PDA

View Full Version : How do I depict World War III and It's Aftermath From A Psionic Soldier's POV?



Leliel
2007-10-20, 01:44 PM
My class has been studying WWII as of late, and during a period of free time I wondered "Hey, what if I added a magic-analouge to an already chaotic conflict?" I'm not one for alternate histories, so...

How does WWIII begin? Who are the major players? What does it look like from the battlefield? How do widespread psychic powers factor into the mix? When do I set it? How does one depict a civillazation that survived the entire war with technology intact? How does it end, and what should the world look like after it's all over?

Of course, the opposing sides won't be dumb enough to launch nuclear weapons non-stop, so some of the world will survive intact, post-apocalyptic settings be dammed (Altough the parts that were used as the main battlefield will certainly look like them). I also want to avoid the "superpowered atomic mutant" cliche as much as possible (Although "purposefully engineered superpowered mutants" are fine). And before anyone asks, the "psionics" are going to resemble Warhammer 40K's system, only less dangerous and with not all daemons being hostile to humanity, though they will certainly manipulate us so that our emotions can feed them (Hey, manipulation can be for a good cause you know).

*Imitates soldier*: GO! GO! GO!

StickMan
2007-10-20, 02:47 PM
Well as far as who the major players are I think the United States V China.

Here is why, The United States and China are the two world superpowers world super powers tend to not get along historically and they often go to war. Taken in to account that the United States and China work on apposing government systems, Democracy v Dictatorship, so we are not so much in the sharing of power. Next reason, we have a set of things that happen to go war with china.

1. Taiwan declares independence from China which they want to do.
2. China declares war on Taiwan.
3. The United States and allies has said that if China attacks Taiwan we will protect it.
4. WWIII.

Now who is on who's side:
Good guys (Yes I'm passing judgment): United States, European Union (Hey Germany gets to be the good guys in a world war), Japan, South Korea.
Bad guys: China, Iran, North Korea, Other rogue states.
Up in the air wild Cards: Russia I'm not sure who they would side with for to many political reasons to list on this board.

Now the other stuff well I'll get to that later, man now you've got me wanting to run this as a game I may just actually. More on that later if I stick with it.

Solo
2007-10-20, 02:50 PM
Bad guys: China, Iran, North Korea, Other rogue states.

Is this a typo, or are you implying that China is a rogue state?

StickMan
2007-10-20, 02:54 PM
Is this a typo, or are you implying that China is a rogue state?

Well I'm not I Iran and North Korea are often depicted as rogue. And I would never say that the United State's largest trading partner is rogue even if they do violate most basic human rights that the international community agrees on, in regard to there own citizens. Or that I think that once China has the tec to back up there army they will try to take over the world.

kpenguin
2007-10-20, 03:09 PM
I sense a great disturbance... as if a thousand well-meaning threads cried out and were suddenly locked...

Keep down on the politics, guys.

Renrik
2007-10-20, 03:38 PM
WW3 will not happen.

No, that doesn;t mean that world peace will come about. There's still going to be another big war. Porbably bigger than WW1 or 2, maybe even put together.

But it won;t be called WW3. The two world wars were basically the same ongoing conflict in many ways. WW2 was a continuation of WW1, after several decades of a breather. But now, the geopolitical causes for the world wars are mostly resolved. The next big war will be called something other than World War 3. Besides, there's so much hype about WW3 that every time some big conflict breaks out, a bunch of nutjobs say it's WW3. But it's not. World War 3 will be called something like... The Nuclear War,or the Chinese-American war, or the Jerusalem War, or the Kashmir War or something like that. It will not be called WW3.

Maroon
2007-10-20, 03:58 PM
Instead of any possibly biased/thread-imperilling/outright distasteful versus propositions, let's just call it capitalism vs. communism in public. Both have good and bad sides, but seeing as it's war-time we'll probably only really have to consider the bad attributes, instead of resorting to 'freedom vs. opression' or 'evil CEOs vs. equality'.

Capitalism, and to a greater extend the USA, will try any means neccesary to get a monopoly on psychic powers. They'll make contracts, use gene therapy, et cetera, on these individuals to make them super soldiers. Communism will already have a monopoly on psychic powers because they're the state, and will start special institutions, forced subscription, et cetera, to train these individuals to make them super soldiers. The only difference is that the capitalist super soldiers are led to believe they had a choice and the communist super soldiers just do what needs to be done.

