# Gunpowder, fantasy and you



## Jon_Dahl (Nov 10, 2010)

Do you generally like gunpowder weapons in a fantasy setting? Of course if you play steampunk or some other bit more futuristic fantasy, gunpowder is natural addition but how about in a more standard fantasy setting? FR, Greyhawk, Eberron... Do you avoid it at all cost or find it as a flavorful part of the setting?

In my games (D&D 3.5 / Greyhawk) I allow gunpowder weapons as they are in DMG, but it tends to have dire concequences if you natural 1's... Weapon explodes, permanent blindness, you lose fingers etc. When a PC uses a gunpowder weapons, it's more about flavor than having some extra edge. It's a sacrifice really.

NPC's don't use gunpowder weapons because they are too dangerous to use. If PC's wanted to develop better weapons, I'd look into that case-by-case-basis. Decent gunpowder weapons could change the setting and the flavor dramatically.

Also gunpowder weapons can't be enchanted but I do find the idea very intriguing... Very much indeed but I better not take that road.


----------



## David Howery (Nov 10, 2010)

I allowed them in my FR campaign, way back in 2E days, but I also drew up my own system for misfires/problems, based on my own experiences with black powder shooting... not so much 'da gun blowed up in your face!' stuff, more things like 'gee, you haven't cleaned your arquebus in a few weeks, that'll be -2 to hit', 'oops, the matchcord didn't ignite your powder', slooooow reloading times, and whopping range penalties for anything beyond 50 yards.  So basically, the chances of a misfire were high, chances of hitting your target were dismal... but if you did hit, you had the chance to do some hefty damage (particularly with blunderbusses at short range... ouchie).  In general, the players preferred to stick with swords and bows, using guns when the enemy was out of reach and they had plenty of time to shoot...


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 10, 2010)

If there is a logical reason to use science over magic, then yes.  Perhaps there is a race that cannot use magic, even the greatest of magical implements does not work for them, so they use science.  Maybe magic is rare, so most people use science for their day-to-day needs.

Otherwise, no.  Everything that can be done with science can be done with magic, only cooler.  Why use a gun if I can shoot a fireball from my fingertips?  Why use a bomb when I can summon demons?

And, as you already mention, when magic fails, who cares?  But when a gun fails?  Oh now that's bad news.  Why would anyone want to risk using a weapon with a fairly high rate of blowing-up-in-your-face over something that just fizzles when nothing happens?

So that's me, if there's a logical reason to use science, then there can be guns.  If magic can do everything science can, but better, then society would likely have never developed the necessary technology to invent guns.


----------



## Stormonu (Nov 10, 2010)

I have a mixed reaction - they fit in some games, but not others.  They are a part of the lore of places such as Warhammer fantasy, but the 83 version of Greyhawk explicitly bans them, and they are the product of Gond worshippers in the Forgotten Realms, so it really depends.

In my homebrew, I have a nation that relies on gunpowder weapons, but I've had some difficulty rectifying why their use hasn't spread across the nation.  For now, I've settled than those with the secrets are under geas not to reveal the secrets to others, as well as the fact the gods have no intention of letting them proliferate.

PS: Are you also using laser rifles, power armor and assault rifles because they are in the DMG too?  The mere mention of something in the DMG in of itself does not make it's inclusion mandatory in the game.


----------



## Stormonu (Nov 10, 2010)

shidaku said:
			
		

> And, as you already mention, when magic fails, who cares?  But when a gun fails?  Oh now that's bad news.  Why would anyone want to risk using a weapon with a fairly high rate of blowing-up-in-your-face over something that just fizzles when nothing happens? [\QUOTE]
> 
> That's something that bothers me too.  If your game system doesn't account for the fact that swords snap, bowstrings break, and magic can backfire why single out guns for misfires?
> 
> For the most part, my gun rules for fantasy games equates them to single-charge wands with a crossbow's reloading time.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2010)

The biggest problem with firearms isn't guns, muskets, or the like but barrels of gunpowder.  If you introduce the gun, you also introduce 'put 100lbs of gunpowder under the problem and light a match'.


----------



## Jon_Dahl (Nov 10, 2010)

> Are you also using laser rifles, power armor and assault rifles because  they are in the DMG too?  The mere mention of something in the DMG in of  itself does not make it's inclusion mandatory in the game.




No I don't use them. Yes I know that there a lot of optional stuff in DMG and I don't have to use them all in my game.



> That's something that bothers me too.  If your game system doesn't  account for the fact that swords snap, bowstrings break, and magic can  backfire why single out guns for misfires?




In this case you need to look it at a different perspective... You need to see it as something that is perilous as poison. If you roll natural 1 with a normal weapon, that's fine. With a poisoned weapon most of the time it's not fine. Even applying the poison can be a bad idea.

So I have adapted this peril-factor from poison to gunpowder weapons too, because they are both kind things that need to be kept under control so that their use isn't constant.

You may agree with me or not, but I've find this approach highly useful.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 10, 2010)

It depends, mostly on the setting.

In my own homebrewed campaign, I have sunpowder- which is basically sunlight turned into a volatile powder that is a lot like gunpowder, made only by certain rare orcish sects of sun-worshipers (there is a lot of backstory here). There are sunpowder weapons, but they are pretty rare.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 10, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> That's something that bothers me too. If your game system doesn't account for the fact that swords snap, bowstrings break, and magic can backfire why single out guns for misfires?



Well of course they can.  But primitive guns were almost more prone to breakage than to working.  Even a basic sword breaks only on the rarest of occassions and under the most specific of circumstances.  And depending on the manufacture of the sword and the era in question, swords could just as readily bend.

 Jon_Dahl's comparison to poison is a good example.  Loading a gun, lighting a gun, pulling the trigger, all of these were good ways for a gun to explode in your face.  Swinging a sword was only ever a way to break a sword in the rarest of occassions.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Nov 10, 2010)

Depends on the setting.  I tend towards swashbucking and steampunk in my own campaigns, so naturally guns are present.  But in more traditional fantasy settings?  If guns simply "haven't been invented yet," okay, that's a fine reason to exclude them.  The player characters, in that case, of course have no excuse to even imagine guns, never mind try to invent or acquire any.  

On the other hand, the one thing I won't ever countenance is the idiotic "because-it's-fantasy" handwave.  As in:
A - "Gunpowder doesn't work in this world.  You know, because it's fantasy."  
B - "But if gunpowder doesn't work, then combustion and other basic laws of chemistry don't work, and so neither does metabolism, and, and..."
A - "But... it's fantasy!"
B - "THAT'S NOT AN EXPLANATION!!!"


----------



## luckless (Nov 10, 2010)

I will happily accept a world without gun powder and explosives, but I will NOT accept "Its FANTASY! Guns don't fit in with all the other technology!" as an excuse.

If your setting has complex plate armour, long swords, etc, then you're right up there with gun powder weapons on Earth's Technological time scale. (No, really, go read some history of warfare text books. We had guns _before_ head to toe suits of plate armour. Armour didn't disappear because of guns _came_ around.)

Personally I enjoy firearms for Hail Marry weapons, and unique combat. High power hits with drawbacks: Failure, explosions, long reload times, smoke clouds. (Really, using a black powder weapon in a cave, after a few shots you now have limited visibility.)

As for "We have magic!" as a reason for lack of "Science", I don't really buy it. For the amount of effort that a mage has to go through to harness magical energies,... And the amount of alchemy we often see in fantasy worlds, do you really think the 'magic' to turn a pile of horse dung into a giant fire ball is going to go unnoticed for too long?

Magic is not a logical reason to avoid science unless magic allows 100% effortless actions to do _anything_. Otherwise people are going to look for an easier way to do something.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 10, 2010)

I like them myself, it gives the laypeople a way to deal with monsters and magic that they normally would be helpless against. Then again, I love FR and the Gondsmen there who made said guns. I also don't have the "OMG they blow up" consequences. Essentially, they're like crossbows, except re-skinned. You can get silver bullets, cold iron bullets, etc., but the PC had to make them (finally a use for Craft). It gave them something to do during down time while spellcasters scribe scrolls, copied spells, brewed potions, made magic items, etc.

Here's an interesting analysis where they use the Flintlock Pistol, Blunderbuss, and Grenado (go to 20 minutes in for the Flintlock, which fails to penetrate the plate mail chest plate & Blunderbuss @ 25 min. which performs much better blowing through the chest plate.):

http://www.spike.com/full-episode/pirate-vs-knight/31860


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 10, 2010)

luckless said:


> As for "We have magic!" as a reason for lack of "Science", I don't really buy it. For the amount of effort that a mage has to go through to harness magical energies,... And the amount of alchemy we often see in fantasy worlds, do you really think the 'magic' to turn a pile of horse dung into a giant fire ball is going to go unnoticed for too long?
> 
> Magic is not a logical reason to avoid science unless magic allows 100% effortless actions to do _anything_. Otherwise people are going to look for an easier way to do something.




That's my point though, science ISNT easy.  It too years and years of trial and error from people around the world to get guns to even where we see them in their first incarnations as gigantic rocket-launcher-sized weapons in China.  It takes education, study, and lots of people with expendable fingers.  

In fact, mages would probably be the most likely people to develop guns as they are likely some of the most learned people around.  Some farmer doesn't just go out into his field one day and come home with a rifle.  And while guns do combust under the same principles as composting material, the mechanics are entirely different.  

Science isn't easy, and the people who figure it out are likely people use use magic, which means they're going to continue to use magic to make science easier.  Which means that instead of seismographs to look for fault lines they're going to scry the earth.  Instead of remote tools to put things together they'll use summoned minions(like a mage hand).  And instead of fire, they'll use some kind of magical orb to ignite the gunpowder.

Science struggled to battle "alchemy" for centuries because it was so complicated, diving the truth from rocks and chicken bones was actually easier.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 10, 2010)

You! Shall not! Paaass!





Linky


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm fine with settings that say "Guns don't fit our milieu," but right now I'm writing the campaign guide for E.N. Publishing's next campaign setting, which does involve technology. Our premise is that one region got hit with a magical cataclysm, and latent energies in the area made spellcasting hazardous or impossible, so people there turned to earthly sciences to replace sorcery.

I figure eventually some mage is going to figure out, "Hey, I can make alchemical components that explode when mixed. If I put these under pressure, and give them only one way to move, I can shoot projectiles like a crossbow, maybe even faster. I wonder if the same principles apply to steam in a vessel. Hmmm."


----------



## Mallus (Nov 10, 2010)

Generally speaking, I don't mind firearms in my D&D settings, though I'm more partial to having 'ancient high-tech' gear lying about. In for a flintlock, in for a laser pistol I always say (actually, I've never said that before).

In my group's current setting, most of the guns are the work of a mad artificer-priest who worships the God of Guns, the Juddering Manxome. Each weapon is made in His image, and each shot is literally a prayer. I suppose there are a few more mundane firearms around, but mostly black powder is used to manufacture bombs and fireworks, both of which are fairly easily gotten.

We don't bother, much, with attempts at logically extrapolating the effects of this, or any other technology, or magical technology on the setting. Sure, we bother a _little_... but it's usually done as a parody.


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 10, 2010)

Personally, I've always liked how the Forgotten Realms handled the issue of guns/gunpowder.

There, gunpowder weapons are largely the invention of the church of Gond, which has a reputation for creating things that are wonderful and elaborate...and difficult to operate, oftentimes dangerous to the user, and can usually be replicated with either hard work and/or magic.

So yes, gunpowder weapons are out there, but if you really want to kill someone at a distance, a longbow works just as well as a rifle, and is generally less expensive, less loud, and less likely to blow up on you if it misfires.

Moreover, most governments make gunpowder and weapons based on it illegal, since they recognize the dangers it presents - not just in terms of explosive failures, but of how dangerous guns can be if they ever become widespread. Which, of course, means that there's a (comparatively small) black market out there for such things.

I think that's a great way to have firearms integrate into a high-fantasy world.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 10, 2010)

If by fantasy you mean "pseudo-Euro-Medieval fantasy" then no.  

If I've set my game in a pseudo-18th century, then perhaps there will be muskets.  But probably not in a pseudo-14th century or earlier.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2010)

Jack Daniel said:


> On the other hand, the one thing I won't ever countenance is the idiotic "because-it's-fantasy" handwave.  As in:
> A - "Gunpowder doesn't work in this world.  You know, because it's fantasy."
> B - "But if gunpowder doesn't work, then combustion and other basic laws of chemistry don't work, and so neither does metabolism, and, and..."




Woah there.  Yes, combustion and the other basic laws of chemistry don't work.  There are only four elements: fire, water, air, and earth.  So, for example, if you perform a caloric test by grinding a cannon in bath of pure water, you will eventually reach the point where the grinding produces no further heat because the caloric (the fire element) will be gone or at least dispersed.   Chemistry therefore works according to no laws that you understand.  ZERO.  Zilch.  Your physics and chemistry knowledge is worthless.   Now, does this mean that human metabolism doesn't work?  No.  It simply works according to other laws.  On the main, these laws create a physical universe that largely resembles our own and which, in a superficial inspection, would appear identical.  A close inspection however would reveal many startling differences of behavior (neither mass nor energy, for example, is conserved).   Most obviously, magic works!  A full treatis on how the physics and chemistry of this world works is not something I owe you.  Producing such a magnum opus would probably be more than the work of a lifetime.   When it is relevant to the campaign, your characters that have appropriate skills will be able to produce the appropriate technobabble and draw appropriate conclusions from the data they gather from a close observation.  Otherwise, you may assume that your character certainly understands the world better than you do, and perhaps understands it better than even I (the worlds creator) could.



> A - "But... it's fantasy!
> B - "THAT'S NOT AN EXPLANATION!!!"




Yes, I'm afraid that it is.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 10, 2010)

I'd say they're an optional, but compatible, element of fantasy. I haven't used black powder in a game in years. And I've never used guns.



Celebrim said:


> The biggest problem with firearms isn't guns, muskets, or the like but barrels of gunpowder.  If you introduce the gun, you also introduce 'put 100lbs of gunpowder under the problem and light a match'.



He he. The one time I used black powder in my games was for exactly that. The invading army had barrels of gunpowder, before they could light them though, the wizard blew them up accidentally. In retrospect, I should have seen that coming.



Jack Daniel said:


> On the other hand, the one thing I won't ever countenance is the idiotic "because-it's-fantasy" handwave.  As in:
> A - "Gunpowder doesn't work in this world.  You know, because it's fantasy."
> B - "But if gunpowder doesn't work, then combustion and other basic laws of chemistry don't work, and so neither does metabolism, and, and..."



This seem kind of disingenuous, given that fantasy setting regularly break the laws of physics as we understand them. Take the second law of thermodynamics, fireball breaks it. Many, many, 5th level wizards take it and use it, but where does the fire come from? Where does the energy come from? We don't have to answer these questions because it's magic, it's supposed to break the laws of physics.

The same goes for Magic Missile. What is it made of? Force isn't a material. Also, where does the material come from? Where does it go? Are the dungeons littered with Magic Missiles? Does force decompose? 

I had a player who wanted to use the 3.5 version of Passwall to make a cannon. (This was theoretical, he wasn't trying this in-game.) I told him that in a world where _you can create and destroy energy and mass_ is likely to have _very_ different set of Laws of Physics.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 10, 2010)

The traditional D&D setting resembles the cusp of the high Medieval period and the early Renaissance, and thus I am comfortable saying it can go either way. Certainly _cannons_ should be present in any D&D setting advanced enough to have articulated plate armor unless you deliberately choose anachronism.

LOTR is more similar to the so-called "Dark Ages," the early period of the Crusades, and hence has neither extensive gunpowder nor articulated plate armor, and crossbows are rare.

From a reality standpoint, a musket is in no danger of supplanting a longbow in effectiveness well into the 18th century. Despite good penetration, muskets are frankly slow, inaccurage, and have a fairly short effective range compared to the longbow (although it is possible, in theory, to make longer distance sniping shots with a well-tuned musket). Ben Franklin actually wanted to base the Revolutionary army on a longbow corps, but it was deemed impractical to acqurie so many longbows, or enough hired longbowmen to build effective fighting units particularly if it involved hiring many mercenaries. Guns don't overtake muskets in effectiveness until the late 18th and even early 19th century; the rise of gun warfare during the imperial era of US history had more to do with training issues and availability of bows than with the guns actually being more deadly. The Plains Indians did embrace firearms until the availability of rifling; prior to that, many battles were fought successfully using mostly traditional Amerindian bow and arrows. 

So... unless you are planning on introducing rifling, or the Gatling gun, or you are making the breastplate omnipresent, there is no really good in-game reason why muskets should have superior combat abilities in D&D, even in a milieu that resembles a later era.


----------



## luckless (Nov 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> But probably not in a pseudo-*14th* century or earlier.




You mean a pseudo-era-of-development-of-firearms-in-Europe setting? If you disallow firearms because they are 'too modern', then the same would apply to full plate, longswords, and reliable steel.


As for "Science is hard, therefore we would only use magic if we had it", I still call bull. Science _is_ hard, but not everyone in most settings can use magic. Either way why would people stop researching?

Science is hard only because the tools and thought process required to do them are hard to build. Fantasy is full of great and powerful magic users who delve into the mystic arts and research of the universe. What makes you think they wouldn't use that magic to further aid what we know of as science?

If you have a mage who can control fire and use it to accurately heat and shape materials, such as iron or glass, then he is going to have an easier time building the tools (Such as advanced optics) to explore the nature of things. If diamond dust is used to cast spells, don't you think at least one of those mages would be interested to know more about the nature of diamond dust?

Real Magic and Science aren't opposites, if magic was real it most likely would _be_ a science.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 10, 2010)

luckless said:


> You mean a pseudo-era-of-development-of-firearms-in-Europe setting? If you disallow firearms because they are 'too modern', then the same would apply to full plate, longswords, and reliable steel.




You can also add rapiers, 90% of what we consider to be classical martial arts, a legal requirement for marriages to be solemnized, and shoes that are specifically for the left or right feet.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 10, 2010)

Used blackpowder weapons with 3.5 and _Pathfinder_. Published a set of rules for the same. No problems with them in the game.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 10, 2010)

luckless said:


> You mean a pseudo-era-of-development-of-firearms-in-Europe setting? If you disallow firearms because they are 'too modern', then the same would apply to full plate, longswords, and reliable steel.




The hand cannon and arquebus became common in Europe in the 15th century (the 1400s).  For the 14th century and earlier, I'd ignore them.  

You will note that I didn't say why I would not include them.  It is a tad more complicated than "It is too modern".  But, since you didn't even bother to ask, I don't think you're particularly interested in hearing my reasoning.



> Real Magic and Science aren't opposites, if magic was real it most likely would _be_ a science.




Whether or not it could be a science would depend upon how the magic worked.  One can imagine a magical system upon which the scientific method is thoroughly ineffective.

For example - the scientific method depends on the laws governing a phenomenon behaving reproducibly.  If I take action X, and get result Y, pretty much every time I take action X, I will get result Y (with margins of error for my not doing *exactly* X each time).

So, if magic does not act reproducibly, such that effect does not follow clear cause, then science would fail to apply.

Divine magic, for example - if the operation of magic is dependent on the will of a fickle divine being, then it might well remain impenetrable to science.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Nov 10, 2010)

I agree that it depends on the campaign setting.

I kind of like the approach that many of the Final Fantasy games take. Yes there are guns, but plenty of people still use swords, because swords are cool.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Whether or not it could be a science would depend upon how the magic worked.  One can imagine a magical system upon which the scientific method is thoroughly ineffective.




It also depends on one's definition of "science". Limit "science" to "that which uses the scientific method" and magic might not pass the muster.

But in most games, that wouldn't be the case. These components plus this expertise equals this result, all things being equal.

Also, "science" has only recently been thought to be limited to "that which uses the scientific method". For a huge hunk of human history, "science" meant something a lot closer to "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". Thus, philosophy and theology were widely considered sciences, as was history.

IOW, just because magic might not work according to the scientific method doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be considered a science even if it isn't a science.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 11, 2010)

It's not that simple.

There are some fantasy settings in which gunpowder is definitely appropriate and fits the flavor. For instance, I would expect to see flintlocks and cannons in a swashbuckling pirate setting. There are other settings where it doesn't fit at all, like one based on Arthurian Britain. And there are many settings where it could go either way.

I hardly ever use firearms in my homebrew settings, partly because I lean toward a mythic/fairy tale style and partly because I don't want the bother of managing player expectations*--players who aren't history buffs need to be brought up to speed on the many, many differences between a flintlock musket and an AK-47. Still, I could imagine running the aforementioned pirate scenario and including them.

[size=-2]*Also, my players are heavily dependent on the Character Builder these days, and the CB doesn't have stats for firearms.[/size]


----------



## Umbran (Nov 11, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> IOW, just because magic might not work according to the scientific method doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be considered a science even if it isn't a science.




Admittedly, I am using a simplified definition, simply because you can write an entire book on the question, "What is science?"  On the other hand, if you use wibbly-wobbly definitions, you can have the Mona Lisa be a work of science.

Have it as you will.


----------



## amerigoV (Nov 11, 2010)

In the past, no - I would not consider them. It is not a "thats not fantasy" reason for me. I played WOW for awhile and the gun-toting dwarves did not bother me one bit. 

D&D/d20 does not do firearms well IMO. I grew with 1e, and a mid-level fighter could just stand in an open field and arrows were irrelevant, if they even hit. I know you can build some pretty nasty archers in 3.5/4e, but that impression that missile weapons were "weak" still sticks with me. So I just could not wrap my mind around using firearms in D&D (ie, if I hit with a gun, it should damn well HURT - the fluff of HP just does not compute for me for guns, even though I can almost hand wave it for bows).

But I switched to Savage Worlds. That system grew up with a wild west background, and thus gives missile weapons their due (ie - get your butt to cover!). Its wound system works nicely across all genres, so I can see putting in some of those weapons or running some Old School stuff where PCs find advance tech in a crashed spacecraft, etc. 

So, if the system supports it well, I have no problem with guns in a fantasy setting.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 11, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> This seem kind of disingenuous, given that fantasy setting regularly break the laws of physics as we understand them. Take the second law of thermodynamics, fireball breaks it. Many, many, 5th level wizards take it and use it, but where does the fire come from? Where does the energy come from? We don't have to answer these questions because it's magic, it's supposed to break the laws of physics.




The last campaign I ran followed normal laws of physics, with the difference that there are parallel realities and energy can permeate between this world and those. All energy has to come from somewhere, and magic is the result of people figuring out that how it all works.

Fireball is a powerful spell, and so it's complicated, but it works like this. You use thoughts and words to create the local conditions in this world that let energy seep through from another world. You gather the energy you need, and use more thoughts and words to form it into a fiery bead. Then you use yet another element of the incantation to propel the bead where you want it to explode.

Bulls**t pseudo-science, but it let me explain why magic worked the way it did, and encouraged the PCs to go find locations where the barrier is weaker, and planar locations they could tap more easily. A very Magic: the Gathering-esque logic to it all.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Divine magic, for example - if the operation of magic is dependent on the will of a fickle divine being, then it might well remain impenetrable to science.




Or all priests would just become psychiatrists, con men, or marketing executives (but I repeat myself) specialized in making divine entities _want_ to give them these things.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Nov 11, 2010)

I struggle to understand why firearms would be developed in a society with as much readily available offensive magic as the D&D world.

Also, in the real world, the musket brought an end to the armored knight, a staple of fantasy gaming. It changed combat significantly, to something that I would say is much more "modern" that what I want in a fantasy game.

I prefer to keep guns away from fantasy, in general.


----------



## amerigoV (Nov 11, 2010)

Ahnehnois said:


> I struggle to understand why firearms would be developed in a society with as much readily available offensive magic as the D&D world.




'Cuz stupid/ugly/airheaded people cannot cast spells. But they are still mean and like to kill stuff. Plus, I bet they can go get more bullets before the caster can get their spells back


----------



## Jack Daniel (Nov 11, 2010)

Ahnehnois said:


> I struggle to understand why firearms would be developed in a society with as much readily available offensive magic as the D&D world.




Swords are a technology.  Is it a struggle to understand why the sword was invented in a world where offensive magic exists?  What about agriculture?  That's a technology too, but it seems pointless when the tribe shaman can _create food_.  By this kind of logic, I should think that fantasy worlds ought never to have any inventions or civilizations at all.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 11, 2010)

Jack Daniel said:


> Swords are a technology.  Is it a struggle to understand why the sword was invented in a world where offensive magic exists?  What about agriculture?  That's a technology too, but it seems pointless when the tribe shaman can _create food_.  By this kind of logic, I should think that fantasy worlds ought never to have any inventions or civilizations at all.




You'd still need agriculture since it's necessary for the creation of beer. Unless, I guess, that shaman had a _create beer_ spell. Then all bets are off.

One thing that's always puzzled me in these recurring firearms-and-fantasy threads is the idea that firearms must be treated realistically to a degree that nothing else is subjected to the same treatment. Thus, firearms take forever to reload, they explode or misfire often, they do horrendous amounts of damage, they punch right through armor, et cetera (and ignoring the fact that this realism is often not terribly realistic).

The firearms system I used in my game wasn't designed to be realistic. It was designed to be usable, balanced with other mundane weapons, and fun. I think I achieved those goals pretty well.

The PCs coveted firearms, especially the flintlock pistols. Most combats started with a volley of bullets followed by a quick charge for melee. One player's character ended up with several matchlock pistols thanks to aggressive looting. He kept smouldering wicks tied in his beard so that he could more quickly bring his pistols to bear.

Realistic? Hardly. But it was a hoot.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 11, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> The biggest problem with firearms isn't guns, muskets, or the like but barrels of gunpowder. If you introduce the gun, you also introduce 'put 100lbs of gunpowder under the problem and light a match'.



Not at all. Gunpowder works however you want it to work.  It can be a magical substance or alchemical.  If you want it can be no more powerful than what's needed to propel a small metal ball out of a tube no matter what quantity it's gathered into.  It can obey or defy whatever physical laws you want it to - just as, say, dragons do by flying.

The ONLY problems arguable with firearms in the game are either that of flavor/crossing genres, or if the DM does make them excessively powerful.


----------



## luckless (Nov 11, 2010)

Ahnehnois said:


> I struggle to understand why firearms would be developed in a society with as much readily available offensive magic as the D&D world.
> 
> Also, in the real world, the musket brought an end to the armored knight, a staple of fantasy gaming. It changed combat significantly, to something that I would say is much more "modern" that what I want in a fantasy game.
> 
> I prefer to keep guns away from fantasy, in general.





Actually, professional armies brought the era of the armoured noble knight to an end, not firearms. After all, suites of full plate armour rose along side the firearm. They didn't come onto the field for centuries before, and then suddenly disappear overnight when guns hit the fields. Design and development of armour has as much to do with fashion as it did with warfare. Economics and the redevelopment of cheap sheets of steel also had a big hand.

The pike and disciplined formations who could hold rank against a charge, and still be flexible enough to move as a unit on the field, limited the ability of a knight to crush infantry. Add in the ever increasing armour that was affordable to a greater part of an army, and then suddenly you have a bristling hedge hog that horses won't charge against, and can more easily survive volley fire from archers.

We eventually find a relatively inexpensive counter to heavy cavalry of the late medieval/early renaissance era with what became common infantry. Horses are expensive, and eventually it became cheaper to keep large trained infantry units than enough cavalry to truly equal them on the field.

Firearms did not drive the knight from they battlefield, they killed off the bowman instead. Bowmen were expensive and hard to train. Good bows were hard to build, required a large investment in time and money before they could be fielded, and their ammunition was bulky and required a lot of skilled labour to produce. The firearm on the other hand, could be put in the hands of anyone, given a days training, and be marginally effective on a battle field. The total time required to go from raw materials to finished product was far lower for firearms, start to finish could be days for an ordered gun, where as it could be months for a bow. (Wood had to be properly seasoned, iron/bronze didn't.) Ammunition could be produced by very limited skilled persons with only very basic training when properly supervised, and vast stores could easily be stockpiled and moved in a very compact volume as compared to arrows. 

The truth is, basic firearms are seen in Europe from the 1300's onward, and possibly earlier, and they go right along side a vast majority of things people take for granted in 'fantasy'. I'm sure you can understand how lines like "It doesn't fit the period!" can really annoy people who study and enjoy history.


Don't want firearms? Then say they are nearly unheard of in the world, a fool's toy. Those who are smart enough to understand and safely use firearms are too 'upper class' to put up with staining their fine clothes with such foul smoke, or have magic that makes a cannon look like a fire cracker, and that lesser people who could actually benefit from them think guns are devil spawn and fear them too much. 

Or claim they were viewed as dishonourable, and no one caught with a gun or gun powder would be trusted, or even strung up in the town square.

Therefore guns stayed as an oddity that never took off, like the electric car. 

Don't claim they "don't fit" exactly where they did in history.





Mark Chance said:


> Most combats started with a volley of  bullets followed by a quick charge for melee. One player's character  ended up with several matchlock pistols thanks to aggressive looting. He  kept smouldering wicks tied in his beard so that he could more quickly  bring his pistols to bear.
> 
> Realistic? Hardly. But it was a hoot.




Actually, that sounds a lot like real combat with primitive firearms,  smoldering matches included. Fire the loaded weapons, then charge. A lot  of early firearms were even made as basically maces: Shoot it, grab the  end of the barrel, and bash people's heads in with the pommel of the  pistol's grip.

Smoldering matches in the beard does put you in a sticky spot when it  comes to a botch however.


----------



## lin_fusan (Nov 11, 2010)

Personally, I'm more interested in the mechanics-of-play and game design side of things:
1) If a firearm is better than a bow or crossbow, then players (and I assume smart NPCs) will prefer them over other weapons, so a GM should be prepared for his/her campaign becoming firearm-centric.

2) If a firearm is worse than a bow or crossbow, then players will refuse to use them, and it will eventually die out of the campaign.

3) If a firearm is exactly the same as a bow or crossbow, then it's a flavor thing.

4) If a firearm is more swingy, such as doing terrible, terrible damage but with a chance of exploding in your face, does that give players more choice, and does that enrich play? (It's like Wild Magic, when it works, it's an accidental "I win" button, but when it fails, the rest of the party thinks it's a waste of time.)

