in this context is a weapon that is far more likely to explode than actually work, but even if it doesn't explode it would misfire a very high percentage of the time. If it does fire, it would be unlikely to be accurate. If the character has a magic spell to use to create an explosion as the accelerant, that spell would be far more reliable and effective than trying to use it to make a gun work.
I like the idea of letting the player build it and try it, but I would have them roll every time they try to use it and have a results table - say a D6 with 1 being it explodes and destroys the weapon, 2-4 being a misfire, a 5 being a shot with -2 to hit, and a 6 being a normal attack and damage. This way the player has the fun of creating something interesting and novel and testing it, but the consequences will limit use in the game but within the player's choice and control.
With the setting you described, I highly doubt they would have the ability to create a firearm that would work. Players would be far better off looking to magically improve a weapon such as a crossbow or to magically imbue arrows or bolts for added utility and effect.
With regards to the misfiring aspect, make it abundantly clear how likely it is. When they first shoot the gun, ask them to roll a d4. If they rol la 1, then a 4 will blow them up, and vice versa (the first shot works and warns them). Then tell them "The gun smokes and you fancied you may even have seen a crack flash for a second, but it holds together for now."
That instantly tells them there's a 1 in 4 chance of it exploding. it also protects them from exploding with the first shot, which would feel rubbish.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I know some of you may dislike this but sometimes just let them roll
I have a PHD in traps
I'm going to firstly address the point a few people are getting hung up on about them being a Ranger. There's nothing that says Ranger can't possess these ideas, nor intellect and ability to pull it off, the same goes for any other class in the game (though it would be atypical of the Ranger class fantasy). Their stats, proficiencies, background and the present have a far greater impact on their ability to pull it off than their class. Do they even have enough years left of their life to see their training, theories, blueprints, prototypes and production through to the end? Can their character even communicate their ideas to other people to begin building them? Think of it like a 'tech tree' in a video game like Civilisation: before they can learn how to make a steam engine, they must first learn how to tie a rock to a stick, for example. At least one of those should be a barrier, and I say should because you're the DM, this is your setting, and you decide what is and is not within the realms of possibility.
Having said that, a Ranger whose training was long ago (if they were attentive during the tutelage mentioned in their background) may well have been forgotten most of it. Their ideas could simply be "wouldn't it be cool if..." which are then promptly dismissed for wasting the intelligentsia's time.
I'm not against saying 'no', but I'd prefer that be done out-of-character (OOC) or out of session and just remind them of the setting. Who knows, maybe when the campaign's over and another one begins several hundred/thousand years into the future, the Ranger-o-Tron Steam Train may be where this new adventuring party meets.
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
Having thought about this myself (alongside engineering friends), by RAW it is possible to have the materials for a steam engine provided solely through arcane means. HOWEVER, it is specifically ONLY able to be done by an Artillerist Artificer using their Arcane Cannon. with a Decanter of Endless Water. Otherwise you can't have a long lasting heat source or a fuel supply, and the Artillerist is limited by their spell slots as to how many hours the engine can run (1 hour, with an additional hour by burning a slot).
The point being, it may be possible, but to do so is an incredibly niche situation that the player would have to build their character around, and need certain items to do. Ultimately it is all up to the GM (being you), but something as massive as steam power should have been brought up before the campaign started.