So I was doing a sci-fi campaign and players of course wanted to play robots
The trouble is letting one player play a self-aware tank makes combat balance ridiculous.
Anyway how's this for a solution, all self-aware robots are 'Asimov non-compliant', they're simply unable to harm humans at all. Even in self defence.
They'll still stronger tougher and faster than humans however, as well as being less prone to anger or fear making them popular for the more respectable security and law enforcement agencies.
They also have no programming restriction on wrecking other robots sentience or otherwise.
Gameplay why is it means robot players are Kung Fu Monk meet shields. They still get to do superhuman stuff, as well as 'drone mop up' but they can't pick up a gun and mow people down.
Anyway do you think that keeps robots...well robots will still be in fun and playable?
Jack Ortiz
Selectively omit details from your sensors or selectively deactivate them so you do not detect humans. You can now move and act with impunity. After all, the laws preventing you from harming humans require you to detect them first.
Don't try to justify it. Your cybercores hold your digital spirits as you defeat Dr. Reaver's cyber gorillas to prevent him from reaching the Data Star.
William Rodriguez
I think OP was using non-compliant to mean "doesn't have to follow the laws" as opposed to incompliant meaning "actively goes against the laws. That being said...
This would mean the first law of robotics is still in effect, isn't it? Presumably with less restrictions about collateral damage and so forth, but it's still in effect. Etierh way it does seem an intersting restriction with potential for drama: >"If they won't listen to our orders, how do we know they won't decide to disobey their only remaining law huh? And we can't trust 'em now they can look out for themselves!"
Daniel Smith
I guess it could work but I wouldn't allow more than one person to be a robot and it might make sense to have them be an especially advanced robot that is part of the plot of the campaign
Anthony Cox
Just make EMP a thing so enemies have a way to stack debuffs on them.
They tank the hell out of shit, crush people with their bare hands, eat five times as many bullets as their allies, but dude pops an ion grenade and they're clutzing around struggling to perform motor functions unless they reboot.
Connor Flores
Id maybe change it to unable to kill or maim and force them into a non lethal path. It would force them to try something potentially new and also open up the path for recurring enemies and other such complications that stem from leaving your enemies alive.
Ryan Gray
or even have areas where robots aren't allowed to go, similar to how recording equipment isn't allowed in sensitive areas
Jonathan Barnes
The first obvious problem is that 1st law full wording is: >"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." That means robot running on it can't let his team-mates kill his enemies, unless the enemies are somehow not people.
James Carter
These are fucking shit ideas and will only piss the player off.
Jackson Kelly
It's hardwired in. You can't fool it because science. The Machines only speak in whispers of the the robot who, and scared of robot children with the stories of the Iron Judge who travel through time and space to drag jailbroken robots to silicon hell to serve as sentiment spam bots.
It's really about trying to justify it as is keep the game playable.
Otherwise my only option is to say robots that exactly the same physical capability as humans and human like aliens, which is frankly lame.
It's been reduced 'to do no harm'. Robots on under any programming obligation to human follow orders per say, but do tend to be subservient if sassy towards humans
Angel Wright
If self aware tanks are a common thing in your setting, so are antitank rockets.
Adrian Mitchell
Robots are like airplanes. They have a legally mandated Black Box that logs everything they do and can be read with a court order. If you need to do something dodgy, you can't let the robot see it.
Brandon Bell
Robots can be hacked. The tank is now paralyzed, or on the other team.
Gabriel Cox
Robots lack subltety. Forget stealth, half a ton of servos and plasteel makes noise.
Carter Phillips
Won't it be easier to make other tech on the same level as robots?
For example there is not that much of a difference between a man in power armor and a heavy military robot. Yeah maybe robot has a little higher chance to survive some hits that get through armor but depending on weapons used even that is not guaranteed.
Jordan Harris
Robots need energy and maintenance. Your human is happy with a bed and a steak dinner. Your robot needs to find a charging station and keep his firmware updated. Wounds don't heal, they get repaired, and that isn't necessarily cheap.
Tyler Thompson
And neither one is welcome at a fancy dress party.
Jason Gutierrez
>The trouble is letting one player play a self-aware tank makes combat balance ridiculous if you're using a system that's built around combat
I seem to remember watching an anime where a tankbot gets solo'd by a tiny Japanese cyborg girl.
But really you could just talk to your players and explain that you're not interested in running a game where they subvert their programming to KILL ALL HUMANS.
Michael Allen
>It's been reduced 'to do no harm'.
Robot logic could then break down actions until something else is hurting the human, not him.
i.e.
>"You killed that guy!" >"A car hit that human and I have merely let it happen" >"You were driving it!" >"You'll note that I have not changed direction at that exact moment, and so, strictly speaking, haven't been 'driving' at the time, merely resting my arms on the steering wheel"
Cameron Allen
>The trouble is letting one player play a self-aware tank makes combat balance ridiculous.
If the game is built around combat, it'd not let realism get in the way of things.
Pick an effects based game, and go from there.
Levi Carter
Or just don't make the playable robots walking tanks? It's not like there isn't precedent in the genre.
Dominic Walker
I think what's most important here is communicating what type of game you want to run, while also hearing from them the type of game they want to play.
Maybe, a self-aware tank just isn't a good idea if they are going to want some combat. And it would be best to not blindside your party and let them make combat-focused characters and impose Asimov on them.
I think you might have to reach some compromises.
Jonathan Roberts
Didn't Asimov write stories where humans told the robots that only 'us' are humans but not 'them' people so they got their killbot armies anyway?
Carter Flores
>I seem to remember watching an anime where a tankbot gets solo'd by a tiny Japanese cyborg girl. This? m.youtube.com/watch?v=s0fzIAYRVAI
John Jenkins
Letting the player be a giant tanky murder machine from the beginning and then throwing anti-robot weapons at them is stupid.
Instead have your PC start out as a weak-ish service robot which upgrades itself into a combat monster at the same rates your other player races do. Make this part of the contract between the GM and the player.
Lucas Wilson
also robots that were clever enough learned they could murder individual people since "human" also means the collective of humanity, so long as the robot could rationalize a way to some kind of greater good, they could do whatever they wanted.
The long running webcomic "Freefall" actually explores this really well.
Liam Clark
Not sure what your problem is. This is, of course, system-dependant, but generally I'd treat a robot vehicle similar to one piloted by a Shadowrun-style Rigger.
If a player wants to be a tank, and that's somehow way more firepower than you were anticipating, consider and implement the vulnerabilities of actual tanks.
That big gun is good against big hard targets, but it's harder to hit human-sized opposition with it. Especially if that opposition is superhumanly fast and/or stealthy. And there's a limited arc of fire, so anyone who manages to get up close can attack with impunity (force open an access hatch and toss in a grenade). Tanks might also be killed quite effectively at range with anti-tank weaponry, quite possibly from ambush.
Basically, read through en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare and be sure that your encounters include foes that can meaningfully engage a tank, such that the tank player needs the support of his infantry-bot fellow PCs in order to live.
Jason Edwards
>Tank robot >Unable to harm humans
Not even BOLOs are that dumb.
Simply put him into situations where his large size would be a liability, such as tight corridors where the player has to carefully plan just to be able to navigate them, or areas with tricky walls where he can't bring his cannon to bear forcing him to think creatively to be a force to the party. As a tank, most gear upgrades he'd get would of course be prohibitively expensive and probably not encountered until late game, so mid-game things will balance out where earlier his stock configuration would faceroll things is now no better than what his considerably smaller party members are able to carry on-person.
It's possible to be a tank among men and still squeeze challenge from the situation. There is a reason that tanks and infantry operate together, after all.