I'm sure there are other considerations that I haven't figured out yet...


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 11, 2010)

luckless said:


> Actually, that sounds a lot like real combat with primitive firearms....




Hmm. Bad paragraph structure on my part. Mea culpa. The smouldering wicks in the beard was a bit over-the-top, but the player just loved the idea so much, how could I say no? 

My firearms could also be used as melee weapons. Had one instance where a PC whomped a drunk, unconscious pirate on the head with a pistol. The coup de grace didn't kill the pirate. Instead, the pirate woke up, screaming about how he was going to gut one of his drinking buddies, who he assumed had whomped him for fun.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Whether or not it could be a science would depend upon how the magic worked.  One can imagine a magical system upon which the scientific method is thoroughly ineffective.




I cannot.



> For example - the scientific method depends on the laws governing a phenomenon behaving reproducibly.  If I take action X, and get result Y, pretty much every time I take action X, I will get result Y (with margins of error for my not doing *exactly* X each time).




Yet there must be some actions X which are spells, as opposed to all the things that are not. 



> So, if magic does not act reproducibly, such that effect does not follow clear cause, then science would fail to apply.




It would be impossible to practice. However, science would be necessary to uncover various ways in which to avoid casting horrific spells.



> Divine magic, for example - if the operation of magic is dependent on the will of a fickle divine being, then it might well remain impenetrable to science.




Howso? I can think of nothing more interesting to science than the verifiable existence of powerful, reality-bending entities. Simply determining some pattern to their interests, however capricious, would eclipse all other fields of endeavor in importance. What use to build empires, when an inscrutable entity might turn an empire, overnight, into a vast garden of talking turnips? In the face of superenatural superpower, nothing would be more pertinent than science.

The only things impenetrable to science are things that have no causes behind them, which describes... nothing.


----------



## luckless (Nov 11, 2010)

lin_fusan said:


> Personally, I'm more interested in the mechanics-of-play and game design side of things:
> 1) If a firearm is better than a bow or crossbow, then players (and I assume smart NPCs) will prefer them over other weapons, so a GM should be prepared for his/her campaign becoming firearm-centric.
> 
> 2) If a firearm is worse than a bow or crossbow, then players will refuse to use them, and it will eventually die out of the campaign.
> ...




Personally I like the option of modeling early Firearms as more powerful than bows or crossbows, but with shorter ranges and other drawbacks: Harder to reload, ammunition can be very hard to come by, it is LOUD so everyone in the area is going to know you just fired it, cause limited 'obscuring mist' like clouds (A drawback or a bonus, depending on the location.), and lastly, walking around with a sack of gun powder at your hip is not the best of ideas if you're fighting something that can breath fire,...




Mark Chance said:


> Hmm. Bad paragraph structure on my part. Mea culpa. The smouldering wicks in the beard was a bit over-the-top, but the player just loved the idea so much, how could I say no?




There are references to the smoldering match/fuse being tied into hair or stuck under hats. Blackbeard is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 11, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> The PCs coveted firearms, especially the flintlock pistols. Most combats started with a volley of bullets followed by a quick charge for melee. One player's character ended up with several matchlock pistols thanks to aggressive looting. He kept smouldering wicks tied in his beard so that he could more quickly bring his pistols to bear.
> 
> Realistic? Hardly. But it was a hoot.




The way I'm gearing them is intended to fit with the current Character Builder, so you can equip 'crossbows,' and make a few quick changes to get a gun. This might change when I see the new Character Builder.

The basic gist is, a pistol is a hand crossbow and a musket is a crossbow, but they are brutal 2, high-crit, and load 2 standard (it takes 2 standard actions to load, and you can't quickload it with powers like twin strike). So you might carry a loaded pistol or musket, fire it, then charge into combat.

The 'Firearm Expertise' feat works like all the other weapon expertise feats, and it's special bonus is to reduce load time to a minor action. So for the cost of a feat, you can basically get a brutal 2, high-crit crossbow, which I think is about equivalent to spending a feat to get a superior weapon.

That's where I am right now. I'm open to suggestions to make it more interesting.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 11, 2010)

My favorite periods for gaming are the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries - the so-called Age of Reason.

Magic is becoming a science - rules are being codified. Arcane magic is not sanctioned by the Faith, though one major church does License it (think Papal indulgences), which leads to frictions between the faiths. (Including the spread of a fictional book titled De Re Magica)

Science is _also_ becoming a science - the rules of observation propounded by Thales are coming into play. Experiment is becoming a matter of proof. And the printing press has given birth to the multiple record and the cross reference. Practices once kept as trade secrets are now being spread and utilized over a wide are (including the real book De Re Metallica).

Gunpowder is well understood, and has become a martial proficiency, but tactics have not yet fully caught up with the ramifications (units of handgunners thirty ranks deep...), but new schools of warfare are being born, allowing smaller armies to stand off against larger but less efficient ones (think the Dutch schools of warfare).

I lean toward short ranged, high damage gonnes, without the armor penetration that some insist on (crossbows were actually better at that then guns, so good that they were forbidden by the church). Handgonnes were faster than crossbows, but less accurate at range, and poor at piercing armor. 

So I do like guns in my fantasy, but run with an atypical period.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Diamond Cross (Nov 11, 2010)

People are forgetting one thing.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

And personally I've always wanted to be in a colonial era setting myself.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 11, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> People are forgetting one thing.
> 
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.



Ah, but, as Isaac Asimov once asked, is magic indistinguishable from advanced technology?


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 11, 2010)

RangerWickett said:


> That's where I am right now. I'm open to suggestions to make it more interesting.




Shoot me an email to *mark* at *spesmagna* dot *com* and I'll get you a copy of my firearms rules. They are geared for _Pathfinder_, but could be helpful.


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 11, 2010)

luckless said:


> As for "Science is hard, therefore we would only use magic if we had it", I still call bull. Science _is_ hard, but not everyone in most settings can use magic. Either way why would people stop researching?




Research is expensive and complex. There has been very little research into mechanical computing post-1950. There has been no space probe ever sent to Pluto. Leprosy has got a miniscule share of the medical research dollars. Just because something is there, doesn't mean that it lures researchers.

As for magic being a science, there's no reason to assume that magic can be experimented with successfully. All magical research may be scrabbling to transcribe the words of magical creatures, and any experimentation may be more likely to cause a quick and painful death then any useful results. 

Personally, I like cannons more then guns; I can see a role in making guns something 0-level NPCs are handed and sent out to fight wars with, but not something that PCs would actually use. If the barrels of gunpowder is a problem, then they're simply not stable; anyone who doesn't want to die a quick death needs to keep gunpowder in smaller containers.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 11, 2010)

I said "yes" even though my answer is actually "no."  However, my actual response of "No, actual rifles without the stupid fumble rules or black powder garbage belong perfectly fine in fantasy" didn't appear to be in the poll, and "yes" was the next best answer.

I haven't read the thread but if "verisimilitude" was brought up once congrats you are objectively wrong.


----------



## Leatherhead (Nov 11, 2010)

The main reason why people don't "mix" guns with fantasy?

Gun rules are convoluted. I bet if the rules for guns were traditionally simpler, like say as simple as using a crossbow, then they would be more accepted. It's really the same problem grapples and the katana have had for so long.

If anything most people can tolerate "point and click" guns in fantasy, just look at WoW.


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 11, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> The main reason why people don't "mix" guns with fantasy?
> 
> [...]
> 
> If anything most people can tolerate "point and click" guns in fantasy, just look at WoW.




I think you're mixing two different things. Most people can tolerate them. But when I think of D&Dish fantasy, guns don't appear. LotR, Conan, Dragonlance, Garrett PI, they all lack guns. The Guardians of the Flame has guns, but as much introduced by the PCs from another dimension as local. For guns to show up, it usually has to be historical or modern fantasy.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 11, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I haven't read the thread but if "verisimilitude" was brought up once congrats you are objectively wrong.




You were the first person to bring it up. And hey, look! You're wrong!


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Whether or not it could be a science would depend upon how the magic worked. One can imagine a magical system upon which the scientific method is thoroughly ineffective.




Wrong.  I can imagine magic where the scientific method was ineffective.  But the second I had a magic _system_ it would be open season.  The scientific method can handle just about any system possible.



> So, if magic does not act reproducibly, such that effect does not follow clear cause, then science would fail to apply.




And for this to be the case, you'd need no spells to ever work twice, no possible research on new spells, and there to be no serious spellcasters.



> Divine magic, for example - if the operation of magic is dependent on the will of a fickle divine being, then it might well remain impenetrable to science.




Nope.  Just massive margins of error.  And fewer for the scientists than anyone else who actually tried to use that sort of magic.  Spellcasting would be no more than "It's good!" or "It's bad!" and a fervent hope.  That's not a magic system.  (And even if that worked, it would give the scientific method something).

Actually, there is one way to make the scientific method fail on magic.  Magic comes from an omniscient deity that gives anyone who tries to use anything approaching the scientific method selective amnesia (or worse).


----------



## Zaran (Nov 11, 2010)

I just started an adventure where the dwarven kingdom is being corrupted into Duergar.  Their ranged weapons are all gunpowder weapons.  I told my players that the muskets they have found are Superior Weapons +3 Prof, Range 20/40 d10 damage and High Crit  They also have a Move Action reload.


----------



## Leatherhead (Nov 11, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> I think you're mixing two different things. Most people can tolerate them. But when I think of D&Dish fantasy, guns don't appear. LotR, Conan, Dragonlance, Garrett PI, they all lack guns. The Guardians of the Flame has guns, but as much introduced by the PCs from another dimension as local. For guns to show up, it usually has to be historical or modern fantasy.




To be fair: You don't see many fat, furry-footed hobbits in DnD anymore. Conan is in a time before the traditional pseudo-middle ages. And Dragonlance is about DnD, not the other way around. Not that they are bad places to be in, they are simply not the end-all-be-all of DnD flavor.

Also, consider Warhamer Fantasy. 

But that's besides the point that gun rules in DnD have been convoluted to the point where even people who would tolerate guns in fantasy don't want to use them. Which I view as the greatest obstacle to having them in game.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 11, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> But that's besides the point that gun rules in DnD have been convoluted to the point where even people who would tolerate guns in fantasy don't want to use them. Which I view as the greatest obstacle to having them in game.




Were I making gun rules for (4E) D&D, I'd keep it fairly simple... damage comparable to a crossbow (heavy for musket or arquebus, light for pistol), 3 standard actions to reload, +3 proficiency bonus, brutal 2, high crit. Basically, you shoot somebody on the first round, then drop the gun and pull out a sword. I don't think misfire rules are worth bothering with.


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 11, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> To be fair: You don't see many fat, furry-footed hobbits in DnD anymore. Conan is in a time before the traditional pseudo-middle ages. And Dragonlance is about DnD, not the other way around. Not that they are bad places to be in, they are simply not the end-all-be-all of DnD flavor.




Dragonlance is one of the works that defined fantasy for many of us. I don't see any of your reply actually a response to the claim that most people don't mix guns with fantasy is because the defining works of fantasy in most people's minds don't include guns.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 11, 2010)

As I posted over at Canonfire the other week; psionics, incarnum, Tome of Magic, warlocks, Heroes of Horror, and most of the 3.5e supplements... Yes.

Gunpowder... No 

Granted, that's mainly because my past two games have been set beneath the surface of the sea. Also, my games are set in the World of Greyhawk where gunpowder "doesn't work". Not that I would stop an enterprising wizard from blowing themselves up trying to invent the stuff, of course. 

However, the deep-dwelling water dwarves, a red-skinned chemosynthetic race that dwells near hydrothermal vents and uses the black smokers to forge calciferous weapons and armor, have recently discovered ice crystals they call "Frozen Thunder"... methane hydrate. They have not yet refined it's usage, however.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 11, 2010)

Well, the question was: "Generally speaking, do muskets mix with fantasy?" 

In the most general meaning of the term, fantasy can be about anything, so that would be a 'yes'.

In the context of RPGs we're often looking at a particular subset of 'general' fantasy which often does not include the concept of muskets, but they can and do mix with fantasy in some settings. 
The same is true for fantasy novels: If they're well-written and the author spent some thought about the impact of muskets on a setting in which magic is a reality, I'm fine with it.
So the answer would be 'sometimes'.

However, personally, I dislike fantasy rpg settings including muskets (or more advanced [weapon] technology), so for me the answer is 'no'.


----------



## Rel (Nov 11, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I haven't read the thread but if "verisimilitude" was brought up once congrats you are objectively wrong.




I haven't read the thread but if ProfessorCirno acts like a dick one more time congrats he's banned.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 11, 2010)

Aeolius said:


> Granted, that's mainly because my past two games have been set beneath the surface of the sea. Also, my games are set in the World of Greyhawk where gunpowder "doesn't work".



Yet blaster pistols and rifles definitely do...


----------



## Stoat (Nov 11, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> You'd still need agriculture since it's necessary for the creation of beer. Unless, I guess, that shaman had a _create beer_ spell. Then all bets are off.




Any magic system that cannot create beer is a bad magic system.  Hence, the _Decanter of Endless Beer_.



> One thing that's always puzzled me in these recurring firearms-and-fantasy threads is the idea that firearms must be treated realistically to a degree that nothing else is subjected to the same treatment. Thus, firearms take forever to reload, they explode or misfire often, they do horrendous amounts of damage, they punch right through armor, et cetera (and ignoring the fact that this realism is often not terribly realistic).
> 
> The firearms system I used in my game wasn't designed to be realistic. It was designed to be usable, balanced with other mundane weapons, and fun. I think I achieved those goals pretty well.




I've noticed this weird quirk too.  An axe does 1d8 points of damage.  Nobody blinks.  A bullet does 1d8 points of damage, folks complain about how unrealistic it is that a 5th level fighter can survive multiple gunshot wounds.  An archer can fire off three of four arrows with lethal accuracy in a 10-second interval, and that's ok.  A crossbowman can take a feat and pop off quarrels left and right.  A blackpowder weapon that takes longer than a minute or two to reload?  Folks won't buy it.   Generally in D&D bowstrings don't break and weapons don't get dull.  But guns?   Blammo!

I like firearms in my fantasy.  When I played 3.X, my solution was to make muskets and pistols superior weapons that did slightly better damage than an equivalent crossbow.  Anyone could use them without a penalty to attack.  A character proficient with the weapon could reload it as a move action.  An unproficient character had to take a full round action to reload.


----------



## luckless (Nov 11, 2010)

I also question why people would think that magic is so unlikely to be a science.

Who made the first spells? How are new spells made? Did someone find a spell book that contained ALL the spells just randomly laying around somewhere in the forest?

Also, if magic does not function consistently, as in you can have repeatable outcomes based on the same inputs, then how do magic users function at all? If nothing ever happened the same way twice, then how does a wizard have any idea what is going to happen when he casts a spell? Why does a spell have the same spell components each time?

(Now that could make for an interesting magic 'system'. 
P1: "I cast Fireball!" 
-DM rolls dice- 
DM: "I'm sorry, your spell creates the illusion of a small mouse eating cheese. The dragon ignores it and swallows you whole."
P1: "... Right. I think I'm going to roll up a fighter now.")


----------



## lin_fusan (Nov 11, 2010)

luckless said:


> Also, if magic does not function consistently, as in you can have repeatable outcomes based on the same inputs, then how do magic users function at all? If nothing ever happened the same way twice, then how does a wizard have any idea what is going to happen when he casts a spell? Why does a spell have the same spell components each time?




I think it is reason that a lot of wizard players treat the magic system like a science on a meta-level, and start to apply real-world physics to their spells and the application of that magic. 

I think it is also telling that in the current system, if I want my fighter or thief to do a parkour/Jackie Chan-style walk up a wall corner maneuver to get up a wall, I have to roll a skill check with a percent chance of failure, whereas a wizard can cast Spider Climb and get 100% repeatable results. 

In this model, magic is repeatable and consistent, and physical acts are slightly random and not always repeatable. 

When the 2nd ed Wild Magic system came out, I thought it was a great idea because I never thought magic should be predictable and repeatable. 

And to weakly get back on topic, after reading all these posts, I really like the idea of guns being one-shot, Encounter-like powers, that do pretty decent damage but require several move actions to reload. This way, the guns have some initial impact, bows aren't classed out, and players will probably drop their guns after the initial shot and close to melee.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 11, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> The main reason why people don't "mix" guns with fantasy?
> 
> Gun rules are convoluted.




Not mine. Mine are rather simple.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 11, 2010)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Yet blaster pistols and rifles definitely do...




Some sacrifices had to be made, to allow vegepygmies into active play...


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 11, 2010)

luckless said:


> Why does a spell have the same spell components each time?




It doesn't.  Clueless wizards keep insisting on using the same spell compenents each time, and that's why they keep having different results.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, because on my campaign world the fact magic=science is actually one of my well-accepted tropes, and because I have ideas for making magic more untamed anyway that I hope to implement eventually.

However, I will say that I find it odd that spell-users don't have a certain wary terror of magic.  Frankly, I think magic ought to have more in common with a wheellock or matchlock musket filled with irregularly ground blackpowder.


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 11, 2010)

luckless said:


> Who made the first spells? How are new spells made? Did someone find a spell book that contained ALL the spells just randomly laying around somewhere in the forest?




Boccob made the first spells, and gave them to men. Occasionally new spells can be gotten out of an intelligent outer planar creature, but most "new" spells are recovery of long-lost spells.


----------



## David Howery (Nov 11, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Were I making gun rules for (4E) D&D, I'd keep it fairly simple... damage comparable to a crossbow (heavy for musket or arquebus, light for pistol), 3 standard actions to reload, +3 proficiency bonus, brutal 2, high crit. Basically, you shoot somebody on the first round, then drop the gun and pull out a sword. I don't think misfire rules are worth bothering with.




disagree with that last one, because misfires were the main hazard in early guns.  They worked fine in armies, because if 2 out of 50 gunners misfire, not so bad... but in the hands of a PC pointing an arquebus at a charging bullettte, a misfire is pretty bad.  And misfires were the real problem in those days, not 'blowing up in your face'... flintlocks were an improvement, but still misfire-prone.  
Another thing I'd add to your rules is higher than normal range penalties for medium/long ranges... muzzle-loading guns tended to fall off badly in accuracy and damage over 50 yards.
And another fun fact about black powder... you can't store it in glass or steel, because those store up static electricity charges and ... *BOOM*.  It's brass or horn for powder flasks, and brass for all the gear... and Lord help that poor PC if his flask fails a saving throw vs. a fireball...


----------



## SKyOdin (Nov 11, 2010)

I am all for guns in fantasy. Of course, I am a fan of East Asian inspired settings, where gunpowder weapons are very fitting since China had gunpowder for centuries before it reached Europe. I am also a big fan of the 16th century, where guns, archers, and armored warriors on horseback were all still major elements of warfare worldwide.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 11, 2010)

David Howery said:


> disagree with that last one, because misfires were the main hazard in early guns.




Misfires, really long loading times, et cetera, aren't worth the hassle. No other weapon gets treated with such exacting demands for realism. There's no good reason to make firearms the exception.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 11, 2010)

I always rather liked the "Red Steel" setting for BD&D which had a sorta renaissance feel to it, with musket like firearms whose 'gunpowder' was related to 'red steel' and to other things too (I seem to recall something known as 'the red curse'?).

It was a fantasy setting which embraced a particular milieu while putting its own distinctive fantasy spin on the components which made it work.


----------



## Pseudonym (Nov 12, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> One thing that's always puzzled me in these recurring firearms-and-fantasy threads is the idea that firearms must be treated realistically to a degree that nothing else is subjected to the same treatment. Thus, firearms take forever to reload, they explode or misfire often, they do horrendous amounts of damage, they punch right through armor, et cetera (and ignoring the fact that this realism is often not terribly realistic).




I've noticed the same. People who never question how a dragon flies start quoting FBI ballistic data when the subject of guns comes up. I think the easiest thing is when a setting is begun with guns already around rather than when they are introduced mid-stream.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 12, 2010)

I've got nothing against guns in a fantasy setting if they fit the mood of the setting.

However, guns would be a new technology. In other words, rare and expensive.

Really expensive. That's the biggest reason why someone would rather pick up a longbow. And it's not just the gun, it's the bullets. Anyone can make arrows with practise.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 12, 2010)

jonesy said:


> However, guns would be a new technology. In other words, rare and expensive.
> 
> Really expensive. That's the biggest reason why someone would rather pick up a longbow. And it's not just the gun, it's the bullets. Anyone can make arrows with practise.




That's one way to do it. Guns could also be an older, more widely spread technology. Also, anyone can make bullets with practice, and probably with less practice than needed to make arrows.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 12, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Also, anyone can make bullets with practice, and probably with less practice than needed to make arrows.



I don't know what you mean by that. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 12, 2010)

jonesy said:


> I don't know what you mean by that. Could you elaborate?




Making bullets for a muzzleloader isn't that complicated. It's not quite unskilled labor, but it's close to it. Arrows, OTOH, require greater skill to craft to ensure that they are tipped and fletched properly, fly true, et cetera.


----------



## luckless (Nov 12, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Misfires, really long loading times, et cetera, aren't worth the hassle. No other weapon gets treated with such exacting demands for realism. There's no good reason to make firearms the exception.




Well the extra things like long load times and potential of miss-fire all depends on if it does more damage than bows and crossbows. If they're more powerful, then they get drawbacks. Personally I enjoy the drawbacks and such, as it makes firearms _feel_ different. If they do the same damage as a bow, and fire at the same rate as a bow,... then really they're just a bow that attracts everyone to your position. And if they don't make a sound that effects the game,... then why bother?

You can add new feats and such to work with firearms: Shorten reload times, area-attack shot, treat as having a melee weapon for AOO, etc.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 12, 2010)

Agreed to an extent, luckless. I don't like misfires. Smacks too much of fumbles, which I've never cared for. Longer reload times are appropriate, but not realistic reload times. My firearms rules use this for reload times:



			
				My Firearms Rules said:
			
		

> Reloading a firearm requires a full-round action. A flintlock can be loaded ahead of time and carried ready to fire. A matchlock can be loaded ahead of time, but cannot be carried with a lit match. Setting the lit match to a loaded matchlock requires a move action.




I also include these rules:



			
				Myself Again said:
			
		

> Firearms are loud and flashy. A firearm's report and muzzle flash make it easy to detect when it's shot. The report can be heard about a half mile away in open country and about 200 yards in more crowded areas (such as a town). Listen checks are not needed to hear a firearm's report. A DC 0 Perception check (modified by range) can be used to pinpoint the direction from which the sound came. A DC 0 Perception check (modified by range) detects muzzle flash at night. Increase this to DC 10 during the day.




Damage for the most powerful firearm I statted tops out at 1d12+3, the +3 going against general weapon stat convention to represent the effects of the more efficient use of energy released from ignited powder in a longer barrel. This is mechanically similar to a high-Strength character adding his Strength bonus to damage with a melee weapon.

Rapid Reload can be used to decrease loading times for firearms similar to the same way it reduces reload times for crossbows.


----------



## Rel (Nov 12, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Making bullets for a muzzleloader isn't that complicated.




Not only is it not that complicated, it was required for nearly every early gun owner!  Those things were individually hand crafted for much of their history.  You didn't just go down to the bullet store and buy a sack of musket balls for your gun.  Most guns were sold with a mold such that the owner could make shot for his musket.  My understanding of the process was that it followed these steps:

1) Melt some lead.

2) Pour the lead into the mold.

3) Let it cool off.


EDIT:  If I was looking to represent musket era firearms in my fantasy games then I'd probably have them do a high-ish amount of damage, long reload times, and the ability to reduce the effectiveness of armor.


----------



## mxyzplk (Nov 12, 2010)

I don't put guns in every campaign world, but I don't see why not have them in many.  I wrote these firearms rules for Pathfinder (free download from RPGNow).  They have misfire and slow reloads but have exploding damage.  The way they're designed they're not really meant to be someone's primary weapon (as in shooting a gun every round for sustained DPS) - just like early firearms IRL, they are used for opening or closing punches by people who are generally doing something else or volleyed by large units.  I've been using them in a long term pirate campaign and they hit the right balance - some characters bother with them, others don't.  They're OGL, feel free and use them if they are useful. 

I almost never buy the "magic not science" line.  Very few campaign worlds have magic so pervasive that anyone can use it.  If not everyone can use it, then those other people will be happy to go for "next best".  If all castles aren't built by magic, and magic doesn't replace all the alchemical items, or indeed replace normal missile and melee weapons, then it's a nonsensical claim.  Is a crossbow not technology?  Is a longbow not technology?  Previous centuries would strongly disagree with you.  The main reason gunpowder is not accepted in D&D is a legacy concern from Gygax & friends that it would be unbalanced somehow, and then justified in odd ways.  And you do have to worry about the more explosive applications of gunpowder, but at least with early black powder it was not nearly as easy as "toss a match and it explodes like a ton of TNT" like you see on the movies.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 12, 2010)

Rel said:


> 1) Melt some lead.
> 
> 2) Pour the lead into the mold.
> 
> 3) Let it cool off..



More like this:

0. Lead is a dangerous poison. Protect your eyes, breath and hands.

1. Clean and lube the mold. You get it wrong and the bullets will be deformed.

2. Melt lead to proper temperature. You get it wrong and the bullets will crack or warp.

3. Remove lead slag. You get that in the bullets and they will be useless.

4. Set the bullets down to cool. You need to be careful or they will warp.

5. Lube the bullets by soaking in a container of beeswax and grease or something similar. This usually takes a whole night.

Fumble any stage and your bullets will be wildly inaccurate. Also, mold making itself takes some skill.

The whole thing is like a skill challenge.

And you need all the material that that requires. Longbow arrows are easy by comparison.


----------



## luckless (Nov 12, 2010)

Rel said:


> Not only is it not that complicated, it was required for nearly every early gun owner!  Those things were individually hand crafted for much of their history.  You didn't just go down to the bullet store and buy a sack of musket balls for your gun.  Most guns were sold with a mold such that the owner could make shot for his musket.  My understanding of the process was that it followed these steps:
> 
> 1) Melt some lead.
> 
> ...




4) Open mold to remove shot.

5) Snip spur and finish round. 

The powder is likely bought. While it is a fairly simple process to produce, it is far easier doing it in large, more industrial batches.

I think it isn`t till the mid or late 18th century that you see the production of shot towers to produce quality round lead shot in large amounts. Before that bulk shot was done in water dropping, which would produce slightly out of round shot. You could buy shot, but it would often require a little `convincing`before it would work. Even your custom cast shot might need to be shaved or pinched before it would fit properly. 

It took a few hundred years before barrels came close to having standard sizes, which made casting your own shot in small lots as needed rather attractive.




jonesy said:


> And you need all the material that that requires. Longbow arrows are  easy by comparison.




As someone who has done both shot casting and fletching, casting shot is *easy*. An arrow is a lot more complex than just finding a stick and slapping a few feathers on the end. They have to be properly 'tuned' to the weight of the bow so they bend around the bow properly when fired. 

As far as casting goes, the tools are simple: A mold, which you keep clean and everything is good. A melting ladle, which you make sure is dry before you try melting lead.

You really don't have to worry too much about how fast or slow you cast. You're not likely going to over heat the lead, you'll cast it when it melts. Digging the slag off of a small cup of lead is a whole of a 2 seconds job. Warm your mold a little, carefully pour the lead in, and in less than a minute it will cool enough to safely pop out.
I've never seen a manual that called for waxing the shot directly, rather you use a waxed wad as you load.

Arrows require more tools and supplies, and in the amount of time it would take a skilled fletcher to cut and shape a single arrow you could cast hundreds of rounds, even if you were casting them one at a time.


----------



## anest1s (Nov 12, 2010)

I do want to put gunpowder in my campaign, but the DMG musket and pistol looks really, really weak, and not interesting. I mean, a repeating crossbow is better.

Any ideas?


----------



## Jon_Dahl (Nov 12, 2010)

anest1s said:


> I do want to put gunpowder in my campaign, but the DMG musket and pistol looks really, really weak, and not interesting. I mean, a repeating crossbow is better.
> 
> Any ideas?




Well it's just my opinion, but I think that you could use ranged touch attacks to simulate the armor penetration ability of gunpowder weapons. Only mithril and adamantine would be excluded.

This is of course a gross oversimplification, but would get closer to the truth. I don't think the damage should be increased.

To make it a bit more accurate (but weaker), only allow ranged touch attacks within 60 ft of range. This is also inaccurate, but again a step in the right direction.

Edit: And I think because of the general inaccuracy, all targets should always have concealment. This would fix the "not interesting" part but not the "really, really weak" part...


----------



## anest1s (Nov 12, 2010)

Jon_Dahl said:


> Well it's just my opinion, but I think that you could use ranged touch attacks to simulate the armor penetration ability of gunpowder weapons. Only mithril and adamantine would be excluded.
> 
> This is of course a gross oversimplification, but would get closer to the truth. I don't think the damage should be increased.
> 
> ...




Hmm...maybe generally remove AC...because even not considering the armour penetration, the speed of a bullet isn't the same with the speed of an arrow (then again I don't know about bolts). AC is tricky. Maybe extra damage but miss chance would be better. Like +5% for every 10ft...

Or giving it a range incr. of 15, and touch attack...this way distance would count more than armour. But then, wouldn't it be very useless against crossbows hitting from very far away?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 12, 2010)

Nah, my version of fantasy does not include guns. Fantasy with guns is a different genre to me, and I don't play or run that genre.

I will be starting up a Modern game soon, and that will have guns of course, though it won't be fantasy. I do do Deadlands, and it has lots of guns.


----------



## Kraydak (Nov 12, 2010)

In _theory_, I have no problem with gunpowder in my fantasy.  In _practice_, the properties that separate firearms from other weapons (bows and melee weapons) tends to interact badly with gaming systems.  Guns are slow, but hit extremely hard.  A brace of pistols fills the same role as having your 3e Wizard loading two Fingers of Death, and save-or-die effects generally create problems.