As for the psionics itself, it'll probably be integrated with existing technology. As in, seers will be integrated with war simulators, telepaths will establish FTL-networks and in a worst-case scenario kineticists will be put in tanks and be used as generators. Psions with the ability to teleport will be trained as super-infiltrators and assassins. Psions with the ability to create force-fields will be trained as gaurds and one-man tanks. Only the really powerful kineticists will actually be used on the battlefield.

As for the date, I really don't know. It could be next tuesday, it could be the year 3000. It all depends on how widespread you want psionics to be before the war started (which could be next tuesday).

And let's not forget to factor in the demons as well. How long have they been around? Were they always there, and we only knew because we became psionic? Or did they arrive after we became psionic? Either way, they will certainly try and use the war for their own purposes, whatever those may be. As an aside, another faction which we haven't considered yet are AIs. They could be around already, they could even be independent already depending on the course of events.

The war could possibly end after humanity figures out who was REALLY behind the war (i.e. demons/AIs/aliens but certainly not us), after which the world will be preserved in a never-ending psionic cold war. Any disputed countries would simply not be countries anymore but wasteland or colonies of one of the super-powers.

Having written all this I am actually in favour of not naming any contemporary countries at all, and just use a united Earth vs. a colonised and now autonomous Mars. But maybe this is too far into the future, I don't know.

Solo
2007-10-20, 03:59 PM
. And I would never say that the United State's largest trading partner is rogue even if they do violate most basic human rights that the international community agrees on, in regard to there own citizens. Or that I think that once China has the tec to back up there army they will try to take over the world.

...

So you aren't saying it.... except that you are....?

Leliel
2007-10-20, 04:03 PM
Please guys, could you stop the political flame war? I don't want this thread to be locked.

Kioran
2007-10-20, 04:11 PM
Well I'm not I Iran and North Korea are often depicted as rogue. And I would never say that the United State's largest trading partner is rogue even if they do violate most basic human rights that the international community agrees on, in regard to there own citizens. Or that I think that once China has the tec to back up there army they will try to take over the world.

And now I could go on how the U.S.A. impose an unjustified indirect Tax in form or their judicial system on the entire world (buy anything from a company that has, even remotely, anything to do with the U.S. or the U.S. market, and the ridiculous amounts of punitive damages will guarantee that of 1 dollar you spend, a few cents will be consumed by said judicial system).
Or that some interventions, Guantanamo and their Intelligence services, not to speak of armed forces, break human rights, international treaties (in droves), ignore the souvereignity of other states and so forth.

I won´t. It´s a moot argument, and it doesn´t belong into these here Forums. That said, the key to current warfare is logistics. Sink Aircraft Carriers, especially if you fight the U.S., and suddenly land based operations become interesting again.
But whatever happens, the next war will be short. If nuclear weapons come into play, enven shorter. But in that case, fleets at sea are really good targets - no civilians involved, crippling military casualties, and you´re breaking the backbone of any invading force. A good scenario for a limited, nuclear deployment.

Water_Walker
2007-10-20, 04:29 PM
I don't see how there can be a WWIII (at least in the sense your suggesting). Modern conflict being what it is the war would be like

Day 1

One super power launches thier nuclear weapons

Other super power retialtes

Every body dies

the end

Captain van der Decken
2007-10-20, 05:07 PM
It's probably fair to assume that they've realised that and wouldn't do it.

kpenguin
2007-10-20, 05:09 PM
I don't see how there can be a WWIII (at least in the sense your suggesting). Modern conflict being what it is the war would be like

Day 1

One super power launches thier nuclear weapons

Other super power retialtes

Every body dies

the end

That's only if technology doesn't develop some sort of counter to nuclear weapons. It hasn't yet, but it could in a few decades.

Water_Walker
2007-10-20, 05:09 PM
Please since when has politictians cared about billions of human lives

Captain van der Decken
2007-10-20, 05:16 PM
kpenguin - There'd probably be a counter to that. And a counter to that, and a counter to that, and...

kpenguin
2007-10-20, 05:18 PM
kpenguin - There'd probably be a counter to that. And a counter to that, and a counter to that, and...

Indeed. I once read a sci-fi where almost all superweapons were countered and war was waged with small units of infantry.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-10-20, 05:22 PM
Please since when has politictians cared about billions of human lives

When they were individuals with differant beliefs and opinions?

World War 3 won't happen without a charismatic figure who wants it to happen. I suggest you make one up.

