>How do I balance tabletop RPG characters using melee weapons in a sci-fi setting where guns are powerful, practical and ubiquitous, without ripping off Dune or Star Wars?
Short answer: you don't have to. It's okay to make up a setting where not every option is perfectly balanced by the numbers, as long as you're honest about that. Your players are presumably adults who can deal with making bad choices.
If your setting or system contains dedicated melee fighting classes or a majority of enemies with no ranged attacks, then yes, you have to put a lot of thought into balancing melee-only characters because it's going to come up in virtually every fight. But if everyone is *expected* to use ranged attacks, you don't have to cater to the rare contrarian, any more than you have to perfectly balance normal humans against vampires in a game where everyone is expected to be a vampire. That player had a choice and can either get with the program or go away.
That doesn't mean melee weapons can't have some benefits as a situational or backup weapon. They can have increased accuracy and critical rate, an option to parry melee attacks, easier stealth killing, applications as tools out of combat, and so on, whatever makes sense.
But if you seriously crunch the numbers and try to get a melee-only character and an otherwise identical ranged-only character to have exactly equal chances of winning the fight, because you don't think it's "fair" that a melee-only character needs to close the distance before attacking, you're overthinking the issue.
Melee-only characters are only a trap option if they're presented as equally valid and equally costly to ranged-only or mixed characters, such as a class system with dedicated melee fighting classes. Otherwise, melee fighting is just another skill that a character might have, and no one expects every skill in the game to be equally useful. A trap that's honest about being a trap is no trap at all.
How do I balance tabletop RPG characters using melee weapons in a sci-fi setting where guns are powerful...
I agree.
As long as you are clear with your expectations and rulings, this is fine.
The problem is everyone only sees everything from the perspective of a battle field. Obviously if you go running down a street with a sword against dudes in cover with a machine guns then you're going to get the bullet bukkake you deserved.
However, what about those times when you weren't expecting combat and shit goes south? I don't care what kind of setting you make generally getting beaten to death with a heavy object is generally a viable way to kill something that isn't some kind of monsters that can take tank shells to the face and shrug.
I blame D&D for this because as a game it's primary focus is a combat game where it's assumed that you are armed and strapped at all time where that might not be the case for every game or setting.
>My solution to balancing issues is to ignore balancing issues between classes
>Anyone that doesn't choose the most viable option is wrong and should also be punished
>using a sword should be a viable option in every sci-fi campaign
Is it really that ahrd to read what OP wrote? Ok, the second one I guess is intentional, but still.
>classes
OP was talking about not balancing weapons against each other, user. Also, choosing a less than viable option is a choice, and in a game your choices should matter.
Some people prefer roleplay. Different cultures or tech levels of different planets as well as certain environments can hamper the gun use situation for example. There's no reason to punish a player for choosing something you don't like when it makes good roleplay and isn't to Hard to accommodate
Didn't say it should. Said it shouldn't be punished.
>Said it shouldn't be punished.
Okay, your character brings a knife to a gun fight. If the game mechanics don't put him on an equal footing to his opponents, is he being punished? I think not.
Guns can shoot only as many bullets as you have. You can always RIP AND TEAR if you're strong enough.
>Bring a knife to a gun fight
Why does the GM keep forcing gunfights? We have two snipers, a face and an assassin. We should rarely be put in these situations by something that's not our choice. Balance problems are fixed with good GMs :^)
Did it occur to you that some settings dictate equality of both choices? Maybe not for every character but overall.
Not sure if Doomguy or John Carter
whats wrong with ripping off dune?
there is nothing wrong with having swordmasters in a sci fi setting, melee does not need to be "One of the skills"; it can work in certain settings such as 40k for example, but in a setting that rips off dune, and of all things thats a good thing to rip off, you can have a melee focused character
ive only played in one sci-fi setting and the GM made it so anyone with a "sword"(didnt have to be sword) had a "shield". Shield gave 75% cover and a little damage resistance. This effect was negated by another "sword". Worked pretty well for most fights but got kinda stupid when a "boss" busted out sword and shield style and shruged off most of the PCs attacks... We had one pure melee guy who wouldnt use a gun and another half and half... I think GM wanted epic battles with these fights but just 2 guys fighting boss and 4 standing around with thumbs up their ass... not so epic
Yeah, that's what answer. But it's ignoring the fact that "but I want to" is a valid response. Some people like high-tech melee weapons and powered armor, and saying "but you don't HAVE to include them!" misses the point.
And some settings don't. It's not always a reasonable thing for a player to demand, for a GM to encourage, or for a game designer to support.
If you're the one in charge and you decide melee-only fighting characters aren't really a thing in your setting, it's not wrong, it's not spoiling the player's fun, you're not obligated to provide the option just on the reasoning that other settings did it.
Sure, I agree. With the caveat that it should be made known to the players
I think it's fair to assume that if someone is asking "how do I balance option X and option Y," it's because it's important to them that option X and option Y are balanced, not just out of an idle desire for fairness.
Maybe the problem here is that the players don't realize that they can be good at BOTH melee brawling and at shooting things with a laser blaster. Each type of fighting is useful in situations where the other isn't useful.
We're not punishing you for using a knife.
We're punishing you for thinking you can use grand melee swordfighting tactics in a shootout, when you could be skulking around and stabbing people running through doorways.
There's also dashing across the battlefield in heavy armor while your allies lay down cover fire. If they concentrate fire on you, then they get picked off by your allies, who no longer need to worry about getting shot in return, while if they focus on your allies, you're able to close into melee range and destroy their fortified position.
What's the long answer?
I usually present guns as "uh yeah if you're packing heat everywhere people are gonna assume you're a psychopath or prepared for the worst". Establishments don't exactly allow guns to be carried inside, y'know? So it's not like you can carry a Japanese sword either, but it's easier to find a sharp object or a long blunt weapon laying around.
I still wouldn't recommend someone go "all in" on melee though.
Or you know, you live in the hundreds of settings, historical periods or places IRL where carrying a weapon is entirely normal.
Or you live in the other ones that are more down to earth.
Don't get me wrong, 2016 is a miserable time for humanity, but calling out realism seems weird considering the many good reasons for gun laws.
I'm gonna sign off on this discussion though, not because childish "[drops mic and walks away] victory" but because it's a bit too political for the thread.
This seems like a big problem in settings with "energy shields that stop bullets but not swords" it pretty much sidelines the players who didn't put much skill into melee or forces them to put some skill into melee. Just in case the GM throws a group of guys at you with shields so you don't get completely fucked because "whoops I'm not good with swords"
I hope you realized you just put the thread in serious danger of derailing.
Saying that Earth both in the past and present is not 'down to earth' is not political, its just silly.
it could be as simple as saying that guns still work against shielded enemies, they're just not as effective. so it's better to have a melee specialist on hand but if you don't, you can still manage.
blades dull over time, guns take longer to malfunction
>How do I balance tabletop RPG characters using melee weapons in a sci-fi setting where guns are powerful, practical and ubiquitous, without ripping off Dune or Star Wars?
EZ. Have melee and health use the same stat.
I agree, but as much as I have to bite my tongue and not me hypocritical, the GM should run things based on his player's, not the other way around