Guns also have the problem that there is real, workable RL data on them that people can find easily.  Admittedly, the same is true of bows, but everyone ignores _that_, and pretends bows are actually significantly more accurate than early firearms.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 12, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> In _theory_, I have no problem with gunpowder in my fantasy.  In _practice_, the properties that separate firearms from other weapons (bows and melee weapons) tends to interact badly with gaming systems.  Guns are slow, but hit extremely hard.  A brace of pistols fills the same role as having your 3e Wizard loading two Fingers of Death, and save-or-die effects generally create problems.




Why is this so? Again, why are firearms expected to be realistic, conform to "workable RL data", et cetera, when other weapons in most game systems aren't subjected to the same criteria?


----------



## Kraydak (Nov 12, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Why is this so? Again, why are firearms expected to be realistic, conform to "workable RL data", et cetera, when other weapons in most game systems aren't subjected to the same criteria?




Reskinned bows aren't guns.

I was going to elaborate on the above, but there just doesn't seem to be any point.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 12, 2010)

One of my favorite campaign settings is Forbidden Kingdoms, which in my opinion is a better d20 Modern than d20 Modern. Guns are very much the main weapons, they're accurate and deadly, and being based on pulp novels heroes routinely run though deadly volleys with minimal damage. Magic is included with a few tweaks, no spells above 5th level, and yeah, you have to make a check to cast a spell properly. Spells that would be above 5th level are presented as rituals.

Personally, I'd make 5th level 3.0 magic rituals considering that's where the "world altering effects" start.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 12, 2010)

My general rules for firearms.

0) It should be noted that the range increments for almost all ranged weapons in the PH are halfed in my campaign world.  Range increments for firearms would be similarly conservative.
1) Most 'primitive' firearms (arquebus, muskets, calivers with matchlock or wheellock mechanisms) have a reload time of about 5 rounds, with various feats probably available to lower that down to 3 rounds or so.  Thier damage is roughly equivalent to a crossbow or slightly higher depending on caliber and muzzle velocity, and they have a critical range of 19-20/x3.  Depending on construction they might have minor advantages equivalent to the sort of advantages you'd see with masterwork missile weapons of other sorts.
2) Firearms are simple weapons with easy to learn rules of operation.
3) Firearms can be fumbled in ways unique to firearms and the consequences with primitive ones tend to be somewhat more extreme than fumbling some other sort of weapon.  But any weapon can be fumbled, it's not a unique problem to firearms.

As firearms advance technologically, they begin to exhibit properties bows don't generally have:

4) High Penetration: Firearms reduce the armor bonus the target is eligible for.  Flintlocks and the like start producing +1 penetration bonuses.  By the time you get up to modern firearms, you may have penetration bonuses of +6 or more, effectively turning many shots into touch attacks.
5) High Accuracy: Firearms are easier to aim.  They get an inherent bonus to hit.  This starts out at +1 with roughly 18th century weapons, and quickly scales up to +3 or so with most weapons post the American civil war.

A squad of say Gnoll mercenaries armed with wheellock arquebuses probably inspires no more particular fear and worry to your typical PC party than the same mercenaries armed in a more traditional way (longbows, broadswords, etc.).   But a squad of the same Gnoll mercenaries armed with modern weapons (and really, anything in the last century and a half counts as 'modern' for these purposes) is considerably advantaged and represents far more of a threat than they would otherwise.  Naturally, the presence of weapons equivalent to late 18th century or 19th century technology would change the social and political landscape.   But 15th and probably even 16th century firearms would not IMO necessitate departing from the usual tropes of D&D that much, particularly given the need to accomodate magic.

None of that means however that I include firearms in my D&D settings.  There are plenty of other reasons for not wanting to include firearms that have nothing to do with realism.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 12, 2010)

luckless said:


> As someone who has done both shot casting and fletching, casting shot is *easy*.



My experience was the exact opposite. I was a real fumblefingers with the molding. So, I guess, you'd be the musketeer, and I'm the bowman. Or something.


----------



## David Howery (Nov 12, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Misfires, really long loading times, et cetera, aren't worth the hassle. No other weapon gets treated with such exacting demands for realism. There's no good reason to make firearms the exception.




in the interests of game balance, I balanced out the potential high damage inflicted with firearms with misfires, long loading times, and severe range penalties.  Otherwise, firearms are just noisy bows.  Note that this was way back in 2E days, and I used the "If you roll maximum damage on the damage die roll, roll again for more" rule.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Nov 12, 2010)

And the best thing about having firearms in a fantasy world is that you can have them enchanted like you can swords bows and other weapons.

I'd love to see a Paladin wielding a Holy M16. That would be awesome!


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 12, 2010)

*I'm going on the assumption we are talking about firearms for a pseudo-medieval D&D setting, which would make them equivalent to the early firearms from the 14th and 15th centuries.  Basically, each one a unique creation crafted by a gunsmith...



Mark Chance said:


> Making bullets for a muzzleloader isn't that complicated. It's not quite unskilled labor, but it's close to it. Arrows, OTOH, require greater skill to craft to ensure that they are tipped and fletched properly, fly true, et cetera.




*Crafting Bullets:*


jonesy said:


> 0. Lead is a dangerous poison. Protect your eyes, breath and hands. - However, this is something people in the Middle Ages probably didn't know about or concern themselves with.
> 
> 1. Clean and lube the mold/s*. You get it wrong and the bullets will be deformed. - Multiple bullets can be cast at the same time, with no significant increase in production time compared to making just one bullet (other than requiring multiple molds).  *Mold/s aquired from same gunsmith that crafted the firearm - and most likely/preferably, matched to the weapon.
> 
> ...






I'd have to agree with Mark here, and disagree with the above...no disrespect intended, but the above is significantly simpler than the following process

*Crafting Arrows:*

1. Buy or make mold for arrowheads - or buy pre-made arrowheads (ignoring steps 2-6).

2. Melt Iron or Steel to proper temperatures (Iron 2800° F, more for Steel - both require nearly five times the temperature required for lead and cannot be accomplished with a campfire - probably requires a forge/bellows).  - Multiple arrowheads can be made at once (the same as bullets), but each shaft and fletching must be individually crafted.

3. As with bullets, skim off impurities from molten metal.

4. Properly cool.  Even more so than bullets, warping will completely ruin the arrowhead and make it useless for an arrow (it won't fly straight).  Cooling too fast will make it crack, and also make it useless for an arrow.

5. Remove arrowhead from mold

6. Trim spurs and defects.

7. Sharpen

8. Find and cultivate proper wood for arrow shaft.  (Any hardwood will work in a pinch, at least for a couple of uses - but for a proper, reuseable arrow, Yew should be used to avoid excessive bending and warping with use.)

9. Properly cure the wood.  If the wood is too green or wet, the arrow will be too flexible.  If the wood is too old or dry, it may crack or snap when shot.

10. Cut and Carve the arrow shaft.  If mass producing for a military unit, a standard length is acceptable.  If for a specific archer/bow, the length should be matched to the draw distance of the specific archer and bow.  The shaft must be carved to be straight and true.  Any warping or bending will make the arrow essentially useless as an accurate weapon.

11. If meant to be reused, treat the finished arrow shaft properly (oil or varnish), so as to protect it from environmental influences (mostly warping due to moisture).  For immediate use and limited reuse, ignore this step.

12. Aquire suitable feathers for fletching (three "matched" feathers).

13. Trim feathers, retaining central shaft and one complete side of the feather.

14. Attach feathers to end of arrow shaft with either glue (need to purchase or make yourself), thread (preferably silk), or both. - Feathers must be attached in a consistent manner (either straight, or angled to the same degree to produce spin) so that the arrow flies true (doesn't "wobble").

15. Attach arrow head to arrow shaft.  This requires notching the end of the shaft without causing the entire shaft to crack or split.  Insert arrowhead into the notch and secure with wire/sinew, glue, or both.  (Also requires aquisition or production of wire/sinew, and/or glue.)

16. Balance the arrow (can be done by trimming the arrow head to decrease weight at the front of the arrow, or adding weight to the rear of the arrow - most likely lead - follow the procedures for making a bullet to produce lead weight...).



I would say that making bullets is a relatively simple process that just about anyone could accomplish, even with minimal training and experience.  Typically, bullets were made by the person that owned/used the gun, from a mold made for that weapon.  Using the wrong size bullet for your gun could range from unuseable/innefectual, to catastrophic for the weapon and firer.

Properly making an arrow is an art.  An art that was significantly more labor intensive, time consuming, and complex than making bullets.  It was also an art that had it's own occupation/trade called Fletchers.  A trade that could be, and sometimes was, seperate from bowyers (though one could be competent in both).  Becoming a Fletcher required an apprenticeship.  Gunsmithing was also a trade/occupation, but one did not need to be a Gunsmith in order to make a bullet.  As far as I know, there was no independent or seperate occupation/trade for "bullet maker".


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 12, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> And the best thing about having firearms in a fantasy world is that you can have them enchanted like you can swords bows and other weapons.
> 
> I'd love to see a Paladin wielding a Holy M16. That would be awesome!





How about this Paladin?!




*M109A6 Paladin*


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 12, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> Reskinned bows aren't guns.
> 
> I was going to elaborate on the above, but there just doesn't seem to be any point.




I agree there wouldn't be any point since I don't think anyone has suggested that "reskinned bows" are guns. I certainly know I haven't. What I was wondering is why firearms get treated with a degree of realism no other weapon is subjected to, and why this treatment is seen as good cause to exclude firearms from fantasy games.

I get the idea that firearms should be balanced against other weapons via various means, and that properties unique to firearms are a sensible way to do this. But once one starts talking about 5-round reload times, shot ignoring armor bonuses, massive amounts of damage, et cetera, one has (IMO, of course) entered a room best left empty. For example, there is no reason for firearms to inflict oodles of damage. A flintlock isn't appreciably more deadly than a sword. Get hit with either one, and you're in a world of pain (speaking realistically).

But realism in damage isn't usually a game system goal. Instead, abstraction is. Thus, a _Pathfinder_ flintlock pistol could do 1d6 points of damage, or 1d8, or 2d4, et cetera. All of these choices are arbitrary, and when I designed firearm rules for my game, I went with simple, fun, and useable. No ignoring armor bonuses. No misfires. No reload times so long so as to be unuseable as a way of balancing damage higher than anything short of a siege weapon. Et cetera.

In-game use of my rules, interestingly enough for my group, showed that the firearm's biggest disadvantage was its noise. Once those first shots were fired, any chance of catching the enemy off-guard pretty much went out the window. The racket caused by the PCs' firearms alerted guards in a way that no other mundane ranged weapon would.


----------



## lordxaviar (Nov 12, 2010)

Jon_Dahl said:


> Do you generally like gunpowder weapons in a fantasy setting? Of course if you play steampunk or some other bit more futuristic fantasy, gunpowder is natural addition but how about in a more standard fantasy setting? FR, Greyhawk, Eberron... Do you avoid it at all cost or find it as a flavorful part of the setting?
> In my games (D&D 3.5 / Greyhawk) I allow gunpowder weapons as they are in DMG, but it tends to have dire consequences if you natural 1's... Weapon explodes, permanent blindness, you lose fingers etc. When a PC uses a gunpowder weapons, it's more about flavor than having some extra edge. It's a sacrifice really.
> 
> I have followed Greyhawk as it grew and Gary said early on that because of the nature of Oerth that gunpowder doesn't work on the planet.  When Spelljammer came out, it gave a way for me to have my greyhawk players and Npc visit the other worlds and allowed for "smokepowder" to work while outside the planets actual area.  I loved that spelljammer npc's would land on Oerth and think that they were all powerful with there weapons only to have them not work. was very amusing.
> So I guess I use them and dont use them, just dependent on the locale.


----------



## Werebat (Nov 12, 2010)

I'm talking about 3.x, and the renaissance firearms mentioned in the DMG here.

IMO, these weapons are barely a cut above crossbows, not really being worth the XWP feat.  I allowed them in my last campaign, which was intended as a sort of "gamma D&D" where the main enemies were Skaven adapted to 3rd Edition, and no one took them.  No one used them because mechanically, they were far inferior to bows or even thrown daggers.

In my current campaign, I revised them somewhat.  Mechanically, they're almost identical, but I made them simple weapons.  Yeah, that means they replace crossbows (once you get the money to buy one), but you know, crossbows suck already, so NBD in my book.  The only player who is using them is the one who has chosen to specialize in them, a goblin artificer/rogue who TWFs with magic-enhanced pistols.

They are NOT OP.  At all.  They're a great choice for this character, and a better choice than hand crossbows, but again -- say it with me now -- crossbows suck.  So it's NBD.

Flavor wise, the campaign world is Eberron, and IMO renaissance firearms fit in perfectly in that campaign setting for reasons that should be obvious.

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 12, 2010)

Greyhawk also had a god that was literally just a cowboy.

So um.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 13, 2010)

Jon_Dahl said:


> Do you generally like gunpowder weapons in a fantasy setting? Of course if you play steampunk or some other bit more futuristic fantasy, gunpowder is natural addition but how about in a more standard fantasy setting? FR, Greyhawk, Eberron... Do you avoid it at all cost or find it as a flavorful part of the setting?




Avoid.

The last time I took part in such a debate, someone proved to me that handguns were being (infrequently) used in the Hundred Years' War. (The actual documents stated "hand gonnes", so they weren't cannons just being called guns. *Sigh* )

Anyway, I avoid them. Even in settings where they fit better, like most d20 Modern settings, people tend to fetishize them in a way that's scarier than katana fetishes. Because guns are not only real and frequently used, but people _actually know stuff about them_, I've had players confront me with real-life stats of really badass guns they want their characters to use. My current d20 Modern campaign takes place in the early 1970s, and I still have to deal with "really cool guns". (Modern isn't DnD, it doesn't have a magic item equivalent system, and I refuse to design one for modern guns.)

The WotC Modern boards were (and probably still are) infested with threads where people complain the gun rules aren't granular enough, a 10 mm gun should do more damage than a 9 mm gun but less than an 11 mm gun (because in real life, they do!) and players routinely just go for the biggest gun they can get, without realizing that a Barret Light 50 is a) not light b) not portable 3) not in the least big legal 4) you're better off using a sniper rifle rather than an anti-material rifle.

The biggest problem, I think, is because old guns were pretty "crappy" in real life _and_ the biggest enthusiasts about guns often insist that they be "realistic" (while ignoring the unrealism of swords, something most of us know little about anyway). So guns do big damage (you know, swords are pretty deadly too, so why not crank their damage as well?) with unfun restrictions (expensive, tend to misfire or even blow up, take three rounds to load, etc). _Realistic_, sure, so why put them into a _game_?

The main reason people used muskets and other such guns in real life was because you could more easily train 1000 guys to use guns (with a bare amount of competence, focusing on rate of fire to the exclusion of accuracy and other such traits) than 100 archers. So you've got these unreliable, barely accurate weapons, pretty handy when you've got armies of thousands of soldiers vs similar armies, but not so handy when you've got an adventuring party of four or five people! Unless you're playing Napoleonic Era Squads & Soldiers, you're probably trying to shoehorn the wrong type of weapon into the gaming construct.



Mark Chance said:


> One thing that's always puzzled me in these recurring firearms-and-fantasy threads is the idea that firearms must be treated realistically to a degree that nothing else is subjected to the same treatment. Thus, firearms take forever to reload, they explode or misfire often, they do horrendous amounts of damage, they punch right through armor, et cetera (and ignoring the fact that this realism is often not terribly realistic).
> 
> The firearms system I used in my game wasn't designed to be realistic. It was designed to be usable, balanced with other mundane weapons, and fun.




Cheers. (This is what I get for skipping 7 pages.)



luckless said:


> Personally I like the option of modeling early Firearms as more powerful than bows or crossbows, but with shorter ranges and other drawbacks: Harder to reload, ammunition can be very hard to come by, it is LOUD so everyone in the area is going to know you just fired it, cause limited 'obscuring mist' like clouds (A drawback or a bonus, depending on the location.), and lastly, walking around with a sack of gun powder at your hip is not the best of ideas if you're fighting something that can breath fire,...




That sounds ... overly complicated.


----------



## DragonLancer (Nov 13, 2010)

I'm not one for gunpowder weapons really. I like my DnD to be an earlier age. More dark ages less rennaisence.


----------



## luckless (Nov 13, 2010)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> That sounds ... overly complicated.




When you were referring to my preference of firearms being loud, higher damage than bows, slower to reload, and optionally having ammo hard to find, and cast a small 'obscuring mist'.

I have to ask, what exactly is 'overly complicated'?

They're loud. Meaning if you are trying to sneak attack a guard and not have his buddy beside him notice till you go to kill him too,... Then a gun likely isn't your best choice.

Higher damage, so you roll 2 dice rather than 1. What is complicated about that?

Slower reload, so you take two full round actions to reload it rather than 1 with the heavy crossbow. Not to be insulting or anything, but is counting to 2 really that hard for a Pen and Paper player? I would have thought we had to be a little better at math than that to actually play the game in the first place.

Hard to find ammo? If you care about counting arrows and bolts to start with, then harder to find ammo just means that you might have to hunt around for it, and your average little village in the middle of the woods might not have any for you to buy.

Dealing with smoke? How is this any harder to deal with than already existing spells that do the exact same thing, but on larger scales?

Add in a rule for it doubling as a melee weapon: You have 2 weapons, and one can be drawn instantly if the other is currently held. You roll 2d10 when you use one, and a 1d8 when you use the other. Not exactly harder than a fighter who happens to carry a bow and a long sword.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 13, 2010)

luckless said:


> When you were referring to my preference of firearms being loud, higher damage than bows, slower to reload, and optionally having ammo hard to find, and cast a small 'obscuring mist'.




The mist.



> Slower reload, so you take two full round actions to reload it rather than 1 with the heavy crossbow. Not to be insulting or anything, but is counting to 2 really that hard for a Pen and Paper player? I would have thought we had to be a little better at math than that to actually play the game in the first place.




That's not complicated. Boring though. "Guess what I'm doing this round? Fiddling with my gun!"



> Dealing with smoke? How is this any harder to deal with than already existing spells that do the exact same thing, but on larger scales?




WotC actually overnerfed darkness in 3.x for pretty much that reason. Anything that messes with LoS causes confusion.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 13, 2010)

Incidentally, D&D tech levels are all over the damn place.

You have medieval knights worshipping a greek pantheon in ren-era plate mail using a caveman-esque club and a roman shield.  Oh, and he has a 20th century morality system.  This is ignoring the futuristic alien crashes that occur from time to time and the 16th century sailing techniques and how _every other kingdom_ seems to be in a different era as far as social structure goes.

So saying firearms is "too high tech" just makes my head spin.  Compared to which of the thousands of years that D&D "tech" makes up?


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 13, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Incidentally, D&D tech levels are all over the damn place.
> 
> You have medieval knights worshipping a greek pantheon in ren-era plate mail using a caveman-esque club and a roman shield.  Oh, and he has a 20th century morality system.  This is ignoring the futuristic alien crashes that occur from time to time and the 16th century sailing techniques and how _every other kingdom_ seems to be in a different era as far as social structure goes.
> 
> So saying firearms is "too high tech" just makes my head spin.  Compared to which of the thousands of years that D&D "tech" makes up?




Ahhh... you seem to have a misunderstanding.

My campaign isn't located on the earth, nor is it an attempt to recreate a particular historical period.  Considering that there are 1024 (ish) active deities regularly visiting the planet, a 12000 year old written history, three significant dark ages, regular commerce with other universes, seven major and dozens of minor sentient species, and an entirely different underlying basis of physics and chemistry, I don't find it particularly surprising that its not easy to peg any nations culture to a particular real world century or corner of the planet.   I have nations ruled by vampires, centuries old alchemists, immortal demigods, ghosts, genni's, spells, sentient curses, living artifacts, and plain old ordinary autocracies in more flavors than Baskin Robbins.  Longbowmen go into battle besides wooly mammoths, stone golems, and griffin riders.  There are plucracies, kritarchies, cryptarchies, diarchies, theocracies, matriarchies,  syndocracies, magocracies, and gerontocracies.  Overflowing polythiests that would baffle a pious Hindu vie with fanatical atheists that think the whole divine thing is just a collective delusion.  People burn witches at the stake, and there are nations where magic is so prevalent that fireproof cloth is an ordinary craft industry.  There are vast areas still in the stone ages, and if you aren't careful you might stumble into a war machine left over from a culture that blurs Clarke's Law and Niven's Law past the point of recognition.

And the scary thing is that the real world in any given century is probably more diverse.

But no firearms.  It's "too high tech".


----------



## Derren (Nov 13, 2010)

Can muskets work in fantasy? Considering that I recently read _Temeraire_ (Napoleonic wars + dragons) it certainly can.

Generally, "Fantasy" can pretty much mean anything so of course firearms can work with some of its variations.

The question here rather seems to be "Can firearms work with D&D"? Well, they can, but not very well.

D&D characters are very hard to kill because of the HP bloat and easy healing. That means that slow firing weapons like most firearms have a huge disadvantage as even with high damage they won't take out an enemy in one shot and by the time they are ready to fire again the enemy might have been healed.
And, when addressing the 4E rules specifically, the enemies who can be killed in one hit from a firearm can also be killed by a hit of anything else. So again a fast rate of fire is prefferable to slightly higher damage (which, compared to the HP of the enemy is rather insignificant).

The generally short encounter range in D&D also makes ranged weapons less valuable.
That combined means that in D&D most of the time you can't kill enemies with ranged weapons before they get into melee range.
In other systems were characters and enemies have less HP, muskets become a lot more viable while still being balanced as they are slow firing.

When you want to add firearms to D&D imo the historic version works much better than the romantic one.
The "romantic" image of firearms are slow firing, extremly dangerous (to both users), armor piercing superweapons.
That leads to extremly long (for D&D combat) reload times, touch attacks, exploding criticals and pretty fatal misshaps. And that all combined means no sane person ever wants to touch a gun.

Now historically, guns weren't better than bows for a long time till rifles came along. The reason why they still replaced them for mass combat was that they are very easy to build and use. 
If you use that rationale behind firearms in D&D they would be simple weapons everyone can pick up while crossbows would be martial and bows superior weapons.
No special rules required except that muskets have a slight load time (move actions). That should work rather well when you want to add them to your game.

If you still want to give muskets an extra punch, add a bajonett to them, so the user can decide to reload them or to charge without the need to switch weapons (or to enchant several ones).

Oh, and by the way. Firearms existed as early as the 10th century in China. So actually most weapons already used in D&D are more "high tech" than early guns.
And you don't want to know when rockets were invented...


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 14, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> And the best thing about having firearms in a fantasy world is that you can have them enchanted like you can swords bows and other weapons.
> 
> I'd love to see a Paladin wielding a Holy M16. That would be awesome!




Listen up, you primitive screwheads. This is my Holy Avenger.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 14, 2010)

Rel said:


> EDIT:  If I was looking to represent musket era firearms in my fantasy games then I'd probably have them do a high-ish amount of damage, long reload times, and the ability to reduce the effectiveness of armor.




Guns are radically effective against armor. Except... breastplates and full plate will stop them, so they shouldn't get a bonus against that type of armor. So, what we need is a special chart that compares weapon type to armor worn...


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 14, 2010)

Jon_Dahl said:


> Do you generally like gunpowder weapons in a fantasy setting? Of course if you play steampunk or some other bit more futuristic fantasy, gunpowder is natural addition but how about in a more standard fantasy setting? FR, Greyhawk, Eberron... Do you avoid it at all cost or find it as a flavorful part of the setting?




It's a flavor thing for me but no, I don't allow them. No steam engines either. In years gone past I would usually make them explicitly not function in my world. My gaming group doesn't like them either so these days, I don't even worry much about whether they could work if they were ever invented or not, although if push came to shove I would probably have the physics of the world not support it (hey, the world allows magic and flying dragons, so clearly, it isn't earth physics.)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 14, 2010)

The more I read about historical combat, the more surprised I am at what ages they turn up. When reading The Hussite Wars, these series of crusades take place through 1419-1436. Lots of guns of various types in play according to the author. And YET, one of the most famous heroes is Jan Zizka who is depicted in several statues, with one eye and a mace. 

To me, there appears to be room both guns if theGM is willing to accomadate them.

And Sunswords. Don't forget the Sunswords.


----------



## Funkenstein23 (Nov 14, 2010)

My crew has the very awesome fan-made martial controller Guerilla as a standard class. Plus, my group doesnt know it yet but they are right about to get to a huge city of industrious hobgoblins and humans, absolutely famous for making the best rifles in the world. I just dont see the issue with guns in a fantasy setting. In any historically accurate setting it'd be nuts, but in our high fantasy setting? It's whatever man. We already got sky pirates, magic trains and talking weapons so whats wrong with a couple kobolds with sniper rifles? Considering how awesome "kobolds with sniper rifles" sounds, I'm gonna say not a thing.


----------



## Orius (Nov 14, 2010)

Ah yes, Fantasy Gun Control again.



Celebrim said:


> The biggest problem with firearms isn't guns, muskets, or the like but barrels of gunpowder.  If you introduce the gun, you also introduce 'put 100lbs of gunpowder under the problem and light a match'.




That can be a problem, but probably the DM should make the effects similar to a 10d6 _fireball_.



Leatherhead said:


> The main reason why people don't "mix" guns with fantasy?
> 
> Gun rules are convoluted. I bet if the rules for guns were traditionally simpler, like say as simple as using a crossbow, then they would be more accepted. It's really the same problem grapples and the katana have had for so long.
> 
> If anything most people can tolerate "point and click" guns in fantasy, just look at WoW.




This could be it too, but I think Gary is largely to blame here, what with banning guns and gunpowder in Greyhawk.  I think a lot of players do it simply because he did.  Guns exist normally enough in the other tradtional kitchen sink settings, Mystara and the Realms, so it's not like they're that out of place.

Really, the rules could be simple.  The gun fouls on a 1 and needs to be cleaned before reuse.  What's a realistic time for cleaning a black powder weapon?  Maybe the smoke adds temporary concealment.  Certainly the noise should kill any attempts at stealth, though any sustained combat really should be noisy enough to do that.  Keep them simple, the damage relatively moderate, and they should be fine.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 14, 2010)

Orius said:


> This could be it too, but I think Gary is largely to blame here, what with banning guns and gunpowder in Greyhawk. I think a lot of players do it simply because he did. Guns exist normally enough in the other tradtional kitchen sink settings, Mystara and the Realms, so it's not like they're that out of place.




I don't think that is much of a factor at all. I've always banned guns, never played Grayhawk and didn't realize he banned it there (nor do I really care one way or the other).

It's really pretty simple why I and I'd venture many ban guns: guns aren't in my concept of high fantasy. I don't recall any guns in LOTR. Many people want to capture that feel or something along those lines, or high middle ages or some other setting that doesn't have guns in it. Moreover, guns both feel "modern" and therefore detract from these high fantasy settings or pose a whole range of problems for world creation (if there are guns and gun powder, why are there castles? In the real world, castles went bye-bye fairly shortly after cannons showed up.)

Now that's not to say you can't have a fun setting with them in there but for people who choose to omit them, I really doubt it is due to setting created a very long time ago.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 14, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Guns are radically effective against armor. Except... breastplates and full plate will stop them, so they shouldn't get a bonus against that type of armor. So, what we need is a special chart that compares weapon type to armor worn...



Actually... they aren't much good at ignoring armor. Modern weapons are, but the guns of the 15th - early 19th centuries were not much like modern guns at all, in that regard. Heck, a 18th C. Australian outlaw managed pretty well with a suit of homemade plate, for a time. (Ned Kelly.)

In fact smoothbore guns are worse against armor than a crossbow. A crossbow pretty much ignores everything except plate - and with a square or triangular headed bolt will ignore that pretty well too, though makes a smaller wound. The problem is that heavy crossbows are ssslllooowww, much slower than even a muzzle loading gun.

One of my hobbies is firing blackpowder weapons - and there are things that are seldom addressed by games. Smoke is very thick, and on a foggy day hangs around for a long time, and gives you a wicked cough. The stuff smells like rotten eggs. (I typically call it 'The Devil's Own Flatulence.')

From experience: 
A bullet would do a better job of blowing through a 1 inch thick board than a crossbow, but a crossbow bolt would go through a quarter inch of steel that would bounce the bullet right off. 

You can fire a wax candle through a 1 inch board using a smoothbore, and the candle wil remain largely intact, and can still be lit. I kind of expected it to go 'splut'.  

I knew someone who was present when someone ended up with a freakin _hot dog_ through his arm, the idiot firing it expecting it to go 'splut'. 

The lesson here? Things fired from a gun don't go 'splut'!

I have had almost no experience with either match or wheellock, mostly I have used the much, much more reliable flintlock. (Flintlocks were cheaper, faster, and more reliable than wheellocks - there's a reason that they spread so fast.) 

My favorite gun is the Land Pattern Musket, or Brown Bess. Under field conditions the Bess would fail one out of sixteen shots, but since I have always had time to properly clean between each shot, I have never had a shot fail. (Or, to put it another way, I have never fired the gun under real field conditions - where you just don't have time to clean your gun properly.) A friend of mine has a Bess that saw over a century of service - what you might call a reliable weapon, if you were given to understatement.

The balls are big, and slow, and soft by modern standards - not much good for popping armor, but what it could do to bone was not pretty. Bones would not just be broken, but pulverized. (This got worse, right up into the ACW - in the ACW sometimes the bone was so damaged that amputation was the only option.) 

Good plate was most often 'proofed' - the armor smith loading a pistol, taking ten steps back, then firing at the armor. The resulting spall was often decorated. The aror was 'bullet proofed'.  (Yes, that's where the phrase comes from.)

On the other hand, there is a reason chain went away - the links would be driven into the flesh, and the wounds were much more likely to become infected as a result. Though I seem to recall a Polish factory making the stuff until around 1910.

The most common armor in the Reformation/Counter-Reformation was a leather coat - it didn't do much to stop a bullet, but helped against things like the large splinters that would be thrown out when a bullet or cannon ball hit wood - the incidental damage from flying debris was actually a more common hazard than the ball itself.

If a soldier was going to wear anything more it was often a placart, a belly plate to prevent gut wounds - the most certain way to die in battle. Tassets were nice, but the gut was what worried folks.

So, I go with high damage, a x3 critical modifier, but don't use any special rules for ignoring armor - 'cause it doesn't.