The first world war happened because of the Alliance system. This is less likely to happen again. The Second World War kind of absorbed the already ongoing Sino-Japanese war, so this could happen again.

So how about this:

1. Charismatic leader takes over a rich nation and declares war on a neighbouring country in order to increase his Empire.

2. Psychic commando squads take over the country while the UN and NATO are still deliberating.

3. Several weak states already in wars ally with the Charismatic leader.

4. NATO goes to war on the charismatic leader.

5. Nobody has the guts to use nukes, but the psychic troops deal a crushing blow to NATO forces.

6. Military forces retreat back to their homelands. Ballistic missiles cause a stalemate similar to the trench warfare in the First World War.

7. Small units of psychic troops attempt to take out missile silos.

8. Anyone who doesn't have psychic troops will start developing them.

StickMan
2007-10-20, 07:37 PM
How does WWIII begin? Who are the major players??


OK I was honestly just answering these two questions in a way that would give two sides who have a reason to go to war, who if they went to war then it would be a mass scale world war. I'm sorry when I responded to Solo's post I was more than anything responding in charter as a joke as to how the war would start.

The political shots in this thread need to stop now before it gets locked. Someone asked a question I was just trying to give him a reasonable story line to go with.

Now both Maroon and Closet_Skeleton have good points and both are a good way to go tactically. I think both give a good political climate for the campaign.

bosssmiley
2007-10-21, 10:40 AM
I don't see how there can be a WWIII (at least in the sense your suggesting). Modern conflict being what it is the war would be like

Day 1

One super power launches their nuclear weapons
Other super power retaliates
Every body dies
the end

World's biggest ever oriental happy ending. :smallwink:

Nuclear weapons have made industrial mass warfare almost impossible. It's simply too easy for a nuclear-armed power to destroy either battle formations or - if they want to cause infrastructure damage and break the enemy's will to fight - to destroy an entire home city. Oh, and don't forget the area you nuke will be irradiated for years after. That's the main reason no two nuclear-armed powers have ever fought anything worse than conventional arms border skirmishes: no one's insane enough to destroy the world and make themselves a universal pariah for a temporary gain.

World War 3 - see "Cyberpunk" and "Shadowrun" on corporate warfare (wars fought at the behest of - and to further the interests of - major corporate entities, rather than national govts). Not that anything like that would ever happen in the real world of course. :smallwink:

Don't expect massive armoured formations rolling across the landscape. Think in terms of special ops. Quick, nasty surgical strikes on major fixed assets. Morale-breaking attacks on national symbols. Denial of resources/ground spoiling attacks. False flag ops. Political assassinations. The whole panoply of asymmetrical warfare.

If it goes on long enough and over a broad enough theatre of operations even this would eventually cause disruption to trade, then a crisis in international relations and then worldwide depression on a par with (or possibly worse than) the 1930s.

drawingfreak
2007-10-21, 11:27 AM
To lessen complaints about political crap and whatnot, make it far enough in the future that we now have separate world powers from what we have today. This will also give the world enough time to develop psionics.

I'm thinking that the United Nations is now its own country limited to North America, Central America, and maybe half of South America. There could be an Oriental Union ranging from India through Japan. The Soviet Union has returned as a democracy and dominates the upper half of Asia. The Middle East now has only three dominating countries but I honestly don't know enough about the region to determine what it would be like in this setting. Europe has been split in two; the United British Empire in the east and the Vatican in the west. Don't know enough about Africa to determine its future. Australia, New Zealand, and a quarter of the Philippines are now just Australia.

Nuclear War is out of date. The new weapon eliminates all living biological material instantly within a two-mile radius. No radiation, just clouds of ash from what was once people. (blatantly stolen from the War of the Worlds movie)

Also, no bad guys (save for the demons I guess) for the sake of all this debate. Everyone involved has their own agenda with their own means to that end. The other countries don't like this. War.

Kami2awa
2007-10-21, 12:13 PM
I think it likely that there will be a conflict over the South Pole. Once the Antarctic ice melts, a whole new continent with oil and gas reserves, metal deposits and other exploitable resource (not to mention water and land), many nations are likely to start fighting over the Antarctic Continent. Plus in a fantasy world under the melting ice may be any number of lost cities, alien artefacts, mysterious obelisks, cities of the Elder Things...

As an aside, in the beginning of one of the WoD core books, there is a huge conspiracy theory which basically puts a nasty background on the whole of US history; most of it being a race to develop the atom bomb as an energy source for dark magic rituals and to reach the moon to obtain powerful magical artefacts hidden there. This may be a really good start for an alternate magical future.

Storm Bringer
2007-10-21, 12:15 PM
How does WWIII begin?
in a suprise attack by a power on a relatively minor power, like in the 1991 gulf war was started by the attack on Kuwait, or germany invading poland. agian, the event snowballs and other powers get involved.

Who are the major players?
The nations with psychic powers available. two choices here: A) the psychic powers are the result of genetic manipulation, and the players are the rich nations who can afford the gene labs, or B) the psychic powers are natural and appear in a random percentage of the populance, which would favour china and indias billion-strong populations.

What does it look like from the battlefield?
assuming the psykers are non-replaceable assets, then a major battle would still look something like a modern day one, with armour, mech infantry, and such, with the addition of the sci-fi elements of your choice: powered armour (of the starship troopers book type) is in deveopment now, high energy weaponry likewise. Expect guided weaponry to be more common, and tanks to be equiped with ECM and jamming equipment as standard. UAV's may take over the close air support role, or may not.

as to nukes and other seriosly nasty weaponry, they'd only be trotted out in really extreme situations. take for example the recent game World in Conflict, which is set in 1989 with a conventional war between the US and USSR. at one point in the story, the russians are attempting to break though a US defensive line to take the site of the SDI program (which they don't know is a scam to stop the ICBMs flying). the US forces fight to literally the death to try and stop the attack, but in the end thier is just too many russians and the defense is overwhelmed. then, and only then, do the americans deploy a nuke, which stops the russain attack dead.

the risk (or just the fear) of MAD is enough to keep the gloves on. Id say a nucular power would sue for peace rather than launch it's nukes in the event of a major defeat on the ground, and use the threat of the nukes as a barganing chip in the peace talks.

How do widespread psychic powers factor into the mix?
mainly as force multiplyers, extending the command and control abilities of the commanders by releaving the oppents plans while trying to hide yours form your foes. jobs like Intel and special forces are where you'd find the psykers, not on the battlefield.

When do I set it?
if you want a fairly contempory feel, have the psykers be discovered (or revealed) about 5 years form now, then the war about 5-10 years after that. or, for a more sci-fi setting, have the war start after a full generation or two a grown up with the psykers in thier midst, maybe 60 or so years in the future.

How does one depict a civillazation that survived the entire war with technology intact?
depends on who views it and how badly owned the losers were. if they just lost and their nation is in a state like Europe after the last few wars, then a major country that is still in one peice would be viewed as lucky swines. if the losing side is fleeing form a wasteland that's glowing green form nukes, then

How does it end, and what should the world look like after it's all over?
one side gains a position of power over the other. maybe they manage to defeat the other sides psykers, maybe they've advanced into the other sides homelands, whatever. the losing side is faced with either fighting a losing war to the bitter end and then maybe nuking the world in spite, or going to the table and declearing a ceasefire. aussming the latter, the conflict dies down somewhat and the talks drag on till kingdom come. the former, you have a classic post-ww3 set up with a both sides no longer exsistant as powers, and nations not invloved in the fight set out to exploit the power vacumn.




all the above is all IMO, and open to discussion or change if my opinion changes.

hewhosaysfish
2007-10-21, 12:39 PM
That's only if technology doesn't develop some sort of counter to nuclear weapons. It hasn't yet, but it could in a few decades.

Well psychics have already been mentioned and anyone who's ever played C&C Red Alert 2 has seen how psychic > nuke... All those missiles launching while the silo doors were still closed.

Fear my psychic phone! Or should that be "phear"?

Leliel
2007-10-21, 03:09 PM
Instead of any possibly biased/thread-imperilling/outright distasteful versus propositions, let's just call it capitalism vs. communism in public. Both have good and bad sides, but seeing as it's war-time we'll probably only really have to consider the bad attributes, instead of resorting to 'freedom vs. oppression' or 'evil CEOs vs. equality'.

Capitalism, and to a greater extend the USA, will try any means necessary to get a monopoly on psychic powers. They'll make contracts, use gene therapy, et cetera, on these individuals to make them super soldiers. Communism will already have a monopoly on psychic powers because they're the state, and will start special institutions, forced subscription, et cetera, to train these individuals to make them super soldiers. The only difference is that the capitalist super soldiers are led to believe they had a choice and the communist super soldiers just do what needs to be done.