The Auld Grump, who feels that guns and D&D get along just fine....


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 14, 2010)

Orius said:


> That can be a problem, but probably the DM should make the effects similar to a 10d6 _fireball_.



Even more fun is using a 10d6 fireball on someone with 100lbs of gunpowder.... 

Look up what happened in London during the Year of the Eights when a powder warehouse blew on Dock 1(?). Set off by a main with hobnailed boos on metal stairs.... You don't need a fireball to set the stuff off. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 14, 2010)

Piratecat used gunpowder in his 4e campaign.

He set the damage equal to an encounter ability of the PC's level. I believe it was per barrel, but I don't think the damage overlapped, just areas.

I suspect the 10d6 odd figures are for 3.x.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 14, 2010)

We had a joke last night about the demonic gunpowder used in the weapons bay on an astrochelonian battle station.

"Elemental gunpowder, you say?"
"Yup."
"From the elemental plane of gunpowder?"
"Yup."
"Wow.  That must've been the shortest-lived elemental plane in history."

Brad


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 14, 2010)

marcq said:


> It's really pretty simple why I and I'd venture many ban guns: guns aren't in my concept of high fantasy. I don't recall any guns in LOTR. Many people want to capture that feel or something along those lines, or high middle ages or some other setting that doesn't have guns in it. Moreover, guns both feel "modern" and therefore detract from these high fantasy settings or pose a whole range of problems for world creation (if there are guns and gun powder, why are there castles? In the real world, castles went bye-bye fairly shortly after cannons showed up.)




Actually, when guns came onto the scene, castles first got very large. And guess what? We still build castles now. We just call them forts, or bases, or security zones.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 14, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> So, I go with high damage, a x3 critical modifier, but don't use any special rules for ignoring armor - 'cause it doesn't.
> 
> The Auld Grump, who feels that guns and D&D get along just fine....




Indeed.  We had a Planescape game with cartridge-using guns that resembled what you have above in terms of stats, and they were okay, just...not that useful to my kensai compared to his sword, which he got 1.5x Str and Power Attack damage with.  Or compared to the fireballs and chain lightnings from the wizard, or to the druid who could wild shape into a dragon.

In other words, in 3/3.5, they weren't especially attractive at higher levels, or if you didn't have a character built to take advantage of them (which was in itself pretty hard, especially if the DM's rules interact poorly with existing feats).

They might be easier to use in 4e, actually, since they turn into the [W] for powers.

The druid player and I were looking into a way to make the guns actually competitive, and were working up a variant monk to Flurry of Shots with, but neither of us really cared that much to complete it.  He was happy with his powergaming cheese, I was happy with mine, and no one else really wanted to try it.

Brad


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 14, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> One of my hobbies is firing blackpowder weapons - and there are things that are seldom addressed by games. Smoke is very thick, and on a foggy day hangs around for a long time, and gives you a wicked cough. The stuff smells like rotten eggs. (I typically call it 'The Devil's Own Flatulence.')




I've read accounts from the Civil War that described the noon day as being "black as midnight" after very short periods of fire.



> Good plate was most often 'proofed' - the armor smith loading a pistol, taking ten steps back, then firing at the armor. The resulting spall was often decorated. The aror was 'bullet proofed'.  (Yes, that's where the phrase comes from.)
> 
> On the other hand, there is a reason chain went away - the links would be driven into the flesh, and the wounds were much more likely to become infected as a result.




That's what I was talking about in terms of guns vs. armor types. During the conquest of the Americas, Spanish soldiers could be severely disciplined for discarding their helmets or breastplates, rules enacted during the European wars to ensure armor discipline in the face of cavalry charges and gunfire. The same armor served equally well, of course, against the native American civilizations. However, apart from the mounted officers, the soldiers often abandoned it or purposefully sabotaged it because of the exertion of hauling it around in the heat and humidity, which can be fatal in its own way.



> Though I seem to recall a Polish factory making the stuff until around 1910.




People still make it. Captain America in the comics wore chainmail, actually, and it's because military chainmail was not unheard of basically until WWII. And you can buy butcher's mail today... stops a circular saw!


----------



## David Howery (Nov 14, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Guns are radically effective against armor. Except... breastplates and full plate will stop them, so they shouldn't get a bonus against that type of armor. So, what we need is a special chart that compares weapon type to armor worn...




as I always understood it, how effective primitive guns are vs. armor is very dependent on the range... at short range, they punch through anything, but they fall off really fast when you start getting over 50 yards or so... but that might be a bit too much complication for a D&D game...


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 14, 2010)

pawsplay, we had those as an optional rule in AD&D 2e.


----------



## lin_fusan (Nov 14, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Incidentally, D&D tech levels are all over the damn place.
> 
> You have medieval knights worshipping a greek pantheon in ren-era plate mail using a caveman-esque club and a roman shield.  Oh, and he has a 20th century morality system.  This is ignoring the futuristic alien crashes that occur from time to time and the 16th century sailing techniques and how _every other kingdom_ seems to be in a different era as far as social structure goes.
> 
> So saying firearms is "too high tech" just makes my head spin.  Compared to which of the thousands of years that D&D "tech" makes up?




I would posit an inverse supposition that since D&D has tech levels all over the place, then not having them in a setting is as equally valid and arbitrary as having them.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 14, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, when guns came onto the scene, castles first got very large. And guess what? We still build castles now. We just call them forts, or bases, or security zones.




Admittedly, I should have defined castles when I made my statement but you are really stretching the definition of castles if you include modern military bases.

By the 1600s, the classic castle that was a combined residence and military fort was going away (Sidney Toy, Castles, Their Construction and History, chapter17). Fortifications became purely military and changed considerably in look.

But harkening back to various lengthy threads on the effect of magic on castles (let alone gunpowder), it would be necessary to define more clearly what is meant by castle to take this farther. I will observe that most castle books I can find end their coverage around the 1600s. I would also observe that most gamers won't call any 'modern' fortifications castles probably going back at least into the 1800s and probably much earlier. Vaubhan's forts are cool but not very castle-ish to my eye, for instance and he was active in the 1600s.

Certainly effective cannons meant tall curtain walls were both easily knocked down and unsuitable for mounting cannons. Same for tall dungeons. Those would probably be two important castle-elements for many. If you like, start a new thread but please take a stab at defining what you mean by a castle.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 14, 2010)

lin_fusan said:


> I would posit an inverse supposition that since D&D has tech levels all over the place, then not having them in a setting is as equally valid and arbitrary as having them.




So long as we agree that the reasons are arbitrary and not based on "history."

Since, if there's anything I've learned here, people tend not to really know the history in the first place.


----------



## anest1s (Nov 14, 2010)

marcq said:


> Admittedly, I should have defined castles when I made my statement but you are really stretching the definition of castles if you include modern military bases.
> 
> By the 1600s, the classic castle that was a combined residence and military fort was going away (Sidney Toy, Castles, Their Construction and History, chapter17). Fortifications became purely military and changed considerably in look.
> 
> ...




Castles were around long after gunpowder was around, for that I am certain too...
A massive stone wall is still better than no wall after all...


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 14, 2010)

anest1s said:


> Castles were around long after gunpowder was around, for that I am certain too...
> A massive stone wall is still better than no wall after all...




Old castles weren't torn down but after cannons became reasonably effective, fortifications were built in a very different manner than the classic concept. And those old castles that found themselves under cannon fire tended to fall apart.

Again, I suppose it depends what you mean by castle. If you mean a stone fortification, yes they last quite a bit longer but I bet most players have something else in mind. I'll see if I can create an interesting way to do a poll on it.


----------



## anest1s (Nov 14, 2010)

marcq said:


> Old castles weren't torn down but after cannons became reasonably effective, fortifications were built in a very different manner than the classic concept. And those old castles that found themselves under cannon fire tended to fall apart.
> 
> Again, I suppose it depends what you mean by castle. If you mean a stone fortification, yes they last quite a bit longer but I bet most players have something else in mind. I'll see if I can create an interesting way to do a poll on it.




Stone fortification and maze-like roads kept many castles undefeated...also even after the gunpowder, there were build many home-towers (at least in greece) the fact that defenders used gunpowder too, helped. A very nasty use of explosives, was digging holes under the wall and exploding them. And yet, the castles could survive long sieges...


----------



## slwoyach (Nov 14, 2010)

I don't know how anyone who has seen _Pirates of the Caribbean_ could possibly say muskets and fantasy don't mix.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 14, 2010)

marcq said:


> Admittedly, I should have defined castles when I made my statement but you are really stretching the definition of castles if you include modern military bases.
> 
> By the 1600s, the classic castle that was a combined residence and military fort was going away (Sidney Toy, Castles, Their Construction and History, chapter17). Fortifications became purely military and changed considerably in look.
> 
> ...




Ok, let me see if I understand this correctly. Everything from a stone-covered mud fort built in the 9th century to a multi-walled coastal fortress is a "castle." But if you add rebar inside the walls, and put barbed wire on top, it's suddently "not a castle." Is that basically where things stand? 

Because if you're saying castles weren't built after the 16th century because something built after the 16th century is not a castle, that rather begs the question. The primary difference between a fort and a castle is that someone lives in a castle. While I am willing to accept that some people would not consider the fortified palaces in Baghdad to be Saddam Hussein's castles, I find it difficult to discern a really strong working definition that would exclude them.

But let's sidestep the issue. Even in the face of the most modern weapons, stone and concrete continue to be used as defenses. That's really what we were talking about. If perhaps we have migrated from "castles" to "military bases," I think the strategic situation remains very similar.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 14, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Since, if there's anything I've learned here, people tend not to really know the history in the first place.




If that was what I'd primarily learned from EnWorld, I'd not participate.  And presumably, you are excluding yourself from this summary judgment...

But, anyway, it's not what I've learned about EnWorld.  What I've learned about EnWorld is basically what I would have expected to learn, namely, that its filled with the usual collection of history geeks and reinactors who revel in and argue about historical minutea almost endlessly.  I suppose that you could say that is my bias though, since I discovered only what I expected to discover.  If I had a different bias, maybe I'd have confirmed that expectation as well.

In any event, my decision to not have firearms is based on history.  A firearm in my setting would be an anachronism.   

But, it wouldn't be an anachronism in the way you think, because - as I've emphasized - the relationship of real history to my campaign setting is only tangental.  A firearm might not have been anachronistic in 14th century Europe, but it certainly would be anachronism in the 937th year since the fall of the Fourth Empire on the world of Sartha.   Not, I might note, because it would be the appearance of something that hasn't been invented yet, but because this is not an era in which magic is sufficiently advanced to have the appearance of technology nor is technology sufficiently advanced to have magical qualities.  Of course, on Sartha, they wouldn't make that distinguishment.  Magic to them is technology, and conversely technology is magic.  Therefore, objects which seem technological are anachronistic - because they belong to the past of the world (and not necessarily, though possibly, its future).  Someone might have, indeed someone somewhere will certainly have, a wand that shoots bullets or fiery explosions, but 'magic' as accessible and ordinary as something that is or emulates a firearm isn't current to the world's era.

Now of course, in a sense, a wand that shoots bullets is 'high tech' to an observer from the 21st century of our world.  Or at least, its 'arcane', which is roughly the same thing.  But the important point is that the 21st century observer doesn't tend to think of it that way, whereas they do tend to think that guns are 'high tech' but not 'arcane' (but rather 'mundane').   This is that tangental relationship that I talked about.  I'm not concerned about whether the players think of the campaign world as being 'in the past', because that's a meaningless distinction considering Sartha is not Earth and isn't even in the same universe.  I'm concerned with conveying to them the sense that magic is not so prevelant at the current time to be considered by the inhabitants of Sartha to be fully mundane and understandable, and is not employed by them (or leveraged by them) in a way that is industrial, mechanized, and scientific.  Magic is at the present time (on Sartha) still a bit more of an art than it is a craft, much less that it is the basis of or element of the practice of every craft (the way technology and science are at present on Earth).  The time when magic was equivalent to every craft and every craft was equivalent to magic was long ago.  In such an age, something like a firearm wouldn't be anachronistic.   But as I said, the Age of the Art Mages was very long ago.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 14, 2010)

Going by memory, even though the setting book is under a pile of stuff in front of me, in Forbidden Kingdoms firearms have a critical threat range of 18-20, and are only x2 critical. Considering that critical hits go directly to wound points in that setting . . .


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Ok, let me see if I understand this correctly. Everything from a stone-covered mud fort built in the 9th century to a multi-walled coastal fortress is a "castle." But if you add rebar inside the walls, and put barbed wire on top, it's suddently "not a castle." Is that basically where things stand?
> 
> Because if you're saying castles weren't built after the 16th century because something built after the 16th century is not a castle, that rather begs the question. The primary difference between a fort and a castle is that someone lives in a castle. While I am willing to accept that some people would not consider the fortified palaces in Baghdad to be Saddam Hussein's castles, I find it difficult to discern a really strong working definition that would exclude them.
> 
> But let's sidestep the issue. Even in the face of the most modern weapons, stone and concrete continue to be used as defenses. That's really what we were talking about. If perhaps we have migrated from "castles" to "military bases," I think the strategic situation remains very similar.




Yes, I think by the time you start putting re-bar in the masonry, I wouldn't call it a castle. I doubt I'm all that unusual in this view.

The problem here is a lack of jointly agreed definition. Your definition seems to tend toward what I would class a military fortification and, no, I do not claim military fortifications ceased to exist in the 1600s. As I already noted earlier in this thread, my definition tends to include a fortification used as a lordly residence, and yes, I am aware this is fuzzy. Royal castles like the Edwardian Welsh ones seem like castles to me but did not host a local lord in the classic medieval sense.

Beyond that, it can be hard to define a castle which is why I started the more light-hearted poll, along the lines of, "I know a castle when I see it."

Despite the imprecision of the word castle, most players I know would tend towards definitions I'm comfortable with. Maybe my players are all odd-balls thus I started another thread where folks can post what they think. But if asked to draw a picture of a castle, how many FRPG gamers are going to draw the Maginot fortifications or Verdun? Or even a 1500s star fort? If given a bunch of pictures of military forts over the ages, it is my suspicious (thus my poll) that people will tend to select stone, lordly castles of the European Middle Ages over forts of other ages. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to stick my neck out and let people vote/comment.

Personally, once trace italienne forts started coming to the fore in the 1450s and on, I don't think of those military fortifications as castles. But I do tend to think of Deal Castle as a castle, albeit borderline and it was almost a hundred years later.

I really don't think my views are too unusual. I can't think of a castle book I've read, casual history or more formal, that runs much past the 1400s. Most fortications (all?) after the 1500s are called forts not castles. There are some palaces called castles built later, but they don't make a pretense of being a military structure.

From the wikipedia article on castle:
"A *castle* (from Latin _castellum_) is a type of fortified structure built in Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages. Scholars debate the scope of the word _castle_, but usually consider it to be the private fortified residence of a lord or noble. This is distinct from a fortress, which was not a home, and from a fortified town, which was a public defence, though there are many similarities between these types of construction. The term has been popularly applied to structures as diverse as hill forts and country houses. Over the approximately 900 years that castles were built they took on a great many forms with many different features, although some, such as curtain walls and arrowslits, were commonplace."

This is pretty well aligned with what I hopefully and trying to convey. It doesn't seem to leave room for Renaissance fortifications.


----------



## turnip (Nov 15, 2010)

marcq said:


> ...
> 
> By the 1600s, the classic castle that was a combined residence and military fort was going away (Sidney Toy, Castles, Their Construction and History, chapter17). ...




Even so, firearms were introduced to the West by the late 1300s, as already sourced many times in the thread, and had come into regular use by the mid 1400s. So that leaves us with firearms and castles coexisting for at minimum a good 300 years...


----------



## jonesy (Nov 15, 2010)

marcq said:


> if there are guns and gun powder, why are there castles?





marcq said:


> Personally, once trace italienne forts started coming to the fore in the 1450s and on, I don't think of those military fortifications as castles. But I do tend to think of Deal Castle as a castle, albeit borderline and it was almost a hundred years later.



Deal Castle is an artillery fortress. By which I do not mean that it is not a castle. I mean it's a castle specifically designed for cannon warfare. The walls were designed to deflect cannon fire, while giving Deal's own gunners good coverage of the battlefield. So, are you arguing for or against castles+cannons?


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 15, 2010)

marcq said:


> Yes, I think by the time you start putting re-bar in the masonry, I wouldn't call it a castle. I doubt I'm all that unusual in this view.
> 
> The problem here is a lack of jointly agreed definition. Your definition seems to tend toward what I would class a military fortification and, no, I do not claim military fortifications ceased to exist in the 1600s. As I already noted earlier in this thread, my definition tends to include a fortification used as a lordly residence, and yes, I am aware this is fuzzy. Royal castles like the Edwardian Welsh ones seem like castles to me but did not host a local lord in the classic medieval sense.
> 
> ...




But that's not really the point. The point is high, strong walls that repel cannon-fire.

And as for the manorial system itself, there is no reason to suppose that guns, fireballs, or dragons would preclude feudaliam. The disappearance of castles, in the medieval-y sense, has little to do with cannons, and more to do with the evolution of feudalism into monarchy. 

When I said there are still castles today, I was making the point that functionally, the situations that caused us to build castles still do. In politically and militarily precarious regions, we still create fortified, walled enclosures, staffed and provisioned for self-sufficiency, that expresses the political authority of its builder over the surrounding area. What is a police station, if not a castle? An army base? A mlitary dictator's palace?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, when guns came onto the scene, castles first got very large. And guess what? We still build castles now. We just call them forts, or bases, or security zones.



Though the fort changed drastically after the use of cannon became widespread - the snowflake and rose forts of the times of the Tudors through the American Revolution.

Some of the Spanish forts of the period kept the square tower keep design, even in the New World, the blind spots caused more than one fort to fail in its purpose. Getting a ship of the line into the right angle meant that it could fire upon the fort with impunity.

As for the fall of feudalism... part of the blame rests on the crossbow - the key to Swiss independence, among other things. Easy to train, with bolts that could go through a knight's best armor, the crossbowman changed the field of battle.

The Auld Grump


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 15, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Though the fort changed drastically after the use of cannon became widespread - the snowflake and rose forts of the times of the Tudors through the American Revolution.
> 
> Some of the Spanish forts of the period kept the square tower keep design, even in the New World, the blind spots caused more than one fort to fail in its purpose. Getting a ship of the line into the right angle meant that it could fire upon the fort with impunity.
> 
> ...




It wasn't even the crossbow - it was the pike.

1e had five million different polearms that lead to the death of feudalism...and not a single gun, because they wanted to _ensure feudalism_. ;p


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 15, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It wasn't even the crossbow - it was the pike.
> 
> 1e had five million different polearms that lead to the death of feudalism...and not a single gun, because they wanted to _ensure feudalism_. ;p




If it was a weapon that led to the death of feudalism, why did it persist in eastern europe until for all practical purposes the 20th century?

And for that matter, if 1e - we probably ought to say Gygax - actually excluded guns in order to ensure feudalism, why are we also complaining about the vast number of supposedly anachronistic political structures (including several with no clear parallel in the real world) that coexist in the setting along side feudalism?

And for that matter, if feudalism really was based on the superiority of the individual mounted warrior over the unarmored infantry man, that is to say on the martial utility of the individual aristocrat over the group of less experienced less professional combatants, wouldn't the very existance of levels, hit points, and fireballs be sufficient to ensure a feudal heirarchy regardless of what weapons are available?  I mean, we could have phased plasma rifles in the 40-watt range, and as long as we've entrenched the notion of the heroic into the basic physics of the world (there are literally heroes and not merely relatively well trained soldiers in superior armor) all other thinigs being equal we'd expect to end up with some sort of heirarchical society.


----------



## Stoat (Nov 15, 2010)

Did Gygax ever express any opinion of firearms in D&D?  Did he ever say why he didn't include firearms in the game?


----------



## jonesy (Nov 15, 2010)

Stoat said:


> Did Gygax ever express any opinion of firearms in D&D?  Did he ever say why he didn't include firearms in the game?



2010 January « Permastore 4

"Gary Gygax stated, “Gunpowder and explosives will not function on the World of Greyhawk.” He also disallowed firearms in AD&D game worlds in general in the AD&D original edition DMG, page 113 (“Transferral Of Fire Arms To The AD&D Campaign”) and in a letter to DRAGON Magazine, in issue #66, page 4 (“Out on a Limb: Gary on gunpowder”). The latter was in response to an article by Ed Greenwood in issue #60, page 24: “Firearms: First guns were not much fun.”"

But here's is an interesting point:

"Ed points out (correctly) that Gygax himself seems to have allowed firearms into his own GREYHAWK campaign, despite Gygax’s protestations to the contrary."


----------



## the Jester (Nov 15, 2010)

Stoat said:


> Did Gygax ever express any opinion of firearms in D&D?  Did he ever say why he didn't include firearms in the game?




He expressed a lot of anti-firearm sentiment while simultaneously adding the arquebus to Unearthed Arcana and having multiple pc/npcs from Greyhawk that wielded guns (Murlynd's "starwheels" for one example).


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 15, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> And for that matter, if 1e - we probably ought to say Gygax - actually excluded guns in order to ensure feudalism, why are we also complaining about the vast number of supposedly anachronistic political structures (including several with no clear parallel in the real world) that coexist in the setting along side feudalism?




That's a misunderstanding.



			
				AD&D DMG said:
			
		

> While this game is loosely based on Feudal European technology, history
> and myth, it also contains elements from the Ancient Period, parts of more
> modern myth, and the mythos of many authors as well. Within its
> boundaries all sorts of societies and cultures can exist, and there is nothing
> to dictate that their needs be Feudal European.




And



			
				p.89 said:
			
		

> Government Forms:
> AUTOCRACY - Government which rests in self-derived, absolute power,
> typified by a hereditary emperor, for example.
> BUREAUCRACY - Government by department, rule being through the
> ...




Gygax has simply proposed that in Greyhawk, the dominant social structure is feudalism.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 15, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> If it was a weapon that led to the death of feudalism, why did it persist in eastern europe until for all practical purposes the 20th century?




Because things die slow, especially in less developed areas.



> And for that matter, if 1e - we probably ought to say Gygax - actually excluded guns in order to ensure feudalism, why are we also complaining about the vast number of supposedly anachronistic political structures (including several with no clear parallel in the real world) that coexist in the setting along side feudalism?




Someone else has answered this.



> And for that matter, if feudalism really was based on the superiority of the individual mounted warrior over the unarmored infantry man, that is to say on the martial utility of the individual aristocrat over the group of less experienced less professional combatants, wouldn't the very existance of levels, hit points, and fireballs be sufficient to ensure a feudal heirarchy regardless of what weapons are available?  I mean, we could have phased plasma rifles in the 40-watt range, and as long as we've entrenched the notion of the heroic into the basic physics of the world (there are literally heroes and not merely relatively well trained soldiers in superior armor) all other thinigs being equal we'd expect to end up with some sort of heirarchical society.




Uh, no.

If anything the existance of fireballs would demolish feudalism.  It was destroy it.  There would be no medieval warfare, and kings would die like chumps left and right.  Invisibility means there is no precaution against assassins.  Cloudkill and the ability to literally summon food and water ends the concept of a prolongued siege.  A single wildshaping druid can more or less demolish a whole supply caravan.

That's the problem.  People want firearms to make drastic changes that _they never did in the first place_, but don't want magic to make the massive changes they very well would.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 15, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> If anything the existance of fireballs would demolish feudalism.  It was destroy it.  There would be no medieval warfare, and kings would die like chumps left and right.  Invisibility means there is no precaution against assassins.  Cloudkill and the ability to literally summon food and water ends the concept of a prolongued siege.  A single wildshaping druid can more or less demolish a whole supply caravan.




I should think D&D rules would lead to a variant form of feudalism; what a scholar might call "herocracy" and what TvTropes calls "Authority Equals Asskicking." In essence, authority would correlate strongly with character level, simply because low-level characters are too fragile to survive an attack by a spellslinging assassin. Even a high-level bodyguard offers little protection.

From there, a feudal-style system of vassalage is the obvious next step. Let's say you're the king, a 15th-level character. Who are you going to put in charge of administering your duchies? Why, a bunch of 10th-level characters, naturally; you don't want them getting assassinated. When it comes time to go to war, who are you going to call up? That same gang of 10th-level badasses. And they'll call up the 5th-level badasses _they_ use to run their baronies. Oh, sure, you'll all bring along some 0-level chumps for cannon fodder and garrison duty, but the super-powered ruling class will dominate warfare.

Obviously, the major difference between this system and real-world feudalism is the lack of inherited titles, depending on to what extent "ability to reach high level" is a heritable trait. (And castles are going to be different; how different will depend on the frequency of high-level mages and magic items. In a low-magic world, they'll be similar to real castles with a few bells and whistles added, like internal checkpoints against invisible spies. In a high-magic world, the castle's defenses will be primarily magical rather than physical.)


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 15, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because things die slow, especially in less developed areas.




Viola, we've explained the persistance of feudalism despite guns, and also despite pikes, longbows, or crossbows.  That would seem to argue against your point.



> Someone else has answered this.




Rather, someone else quoted the very sections of the DMG I was thinking of when I made the statement.   I'm not sure if thats an 'answer' so much as a validation.  Clearly Gygax (or anyone else) didn't exclude guns in order to ensure feudalism.  We have no evidence of it.  



> Uh, no.
> 
> If anything the existance of fireballs would demolish feudalism.  It was destroy it.  There would be no medieval warfare, and kings would die like chumps left and right.  Invisibility means there is no precaution against assassins.  Cloudkill and the ability to literally summon food and water ends the concept of a prolongued siege.  A single wildshaping druid can more or less demolish a whole supply caravan.




So?  So all this would mean is that magicians and druids would be drafted into the medieval heirarchy in some fashion.   Moreover, why would kings die like chumps left and right?  Under or new model, kings aren't merely guys who can afford nice armor, but 10th level fighters (or whatever arbitrarily high level).  _Kings and their peers are the only guys who can survive the fireballs or cloudkills!_  If anything, magic enshrines if not the reality of medieval warfare, then at least the mythic concept of it - war waged or at least determined by a small unit of heavily armored elite warriors.   If the large standing army is obseleted by cloudkill or fireball, then by your own argument why would pikes and crossbows lead to the dominance of monarchies fielding large standing armies of professional mercenarcies?   Perhaps the ability to summon food and water ends the concept of a prolonged siege, but only if the beseiged parties are a small elite group thus able to feed themselves.   This doesn't in fact however 'end medieval warface' - it creates the necessity of it.   After all, it was the far east where we saw 'castles' normally reduced primarily by seige.   In the West, seigecraft was developed into the art of reducing walls to prevent a long seige precisely because the trebuchet and the cannon rendered destruction of the walls practical AND castles were already so successful at resisting being starved out anyway in part because they often had garrisons of a few dozen anyway.  So what if we add Earthquake to the list of seigecraft techniques?   We are already anticipating a short seige under the Western medieval model anyway.



> That's the problem.  People want firearms to make drastic changes that _they never did in the first place_...




Whoa there.  Just because I don't believe that weapons led to the end of feudalism, doesn't mean that I think firearms didn't cause drastic changes in society.



> but don't want magic to make the massive changes they very well would.




It's an open question exactly what the impact of magic would be, and the answers you get depend heavily on campaign assumptions.   Certainly there would be some impact, but I'm not prepared to say in general 'this is wrong' any more than I'm prepared to say that the existance of pikes, crossbows, longbows, or rifles ends feudalism.   Pakistan's rural regions have effectual feudalism to this day, right down to the guy who mills your grain also being your tax collector, and it has a coexisting rifle based militia culture that is in the USA associated (for historical reasons) with democracy.   I'm very hesitant to draw easy inferences that social change is due solely or even primarily due to introduction of particular technologies.   And frankly, I think if your reading in medieval history is more modern than Charles Oman, you aren't going to have that point of view anyway.


----------



## Stoat (Nov 15, 2010)

jonesy said:


> 2010 January « Permastore 4
> 
> "Gary Gygax stated, “Gunpowder and explosives will not function on the World of Greyhawk.” He also disallowed firearms in AD&D game worlds in general in the AD&D original edition DMG, page 113 (“Transferral Of Fire Arms To The AD&D Campaign”) and in a letter to DRAGON Magazine, in issue #66, page 4 (“Out on a Limb: Gary on gunpowder”). The latter was in response to an article by Ed Greenwood in issue #60, page 24: “Firearms: First guns were not much fun.”"
> 
> ...




Thanks for the link, interesting read.  My formative D&D experiences were heavy with Tinker Gnomes, Spelljammer and Giff, which is probably why I'm pro-firearm.

Does anybody know _why_ Gygax disallowed firearms?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 15, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Viola, we've explained the persistance of feudalism despite guns, and also despite pikes, longbows, or crossbows.  That would seem to argue against your point.




What?  My point is that guns don't change the entire world just by existing.  This only *proves* my point.

You...you can't take _my argument_ and suddenly claim it as your own when you end up being wrong.  Debate doesn't work that way.



> So?  So all this would mean is that magicians and druids would be drafted into the medieval heirarchy in some fashion.   Moreover, why would kings die like chumps left and right?  Under or new model, kings aren't merely guys who can afford nice armor, but 10th level fighters (or whatever arbitrarily high level).




First off I'm breaking this into multiple points because goddamn son, paragraphs.

Because then rulership is no longer based on heredity, which was an absolutely _enormous_ part of medieval life _and_ what kept the class structure so tightly wound up in the first place.  Changing that to a meritocracy changes a _lot_.



> _Kings and their peers are the only guys who can survive the fireballs or cloudkills!_  If anything, magic enshrines if not the reality of medieval warfare, then at least the mythic concept of it - war waged or at least determined by a small unit of heavily armored elite warriors.




That's...that's not how warfare works.  That's never how warfare worked.  not even on the "mythical" level.  Jesus, come on.



> If the large standing army is obseleted by cloudkill or fireball, then by your own argument why would pikes and crossbows lead to the dominance of monarchies fielding large standing armies of professional mercenarcies?   Perhaps the ability to summon food and water ends the concept of a prolonged siege, but only if the beseiged parties are a small elite group thus able to feed themselves.