As for the psionics itself, it'll probably be integrated with existing technology. As in, seers will be integrated with war simulators, telepaths will establish FTL-networks and in a worst-case scenario kineticists will be put in tanks and be used as generators. Psions with the ability to teleport will be trained as super-infiltrators and assassins. Psions with the ability to create force-fields will be trained as guards and one-man tanks. Only the really powerful kineticists will actually be used on the battlefield.

As for the date, I really don't know. It could be next Tuesday, it could be the year 3000. It all depends on how widespread you want psionics to be before the war started (which could be next Tuesday).

And let's not forget to factor in the demons as well. How long have they been around? Were they always there, and we only knew because we became psionic? Or did they arrive after we became psionic? Either way, they will certainly try and use the war for their own purposes, whatever those may be. As an aside, another faction which we haven't considered yet are AIs. They could be around already, they could even be independent already depending on the course of events.

The war could possibly end after humanity figures out who was REALLY behind the war (i.e. demons/AIs/aliens but certainly not us), after which the world will be preserved in a never-ending psionic cold war. Any disputed countries would simply not be countries anymore but wasteland or colonies of one of the super-powers.

Having written all this I am actually in favor of not naming any contemporary countries at all, and just use a united Earth vs. a colonized and now autonomous Mars. But maybe this is too far into the future, I don't know.

The daemons have been around as long as sapience itself has. Which is to say, much longer then humans.

Good ideas, but I don't think it should be "something else" started the war. Humans started the first two world wars, so why should this be any different? The way I see it, the bad daemons/AIs/aliens may have helped it along, but I want humanity to be ultimately responsible for it's own errors.

And once again, could we stop with the country bashing? If you want to debate it, do it in PMs, not the forums.

Dervag
2007-10-21, 05:04 PM
Please since when has politictians cared about billions of human livesSince they realized that "billions of human lives" includes them and their entire power base?

I think the people who expect a lot of unconventional war and proxy war are right. In the modern era, the economic benefits of conquest no longer outweigh the costs of waging the war in the first place. Guerilla tactics are far more common and effective now than they were a few hundred years ago, weapons have gotten more expensive to maintain, and the wealth of modern societies is now so tied up in their infrastructure that the damage to that infrastructure during any kind of seriously prosecuted war ruins the region's economy for a long time.

Even in the nearly ideal case of a nation with an easily exploitable natural resource and a weak military, conquest is only marginally viable. Therefore, it is unlikely that any nation will attempt conquest in the classical sense of marching an army into the territory of a significant rival, defeating its army, and garrisoning the rival nation. Only in the event of a full war breaking out between the two nations for some other reason is that kind of thing likely to happen.

Nations may try to conquer small, weak border nations, but are more likely to reduce them to puppet-state status (for instance, the relation between China and Burma).


Yet another option is to establish some third party, neutral in the conflict but willing and able to use extreme measures against anyone who breaks designated rules of engagement. For an example of this, see International Fleet in Orson Scott Card's 'Shadow' books. The International Fleet has weapons of mass destruction and controls Earth orbit. They are neutral in international conflicts on Earth but will intervene against anyone who attacks the Fleet or starts using weapons of mass destruction on the surface of the Earth.

Solo
2007-10-21, 05:09 PM
The daemons have been around as long as sapience itself has. Which is to say, much longer then humans.

Good ideas, but I don't think it should be "something else" started the war. Humans started the first two world wars, so why should this be any different? The way I see it, the bad daemons/AIs/aliens may have helped it along, but I want humanity to be ultimately responsible for it's own errors.


That's what the WANT you to think!

kpenguin
2007-10-21, 05:10 PM
How about an attempt to unite the Earth under a world government?

drawingfreak
2007-10-22, 01:37 AM
How about an attempt to unite the Earth under a world government?
That could be a good excuse for starting a war. In my idea, the United Nations might be the most likely to use that one.

GuesssWho
2007-10-22, 08:26 PM
How would you show nuclear fallout using D&D?

Shadowdweller
2007-10-22, 09:21 PM
As psionic fallout: Lots of insane, mentally twisted (possibly flesh-hungry?) war victims eeking out miserables existences in devastated landscapes.

Emperor Tippy
2007-10-22, 10:11 PM
How does WWIII begin?
One idiot nation is stupid enough to attack the strategic interests of the US.

Who are the major players?
The US and the rest of the world

What does it look like from the battlefield?
The battlefield is just a crater.

How do widespread psychic powers factor into the mix?
They don't. WW 3 (if fought within the next 10 years) won't even use groudn forces outside of a special forces role.