I don't even know what your point is at this point.  You are literally babbling.



> This doesn't in fact however 'end medieval warface' - it creates the necessity of it.   After all, it was the far east where we saw 'castles' normally reduced primarily by seige.   In the West, seigecraft was developed into the art of reducing walls to prevent a long seige precisely because the trebuchet and the cannon rendered destruction of the walls practical AND castles were already so successful at resisting being starved out anyway in part because they often had garrisons of a few dozen anyway.  So what if we add Earthquake to the list of seigecraft techniques?   We are already anticipating a short seige under the Western medieval model anyway.




Then - just as my point stated - medieval warfare collapses.



> Whoa there.  Just because I don't believe that weapons led to the end of feudalism, doesn't mean that I think firearms didn't cause drastic changes in society.




Not the changes people like to think it brought about.  not the changes listed _in this very thread_, where people stated "I don't have guns because I like having knights."



> It's an open question exactly what the impact of magic would be, and the answers you get depend heavily on campaign assumptions.   Certainly there would be some impact, but I'm not prepared to say in general 'this is wrong' any more than I'm prepared to say that the existance of pikes, crossbows, longbows, or rifles ends feudalism.




*You can talk to God in D&D*.  Are you really going to tell me that would have no effect at all in a medieval world?  I mean hell, you literally just eliminated religious warfare.  There's no question on who's god exists and who's doesn't.  In fact, there's no moral ambiguity at all!  

"Hey those guys on the other side of the desert worship a different god, let's...!  Wait, detect alignment says their clerics are good aligned.  Hey, God?  Is everything chill there?  It is?  Ok, yeah, we cool."



> Pakistan's rural regions have effectual feudalism to this day, right down to the guy who mills your grain also being your tax collector, and it has a coexisting rifle based militia culture that is in the USA associated (for historical reasons) with democracy.   I'm very hesitant to draw easy inferences that social change is due solely or even primarily due to introduction of particular technologies.   And frankly, I think if your reading in medieval history is more modern than Charles Oman, you aren't going to have that point of view anyway.




*Once again, you are arguing my point for me, that guns would not have the huge social changes people think they do*.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 15, 2010)

Stoat said:


> Thanks for the link, interesting read.  My formative D&D experiences were heavy with Tinker Gnomes, Spelljammer and Giff, which is probably why I'm pro-firearm.
> 
> Does anybody know _why_ Gygax disallowed firearms?




He held (wrong) beliefs that others in this thread have shown - that guns would somehow lead to the entire collapse of the feudal system entirely and thus it would turn into D&D modern within minutes.

Also Gygax had one of his friends' characters become a god who was also a cowboy, but instead of revolvers he had wands that shot bullets.  So, you know.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 15, 2010)

Despite the wargame origins, I don't think D&D was initially designed to accurately simulate real-world history.  So, the fact that historically, basic firearms appeared in the same period as feudalism and heavy armor has little bearing on the question.

The issue isn't one of historical accuracy, so much as genre.  Genre doesn't care all that much about the anachronisms.  

Despite specific examples you can cite, the typical image of the pseudo-medieval fantasy genre doesn't have guns.  It isn't a typical trope.  

Thematically, guns are the great equalizer - guns can kill anyone, any time, from a distance, with minimal training.  If he has a gun (thematically, not realistically), a commoner does have a chance against your 12th level hero, or a dragon.  You don't need a wizard so much when you have lots of cannons.  So, in the fantasy genre guns don't appear so often.  So, in the game, they don't appear so often.


----------



## Derren (Nov 15, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Thematically, guns are the great equalizer - guns can kill anyone, any time, from a distance, with minimal training.  If he has a gun (thematically, not realistically), a commoner does have a chance against your 12th level hero, or a dragon.  You don't need a wizard so much when you have lots of cannons.  So, in the fantasy genre guns don't appear so often.  So, in the game, they don't appear so often.




Same could be said about crossbows. Give a peseant a crossbow and he can kill a knight with a few days training. (Actually they were superior as "equalizers" to guns. At least you could aim with them while you would need a big formation and luck to hit anything with a early gun)
And a couple of Trebuchets will have the same effect than a few cannons would on the setting.

Lets be honnest, the two reasons why guns are not so common in fantasy are:
1. Most people don't know that guns existed side by side with knights
2. Lord of the Rings didn't have guns.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 15, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Despite the wargame origins, I don't think D&D was initially designed to accurately simulate real-world history.  So, the fact that historically, basic firearms appeared in the same period as feudalism and heavy armor has little bearing on the question.
> 
> The issue isn't one of historical accuracy, so much as genre.  Genre doesn't care all that much about the anachronisms.
> 
> ...




"By Heracles, this is the end of man's valour!"

- King Archidamus of Sparta on seeing a catapult

I don't really see these thematics, either.  In fact, just about every time I see <media> that has a gun, it's rather rigid on who can and can't use one properly - ie, the protagonist and the villains can take people down with one shot, but everyone else just fires widely and misses everything.  The idea that "Everyone with a gun can just use it and murder anyone" doesn't exist.  It was created literally to - _and just to_ - argue against guns in fantasy.  It doesn't just have no basis in reality, it has no basis in fantasy.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 15, 2010)

Derren said:


> Same could be said about crossbows. Give a peseant a crossbow and he can kill a knight with a few days training.




Well, mythically speaking, unless we are talking about as crossbow hero like William Tell, no he can't.  And unsurprisingly, he can't really in D&D either.  When you are talking about the world of fantasy, the impact of myth on the setting is probably even more tangible than the impact of reality.  Hense, the use of terms like versimilitude.  You aren't getting people to believe in a literal reality. but in a mythic reality that engages people sufficiently that they are willing to suspend their disbelief.  It is in fact a fantasy.

For the most part, we don't have a 'crossbow myth' outside perhaps Switzerland where they played such a huge historical role.   We are more likely to have longbow heroes like Robin Hood, and because the longbow like the sword was a weapon requiring considerable mastery, it's wielders remain firmly ensconced in the heroic myth.   Not everyone with a longbow can kill a knight, but Robin Hood - a hero - could.  

The gun however is a powerful mythic image, and - barring a bit of Western Romanticism - tends to be linked to an everyman myth.  It's impact on the heroic myth is most clearly seen ironicly in Kurosawa's Seven Samurii.  That's what you are up against when you include guns in a fantasy.  You aren't including real guns  any more than you are including real swords and platemail.  You are including mythic guns.  And the more you try to make them real guns, even if that means demythologizing them, the odder and more out of place they will actually seem.



> And a couple of Trebuchets will have the same effect than a few cannons would on the setting.




But not I would note mythically.  The Trebuchet may have in fact already made any medieval castle reducible by the end of the 13th century, but its the cannon as its successor which really carries all that power mythicly.  We still have cannons, but until RPGs and interest in them brought them back, hardly anyone not a scholar remembered the Trebuchet.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 15, 2010)

Derren said:


> Same could be said about crossbows. Give a peseant a crossbow and he can kill a knight with a few days training.




Realistically, yes.

But thematically, no.  

To a modern audience, swords, armor, bows and crossbows are all "old-style", primitive weapons.  What really happens in their use is _not relevant_.  All the arguments historical timelines and real-world physics of the interaction of a bullet with a metal breastplate are really missing the point.  It is a question of style and theme (of myth, as Celebrim puts it), not of technical substance.



> Lets be honnest, the two reasons why guns are not so common in fantasy are:
> 1. Most people don't know that guns existed side by side with knights




I don't think that knowledge of real-world history is an issue.  Most gamers probably do know that there are plenty of historical anachronisms in their games.  But, since they aren't playing a historical game, *they really don't care*.



> 2. Lord of the Rings didn't have guns.




Now you're on to it. 

Perhaps more important than Lord of the Rings - King Arthur didn't duel with Modred with pistols at 30 paces.  Excalibur wasn't a .50 caliber, so to speak.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 15, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea that "Everyone with a gun can just use it and murder anyone" doesn't exist.




Once again, see for example, 'Seven Samurai' by Akiro Kirosawa.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 15, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> What?  My point is that guns don't change the entire world just by existing.  This only *proves* my point.




I don't believe you have even attempted to argue so limited of a point.  On the contrary, your point appears to be that people have no reason to exclude guns from fantasy on the basis of either realism or fantasy.  It is against that point and many others you have made that I'm arguing.  

For example, I'm arguing that the presence or absence of guns doesn't force the choice of feudalism, and that your assertion that Gygax excluded guns in a mistaken belief that doing so was required to protect feudalism seems to have little basis in fact given that relatively few of Gygax's nation states are truly feudal and how much interest Gygax had in antiquity (Egypt for example) and low fantasy (and how relatively little he had in High Fantasy).   To be frank, I suspect Gygax's readings on medieval history were a bit deeper than Charles Oman as well, and your take on this - that everyone but you is ignorant of history and has no valid reasoning to support their opinions - seems to be manly a necessary strawman to justify your claim that everyone else is objectively wrong.



> You...you can't take _my argument_ and suddenly claim it as your own when you end up being wrong.  Debate doesn't work that way.




Your argument?  Your argument is that feudalism was done in by the pike, that Gygax banned guns to protect feudalism, and that cowboys have no place in fantasy (or something like that, I couldn't tell what the point was, just that you were snarky).



> First off I'm breaking this into multiple points because goddamn son, paragraphs.




Complaining about my inability to compose nice Ciceronian structure not only seems to me to be grasping a bit, but in all admitted lack of modesty, strikes me as an attempted blow that is unlikely to scotch me much.   I get alot of valid complaints, but my inability to form working paragraphs generally isn't one of them.



> Because then rulership is no longer based on heredity, which was an absolutely _enormous_ part of medieval life _and_ what kept the class structure so tightly wound up in the first place.  Changing that to a meritocracy changes a _lot_.




Why do you imagine that entrenching the rules of heroic myth into the very physics of reality ends us up with a meritocracy?  In heroic myth, the Hero is very much who he is because of his birth and not despite it.   If there is a Hero in the story, chances are that the Hero is the scion of a Hero as well.  This is true from Heracles to Beowulf to Tolkien.   Heroic myth doesn't change things to a meritocracy; rather, it makes true the justifications of hereditary aristocracies.



> That's...that's not how warfare works.  That's never how warfare worked.  not even on the "mythical" level.  Jesus, come on.




About the time you feel the need let fly your second blasphemous flourish is your oratory, you are losing your argument.   From David's band of 30, to the Illiad, to King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, to the Song of Roland, the Heroic myth is marked by the ability of the few to overcome the many.   And in heroic ages, whether the Bronze Age of the greeks or the Iron Age of the Hittites or the age of the Knight or Samuraii, because of the interaction of technologies available at the time, this wasn't merely a myth but an occasional fact.   The armored trained warrior, operating together with his fellows, could in fact overcome odds of 10 to 1 or more.  



> I don't even know what your point is at this point.  You are literally babbling.




This is much like the admission that you've not read the thread, but you are sure that everyone else is objectively wrong.



> *You can talk to God in D&D*.  Are you really going to tell me that would have no effect at all in a medieval world?




It might not.  The people in the medieval world believed that they could talk to God and structured their society as if they could talk to God, and really I'm not so sure that you can decide objectively how the world would work if suddenly you had a bunch of meddlesome quarrelsome gods talking to people on a regular basis. 



> I mean hell, you literally just eliminated religious warfare.  There's no question on who's god exists and who's doesn't.  In fact, there's no moral ambiguity at all!




Personally, I think you are wrong on all three counts.  



> *Once again, you are arguing my point for me, that guns would not have the huge social changes people think they do*.




Like I said, I don't find it very creditable when you claim this is the full extent of your point or points.  You've also claimed knowledge of the inner workings of Gygax's mind that seem at odds with his published works, and further claimed that the idea that Knights and guns don't mix not only has no basis in reality (which is debateable) but no basis in fantasy (which is ludicrous).


----------



## Derren (Nov 15, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I don't think that knowledge of real-world history is an issue.  Most gamers probably do know that there are plenty of historical anachronisms in their games.  But, since they aren't playing a historical game, *they really don't care*.




And why do they not care? Because they don't know it in the firs place so it doesn't seem odd when guns are missing. When you would remove bows or lances from a fantasy game the players certainly would notice it.
Imo when more people would know that guns existed alongside knights and were in fact quite normal during the middle ages, people would notice it and react negatively when a fantasy game featuring knights also does not has guns.
But as most people don't know the history of guns and in fact believe in the "urban myth" that guns replaced knights they don't think that anything is off when you have one and not the other and even more think, wrongly, that guns and knights can't exist alongside each other.

Also there certainly are enough myths for guns too.
For example the master gunner in 1437 who managed during teh siege of Metz to fire a bombard three times on a single day and manage to hit each time. He then had to go on a pilgrimage to Rome as he surely must be in league with the devil to achieve such a feat.







> Now you're on to it.
> 
> Perhaps more important than Lord of the Rings - King Arthur didn't duel with Modred with pistols at 30 paces.  Excalibur wasn't a .50 caliber, so to speak.




Again, a large part of this is because people aren't knowledgeable about that time and mix the dark ages (10th/11th century) with the late mediveal (14th century). The myth of King arthur plays out even before that in late roman times. And the tech level of LOTR is mostly compareable to the dark ages (see Rohan) when there were no guns around.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 15, 2010)

Done right, muskets can be an excellent additional fantasy element for a campaign world.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 15, 2010)

turnip said:


> Even so, firearms were introduced to the West by the late 1300s, as already sourced many times in the thread, and had come into regular use by the mid 1400s. So that leaves us with firearms and castles coexisting for at minimum a good 300 years...




Early firearms were not very big or easy to move. By the mid-1400s they were affecting castle design. But even so, in most FRPs with gunpowder, has the gunpowder weapon only been around for 300 years? Are you saying such weapons won't affect fortification design? Do you think it won't affect forts to the point where they don't really look like what folks think of as castles?

I think the historical record is pretty clear that it does. Star forts started evolving by the 1450s or so. That's actually pretty close to when cannons got big enough to damage walls effectively.


----------



## Werebat (Nov 15, 2010)

Stoat said:


> I like firearms in my fantasy.  When I played 3.X, my solution was to make muskets and pistols superior weapons that did slightly better damage than an equivalent crossbow.  Anyone could use them without a penalty to attack.  A character proficient with the weapon could reload it as a move action.  An unproficient character had to take a full round action to reload.




Pretty much what I did, too.  Net result?  All of those characters who would be using crossbows switched over to firearms once they got the money to afford them.  Yep, all one of 'em.

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 15, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Deal Castle is an artillery fortress. By which I do not mean that it is not a castle. I mean it's a castle specifically designed for cannon warfare. The walls were designed to deflect cannon fire, while giving Deal's own gunners good coverage of the battlefield. So, are you arguing for or against castles+cannons?




 I'm saying gunpowder causes fortifications to change to the point where most gamers wouldn't really consider them castles any more. Deal was a transitional fortification, one of the last castle-ish ones I can recall.

Let me try this another way. People seem to like the high-middle ages castles with their high walls and big dungeons. These weren't built after wall-smashing cannons came into the fore. Even Deal, which looks kind of castle-ish to the casual eye, is quite squat and thick walled.

Given that evolution in earth history, I don't really think it that unusual to ask folks to consider the effect of gunpowder in their own fantasy world. Myself, I don't care for aesthetic of gunpowder and fantasy. While one could also argue magic would affect castle design, atleast in that case, it is more hypothetical. We know what happened on earth.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 15, 2010)

marcq said:


> Early firearms were not very big or easy to move. By the mid-1400s they were affecting castle design. But even so, in most FRPs with gunpowder, has the gunpowder weapon only been around for 300 years? Are you saying such weapons won't affect fortification design? Do you think it won't affect forts to the point where they don't really look like what folks think of as castles?
> 
> I think the historical record is pretty clear that it does. Star forts started evolving by the 1450s or so. That's actually pretty close to when cannons got big enough to damage walls effectively.




There's also the fact that most D&D settings don't evolve.  Or even change.  Ever.

Take Forgotten Realms.  We're lead to believe the setting has literally been in stasis as far as magic and technology goes more or less _forever_.  I'm fairly certain Greyhawk is much the same.  Just medieval times all the time.

Really, fantasy is just an incredibly bizarrely conservative genre.


----------



## turnip (Nov 15, 2010)

marcq said:


> Early firearms were not very big or easy to move. By the mid-1400s they were affecting castle design. But even so, in most FRPs with gunpowder, has the gunpowder weapon only been around for 300 years? Are you saying such weapons won't affect fortification design? Do you think it won't affect forts to the point where they don't really look like what folks think of as castles?
> 
> I think the historical record is pretty clear that it does. Star forts started evolving by the 1450s or so. That's actually pretty close to when cannons got big enough to damage walls effectively.




Okay, so you're arguing more of an aesthetic reason. I admit, star and rose forts _are_ different looking than the traditional wall and keep, but _to my mind_ I still consider them, for the most part, as _castles_. Just as I consider a motte-and-bailey a castle, or even an old hill fort or some crannógs.

We'll just have to have differing opinions on it; that's cool.   

Hell, firearms aren't even anything I prefer in my campaign; I like a Dark Ages level world, not a Middle Ages one. I get huffy when people have plate armor!


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 15, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> There's also the fact that most D&D settings don't evolve. Or even change. Ever.
> 
> Take Forgotten Realms. We're lead to believe the setting has literally been in stasis as far as magic and technology goes more or less _forever_. I'm fairly certain Greyhawk is much the same. Just medieval times all the time.
> 
> Really, fantasy is just an incredibly bizarrely conservative genre.




Most refs are trying to capture a particular mood or feeling and aren't evolving their setting over a long period of time. This is mostly because it isn't relevant to the game and also because it isn't exactly easy.

I do agree that given time, technology ought to change. For reasons of aesthetics, I don't care for gunpowder weapons and steam engines with my fantasy and as I indicated earlier, in settings where I do want to take a long view of history, I often posit physics that don't allow them. How do such physics work (that also allow organisms as we know them)? I don't know but it also allows dragons and magic 

Can you have a setting with classic fantasy themes (like castles) and add gunpowder? Sure you can. I don't personally care for it but there's nothing wrong with it. Wouldn't make such a setting and given the choice of two otherwise equal games, one with, one without, I wouldn't choose it but when are things perfectly equal? As a player, it isn't that big a deal to me although if I ever need to get into a classic high middle ages-style castle and have a cannon available, I'm going to want to know why I can't break the curtain wall down in short order if you don't let me do that


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 16, 2010)

turnip said:


> Okay, so you're arguing more of an aesthetic reason. I admit, star and rose forts _are_ different looking than the traditional wall and keep, but _to my mind_ I still consider them, for the most part, as _castles_. Just as I consider a motte-and-bailey a castle, or even an old hill fort or some crannógs.
> 
> We'll just have to have differing opinions on it; that's cool.
> 
> Hell, firearms aren't even anything I prefer in my campaign; I like a Dark Ages level world, not a Middle Ages one. I get huffy when people have plate armor!




Hmmm I love Dark Ages settings. Running one right now (although it is Dark Age in the sense of post-decline in civilization, not Dark Ages Europe).

Yeah, it's a matter of aesthetics for me.

Thinking through my knee-jerk opposition to gunpowder, there's more to it though. I like to world build which to me means, considering how would things be different given circumstance X, magic Y, etc. Given that we have a very good idea what gunpowder weapons do to warfare, fortifications included, from Earth history, I guess I balk at a world where they exist but their ramifications don't appear to occur. I still consider that an aesthetic issue but it's akin to whether you want your space fighters in your science fiction movie to make noise as they fly by. I can enjoy such movies (a great deal) but I wouldn't create such a movie (were I a producer ). 

But if you've been around EnWorld for a while, you've also seen me argue for changes in castles given the presence of magic, which, for the record, I don't really feel like restarting although if someone wants to lay some ground rules and definitions and treat it as a thought exercise on what might happen (and not a declaraction on how your world should be), I'd be up for that


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 16, 2010)

Then again, magic should have a far greater impact on society and warfare than gunpowder does. Look how much the world has changed in 30 years thanks to the internet. And we can't even teleport.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> There's also the fact that most D&D settings don't evolve.  Or even change.  Ever.




Well, most individual campaigns don't cover timescales on which "technological" change of the setting would be visible.  

The Forgotten Realms has been forced through several changes, as has the Dragonlance setting.  The players always gripe about it, call it metaplot and evil moneygrubbing by the publisher.



> Take Forgotten Realms.  We're lead to believe the setting has literally been in stasis as far as magic and technology goes more or less _forever_.  I'm fairly certain Greyhawk is much the same.  Just medieval times all the time.




Yes... and no.

I only bought Greyhawk materials in the way-back-when of my 1e days.  Those materials mentioned the past of the setting in passng - whole cultures and peoples migrating, empires destroyed in rains of colorless fire.  In the past, there were peoples with powers lost to the Greyhawk you were playing in.

Then they gave you the state of the world at a particular time.  Evolving it forwards was then your own problem.



> Really, fantasy is just an incredibly bizarrely conservative genre.




As I said above - players are conservative.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2010)

RangerWickett said:


> Then again, magic should have a far greater impact on society and warfare than gunpowder does.




How big and what sort of impact it would have depends on more than just magic's existence. 

Players can make characters of whatever class they want, because they are the players, and the game focuses on them.  This does not imply that every person in the game world can be anything they want.  Or maybe they can.  How many there are will largely determine how much impact the magic will have.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 16, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, most individual campaigns don't cover timescales on which "technological" change of the setting would be visible.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms has been forced through several changes, as has the Dragonlance setting.  The players always gripe about it, call it metaplot and evil moneygrubbing by the publisher.
> 
> ...




Well, sort of.  Even in the prehistory cultures in Greyhawk, they're still pretty much middle ages technologically and culturally.  There's no "stone age" or even "bronze age" in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 16, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> That's the problem.  People want firearms to make drastic changes that _they never did in the first place_, but don't want magic to make the massive changes they very well would.




That I'll agree to. No guns but hey, everything else is psuedo middle ages save for these dragons with massive arrays of fire breath and these wizards with wands of lightning and fireballs eh?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 16, 2010)

But... but... Hussite War Wagons!









Umbran said:


> Despite the wargame origins, I don't think D&D was initially designed to accurately simulate real-world history.  So, the fact that historically, basic firearms appeared in the same period as feudalism and heavy armor has little bearing on the question.
> 
> The issue isn't one of historical accuracy, so much as genre.  Genre doesn't care all that much about the anachronisms.
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 16, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Excalibur wasn't a .50 caliber, so to speak.




Indeed not. Behold Excalibur Sideplate!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 16, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> There's also the fact that most D&D settings don't evolve.  Or even change.  Ever.
> 
> Take Forgotten Realms.  We're lead to believe the setting has literally been in stasis as far as magic and technology goes more or less _forever_.  I'm fairly certain Greyhawk is much the same.  Just medieval times all the time.
> 
> Really, fantasy is just an incredibly bizarrely conservative genre.




Most fantasy.

Warhammer does move on a bit. They even have steam tanks.

Iron Kingdoms is another one with psuedo-tech. More impressive though? The elves kick ass. they are the masters of various sorcery technologies.

Rackham's Confrontation line, also has elves who kick much ass as well as various assorted technologies.

One of Glen Cook's series starts off with a cannon of silver and iron killing a powerful entity.

The genre is slowly changing but it may take much more time before people are comfrotable with it.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 16, 2010)

Technically speaking gunpowder is an alchemical admixture, so it can be in D&D.  But, like any magic, it has a larger impact on game worlds, if it is plentiful and readily accessible. 

Imagine how different our world already is and would be with certain chemical mixtures plentiful and readily accessible.   

As to campaign setting (and by association game modules) being static, they pretty much have to be static when sold.  They change as the game goes along, but at start they are simply a beginning state.  Writing a list of future events to happen no matter what undercuts the players' ability to succeed within it.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 16, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> The genre is slowly changing but it may take much more time before people are comfrotable with it.



True.

I'm starting to see why you have over 11k posts.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 16, 2010)

In doing some research for a certain upcoming adventure path, I was reading [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Half-Made-World-Felix-Gilman/dp/0765325527"]The Half-Made World[/ame].

It's Steampunk. Specifically, it's a fantastic Old West. 

But it had _magic in spades_.

For instance:

*The Agents of the Gun* make pacts with demons. The demons, of course, reside in their firearms. They're famous all over the world for being dangerous (tough occasionally heroic) scofflaws, murderers, and thugs.

*The Agents of the Line* use advanced tech without much in the way of sorcery, but the "Engines" (essentially, trains) are sentient, and have purpose, and communicate with rumbling noises that drive others insane. They're famous for an ever-expanding empire.

*The Folk* are "natives," in touch with the spirit world, and perhaps hold the secret of a weapon that can end the war between the Gun and the Line. They are immortal (kill one and it will come back to life later), they can change the environment, they are very strong, but use no modern tech.

There's a spirit of healing that eats pain and suffering, but kills those that bring it to its sacred place, and there's also the West itself, since the world is still being made out there, weather and terrain all break down and become unreliable. 

Guns don't ruin fantasy per se. Though they don't belong in certain genres, they're welcome in others. It's fantasy. The rules get changed out from under you.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 16, 2010)

As for spells that change society - consider the Continual Light/Continual Flame spell.... No chance of tipping over a candle or lamp and setting Moscow/Chicago on fire. (Moscow had prefab housing in the 13th Century.... It burned down on a regular basis.)

The workday now includes the night hours - while an expensive initial investment the spell is a one time cost. This becomes important in the winter.

Can be used for communication.

Prevents you from being eaten by a grue....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Well, sort of.  Even in the prehistory cultures in Greyhawk, they're still pretty much middle ages technologically and culturally.  There's no "stone age" or even "bronze age" in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.




Well, as I understand it, Oerth didn't come about the way Earth did.  No billions of years and evolution and all that.  The sentient races on it were created by their respective gods.  They could well have been created with post-stone age knowledge.

But, even if not - we in the real world know a great deal about our Stone and Bronze ages because we have entire classes of people whose role and profession in our society is digging out what happened in the past.  And we've only had what you'd call "good" information in the past century.

So, the (fictional) people in Greyhawk may well not have that information.  And, if it isn't going to impact play, it is rather low priority on the list of things that need to be published.  If your setting book page count is of a few hundred pages, the stone age that no longer is in the world isn't going to get printed.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> That I'll agree to. No guns but hey, everything else is psuedo middle ages save for these dragons with massive arrays of fire breath and these wizards with wands of lightning and fireballs eh?




Yep, because it isn't about simulation of something real, but about meeting some genre and theme expectations.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 16, 2010)

marcq said:


> :Let me try this another way. People seem to like the high-middle ages castles with their high walls and big dungeons. These weren't built after wall-smashing cannons came into the fore.




Yes, they were. Cannons predate frequent hand-gonne use by a couple of centuries. Pre-cannon castles didn't look like castles, either; they looked like stone houses surrounded by a wall and a moat. A medieval ranch-house.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 16, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I should think D&D rules would lead to a variant form of feudalism; what a scholar might call "herocracy" and what TvTropes calls "Authority Equals Asskicking." In essence, authority would correlate strongly with character level, simply because low-level characters are too fragile to survive an attack by a spellslinging assassin. Even a high-level bodyguard offers little protection.




That's actually an explicit rule in the Rules Cyclopedia, which basically says high-ranking NPCs are generally high-level. Obviously, some qualify as near-noncombatants. Most ordinary nobles are 2 to 5 HD, a compromise level making them exceptional compared to their soldiers, but not necessarily powerful enough to personally slay dragons (at least without a large operating budget).



> Obviously, the major difference between this system and real-world feudalism is the lack of inherited titles, depending on to what extent "ability to reach high level" is a heritable trait. (




Medievally, it would be considered a moderately inherited trait. Again, the RC follows this logic, with the ruling class being a patchwork of heritidary rulers and new rulers, who earned their fiefdoms through grant, conquest, popular acclaim, or marriage. In the RC paradigm, high-level rulers would indeed be powerful, having access to huge amounts of wealth and training. 

Your typical RC-based nation is ruled by a monarch, likely a human with multiple hit dice, perhaps a mid- to high-level NPC, likely a fighter. The realm is generally administrated by nobles with several HD, sprinkled with a number of name-level (9th) NPCs, mostly fighters with some clerics. Powerful magic-users are effectively extranational, basically rulers of micro-nations that extend as far as they can see from their towers, or they move in with and bolster the might of NPC rulers. 

A 5 HD king with a 10th level magic-user advisor and a couple of high level Fighter barons is a very credible political and military threat. If a dragon came along to demand the sacrifice of a princess or some other fairly valuable person, they would probably just kill the dragon.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2010)

Derren said:


> And why do they not care? Because they don't know it in the firs place so it doesn't seem odd when guns are missing.




I think folks are taking their concepts and tropes from popular myth and fiction, not real-world history.  Most folks don't seem to have any problem keeping them separate without cognitive dissonance.

I hang around with loads of people who do historical re-enactment (from Roman through Renaissance, and a couple Civil War folks as well), and outright historians.  More historical knowledge than you can shake a stick at, well aware of when guns came into play.  Not a one of them gives a whit that the historical gun is not available alongside the semi-historical armor.  

I'm a physicist.  I don't have any problems when Star Trek has holes in its science.  I understand that it is fiction, and doesn't need to match the real world.  That's okay with me.



> When you would remove bows or lances from a fantasy game the players certainly would notice it.




Yes, but not because it is history, but because those are their fantasy tropes. In their minds, their anachronistic images of Robin Hood and the Knights of the Round Table are far more important than the technical bits of Agincourt.



> The myth of King arthur plays out even before that in late roman times.




The myth of Arthur does not play out in one particular time, largely because it isn't really one myth.  There's Geoffry of Monmouth's version, and Mallory's version. Then the Romantics got hold of it.  Then there's T.H. White and Marion Zimmer Bradley and the movies Excalibur and First Knight, and many other versions.  Some of these are entirely ambiguous about time periods.  Some (like Peter David's) moves Arthur, _et al._ into the modern era.  All of those prior versions are in major part patched together out of stuff much older - Arthur's Grail grew out of older Celtic magical cauldrons, for example.

Saint George lived in the late 200s.  Not 1200s, but 200s.  Do a google image search on St. George and the Dragon.  Many or most of the images you get have him in armor that most certainly didn't exist in 300.  That's because he became a model for the chivalry.  The myth has moved far away from the history (setting aside the complete lack of dragons in history).

Myths are not models of historical accuracy - they are _false stories_.  The popular ones are iconic, and tell us what we expect to appear in such fictions.  If enough presenters show us Arthur or St. George in heavy plate with a lance, but no guns around, then the myth sits in some anachronistic version of reality.  Which is fine, because these people weren't real anyway.

You want to impose your concept of technological consistency on your game, go to and have fun.  You want to understand why others don't,  you need to discard the idea that to do so is somehow natural.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 16, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I think folks are taking their concepts and tropes from popular myth and fiction, not real-world history.  Most folks don't seem to have any problem keeping them separate without cognitive dissonance.




Right. The question, though, is if you set aside history, what is your context? If you are working within an established genre (e.g. Romantic Arthurian mythos) then mythology takes the place of historical fact. If you are making up something entirely new, then it falls on you to carve out believable non-facts. As the saying goes, people will believe the impossible but not the improbable. Now, for any given gaming group, "no firearms" flies, and the history of D&D suggests that is not a problem for the vast majority of D&D groups. But there are many people for whom it is a bothersome trope; if you are aware of certain historical reasons for things, it is hard to ignore, not the facts, but the logic of the situation. It's not difficult to separate the rapier from the musket, as their functions do not interrelate, but it is much harder to separate alchemy from gunpowder...


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 17, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Yes, they were. Cannons predate frequent hand-gonne use by a couple of centuries. Pre-cannon castles didn't look like castles, either; they looked like stone houses surrounded by a wall and a moat. A medieval ranch-house.




Early cannons were anti-personal. Once they got large enough to be used against castles, they changed fortifications:

From wikipedia on siege craft:
_The introduction of gunpowder and the use of cannons brought about a new age in siege warfare. Cannons were first used in __Song Dynasty__ China during the early 13th century, but did not become significant weapons for another 150 years or so. By the 16th century, they were an essential and regularized part of any campaigning army, or castle's defenses._
_The greatest advantage of cannons over other siege weapons was the ability to fire a heavier projectile, further, faster and more often than previous weapons. They could also fire projectiles in a straight line, so that they could destroy the bases of high walls. Thus, 'old fashioned' walls - that is high and, relatively, thin - were excellent targets and, over time, easily demolished. In 1453, the great walls of __Constantinople__, the capital of the __Byzantine Empire__, were broken through in just six weeks by the 62 cannons of __Mehmet II__'s army._

_However, new fortifications, designed to withstand gunpowder weapons, were soon constructed throughout Europe. During the __Renaissance__ and the __Early Modern__ period, siege warfare continued to dominate the conduct of the European wars._

and a little farther down on the same page:
_The castles that in earlier years had been formidable obstacles were easily breached by the new weapons. For example, in Spain, the newly equipped army of __Ferdinand and Isabella__ was able to conquer __Moorish__ strongholds in __Granada__ in 1482–92 that had held out for centuries before the invention of cannons._
_In the early 15th century, Italian architect __Leon Battista Alberti__ wrote a treatise entitled De Re aedificatoria which theorized methods of building fortifications capable of withstanding the new guns. He proposed that walls be "built in uneven lines, like the teeth of a saw." He proposed star-shaped fortresses with low thick walls._
_However, few rulers paid any attention to his theories. A few towns in Italy began building in the new style late in the 1480s, but it was only with the French invasion of the Italian peninsula in 1494–95 that the new fortifications were built on a large scale. __Charles VIII__ invaded Italy with an army of 18,000 men and a horse-drawn __siege-train__. As a result he could defeat virtually any city or state, no matter how well defended. In a panic, military strategy was completely rethought throughout the Italian states of the time, with a strong emphasis on the new fortifications that could withstand a modern siege._

The linkage between effect siege cannon and changes in fortifications is pretty clear cut. If you don't think it is, please give some concrete counter examples.

As pre-cannon castles, how about:
The Edwardian castles in the 1280s.
Krak des chevaliers 1030-1250s
Chateau Gaillard 1198

These don't seem to fit your amusing characterization.

As for a date of siege-effective cannon in Europe, it seems to be around 1350 at the very earliest but more like the fall of constantinople in 1453 that they were really used as wall smashers and the impact on fortification design gained momentum from that time.

From wikiepedia:

_The first metal cannon was the __pot-de-fer__. Loaded with an arrow-like __bolt__ that was probably wrapped in leather to allow greater thrusting power, it was set off through a __touch hole__ with a heated wire. This weapon, and others similar, were used by both the __French__ and English during the __Hundred Years' War__, when cannon saw their first real use on the European battlefield.[34] While still a relatively rarely used weapon, cannon were employed in increasing numbers during the war. "Ribaldis", which shot large arrows and simplistic __grapeshot__, were first mentioned in the English Privy Wardrobe accounts during preparations for the __Battle of Crécy__, between 1345 and 1346.[36] The Florentine __Giovanni Villani__ recounts their destructiveness, indicating that by the end of the battle, "the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls."[36] Similar cannon were also used at the __Siege of Calais__, in the same year, although it was not until the 1380s that the "ribaudekin" clearly became mounted on wheels.[36]_

I don't see how your statement holds.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 17, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yep, because it isn't about simulation of something real, but about meeting some genre and theme expectations.




And much like comic books, if you look at the actual settings being weighed down by the genre, they don't make a lick of sense.

Reed Richards, Doctor Doom, and others should have revolutionized the Marvel Earth into something completely unrecognizeable by now but haven't because that would push against the genre/boundires of the story.

As long as you're just trying to game and not get into anything deeper, things probably work okay.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, as I understand it, Oerth didn't come about the way Earth did.  No billions of years and evolution and all that.  The sentient races on it were created by their respective gods.  They could well have been created with post-stone age knowledge.
> 
> But, even if not - we in the real world know a great deal about our Stone and Bronze ages because we have entire classes of people whose role and profession in our society is digging out what happened in the past.  And we've only had what you'd call "good" information in the past century.
> 
> So, the (fictional) people in Greyhawk may well not have that information.  And, if it isn't going to impact play, it is rather low priority on the list of things that need to be published.  If your setting book page count is of a few hundred pages, the stone age that no longer is in the world isn't going to get printed.




Couple of hundred pages might be true for Greyhawk (if we only accept official sources) but what about Forgotten Realms?  Between fiction and game books you've got tens of thousands of pages of Realmslore.  Surely they could have had a bronze age in there.

Then you have Dragonlance, where they actually time travel back a few hundred years, and there isn't any apparent technogical differences.  I mean, it would be pretty hard on Earth to go back three hundred years and not notice much difference at any point after the fall of Rome.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 17, 2010)

marcq said:


> Early cannons were anti-personal. Once they got large enough to be used against castles, they changed fortifications:




I don't know how to refute you, since I would just be quoting the same passages back at you, which describe the transition from mid-14th centurty to the 16th century, during which time cannons became increasingly effective against castle walls. But long-barreled cannons are definitely 16th century and on. That's more than two hundred years of bombards, grapeshot, wall cannons, and hand cannons in action, all of which coincided with feudalism, and castles. 

Selectively coloring text in Wikipedia doesn't make you right, I'm sorry. You're cherrypicking quotes from a very general overview, written by a team of amateurs and edited by no one, and you're still not making your point, anyway.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Between fiction and game books you've got tens of thousands of pages of Realmslore.  Surely they could have had a bronze age in there.




Could have, sure.  It was entirely possible,. nothing much stopping them.  But while I can see it as something a few folks would find nice to see, it doesn't seem to me to be anything anyone's been clamoring for.  

So, they had means and opportunity, but motive seems a little thin. 



> Then you have Dragonlance, where they actually time travel back a few hundred years, and there isn't any apparent technogical differences.




Yes, but you also ought to note that that time travel was immediately before the fall of a major culture and the departure of godlike beings who had been providing major support to the cultures all over the planet - they called it the Cataclysm for a reason.  Those few hundred years were spent in recovery, rather than advancement.  Go figure.




JoeGKushner said:


> As long as you're just trying to game and not get into anything deeper, things probably work okay.




I suppose if you're doing deep sociological stuff through your RPG, there's an issue.  But for the vast majority of personal stories about action-adventure heroes?  You can go pretty darned deep there.



pawsplay said:


> If you are making up something entirely new, then it falls on you to carve out believable non-facts.




....



> But there are many people for whom it is a bothersome trope; if you are aware of certain historical reasons for things, it is hard to ignore, not the facts, but the logic of the situation. It's not difficult to separate the rapier from the musket, as their functions do not interrelate, but it is much harder to separate alchemy from gunpowder...




So, here is a question for you - just because things advanced in a particular way in Earth history, does that make an alternate path unbelievable?  There's only one way for technological advancement to go?  All things proceed inevitably as we did them?  Even when we clearly have different laws of physics implied by the existence of magic in the setting?

That sounds less reasonable to me than missing gunpowder in a pseudo-Medieval setting, honestly.  YMMV.


----------



## Funkenstein23 (Nov 17, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In doing some research for a certain upcoming adventure path, I was reading The Half-Made World.
> 
> It's Steampunk. Specifically, it's a fantastic Old West.
> 
> ...




Omigosh. I seriously need to do a magic steampunk old west setting in dnd. That all sounds so freakin intense.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 17, 2010)

Umbran said:


> So, here is a question for you - just because things advanced in a particular way in Earth history, does that make an alternate path unbelievable?  There's only one way for technological advancement to go?  All things proceed inevitably as we did them?  Even when we clearly have different laws of physics implied by the existence of magic in the setting?
> 
> That sounds less reasonable to me than missing gunpowder in a pseudo-Medieval setting, honestly.  YMMV.




No, I was only making a point about alchemy and gunpowder. As I just said, I don't see a problem separating the rapier from the musket, though of course that is astoundingly anachronistic. Different laws of physics do not preclude characters from logically pursuing applications of things that demonstrably work in the setting.

Consider the transporter on Star Trek. Absolutely, I can accept the Star Trek universe is probably not our own. But I can't think of any good reason why the transporter memory banks, which we have seen in use many times, cannot be used to create a limitless supply of Jean-Luc Picard clones, enough to defeat every menace in the universe that doesn't take cover behind liberal humanism. 

So... back to gunpowder. If alchemists can create instant epoxies (tanglefoot bag) and other chemical wonders, and magic can create explosions (explosive fireball), it does seem a little unlikely that alchemy and/or magic can't figure out something to stick into a bomb, bombard, or cannon. Even in consideration of whatever "different physical laws" you want, the worlds of D&D tend to have vastly MORE resources for building guns and bombs, if they chose to do so. The reaons have to be something else.

So, it is really more difficult to explain why gunpowder or gunpowderlike weapons are not available than to say that they simply are. And they can continue to exist alongside chivalry and feudalism and cavalry and catapults and archery, just as they did in real history for centuries. The only reason to exclude them is a personal preference. If one were to play in a historical Japanese game, it would be a reason to select an era before the widespread use of muskets rather than after. In D&D, it is a consideration that shapes the genre enacted.

There is nothing wrong with plate armor in a world with no guns, but it should be recognized as a fanstastical scape, like a gangster movie in which everyone uses kung fu and no guns, or the various Victoriana/steampunk settings. If you want something more grounded, it's easier to aim for something more like the era of the late Crusades, and then file the edges to include or exclude technology of neighboring centuries. Sometimes I do play a gonzo, all-in fantasy setting, but for serious world-building, I would prefer something more grounded. Not necessarily Earth-like, but something intellible to humans and able to withstand reasonably educated viewpoints coming at the setting from various directions.


----------



## Shades of Green (Nov 18, 2010)

It depends on the setting. If you want to emulate Conan or Lord of the Rings, or if you want an Arthurian or Dark Ages game, firearms should stay out of your game. But if you want a renaissance, steampunk, or, more importantly, if you want a pirate game (ARRR!), guns would fit right in.

As for the rules, I don't think that firearms need to be too different, mechanically speaking, from crossbows; I'd give them a somewhat better damage (in D20 or BFRPG, 1d8 for pistols and 1d10 for muskets), require two full rounds to load (one full round with a feat, or, in BFRPG, one round if you are a Fighter), make them very noisy and make the powder vulnerable to fire and water. Everyone should be able to use firearms, or, for the very least, pistols. The long loading times should encourage 'pirate'-type combat: fire your gun once, then draw your cutlass and charge (while screaming ARRRR! ).


----------



## Umbran (Nov 18, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> So... back to gunpowder. If alchemists can create instant epoxies (tanglefoot bag) and other chemical wonders, and magic can create explosions (explosive fireball), it does seem a little unlikely that alchemy and/or magic can't figure out something to stick into a bomb, bombard, or cannon.




Having the capability to develop a thing does not mean the thing actually gets developed.  Particular technological advancements are not part of fate or destiny.  

So, there's no reason they could not figure out something to put in a bombard, sure.  But there is no particular reason they must figure out something to put in a bombard, either.  Especially when you have people and monsters who, by themselves, are largely equivalent to bombards (which our real world doesn't have).


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 18, 2010)

For 4E mechanics, here's what I'd go with:

_*Musket* (Simple Two-Handed Ranged Weapon)_
*Cost:* 50 gp
*Damage:* 1d12
*Proficiency:* +2
*Range:* 15/30
*Weight:* 10 lbs.
*Properties:* Load Standard, High Crit
*Group:* Crossbow*

_*Pistol* (Simple One-Handed Ranged Weapon)_
*Cost:* 30 gp
*Damage:* 1d10
*Proficiency:* +2
*Range:* 10/20
*Weight:* 3 lbs.
*Properties:* Load Standard, High Crit
*Group:* Crossbow*

[size=-2]*The crossbow group might be renamed to "mechanical."[/size]


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 18, 2010)

You can easily have firearms in a Dark Ages or Conan or LotR style game.  _Just don't give them to everyone_.  It's not like the entire world suddenly had firearms as soon as they were discovered.

I don't get it.  We accept that a small number of people can learn magic but most don't.  A small number of people can learn alchemy but most don't.  A small number of people can become PCs but most don't.

But everyone *must* have firearms once they exist.

In fact, as a freebie, I'll give four great fluffy reasons you can have firearms in such a game that not only doesn't "kill the fluff" but gives you even more and greater plot hooks.  Not even black powder weapons, but modern cap and rifling.

1) *The Alkenstar Reason*: Alkenstar is an area on the Pathfinder setting of Golarion that is located in a huge mana-dead zone.  As a result, they've developed technologically and, hey, they have guns - rifles and revolvers at that.  Of course, they make guns and sell them...but since they control the entire production, they don't sell a _lot_, and what they do sell is their crap models that were made cheaply, leading to rifles non-Alkenstar folks get aren't used for actual firing, and are kept as a status symbol.  Your gun-toting character comes from Alkenstar and has a distinctively non-crap version of their firearms, along with the knowledge on how to clean and repair it as well as make their own bullets from common alchemical materials.

2) *The Suikoden Reason*: In the setting of Suikoden, one of the major political power players is the Holy Kingdom of Harmonia.  One of their more vicious and feared groups inside of Harmonia is the Howling Voice Guild, a secretive cabal of assassins who, you guessed it, use guns.  And only they use guns.  If they ever hear of someone else developing it, or if an agent with a firearm is ever lost and the firearm isn't returned, then a hunt begins - ensuring that they, and only they, have access.  Your gun-toting character is one such agent - perhaps sent to join the party for outside reasons, perhaps working on his own, perhaps he has an outside goal and believes the party will help him achieve it, or perhaps he's even on the run.

3) *The Exotic Reason*

Firearms are a strange weapon from another land.  Europe never had repeating crossbows despite repeating crossbows being horrifying weapons of death.  Heck, China had crude *flamethrowers* and a style of pump vastly superior to European ones.  It's not exactly uncommon for countries to have weapons that don't really spread outside of the country.  Your gun-toting character is a wanderer from another land, carrying a weapon others don't really _get_.

4) *The Gunslinger Reason*

People know what firearms are.  Or what they were, at least.  This could be a continuation of any of the above.  Firearms used to be known to the world but, for one reason or another, that knowledge was lost outside of a select few.  Your gun-toting character is one of those few.  The world around doesn't get how gun-forging works, much less how to properly use one.

Boom, there you go.  Four distinct fluff reasons to have guns in your Dark Ages setting without suddenly "Oh man everyone has a gun now!"


----------



## Umbran (Nov 18, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I don't get it.  We accept that a small number of people can learn magic but most don't.  A small number of people can learn alchemy but most don't.  A small number of people can become PCs but most don't.
> 
> But everyone *must* have firearms once they exist.




The answer lies in what you just wrote.

Learn magic.  Learn alchemy.  Have firearms.  Note the difference: major learning curve and Intelligence requirement vs cash in pocket.  

Your reasons all share a very basic flaw - reverse engineering happens.  Historically, limited or controlled production does not long contain the spread of a more effective technology.  At the end of a discussion pointing out how in our world they became common earlier than most people think, getting folks to accept that the tech can be kept uncommon seems... a dubious enterprise


----------



## lin_fusan (Nov 18, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> For 4E mechanics, here's what I'd go with:
> 
> _*Musket* (Simple Two-Handed Ranged Weapon)_
> *Cost:* 50 gp
> ...




I might make it Load Move, otherwise characters would only be able to fire once every two rounds and that wouldn't make the increased damage die worth it. 

It would also be thematically appropriate when a gun-wielding character faces with a melee opponent. They'd have to decide whether or not to fire the gun and get an OA or to drop and pull a melee weapon, which simulates the fire then drop-to-melee style of play mentioned previously.

Although then I might change the High Crit... perhaps to Brutal 1? I dunno...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 18, 2010)

Umbran said:


> The answer lies in what you just wrote.
> 
> Learn magic.  Learn alchemy.  Have firearms.  Note the difference: major learning curve and Intelligence requirement vs cash in pocket.
> 
> Your reasons all share a very basic flaw - reverse engineering happens.  Historically, limited or controlled production does not long contain the spread of a more effective technology.  At the end of a discussion pointing out how in our world they became common earlier than most people think, getting folks to accept that the tech can be kept uncommon seems... a dubious enterprise




Except that it took a very long time for it to *become* common in Europe despite China having it for a very, very long time.  Except that there's been more then enough examples of technology doing exactly what you claim as a "dubious enterprise."

Even beyond that, your wordplay doesn't work.

Have magical items.  Have alchemical items.  Learn firearms usage, cleaning, and maintenance.

See I can do it too.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 19, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Except that it took a very long time for it to *become* common in Europe despite China having it for a very, very long time.




Indeed. And despite the proximity of China, Japan depended on the importation of European weapons and expertise for quite some time during their transition warfare. While the production of black powder is not all that difficult, producing it safely and in quantities is a bit of cultural knowledge that will not spread automatically, to say nothing of the difficulties of learning to make good metal for the guns themselves.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 19, 2010)

lin_fusan said:


> I might make it Load Move, otherwise characters would only be able to fire once every two rounds and that wouldn't make the increased damage die worth it.




Well, that's the point. You're not supposed to use a gun as your primary weapon; the idea is to fire the gun on the first round, then drop/holster it and pull out your cutlass (or whatever). It's a lot like how fighters use javelins in 4E. You chuck a javelin as you close to melee range, then draw your sword and go to town.

It would work best if using the inherent bonuses rule, since you obviously don't want to waste a lot of resources on magically enhancing a weapon you only use once in a combat.

If you really wanted to have an option for gun specialists, you could add a feat that reduced the reload time to a move or a minor action.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 19, 2010)

Hmmm, in considering my setting I realized that in that setting magic, not gunpowder, is the emerging technology.

Arcane Magic was, for more than a millennium and a half, suppressed by the faith of a largely monolithic and monotheistic religion - it was hard to do and unreliable, mostly not working at all. Not to mention the good folks in the red robes who enforced the laws against arcane magic with flame and rope - whether or not the attempt was successful. (Or even happened at all... witchfinders are paid by the head....) 

As the monolithic faith began to break apart in a series of schism the walls of faith grew weaker - a matter made worse by the the largest faction was corrupted, selling indulgences in the form of a license to commit the mortal sin of Arcane Magic. 

So the rules of magic are being rediscovered, texts from the times of Thales and Aristotle being scrutinized for any structure that might be present.

It is worth mentioning that the Eastern branch of the faith schismed early, and had no trouble with arcane magic, considering magic to be one of Gods greatest gifts. Priest-mages form a third branch of the Eastern Faith, along with secular and monastic priests. (This came about when I discovered that Albertus Magnus is a saint on the Eastern Orthodox calender....) Not as big a difference as you might think - magic still did not work all that reliably, with priest-mages more likely to succeed than a pure mage.

Technological advance does happen - in the course of the primary timeline for the game the flintlock (snapchance) replaces the wheellock, spreading rapidly across the field of battle, and taking the gun from the field and into the woods, since it is now reliable and common enough to hunt with. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Shades of Green (Nov 19, 2010)

I've written firearm house-rules for BFRPG, which should probably be useful with most pre-3E editions...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Except that there's been more then enough examples of technology doing exactly what you claim as a "dubious enterprise."




Please allow me to restate:

The basic argument given earlier was that those who didn't like guns in their game were anachronistically wrongity-wrong-wrong, as firearms were supposedly common in the time when Europe had heavy armor like D&D uses.

But now you're saying, "Well, they don't have to be common".  This undermines the original logic for their presence in the fantasy realm.  If they don't have to be common, matching the real-world, they don't have to be present at all, either!



> Have magical items.  Have alchemical items.  Learn firearms usage, cleaning, and maintenance.
> 
> See I can do it too.




Yes, but not so well, for two reasons...

1) The reason guns are the great equalizer is the ease with which their use and maintenance is learned.  Putting a musketeer cannon-crew in the field should not be equivalent to putting a wizard in the field.

2) As a GM, I can dole out magic items as I wish as one-time things.  To be useful in game, firearms need an infrastructure and continuing supply of consumable support (gunpowder), which implies something rather more than one-time distribution.  In order to be plausibly useful, mundane guns shouldn't be unique items, while magic and alchemical items can.


----------



## Derren (Nov 19, 2010)

Umbran said:


> The basic argument given earlier was that those who didn't like guns in their game were anachronistically wrongity-wrong-wrong, as firearms were supposedly common in the time when Europe had heavy armor like D&D uses.




Thing is, without firearms heavy armor has no reason to exist.


> 2) As a GM, I can dole out magic items as I wish as one-time things.  To be useful in game, firearms need an infrastructure and continuing supply of consumable support (gunpowder), which implies something rather more than one-time distribution.  In order to be plausibly useful, mundane guns shouldn't be unique items, while magic and alchemical items can.



In 4E yes. In previous editions you also needed a large infrastructure for magic, likely even larger than for guns, because of all the spell components. And rituals in 4E need an infrastructure (components), too.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2010)

Derren said:


> Thing is, without firearms heavy armor has no reason to exist.




So it has been asserted.  

But that is neither here nor there.  As I noted previously, I don't think the historical reason for the development of the armor matters to most folks, any more than they are bothered by the image of a warrior saint from the late 3rd century wearing the stuff.



> In 4E yes. In previous editions you also needed a large infrastructure for magic, likely even larger than for guns, because of all the spell components. And rituals in 4E need an infrastructure (components), too.




By in large, I think you'll find that most spell components are largely unprocessed materials.  Black powder is, by comparison, highly processed, and requires specialized knowledge to produce.  Just getting the saltpeter is a process that can take a year or so by methods of the day.

I think the apt comparison is not to spell components, but to other alchemical items.  You want a character to have a tanglefoot-thrower or thunderstoner as a regular weapon, then you need a constant supply of thunderstones or the stuff in tanglefoot bags.  You want that many alchemists around, putting out that much product, well, that's fine.


----------



## SKyOdin (Nov 19, 2010)

As many have said before, the only reason guns are not standard in D&D is due to long-standing genre conventions. However, genre conventions change over time, and I think Fantasy Gun Control is one of those genre conventions that is changing.

Look at one of the most popular fantasy worlds across all media right now: Azeroth as seen in World of Warcraft. It has guns, both as regular weapons of war and as weapons for heroes. Heck, it even has anachronistically advanced cartridge-based, repeating guns. Likewise, the fairly popular video game series Fable uses repeating clockwork guns.

I think steampunkish setting elements such as fantastic clockwork guns are beginning to become a more mainstream part of fantasy these days. Pretty soon, guns and steam engines might be included as part of generic vanilla fantasy.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 20, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Please allow me to restate:
> 
> The basic argument given earlier was that those who didn't like guns in their game were anachronistically wrongity-wrong-wrong, as firearms were supposedly common in the time when Europe had heavy armor like D&D uses.
> 
> But now you're saying, "Well, they don't have to be common".  This undermines the original logic for their presence in the fantasy realm.  If they don't have to be common, matching the real-world, they don't have to be present at all, either!




I think you're going to have to show your work on tht last sentence. In the real world, firearms ranged from common to uncommon, contemporary with advanced steel making (rapier/katana/articulated plate). They do not range from common to nonexistent. You can argue "different physical laws," but not if the physical laws permit a number of other explosive effects. 

You can either ignore the discrepancy, which is not wrongity-wrong-wrong, but is senseless. Not necessarily bad, but not necessarily good, either. Or you can rationalize it, which has the advantages of not having guns, while not being seneseless, either. There are reasons for each approach. I think rationalizing the situation is definitely the ideal, but may not be worth the effort for some campaigns.

And here's the thing. You can introduce any element you want by fiat. If it is an anachronism, it will be fine with anyone who is unaware. It will also be fine with anyone who is aware, but does not find it jarring. But if someone is aware, and finds it jarring, that's a disadvantage in creating your imaginary world. 

There's that King Arthur movie. I could forgive a lot, but not its claim of historicity. After all, it was set in the post-Roman era, the "Dark Ages," yet it included Lancelot. Lancelot, as we know, is French, and was introduced to the mythos in the 12th century. It's pretty much impossible to not notice Lancelot's presence, which becomes all the more jarring every time they throw in "historic" details, like Arthur's still-anachronistic but slightly less anachronistic allegiance to Pelagius. It makes the whole movie, irrespective of its merits, smell like bull pockey. If the movie had been called, say, King Zarion, and took place in Zinoland, it would have merely been a lightweight action film with lurid yet shallow commentary on civic order.


----------



## SKyOdin (Nov 20, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Please allow me to restate:
> 
> The basic argument given earlier was that those who didn't like guns in their game were anachronistically wrongity-wrong-wrong, as firearms were supposedly common in the time when Europe had heavy armor like D&D uses.




I don't think people were saying that is was wrong for people to not have guns in D&D. Rather, I think the pro-gunpowder side was just preemptively debunking the silly "Medieval Europe didn't have guns, so why should D&D" argument, as well as the just as silly and much more pervasive "guns eliminated knights, heavy armor, castles, and feudalism" argument. There is a lot of ignorance and misinformation about this topic that needs to be addressed whenever this topic comes up. In general though, this is just a defense against the claim that guns don't belong in D&D, rather than an argument that guns must be in D&D.

In my experience, people without a lot of historical knowledge tend to be familiar with the Middle Ages in general (but not the fine differences between the Early, High, and Late Middle Ages) and with the era of colonialism, revolution and Napoleon, but not so much with what was between those two. As such, in regards to the structure of society, technology, and so on, most people tend to mentally jump from the mid-15th century to the late 18th century with little regard for the large gulf of time between those. And I find the 16th and 17th centuries to be a particularly interesting time in world history that is a great place to draw inspiration from for D&D. It was the era where guns, castles, armor, swords, and pikes were all part of the battlefield worldwide, from the English Civil War, to the wars of the Sengoku period in Japan, to Cortez's invasion of the Americas.

As for the castle discussion, I think claims that castles stopped being castles when they began to change in their appearance are very faulty. Defining castles based on their appearance is very problematic because the stereotypical castle is nothing more that a particular style of castle from a particular time period and a particular part of the world. It is also worth pointing out that architecture is equal parts practicality and fashion. While castles were built based on practical needs, they were also defined by trends in architectural fashion and local traditions. A major shift in architectural trends affected castles as well. Defining castles based on their appearance would mean that Indian or Japanese castles wouldn't qualify as castles, which is just silly.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 20, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I don't know how to refute you, since I would just be quoting the same passages back at you, which describe the transition from mid-14th centurty to the 16th century, during which time cannons became increasingly effective against castle walls. But long-barreled cannons are definitely 16th century and on. That's more than two hundred years of bombards, grapeshot, wall cannons, and hand cannons in action, all of which coincided with feudalism, and castles.
> 
> Selectively coloring text in Wikipedia doesn't make you right, I'm sorry. You're cherrypicking quotes from a very general overview, written by a team of amateurs and edited by no one, and you're still not making your point, anyway.




The coloring simply comes through from the cut-and-paste from wikipedia. The articles provide plenty of references if you want to research them, some included in the cut-and-paste and the rest available on the page links provided.

These quotes and the overall articles are in-line with everything I've read on this period. I could go dig up some direct quotes but I think they make the case pretty clearly: while cannons did not change things over night, they had a clear and profound change on fortifications. The type most often seen as castles were shown to be very weak against cannons, not the early anti-personal weapons called cannons but anti-fortifications cannons available in the mid 1400s.

I guess we'll just leave it as my admittedly casual attempt to provide supportung material for my position versus your bald assertions.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 20, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I don't know how to refute you, since I would just be quoting the same passages back at you, which describe the transition from mid-14th centurty to the 16th century, during which time cannons became increasingly effective against castle walls. But long-barreled cannons are definitely 16th century and on. That's more than two hundred years of bombards, grapeshot, wall cannons, and hand cannons in action, all of which coincided with feudalism, and castles.
> 
> Selectively coloring text in Wikipedia doesn't make you right, I'm sorry. You're cherrypicking quotes from a very general overview, written by a team of amateurs and edited by no one, and you're still not making your point, anyway.




The coloring simply comes through from the cut-and-paste from wikipedia. The articles provide plenty of references if you want to research them, some included in the cut-and-paste and the rest available on the page links provided.