When do I set it?
Whenever you feel like.

How does one depict a civillazation that survived the entire war with technology intact?
The nation that rules the world in name as well as in fact.

How does it end, and what should the world look like after it's all over?
The US rules the world in name and fact. The UN doesn't exist. No one else gets anything like a modern army.

Without getting into politics (which deals with the reasons why such things occur or happen I'll attempt to explain).

There are about 7 different degrees of war:
1. World War in which no major power remains neutral
2. War between 2 major powers that no one else participates in
3. War by proxy between multiple major powers
4. Armed truce between multiple major powers (cold war style)
5. War between multiple minor powers that effects the strategic interests of only 1 major power
6. War between numerous smaller nations that doesn't effect the strategic interests of any of the major powers.
7. Police Action, Peacekeeping, or something like the War in Iraq (none of these are real wars, they are more political actions)

The 5th, 6th, and 7th don't really matter on the world stage. Major powers comment but they don't threaten the strategic interests of any major powers and thus won't really spread. Very little chance that they will turn into a World War. These types of wars happen for numerous reasons and the major powers pay lip service to human rights and the like.

The 4th type of war is actually one of the most stable situations in the world. All of the major players are balanced and no one really wants the war to brake out but it gives all the players an outside enemy to point to and thus reduces the likelihood of internal revolt.

The 3rd type of war rarely spreads but this is a real war, human rights are generally ignored. Fought for any number of reasons.

The 2nd type of war happens when 1 nation does something that is not nice to another nation. China nuking the US would be an example. The rest of the world sits back and the wronged power proceeds to launch a full scale, unlimited war agaisnt the country that was not nice. The rest of the world will look the other way even if you use WMD's or ignore such things as the Geneva convention. These types of wars also happen when a minor nation is stupid enough to do something to a major nation that can't be ignored, Iran nuking the US or the US forces in Iraq. If one of these wars is fought without one side doing something sufficiently bad that the rest of the world turns their backs on them then this can easily become a world war.

The 1st type of wars are what happen when someone does something really stupid. WW1 and WW2 are older examples of this type of war. But they don't work with a power like the uS involved.

Let's focus on a World War fought with the US on one side and any collection of other nations on the other side. Ground forces have to be moved from the attacking nation to the US. Mexico and Canada don't have the ability to invade so these forces would have to be shipped by boat (flying tanks is a pain). Moving the ground forces to the US could never be done secretly and the US Navy and Air Force would sink the ships before they landed.

So some nation just made the foolish mistake of attempting to invade the US (or attacking it with WMD's). The US response is hyper war. Special forces are deployed to capture air fields in your nation or a neighboring nation if the US doesn't have allied bases in range. The Navy and Air Force launch full scale, unrestricted warfare agaisnt you. Every power plant, military base, dam, government center, industrial center, and anything else that the US doesn't like goes boom. The US forces leave and go back home. Internal turmoil tears the nation apart, or someone else invades on the ground.

Now if WMD's were used on the US it goes slightly differently. After taking out the offending nation the US tells the rest of the world that they can't have WMD's, the US will never risk being attacked by them again. Give them up or we disarm you. A couple of nations are foolish enough to call the threat and the US destroys them, without using WMD's. The rest of the world gives them up and that was WW3.

Any war with the US in it anymore is already over. Extreme Air and Sea superiority ensure that.


----------------
Your best bet is making the war take place around 2050. Around 2025, with the invention of commercial Fusion power, the US said screw you to the rest of the world and withdrew from the world community. The US still trades with other nations but it takes no public position on anything any other nation is doing (and very little private position). The only rules the US enforces are "Don't attack the US and don't use WMD's". Say in 2035 someone was stupid enough to violate one of the rules (the WMD one seems likely). The US responds with overwhelming force and destroys the whole nation without any regard to civilian lives or anything else. The rest of the world gets the message and follows the rules from them on.

In 2050 the rest of the world goes to war for some reason or other and the US stays out of it, it still trades with both sides but stays completely neutral. The war is over and most of the world is messed up, few cities survived, lots of people killed, etc.

You have your civilization that still has technology while still having a post WW 3 world.


(if anyone wants to debate this contact me over AIM, its to political an issue to continue on these boards.)

bosssmiley
2007-10-27, 03:38 PM
How would you show nuclear fallout using D&D?

Swingeing ability damage with a DC of "on a 20, maybe...". Fallout is anti-heroic though, so D&D doesn't really model it well.