These quotes and the overall articles are in-line with everything I've read on this period. I could go dig up some direct quotes but I think they make the case pretty clearly: while cannons did not change things over night, they had a clear and profound change on fortifications. The type most often seen as castles were shown to be very weak against cannons, not the early anti-personal weapons called cannons but anti-fortifications cannons available in the mid 1400s.

I guess we'll just leave it as my admittedly casual attempt to provide supporting material for my position versus your bald assertions. You could call it cherrypicking; other's could call it backing up their statements.


----------



## SKyOdin (Nov 20, 2010)

I just had a thought about the castle issue. The general claim is that castles fell out of use because cannons made them obsolete, and Europeans instead switched to a mix of dedicated forts and nonmilitary palaces. However, the segregation of palaces and forts was hardly a new thing in the world at large. The ancient Romans had palaces and dedicated forts, but didn't build true castles for the most part. Ditto for the Chinese dynasties. When you look outside of Medieval Europe, there is a wide mix of civilizations that either built castles or built separate palaces and forts, and cannons cannot be used as a reason for why these various civilizations made the choice one way or another.

I would actually suggest that cannons had nothing to do with why Europe switched from building castles to building palaces and fortresses. If you look at the broader picture, castles tend to be built in periods and places where power is heavily decentralized or where conflict is common. On the other hand, well-organized societies where power is centralized seem to tend to build a mix of civilian palaces and military fortresses.

Europe just happened to arm its armies with guns and cannons around the same time that it was making the transition from a decentralized feudal society to organized nation-states with absolute monarchs.


----------



## luckless (Nov 20, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> I just had a thought about the castle issue. The general claim is that castles fell out of use because cannons made them obsolete, and Europeans instead switched to a mix of dedicated forts and nonmilitary palaces. However, the segregation of palaces and forts was hardly a new thing in the world at large. The ancient Romans had palaces and dedicated forts, but didn't build true castles for the most part. Ditto for the Chinese dynasties. When you look outside of Medieval Europe, there is a wide mix of civilizations that either built castles or built separate palaces and forts, and cannons cannot be used as a reason for why these various civilizations made the choice one way or another.
> 
> I would actually suggest that cannons had nothing to do with why Europe switched from building castles to building palaces and fortresses. If you look at the broader picture, castles tend to be built in periods and places where power is heavily decentralized or where conflict is common. On the other hand, well-organized societies where power is centralized seem to tend to build a mix of civilian palaces and military fortresses.
> 
> Europe just happened to arm its armies with guns and cannons around the same time that it was making the transition from a decentralized feudal society to organized nation-states with absolute monarchs.




Those are interesting points, and we could get into writing series of books to get into all the details over the divides and trends between palaces, fortifications, and whether or not they are built as different structures. However the development of the cannon had an undeniable effect on how fortifications were designed and constructed. 

In all honesty, against a dedicated force that is up to the task of placing siege to a modern fortification with cannon, an out dated castle is likely more of a drawback and danger to the defenders than it is a bonus. You limit your movements, and the opposing army would know exactly where you were. You would likely be better off trying to run through the hills and escape than you would holding your death trap after an opposing force trained a few of its cannon on the very limited exits, and then brought the walls down with the rest.

Now, that said, I really don't think cannons would have a greater effect on castle construction than things like: Dragons who can fly over the walls and roast everything. Magic users who can silently pass through even the highest or thickest walls, or bring them down in roaring thunder. When you consider all the things even a 5th level magic user can do against a castle's defenses in D&D,... Frankly cannon aren't really something that are going to matter in the big picture. 

Just picture how well a great castle is going to hold up against a nice bank of obscuring fog or something to cover a few hundred armed warriors quietly walking up to the front gate, and then having a wizard cast Knock on the front gate?


----------



## SKyOdin (Nov 20, 2010)

luckless said:


> Those are interesting points, and we could get into writing series of books to get into all the details over the divides and trends between palaces, fortifications, and whether or not they are built as different structures. However the development of the cannon had an undeniable effect on how fortifications were designed and constructed.
> 
> In all honesty, against a dedicated force that is up to the task of placing siege to a modern fortification with cannon, an out dated castle is likely more of a drawback and danger to the defenders than it is a bonus. You limit your movements, and the opposing army would know exactly where you were. You would likely be better off trying to run through the hills and escape than you would holding your death trap after an opposing force trained a few of its cannon on the very limited exits, and then brought the walls down with the rest.
> 
> ...




Of course castle design would change in response to new technologies. But they don't stop being castles because their appearance changes.

As you mention though, magic would have an impact on castle design. A wizard could do a lot of damage to a non-magical castle. The simplest solution would be to upgrade to a magical castle. A high fantasy castle might just be a fancy house surrounded by a force wall and numerous other magical wards. Of course, exact changes would vary based on edition, rules, setting, etc. Discussion of magic vs. castles mundane and magical is probably a topic for its own thread though.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 20, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I think you're going to have to show your work on tht last sentence.




Okay, fine.  By your own admission, in the historical world firearms were common to uncommon contemporary with the technology for making full plate.  So, common is reasonable.  Uncommon is reasonable.  There's clearly some spectrum of reasonable choices.

You tell me when I become unreasonable: Firearms are...

...common, uncommon, very uncommon, rare, unique, nonexistent.

Can you demonstrate that this point is not arbitrary, or a personal preference?  If not, my point is made.



> And here's the thing. You can introduce any element you want by fiat. If it is an anachronism, it will be fine with anyone who is unaware. It will also be fine with anyone who is aware, but does not find it jarring. But if someone is aware, and finds it jarring, that's a disadvantage in creating your imaginary world.




You find the absence jarring in the face of historical reality.  Other gamers will find it to be in violation of genre.  So, the designer _cannot please everyone_.  Rock and a hard place.

Choose an element you can include in a game.  For every element you choose (or choose to exclude), there will probably be someone in the gaming community who feels your choice detracts from the game - either by being an anachronism, thematically inappropriate in their minds, or just the wrong shade of orange.

So, all elements are disadvantages to someone.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 20, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> I just had a thought about the castle issue. The general claim is that castles fell out of use because cannons made them obsolete, and Europeans instead switched to a mix of dedicated forts and nonmilitary palaces. However, the segregation of palaces and forts was hardly a new thing in the world at large. The ancient Romans had palaces and dedicated forts, but didn't build true castles for the most part. Ditto for the Chinese dynasties. When you look outside of Medieval Europe, there is a wide mix of civilizations that either built castles or built separate palaces and forts, and cannons cannot be used as a reason for why these various civilizations made the choice one way or another.
> 
> I would actually suggest that cannons had nothing to do with why Europe switched from building castles to building palaces and fortresses. If you look at the broader picture, castles tend to be built in periods and places where power is heavily decentralized or where conflict is common. On the other hand, well-organized societies where power is centralized seem to tend to build a mix of civilian palaces and military fortresses.
> 
> Europe just happened to arm its armies with guns and cannons around the same time that it was making the transition from a decentralized feudal society to organized nation-states with absolute monarchs.




There's several issues regarding the progression of castles to fortifications. The classic castle definition I have been able to find is basically a fortification used as a residence for a local lord. By this definition, it would rule out the Edwardian Welsh castles that I think most people are happy calling castles so perhaps that really isn't a great definition.

On the other hand, calling any masonry (or even non-masonry) fortifications castles dilutes the definition of castle beyond what I'm pretty sure most gamers have in mind. It does for me.

But I think it is indisputable that effective cannons caused fortifications to change in character. I've posted enough basic links there and it doesn't take much study of military architecture to see that.

Combining the "lordly residence issues" with the "cannons caused forts to change" issue and you find by the 1400s you have two trends in Europe driving you away from high middle ages castles as states grew stronger and eliminated a placed for fortified lordly residences and cannons changed the nature of fortifications.

To the original post of gunpowder in a game setting, most settings I see and most artwork I see has fortifications like high middle ages castles. Many players aspire to build such a castle as well. Add gunpowder and it would seem that such style fortifications would change in a reasonably short period of time, forts would have to change their nature. It would not follow that cannons would necessarily change lordly fortified residences though. The former is technological and the latter is societal. Societies have their own dynamic and a new weapon system doesn't necessarily change the society (although it can). But ignore something demonstrable like the ability for a cannon to knock down high, thin walls and your castles will be rendered useless and you will lose any military advantage from their construction.

As to appearances and styles, yes there is certainly a subjective element to it. But I ask you, if you are "going to Europe to see castles", how many woud go to see star forts or roman forts? Some may add that to the itinerary (I would) but I wouldn't consider them castles.

I'll also ask you this, if a referee has a game setting that includes cannons and he also has a high middle ages style castle and you the PC want to get into the castle, wouldn't you be kind of annoyed if your cannon couldn't break down the curtain wall and even the keep in short order? They are good at that; the evidence for their efficacy is clear cut. If he does let you do so, it then begs the question why was such a vulnerable fortification there? They aren't exactly cheap.

Gunpowder changed fortifications. If you still want to call the result castles, in the end, I suppose that's an aesthetic issue. My aeshetic sense prefers fortifications that look more like high middle ages fortifications and I don't think that is especially unusual for the gaming population.

If I am going to modify foritifications for the gaming world, I'd rather do so for magic and monsters, not for gunpowder. I don't see what gunpowder weapons really add to the setting, personally.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 20, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> Of course castle design would change in response to new technologies. But they don't stop being castles because their appearance changes.




Ultimately, that is my only point although I would observe that many people would not be so happy with the aesthetic of the resulting change. IIRC I started this subthread off with something like "add gunpowder and castles go away." I will rephrase that to "add gunpowder and fortifications change dramatically".

The difference being due to what one means by castle. In my original statement, I do admit I was using a short hand definition. You may consider subsequent fortifications castles but they aren't considered such in the literature I am familiar with. But I didn't define castle and I knew it at the time I made the post so my bad.

I doubt most folks playing with gunpowder change their fortifications to match. Game settings require a certain suspension of disbelief. Even so, as a ref, I'm not willing to add gunpowder without changing fortifications and as a player, it might suffice for a light, short duration game but not something I'd be all that happy with in the long run. It would raise questions for me about the ref's ability to sustain a credible game. I'm sure I'm just picky that way.



SKyOdin said:


> As you mention though, magic would have an impact on castle design. A wizard could do a lot of damage to a non-magical castle. The simplest solution would be to upgrade to a magical castle. A high fantasy castle might just be a fancy house surrounded by a force wall and numerous other magical wards. Of course, exact changes would vary based on edition, rules, setting, etc. Discussion of magic vs. castles mundane and magical is probably a topic for its own thread though.




Certainly a discussion for its own thread but if you think this thread was heated, such threads can get extremely heated  I'd be up for such a discussion though but it would need to have someone (not it!) define the ground rules. It's a fascinating concept but since many people read it as an attack on how they implemented their game setting, it raises hackles.

One way to frame it might be more of a 'what if exercise'. Not magic MUST change fortifications but instead given assumptions X,Y,Z, how would you see castles? The assumptions would need to define magic (perhaps with respect to a D&D edition) but also some demographics, specifically, what incidence of casters. The later can also be contentious since it combines raw rules items with societal elements.

Would be very fun though.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 21, 2010)

after having just read the Gunslinger Fall of Gilead, yeah, I'm convinced that there is a place for 'em in the fantasy genre. I'm thinking that if we ever see a Gunslinger movie series, people are going to be changing their minds real quick.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 21, 2010)

Not a fan.

There are things that tend to work well for fantasy, IMO, and others that don't. This is most certainly a "don't".


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 21, 2010)

For my own world, on a scale of Bloody Rare to Common, I would have to say that they are Uncommon bordering on Common - waiting for the flintlock to become truly Common weapons. About one out of three or four military units are equipped with arquebus.

They have already replaced both the bow and most of the crossbows. With the flintlock they will become common as hunting weapons, and bows will fade from the scene entirely. Already muskets are commonly used for hunting by soldiers and sailors alike.

I will admit that I have never understood the gaming bias against guns - to me they are very much part and parcel with magic, as is the age of Elizabeth I. Maybe because I grew up on Shakespeare and stories about pirates.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Wolf1066 (Nov 26, 2010)

I've got no objection at all to gunpowder or firearms in a fantasy setting.  

As has been frequently pointed out in the thread, they are not automatically common across the whole world from the moment of their invention and they do have both advantages and disadvantages that mitigate both their use and them being ignored in favour of other weapons - including magic.  

I think, though, if you're going to introduce realistic advantages and disadvantages of firearms, you'd have to do it for *all *weapons - which is something I don't particularly have an issue with.

If you can't realistically model the advantages and disadvantages of other weapons, then arbitrary restrictions/attempts at realism with firearms would not work.


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 28, 2010)

For my own personal tastes, I love a good deal of steampunk in the fantasy world. Iron Kingdoms is the campaign setting that I have found that scratched my itch. 

Unfortunately, my players are bit more ranging on their tastes. I have one player who only likes traditional sword and sorcery campaigns. No guns. I have another player who thinks they are O K A Y, but with serious limits and so on. I have another player who rather we dumped magic and switch a more historical fantasy so guns are cool. Actually, he'd rather play science fiction rpgs than fantasy. And my last player is kind of like me, he'd love to run / play an Eberron or Iron Kingdoms game, but can't illicit the interest.

Now, where I would draw the line is the introduction of science fiction into the fantasy. No ray guns, laser blasters, derelict spaceships, or computers running around waiting to be discovered or used in the world. That's my own personal preference.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

kitsune9 said:


> Now, where I would draw the line is the introduction of science fiction into the fantasy. No ray guns, laser blasters, derelict spaceships, or computers running around waiting to be discovered or used in the world. That's my own personal preference.




I agree. Was surprised to see the old scenario where the players explored a down spaceship rating so high.

Reminds me of the old _Might and Magic_ games where a perfectly reasonable fantasy game always ended up wondering into alien blasters and space ships. I guess the creators of the series had a thing for mixing the two. I always hated it and stopped buying the games for that reason.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 28, 2010)

kitsune9 said:


> Now, where I would draw the line is the introduction of science fiction into the fantasy. No ray guns, laser blasters, derelict spaceships, or computers running around waiting to be discovered or used in the world. That's my own personal preference.




This is a big disconnect between the origins of FRPGs and the interests of many people who play. Because D&D dipped heavily into LOTR for flavor, many D&D fans think of D&D as being LOTR-inspired, with its Dark Ages technology and mythological roots. In actuality, though, Gygax was principally inspired by works that were emphatically part of the science-fiction genre: Vance's Dying Earth, Howard's Conan stories, Moorcock's Elric, Norton's Witch World, Burroughs' Mars, HPL's Dreamlands. Furthermore, Gygax favored the high medieval - early Renaissance of the chivalric romances over Beowulf and Charlemagnes.  From the beginning, interdimensional portals were an implicit part of the setting.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> This is a big disconnect between the origins of FRPGs and the interests of many people who play. Because D&D dipped heavily into LOTR for flavor, many D&D fans think of D&D as being LOTR-inspired, with its Dark Ages technology and mythological roots. In actuality, though, Gygax was principally inspired by works that were emphatically part of the science-fiction genre: Vance's Dying Earth, Howard's Conan stories, Moorcock's Elric, Norton's Witch World, Burroughs' Mars, HPL's Dreamlands. Furthermore, Gygax favored the high medieval - early Renaissance of the chivalric romances over Beowulf and Charlemagnes. From the beginning, interdimensional portals were an implicit part of the setting.




That's an interesting historical perspective and perhaps there is a disconnect between one of the games creator's view on the matter and how most of the players view it but Gygax’s world preferences are hardly sacrosanct. If many players don’t like science fiction with their fantasy and they run their games accordingly, what difference does it make if one of the early gamers liked to mix the two?

Myself? I absolutely play D&D to experience a Tolkien type world and other similar “high fantasy” settings. My early gaming views are mostly lost in the haze of long ago decades but the intent to recreate a LOTR type feel I *do* remember (I even remember running some sessions that were siege of Minis Tirith-ish complete with laughable siege weapon rates of fire; hey, I was 13 or so.)

In any case, an aversion to mixed genres is not terribly hard to understand. Do you want harry Potter handing James Bond a magic acorn to turn his foe to stone at the end of the movie? Sticking to a genre is part of the implicit contract in most media.


More power to Gygax for helping to launch a hobby I cherish. But as far as his specific game, setting and other decisions? Never been especially impressed with them. I've found far more thoughtful folks on this board, whether I agree with them or not. I suppose I blaspheme...


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2010)

Marcq - I think you're misunderstanding Pawsplay here.  It's not that he's in any way saying that you're doing anything wrong in perfering not to blend genres.  It's just that for a lot of older fantasy fans, the dividing line between fantasy and SF was nowhere near as sharply defined as it is now.

As Pawsplay mentions, loads of fantasy and SF authors jumped the divide all the time.  It wasn't until the huge bump that fantasy got in the 80's that you actually see "pure" fantasy authors outside of a very few names like Tolkien.  In fact, before the 80's, about the only way a lot of fantasy books could see print was to dress themselves up as SF.  

So, it's hardly surprising that a lot of the earlier D&D works, like White Plume Mountain (fallen spaceship), Secret of the Slavelords Stockade (wagon mounted flame thrower - although that's perhaps less anachronistic than you might think), and The Dancing Hut (complete with miniaturized city and giant, fire breathing lizard) pick and choose all sorts of stuff from both sides of the fence.

Heck, Mystara borrows very heavily on this - flying ships, six guns, all sorts of anachronisms.  

There is a very long tradition in D&D to mix and match genres.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It wasn't until the huge bump that fantasy got in the 80's that you actually see "pure" fantasy authors outside of a very few names like Tolkien.  In fact, before the 80's, about the only way a lot of fantasy books could see print was to dress themselves up as SF.



You _might_ be right, but I'm not so sure...

A few of the big (pre-'80s) names that come to mind immediately: Conan, Tolkien's works of fiction, the Chronicles of Prydain, the Chronicles of Narnia, many (all?) of George MacDonald's works, the Earthsea trilogy... hm. I'm sure there are many others too (*big* names that apply, that is), but that's all for now.  Surely though, even those would be [the beginnings of?] a reasonable counterpoint?

That is to say, at least some of the most influential fantasy of all time has absolutely nothing to do with guns, technology in the commonly used sense of the word, etc. And that's before you even get to the '80s, as you more or less imply.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2010)

Umm, you do realize that Narnia's main characters were all modern day children no?

In Tolkien, the fireworks dragon that zoomed down through the party sounded like a freight train.  

Or, put it another way, for every pure fantasy author, you can probably name at least one mixed genre author.  

Heck, even the Conan stories borrowed from the Cthulu mythos - which has aliens.


----------



## humble minion (Nov 28, 2010)

While conventional Tolkien-inspired 'fantasy', which includes much of the history of D&D generally doesn't include gunpowder, I certainly wouldn't want to limit myself or the genre so severely as I would by saying 'gunpowder = no fantasy, full stop.'

For great fantasy which DOES include gunpowder, how about Pirates of the Caribbean, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, His Dark Materials, and China Mieville's Bas-lag?  Iron Kingdoms, the Warhammer World, Mary Gentle, the Bartimeus books, or Stephen Hunt?  And that's just from a quick sideways look onto my bookshelf without even going into the Harry Dresden type modern-day fantasy. 

The castle problem is ... solvable, in my opinion.  Historically, some of the greatest sieges in history DID coincide with the presence of gunpowder weapons.  Constantinople, Vienna, Rhodes, Malta, and certainly none of these were over in a week.  In fact, this period might actually be easier to use in an RPG, because gunpowder weapons promoted sieges to be solved by storm, which provides an interesting action sequence, rather than by three years of sitting around in your own dysentery hoping that the defenders will run out of rats to eat soon.  And besides, two other factors at work.  Firstly, castles were not always designed with the intent of holding out against serious heavy military assault backed with artillery.  Quite often they were just a force multiplier, to allow fractious conquered populations and rebellious peasants to be controlled with a relative minimum of resources and men.  Secondly, historically building and maintaining castles was a vast investment of time, money and labour.  In a fantasy world, a few earth elementals or walls of stone (or your non-D&D equivalent) can make them a much more economical, survivable, easily repairable, and therefore common measure.  

Castles are cool.  Sieges are cool.  Fantasy is cool.  Gunpowder is cool.  Why limit yourself?  Sure they may not have their place in every world or setting (probably not the best fit in Athas...), but saying 'no' sight unseen just because of some arbitrarily defined line where 'fantasy' ends and 'sci-fi' or 'steampunk' or whatever begins is just a waste of potential imho.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Umm, you do realize that Narnia's main characters were all modern day children no?



Yes, and the fantasy realm that most [understatement? ] of the story takes place in... yep, free of all that. Of course, _they_ are from "the real world", or close enough. But the fantasy part (i.e., the relevant part) - that's what I was meaning, natch. Anyway, it's literally a few writers/settings that popped into my head _that minute_. Perhaps, with a bit of research, I could do a whole lot better. Are you of the mind to insist?




> Or, put it another way, for every pure fantasy author, you can probably name at least one mixed genre author.



I'm not sure on the numbers. But if that's so, then 50/50 means each view is equally valid. I'd be happy with that, because then one kind of semi-regular post might disappear (ironically, the "sticking to pure fantasy is badwrongfun" kind) ... should those posters likely to to make them in the first place acknowledge such a fact, anyhow. Again, assuming it is a fact... 


Anyway, regarding D&D adventures? The overwhelming majority of them do not feature guns, tech, et al. _At all_. So it's (unsurprisingly) rather easy to have played D&D for most of one's years, and never to have encountered that style of setting / flavour. That is the case for me, for example. And I would rather keep it that way. There are plenty of other games and settings that scratch those itches, big time. Likewise, I'm not a fan of Shadowrun, whatsoever. But bully for those who do like mixups and crossovers, or simply different historical influences for that matter. More power to them/you. To each his or her own.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2010)

That's what you were taking from my and Pawsplay's posts?  Really?  Badwrongfun?

Umm, no.  I was just saying that earlier fantasy tended to blur the lines between fantasy and SF far more than fantasy does now.  And, it shows in earlier D&D.  Mystara is chockablock with anachronisms.  The 1e DMG had Boot Hill conversions.  

I'm not saying that sticking to pure fantasy is bad at all.  

But I am saying that D&D has a pretty long tradition of genre-bending.  Heck, all the Far-Realms stuff that you see in D&D lately is a direct descendent of Lovecraft which is about as far from "pure fantasy" as you can get.  You certainly don't have to use it, and that's perfectly fine.  

I was simply responding to Marcq's assertion that genre bending in D&D was limited to a lone voice (Gary Gygax's) interpretation of fantasy.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> That's what you were taking from my and Pawsplay's posts?  Really?  Badwrongfun?



Actually, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that. Not indirectly referring to you either. Didn't mean to come across that way.




> But I am saying that D&D has a pretty long tradition of genre-bending.  Heck, all the Far-Realms stuff that you see in D&D lately is a direct descendent of Lovecraft which is about as far from "pure fantasy" as you can get.  You certainly don't have to use it, and that's perfectly fine.



Heh. And just to show how very arbitrary this kind of thing tends to be (for many people, myself included) - I have absolutely no problem with Cthulhu-esque stuff in my D&D. Well, there's gonna be some anyway, using corebooks and stuff. But even more? Hell yeah! 


So anyway, definitely nothing personal there. I'm simply one of those (however many) with an aversion to tech beyond a certain level of progress (in my fantasy), including any kind of gun or similar device. It's probably as much an aesthetic preference, as anything "meaningful".


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Marcq - I think you're misunderstanding Pawsplay here. It's not that he's in any way saying that you're doing anything wrong in perfering not to blend genres. It's just that for a lot of older fantasy fans, the dividing line between fantasy and SF was nowhere near as sharply defined as it is now.




Fair enough and apologizes to pawsplay if I offended.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> In Tolkien, the fireworks dragon that zoomed down through the party sounded like a freight train.




Yes... a rather ill-chosen metaphor!


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I was simply responding to Marcq's assertion that genre bending in D&D was limited to a lone voice (Gary Gygax's) interpretation of fantasy.




Just because other's did it as well doesn't make it a good idea...


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

The main problem I have with mixed-genre is not the genre mixing per-se but how it is handled as premise.

Premise to me requires setting the ground rules that the rest of the game/movie/book will follow.

This has two elements to it: consistency and the ground rules themselves. Too much of the "golden age of RPG" mixed genres that I recall violated consistency or did a poor job on the ground rules.

I'm tooling along for twenty sessions in my high fantasy setting and the ref asks me to explore a "strange dungeon in the Barrier Mountains"? Ok off I go. Wait? It's aliens and robots. Ugh. Consistency violation.

Or someone wants to mix fantasy and modern technology, say Aragorn meets Rommel? (Come to think of it, I think we did that in high school once around 32 years ago). But the German weapons are basically renamed fantasy equivalents (an 88 is the same as a ballistae? ugh). Or put in science fiction equivalents, my handy vibro-blade and blaster rifle do the same thing as his long sword and bow? Ugh.

It's hard to do right and most of what I recall of mixed genre stuff in the gaming world was sloppy.

It can be done. Pirates of Carribean works for me: the pirates and cursed gold premise is established in the early scenes, as is the nature of the undead. Works fine, engaging story. No complaints. But if my 9th level warrior has spents years in a high fantasy world only to open a vault door and find an old spaceship or such, I'm much more inclined to thing, "I guess the referee has run out of ideas" than "oh, wow, cool!"

But now that I say that, I recall doing just that as a ref back in high school as well. Wouldn't call it a very good game or wise thing to do though...


----------



## Wolf1066 (Nov 28, 2010)

I note with interest the oft-repeated "There is no gunpowder in Tolkien" saw in this thread - and yet they had fireworks.  Actual physical fireworks, not just spells that gave the impression of them.

And if they don't rely on "gunpowder" as such, then what they do use is near enough to it as makes no odds.  Crackers?  Squibs? Rockets?  

Admittedly, they were created by a wizard, but it still means pyrotechnic technology existed in the LOTR universe.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> I note with interest the oft-repeated "There is no gunpowder in Tolkien" saw in this thread - and yet they had fireworks. Actual physical fireworks, not just spells that gave the impression of them.
> 
> And if they don't rely on "gunpowder" as such, then what they do use is near enough to it as makes no odds. Crackers? Squibs? Rockets?
> 
> Admittedly, they were created by a wizard, but it still means pyrotechnic technology existed in the LOTR universe.




And as some else mentioned, he described the sound of them as a "freight train". I can forgive him a few lapses given the work as a whole and the role it played in the genre. As to whether firecrackers really require gunpowder, I'd say he left that vague enough it isn't required. I'd point more to the bomb Saruman used to breach Helm's Deep if I were going down this road...


----------



## Wolf1066 (Nov 28, 2010)

marcq said:


> And as some else mentioned, he described the sound of them as a "freight train". I can forgive him a few lapses given the work as a whole and the role it played in the genre. As to whether firecrackers really require gunpowder, I'd saw he left that vague enough it isn't required. I'd point more to the bomb Saruman used to breach Helm's Deep if I were going down this road...



Well, there's another damned good reason to discount the "There is no gunpowder in Tolkien" argument.  Thanks for that, I'd forgotten the breaching charge.

Whether or not it's gunpowder as we know it or some other chemical concoction is really immaterial; it was some form of ignitable pyroptechnic - little ones are crackers, big ones blow holes in walls.  Small rockets are fireworks, big ones are weapons capable of getting over a castle wall or up to the top of a high tower - or at least scaring the bejayzus out of thick-headed orcs.

One has to wonder why Gandalf didn't break out the supply of rockets etc to at least sow confusion amongst the enemy troops.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> One has to wonder why Gandalf didn't break out the supply of rockets etc to at least sow confusion amongst the enemy troops.




That's exactly the reason I don't have such technology items in my settings. It opens up a whole chain of reasonable questions that end up changing the setting more than I care to. If you have rockets, you use them, even if it is just to spook the enemy. If you can build a musket you can see the logical progression to building an anti-personal cannon. From there it isn't much to build an anti-fortification cannon at which point fortifications must change (or be useless). Does it take a year? No, it seems to take centuries but it happened on earth.

How do I prevent such technology? I think if it is possible it will sooner or later be discovered and exploited although it could take thousands of years to do so (as it did on earth). So, it isn't possible in my worlds. Why not? I don't know.

Whatever physics allow magic, gods, souls, etc. doesn't allow much work out of steam expansion or chemical explosion. Change a few coeffecients and they don't go boom (or provide much power). Can you change such things without invalidating biology as we know it? I don't know. For my group, and my own purposes, if someone asks, it is sufficient to say it doesn't work. If their characters start experimenting with such things, they don't get the expansion they need for steam engines or useful explosions (never had anyone do that actually since I tell them 'meta' wise it doesn't work. Not like their characters in-game would have much reason to try it.)


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 28, 2010)

marcq said:


> I agree. Was surprised to see the old scenario where the players explored a down spaceship rating so high.
> 
> Reminds me of the old _Might and Magic_ games where a perfectly reasonable fantasy game always ended up wondering into alien blasters and space ships. I guess the creators of the series had a thing for mixing the two. I always hated it and stopped buying the games for that reason.




What that old module called? I can't seem to remember it, but I do remember the cover where a fighter had a laster rifle. 

Didn't play Might and Magic, but did play enough Final Fantasy and Phantasy Star that I enjoyed the mix brought into the video games, but couldn't see myself porting that into my rpg games.


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> This is a big disconnect between the origins of FRPGs and the interests of many people who play. Because D&D dipped heavily into LOTR for flavor, many D&D fans think of D&D as being LOTR-inspired, with its Dark Ages technology and mythological roots. In actuality, though, Gygax was principally inspired by works that were emphatically part of the science-fiction genre: Vance's Dying Earth, Howard's Conan stories, Moorcock's Elric, Norton's Witch World, Burroughs' Mars, HPL's Dreamlands. Furthermore, Gygax favored the high medieval - early Renaissance of the chivalric romances over Beowulf and Charlemagnes.  From the beginning, interdimensional portals were an implicit part of the setting.




I agree with this. Wonder when that disconnect occured or how it was reinforced? I'm sure that we'll all come up with a million different answers, but I noticed that disconnect myself when I grew up with AD&D and realized that Gygax and crew liked the sci-fi stuff in their games.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

kitsune9 said:


> What that old module called? I can't seem to remember it, but I do remember the cover where a fighter had a laster rifle.




Couldn't remember at the time I made my post but later did: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (wikipedia article here). Published 1980 by Gygax. I must have played it about the time it came out.

I haven't played it since then but I wasn't impressed with it at the time. But it does seem to rate fairly highly among players in general.



kitsune9 said:


> Didn't play Might and Magic, but did play enough Final Fantasy and Phantasy Star that I enjoyed the mix brought into the video games, but couldn't see myself porting that into my rpg games.




If it's handled gracefully as part of the premise it can be fun. I had a blast with Deadlands whose premise includes magic, Civil War technology, and, essentially, a certain amount of tongue-in-check. It's when the stuff is casually tossed in, like when someone put Barrier Peaks into their otherwise high fantasy game that I balk.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

kitsune9 said:


> I agree with this. Wonder when that disconnect occured or how it was reinforced? I'm sure that we'll all come up with a million different answers, but I noticed that disconnect myself when I grew up with AD&D and realized that Gygax and crew liked the sci-fi stuff in their games.




Probably a number of reasons but the fact that much of the cross-genre stuff wasn't well handled (regarding consistent premise or sensible ground rules) is probably part of it.

I bet another, possibly larger factor, is that the hobby was young circa Barrier Peaks. As gamers matured (not just talking age but that's a factor) and started thinking through what they were about, basically develop a theory of gaming, ad hoc, de facto or otherwise, the mixed genres might have faded somewhat.

Speaking personally, my early dabbling with the mixed genres made me cringe even as a junior/senior in high school. They were fun at times but silly. I wanted more serious game worlds. You can have good mixed genre worlds but not as an afterthought; it needs to be designed in. For me, if I was going to spend time designing a world, I'd rather do High Fantasy. Plus, a proper mixed genre would often involve rulesets modifications; always a hassle (especially if you could never stomach GURPS, which I couldn't).


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 28, 2010)

marcq said:


> I had a blast with Deadlands whose premise includes magic, Civil War technology, and, essentially, a certain amount of tongue-in-check. It's when the stuff is casually tossed in, like when someone put Barrier Peaks into their otherwise high fantasy game that I balk.




Yes, there was something about blasting zombies while on a moving train with a gatling handgun that was just so awesome. I really enjoyed playing Deadlands at conventions. 

Thanks on the Barrier Peaks answer!


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

kitsune9 said:


> Yes, there was something about blasting zombies while on a moving train with a gatling handgun that was just so awesome. I really enjoyed playing Deadlands at conventions.




Yep  plus the game mechanics were a pleasant change.


----------



## Wolf1066 (Nov 28, 2010)

marcq said:


> That's exactly the reason I don't have such technology items in my settings. It opens up a whole chain of reasonable questions that end up changing the setting more than I care to. If you have rockets, you use them, even if it is just to spook the enemy. If you can build a musket you can see the logical progression to building an anti-personal cannon. From there it isn't much to build an anti-fortification cannon at which point fortifications must change (or be useless). Does it take a year? No, it seems to take centuries but it happened on earth.




Point taken, but the "Forgotten Phlebotinum" of fireworks and breaching charges is not the only bit of plot-driven stupidity in LOTR - the had a lot of potentially plot-breaking stuff in that universe that, had it been real, would have changed the shape of the world and the plot.

The ramifications of any magic that can induce explosions, fire, hallucinations, obscuring mists, or even bright lights would be similar to the ramifications of gun powder in so far as spooking/confusing enemies goes - and possibly more, depending how big a fireball/explosion you can conjure up.

Huge flying beasts that can be "domesticated" (or convinced) into use as flying transport (and any form of flight magic) changes the scope of the world immensely - we're talking controlled "powered" flight hundreds of years before we reached the "short-duration tethered hot air balloon" stage in our real history - that's going to have a profound effect on the world even if you don't have gunpowder or any equivalent.

An army on largeish aerial creatures flying high above bow range and carrying rocks are going to have serious impact (pun intended) and dictate that the "castles" look nothing like historical terran castles.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 29, 2010)

marcq said:


> That's an interesting historical perspective and perhaps there is a disconnect between one of the games creator's view on the matter and how most of the players view it but Gygax’s world preferences are hardly sacrosanct. If many players don’t like science fiction with their fantasy and they run their games accordingly, what difference does it make if one of the early gamers liked to mix the two?




It is significant because D&D already comes significantly science-fiction flavored. If you really want to recreate LOTR, you should fire the illithid, strip out all the wierd weird deities and turn them into angelic immortals (fallen or faithful, as the case may be), remove the Elemental Plane(s), and eliminate major cosmopolitan population centers.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 29, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> Point taken, but the "Forgotten Phlebotinum" of fireworks and breaching charges is not the only bit of plot-driven stupidity in LOTR - the had a lot of potentially plot-breaking stuff in that universe that, had it been real, would have changed the shape of the world and the plot.
> 
> The ramifications of any magic that can induce explosions, fire, hallucinations, obscuring mists, or even bright lights would be similar to the ramifications of gun powder in so far as spooking/confusing enemies goes - and possibly more, depending how big a fireball/explosion you can conjure up.
> 
> ...




That's an interesting perspective on LOTR. I'm thinking that the entirety of spellcasting in the world consists of five wizards and their apprentices, a few ancient elves, and some dwarven toymakers, and the flying beasts in question number in the dozens only. There are no domesticated flying beasts in LOTR. The great eagles are intelligent, and Sauron's fell beasts were unnatural, and bound to the wills of their riders (who had not been active in some time leading up to the events of LOTR).


----------



## Wolf1066 (Nov 29, 2010)

Yes, and I'd be one of the first to acknowledge that the one thing that saved Middle Earth is that Sauron's forces are even lazier than hobbitses.  Thing is, tho', such airborne dangers do exist in that world and can be used - imagine what merely one Dreidecker Fokker could achieve if sent back to the Early Middle Ages and put in the hands of someone suitably power-hungry.

And such things are even more commonplace in D&D - flying steeds of various stripes from different mythologies, flying carpets and pretty much every party has got at least one wizard.

They are world-shaping things - in any universe except the "high fantasy" ones where political power resides in nice open Motte and Bailey castles despite the prevalence of large fire-breathing flying lizards and diverse other airborne threats.

IMO, it's a bit one-sided for people to argue that even primitive firearms cannot exist in such a milieu due to "the changes such technology would cause to all the pretty curtain-walled castles" and completely ignore the fact that in lands such as D&D describes, political power would have invested in underground bunkers around a thousand years before the atomic age.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 29, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> It is significant because D&D already comes significantly science-fiction flavored. If you really want to recreate LOTR, you should fire the illithid




Check.



> strip out all the wierd weird deities




Check.



> and turn them into angelic immortals (fallen or faithful, as the case may be)




Check.



> remove the Elemental Plane(s)




Check.



> and eliminate major cosmopolitan population centers.




Ah... not so fast. Never cared for Tolkien's demographics. Think he got that wrong. Too much civilization without enough people. Case in point: the Rhohirrim. They are classic norse warriors ('cept for the horse centricity). Trouble is, for that type of warrior culture you need lots of other norse-ish tribes to rub-shoulders with and fight. A stand-alone Rohirrim doesn't actually fit.

But close over all. I do ditch the odd-ball races. I don't have the classic D&D planes. Angels depend on the particular world but they can fit; same for demons.

In the end, there are rules (D&D core stuff) and there is setting. I've never been a particular fan of the D&D setting. Nothing wrong with it; prefer my own.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 29, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> They are world-shaping things - in any universe except the "high fantasy" ones where political power resides in nice open Motte and Bailey castles despite the prevalence of large fire-breathing flying lizards and diverse other airborne threats.
> 
> IMO, it's a bit one-sided for people to argue that even primitive firearms cannot exist in such a milieu due to "the changes such technology would cause to all the pretty curtain-walled castles" and completely ignore the fact that in lands such as D&D describes, political power would have invested in underground bunkers around a thousand years before the atomic age.




The difference is that we have a clear, easily understood analogues for the introductions of firearms (see earth history 101). Magic affects get harder to determine.

Do I think that D&D level magic would grossly change fortifications? Yes and the result would probably be bunker-like. But there are many who disagree with me (see many earlier threads on this).

As for my own setting, I tend towards classic castles; it's a discrepancy I'm willing to tolerate although I find it an interesting mental exercise and have been toying with a thread on the topic. Trouble is, folks get all bent out of shape when you raise the point.

That aside, the effect of magic on culture is arguable since there is no magic in our world. The effect of gunpowder weapons is not arguable. We have clear analogues.

Whether dragons would really affect castles depends on the prevalance of dragons. Same for magic. I'm up for some mental exercises to explore the matter, however. Not up for how gunpowder affects fortifications because I think it's been clearly elucidated by our own history.

BUT if you like gunpowder weapons in your settings; go for it. I'm not going to swoop down into your game and give you a fine. If you are ref'ing such a game and I'm in it, give me cannons and tell me I can't bust down high, thin walls, I will push you hard on that though.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 29, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> That's an interesting perspective on LOTR. I'm thinking that the entirety of spellcasting in the world consists of five wizards and their apprentices, a few ancient elves, and some dwarven toymakers, and the flying beasts in question number in the dozens only. There are no domesticated flying beasts in LOTR. The great eagles are intelligent, and Sauron's fell beasts were unnatural, and bound to the wills of their riders (who had not been active in some time leading up to the events of LOTR).





Yeah, LOTR is far from the D&D realm. The magic is thin and there are few practioners. Gandalf never wielded magic on par with a mid-level D&D wizard.

It's a low magic world but that's not unusual in fiction. Describing high magic is difficult. It's difficult to plot out all the ramifications for one but more practically, it's difficult to discribe it all in the course of a novel. Much easier to have a little bit here and there. Works just fine for an interesting story.

The current threads have me thinking about my own worlds. Bluntly, I don't craft high magic worlds even though I run them as campaign settings. I don't really feel like arguing about it right now (see lots of early threads ) but I think classic D&D demographics and magic levels would dramatically alter most middle-age-ish settings.

So where does that leave me as a ref that feels D&D level of 'stuff' would alter his setting? Well, for starters, neither my players or I seem to mind; so that's all good; it works for us. As a rationale, I suppose you can imagine a little bubble of distortion that goes around the players and adds a locally higher level of magic and critters than is otherwise present in the world.

In the grander scheme of things, maybe I'll work up a setting some day that, per my own vision, does match D&D demographics and power levels. It is do-able but I think ramifications are pervasive. Succession by blood? Not likely, the next level 15+ character will probably take the throne. High middle ages castles? Don't think so; too many ways to defeat that big, expensive pile of rock. Etc., etc.

Before we go too far down that path there are lots of other factors to consider. I think typical D&D encounter rates are far beyond what makes sense in a "real" world. Such threat levels are on par with serving on the active sections of the western front, WWI, without ever rotating out of the combat line. You'll die fairly quickly. But it makes for a fun game to ignore that and I can live with, just as I can live with castles that probably wouldn't be in a higher magic game setting.


----------



## Wolf1066 (Nov 29, 2010)

marcq said:


> ...The effect of gunpowder weapons is not arguable. We have clear analogues.
> 
> Whether dragons would really affect castles depends on the prevalance of dragons. Same for magic. I'm up for some mental exercises to explore the matter...



Hard to find analogues for a lot of magic - the stuff that doesn't create fireballs or Blow Stuff Up, anyway - but dragons and other airborne menaces have an easy analogue in fighter/bomber aircraft - and we all pretty much know what they do.  

As to prevalence, barring a large and very successful extermination campaign, there would be quite a large population of them in order to sustain future generations - a lot more of them than the number of aircraft in WWI, I suspect (and that's just for one sub-species of dragon, of which there are plenty in D&D).  Same for winged horses and other airborne steeds I've encountered in D&D.



marcq said:


> BUT if you like gunpowder weapons in your settings; go for it. I'm not going to swoop down into your game and give you a fine. If you are ref'ing such a game and I'm in it, give me cannons and tell me I can't bust down high, thin walls, I will push you hard on that though.



And I'd expect you to, of course - if you could find any with high, thin walls still in operation thanks to those bastidges to the north and their triple-damned Airborne Cavalry...


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2010)

Marcq said:
			
		

> But close over all. I do ditch the odd-ball races. I don't have the classic D&D planes. Angels depend on the particular world but they can fit; same for demons.
> 
> In the end, there are rules (D&D core stuff) and there is setting. I've never been a particular fan of the D&D setting. Nothing wrong with it; prefer my own.




So, in other words, in order to get D&D to do what you want it to do, you strip out significant elements and house rule the rest.  Or, to put it another way, you barely play D&D anymore.  

See, it wasn't that D&D handled mixing science badly (or other genres for that matter) in the early days.  They were being inspired by the source material of the time.  Heck, Conan has aliens from other planets in it*.  Ravenloft borrows from Gothic Horror.  Dark Sun mugs survival SF and gives a good magic wedgie.  

Mixing genres has a pretty strong tradition throughout D&D.

Now, as far as suspension of disbelief comes into it, which is basically what we're talking about, that varies for everyone.  Sure, you can question why having fireworks, Gandalf doesn't use them.  Then again, there's a metric ton of questions like that in D&D.  Given cheap permanent light sources, why hasn't a D&D world hit the industrial revolution?  ((Being able to work at night would have an ENORMOUS impact on a world))

It all comes down to what you (and I mean you in the general sense) can ignore without flinching.

*[sblock]You think Conan doesn't have aliens?  From The Tower of the Elephant:



> There are many worlds besides this earth and life takes many shapes.  I am neither god nor demon, but flesh and blood like yourself, though the substance differ in part and theform be cast in a different mold.
> 
> 'I am very old, o man of the waste countries; long and long ago I came to this planet with others of my world, from the green planet Yag, which circles for ever in the outer fringe of this universe.  We swept through space on mighty wings that drove us through the cosmos quicker than light...




That's pretty much stock SF right there.[/sblock]


----------



## Alexander123 (Nov 29, 2010)

A few things, first, I am generally opposed to having gods and angels in my game, (although I am not opposed to demons and devils.) because good always seems to have an edge over evil in D&D (compare solar to balor.) and because gods and angels do tend to become oppressive. If gods and angels existed they would most likely forbid technology for the same reason that God forbid Adam and Eve from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge and life. (at least according to the serpent, that being that God feared that man would become a god himself.) As far as technology is concerned, I don't allow guns although explosive powder does exist in my games. I don't allow it for the reason that after about 300 years of scientific reasearch, the whole D&D setting would have to be re-written to exclude things that existed in the past. (like adventuring parties, and most martial classes would be replaced.) It loses the whole mythological story-telling aspect similar to greek mythology and the Illiad and the Odyssey. In fact, I treat the whole issue in the same way that greek mythology treats it. I simply remove them from the game. I think someone was saying that if you allow even the smallest bit of technology and you have allowed laser pistols. (although I am find with many things which we would consider technology I just don't allow this to get to the point where in 200 years men would be flying airplanes, helicopters etc.) 

I am in fact, okay with including technology but then you would have to take it all the way and that includes getting a book on the history of scientific discoveries and inventions and slowly transforming the world into a futuristic fantasy setting. Explanations like guns are inefficient to use lead nowhere, for the simple reason that all technology began as inefficient and then gradually it was made efficient. And I don't have any higher power in my game. (demons and devils are considered a race living on another plane. No particular dominance over man.) Although I have seen movies where magic and technology are mixed, so it certainly is not impossible the only question is whether the mixing is done well or not. Now that I think of it, I would be interested in knowing what a race of beings like demons and devils would do with technology.


----------



## SKyOdin (Nov 29, 2010)

Alexander123 said:


> I am in fact, okay with including technology but then you would have to take it all the way and that includes getting a book on the history of scientific discoveries and inventions and slowly transforming the world into a futuristic fantasy setting. Explanations like guns are inefficient to use lead nowhere, for the simple reason that all technology began as inefficient and then gradually it was made efficient. And I don't have any higher power in my game. (demons and devils are considered a race living on another plane. No particular dominance over man.) Although I have seen movies where magic and technology are mixed, so it certainly is not impossible the only question is whether the mixing is done well or not. Now that I think of it, I would be interested in knowing what a race of beings like demons and devils would do with technology.



Okay, there is a lot of stuff in your post that I don't want to touch with a ten foot pole, but I have to refute the idea that introducing guns would mandate some kind of general technological progression.

Technological progress is not some straight line path where someone needs to take steps 1, 2, and 3 in a certain order, nor is technological progress something inevitable or predestined. On the contrary, technological progress is ruled by random chance and the weird quirks of fate. The biggest example is that the industrial revolution only happened when and where it did because England happened to have coal mines that were prone to flooding, as opposed to dry ones (according to one theory anyways). If someone ever wanted to halt the technological growth of their campaign setting at pre-industrial levels, it would be as easy as saying: "this setting doesn't have any reserves of coal or oil". There are a number of reasons that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to be true about a setting, and it would completely shut down industrialization and almost all forms of advanced technology (including anything resembling modern chemistry and explosives).

And as a random side note on Demons and Devils using guns, Milton used the idea when he wrote Paradise Lost a few hundred years ago. In his depiction of the war between Lucifer and Heaven, the fallen angels invented guns on the second day of warfare.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 30, 2010)

The problem with saying something like, "There are no reserves of coal or oil" is, it only stops a real world industrial revolution.  In a fantasy world, there are so many alternatives to coal or oil that are pretty easily available.


----------



## SKyOdin (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The problem with saying something like, "There are no reserves of coal or oil" is, it only stops a real world industrial revolution.  In a fantasy world, there are so many alternatives to coal or oil that are pretty easily available.




That depends. If by "alternatives to coal or oil", you are referring to magic, then the ability of magic to act as a substitute for fossil fuels is highly dependent on how magic works and what it can do. Since the how and why of magic is controlled by the person who nixed coal and oil in the first place, it is possible to shut down a magic-industrial revolution even more easily than a realistic one.


----------



## Wolf1066 (Nov 30, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> That depends. If by "alternatives to coal or oil", you are referring to magic, then the ability of magic to act as a substitute for fossil fuels is highly dependent on how magic works and what it can do. Since the how and why of magic is controlled by the person who nixed coal and oil in the first place, it is possible to shut down a magic-industrial revolution even more easily than a realistic one.



Providing said person thinks of all the possible ramifications of the magic they allow in the campaign well in advance.  

Continuous light, as others have pointed out, means shifts can work around the clock.  Fire magic that can be used to create heat/flame for any length of time with no more effort than a nth-level wizard yelling shazzam! is going to facilitate an industrial revolution faster than the replacement of charcoal with fossil fuels did here on Earth.

Think on it too much and pretty soon you've removed a lot of "easy" magic from the world as magic - of the wave the hands and say a magic word variety - is a lot easier than actually mining minerals, transporting them etc and would bring about an industrial revolution with greater ease than we've ever known.

If you don't think it through in advance, you'll find players saying "hey, we can use an "Eternal flame" spell or two to power a simple steam engine..." and could rightfully get rather testy if you try to hand-wave why they cannot.

You would need to come up with a coherent idea of how magic works and what limits it - i.e. set scientific rules that magic must follow - in order to prevent it from being used as "like coal, petroleum and natural gas, 'cept ya don't actually have to do any real work yourself."


----------



## Hussar (Nov 30, 2010)

SkyOdin, the problem I have with that is that it gets harder and harder to believe.  When EVERY attempt fails, not because it doesn't make sense that it might work, but because the DM wants to keep his faux Euro setting, it really hurts my suspension of disbelief.

Even outside of straight up magic, you have creatures made of living fire - Thoqqua in 3e for example, that would work perfectly fine.  Brown Mold absorbs heat and would work perfectly for refrigeration.  There's a bazillion options in the Monster Manual alone, never mind any spells or supplements.  

Heck, a trapped fire elemental would work wonders.


----------



## Wolf1066 (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Even outside of straight up magic, you have creatures made of living fire - Thoqqua in 3e for example, that would work perfectly fine.  Brown Mold absorbs heat and would work perfectly for refrigeration.  There's a bazillion options in the Monster Manual alone, never mind any spells or supplements.
> 
> Heck, a trapped fire elemental would work wonders.



The D&D universe is indeed filled with a number of races and magic spells that, effectively remove every single hurdle on the path to progress that we've had to overcome throughout the centuries.

Cheap, easy non-polluting means of producing heat and light; non-polluting, readily available flight - as simple as domesticating a horse or saying a few words to your mat...  Global navigation?  No problem, there are spells that would facilitate it and races for which it is simple.  Blowing up a curtain wall or raining fire on those behind it?  Easy.  Bombing an enemy city from above?  No problem.  Tunnelling through a mountain?  Shouldn't take too long.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 30, 2010)

marcq said:


> Ah... not so fast. Never cared for Tolkien's demographics. Think he got that wrong. Too much civilization without enough people. Case in point: the Rhohirrim. They are classic norse warriors ('cept for the horse centricity). Trouble is, for that type of warrior culture you need lots of other norse-ish tribes to rub-shoulders with and fight. A stand-alone Rohirrim doesn't actually fit.




Name one place dwarves, elves, hobbits, Rhohirrim, and Haradrim "rub shoulders." Heck, Gondor was a decidely foreign culture, and once upon a time, the Dunedan ruled over the whole region. Clearly, trade and communications were not running at full speed during the LOTR era. Even to a man of Bree, a rider of Rohan probably seemed almost as exotic as an elf.


----------



## SKyOdin (Nov 30, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> Providing said person thinks of all the possible ramifications of the magic they allow in the campaign well in advance.
> 
> Continuous light, as others have pointed out, means shifts can work around the clock.  Fire magic that can be used to create heat/flame for any length of time with no more effort than a nth-level wizard yelling shazzam! is going to facilitate an industrial revolution faster than the replacement of charcoal with fossil fuels did here on Earth.
> 
> ...



I think it is a lot easier than it appears at first. You just need magic to obey a couple of central tenets. First: magic can't produce energy out of nothing. If magic requires some kind of finite or limited source of power to draw upon, even if it is as simple as the inherent magical energy of a spell-caster. Second: magic requires a significant amount of labor from trained mages in order to function and be maintained.

The core advantages brought about by the industrial revolution were that it allowed people to draw upon large amounts of cheap energy that gave the further advantage of significantly reducing the amount of labor and manpower required to preform all kinds of jobs. If magic can't replicate that, then it could never be used to emulate the industrial revolution.

For example, lets consider a steam engine powered by magic flame. If the flame is a source of free, infinite energy, then yes, it will be something that could serve as the backbone of an industrial revolution. If the flame works by drawing on the strength of a trained mage, then it would probably be cheaper to hire brute human labor to perform the task than it would be to hire a trained wizard to exhaust himself keeping a flame lit.

The possibilities of a magic-industrial revolution are completely dependent on the basic cost-benefit ratio of magic, which is something that can easily be adjusted to taste.

EDIT: Thinking about, the best way to explain this is in terms of efficiency and cost effectiveness. Sure, magic might be able to facilitate various forms of technology, but the important question is can it do so at a price cheap enough to be worthwhile? The continual light might give light indefinitely, but most people it would be far cheaper to just buy a few decades worth of candles for the same money. If magic is expensive, it would never replace more mundane forms of technology.


----------



## Wolf1066 (Nov 30, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> I think it is a lot easier than it appears at first. You just need magic to obey a couple of central tenets. First: magic can't produce energy out of nothing. If magic requires some kind of finite or limited source of power to draw upon, even if it is as simple as the inherent magical energy of a spell-caster. Second: magic requires a significant amount of labor from trained mages in order to function and be maintained.
> 
> The core advantages brought about by the industrial revolution were that it allowed people to draw upon large amounts of cheap energy that gave the further advantage of significantly reducing the amount of labor and manpower required to preform all kinds of jobs. If magic can't replicate that, then it could never be used to emulate the industrial revolution.
> 
> ...



I fully agree.  We both seem to be arguing for having "scientific cause-effect and energy conservation" laws in place that put the brakes on indiscriminate magic use.

However, "magic-how-she-are-done" in every D&D campaign I've ever played in has been "mage memorises spells and then casts them quickly and effortlessly".  Add to this the plethora of natural fire creatures and flying creatures and other animals, plants, races etc that are able to be employed, exploited or otherwise pressed into service towards various ends and industrial revolution is pretty much guaranteed - but blatantly ignored in favour of arbitrary "candle-lit cold damp hovels" and "majestic curtain-walled castles" because "that's what you have in high fantasy, damn it!"

In no game that I've played has the DM ever said, "no, you can't just cast a continuous light spell by saying a couple of words" or set any other form of limiting factor.  Magic is as free as speaking to anyone prepared to put in a bit of preparatory learning (to become a mage) and they can wield it with impunity thereafter.  As they level up they get better spells but that does not take particularly long in game terms - the game world is apparently teeming with high-level wizards (compared with LoTR's handful) as party after party wanders around killing zombies, vampires and other beasties, becoming immensely powerful in the process.

If a village does not have at least two wizards capable of casting continuous light (and imagine what would have happened in the middle ages if flour mills had safe illumination for night time - they all shut down at dark as it did not take long to learn the dangers of mixing flour and naked flames...) and various other handy spells, then one must assume they are all less adventurous than hobbitses.

And if a neighbouring wizard with those abilities can't see the benefit of casting the spells for them in exchange for a percentage of their increased production from that point on, (s)he's just not thinking clearly.

Flying?  Go out, catch a large flying animal, tame it and ride it.  Can't do that?  Don't worry, there are people who can - and now your mill is running 24 hours a day, you can afford to hire such people.

Flying steeds abound and it was trivial for us to get hold of a flying carpet on one of our raids (and ruin the DM's plan, I might add), fire elementals "draw energy from the elemental plane" and can be trapped and used.

So much wild, unregulated stuff about with none of the checks and balances you describe in your post - unless you, the DM, put them in place (and stamp hard on anyone who says "but the MM says they are very common and easily tamed")

You wind up having to rewrite the lot to make it impossible for a magical industrial revolution to occur and to prevent smart-arsed players from just flying to the top of the tower and snatching the goods.

If you want curtain-walled castles, you have to get rid of pretty much any flying threat - be it dragon or some easily-tamed flying animal large enough to carry an enemy soldier and a bucket of oil.  And make any magic that is analogous to gunpowder or greek fire extremely hard to come by.

And then the players will say "Awww, why can't I have fireballs?  I wanna throw fireballs at the baddies..." or "the MM says we should be able to find lots of dragons, I want to kill a dragon and keep its hoard."

It's a damned either way situation, really.

In our party we had Drow elves who wore darkened glass discs over their eyes when above ground.  Thinking about it now, we could have had a hot-air dirigible propelled by steam if we had been inventive enough.

We could have had perpetually lit palaces, central heating that never goes cold (we retired from adventuring, filthy rich, at 14th level).  Our lands could be miracles of the Magical Age with our villagers working day and night (and getting amply paid for it) to produce stuff to sell - we'd be the most powerful people on the continent until other people cottoned on... "hey, wait a minute, we've got powerful mages, too..."

Edit:
Now I feel like going out and joining a local AD&D game just so I can push their world into industrial revolution...


----------



## SKyOdin (Nov 30, 2010)

Honestly Wolf1066, that logic reflects a pretty naive understanding of how technology changed the world. Nothing you described would have any use or significant impact on a society, let alone be enough to trigger an magic-industrial revolution. The problems with your arguments are the same as those made by numerous other people: they mistake the ability to emulate certain kinds of technology we are familiar with today with to be the same thing as being able to change the world. The difference between these magical tricks and an actual industrial revolution is in efficiency, economics, and far-reaching impact.

The first issue is that continual light would do very little to change the world. Being able to work long hours thanks to light was hardly one of the major benefits of the industrial revolution. Remember, the industrial revolution was lit by gas-lamps, which are just a slight evolution from a technology that has existed forever. The main change was the cost of the source of energy. On the other hand, a continual flame spell of everburning torch is a comparatively expensive source of light. In both 3E and 4E, it costs a minimum of 50 gold, compared to one copper for a candle. Besides, increasing the length of time you can run a mill is pretty pointless if you can't grow more crops to fill it with. Making the mill a water-mill would have a greater impact on its productivity than letting it run all night.

As for the flying mount issue, griffons are expensive. In 3E, the cost of a baby, yet to be trained griffon was 7,000 gold pieces, equivalent to an entire herd of horses. I don't think I have yet seen a price for a trained griffon in 3E or 4E, but it would be very expensive. At that kind of price, you might see one or two in the hands of royalty, but it wouldn't be economically feasible to field them in large numbers. Besides, castles are designed to kill things in their courtyards, so flying a handful of soldiers over the outer wall isn't likely to change the tide of battle.

Let me point out the importance of efficiency. Song dynasty China was one of the most advanced and wealthiest civilizations in the pre-industrial world. The Song were producing a quantity of steel every year that wouldn't be matched until the industrial revolution. Yet, they used human labor to haul barges up their canal network. It turns out that it was cheaper to hire human labor than it was to use donkeys or horses for the task. In short, the cheapest solution is the one that catches on.

Unless magic can do something for cheaper than mundane means, it won't see wide-scale use.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 30, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> Honestly Wolf1066, that logic reflects a pretty naive understanding of how technology changed the world. Nothing you described would have any use or significant impact on a society, let alone be enough to trigger an magic-industrial revolution...






SKyOdin said:


> As for the flying mount issue, griffons are expensive. In 3E, the cost of a baby, yet to be trained griffon was 7,000 gold pieces, equivalent to an entire herd of horses. I don't think I have yet seen a price for a trained griffon in 3E or 4E, but it would be very expensive. At that kind of price, you might see one or two in the hands of royalty, but it wouldn't be economically feasible to field them in large numbers. Besides, castles are designed to kill things in their courtyards, so flying a handful of soldiers over the outer wall isn't likely to change the tide of battle.





Wolf may or may not have made the case for a magic revolution but citing 3E costs is hardly an adequate counter argument. For starters, costs are setting specific. You have cited the costs for the 3E standard campaign setting. In this setting, such costs are set to be in line with the expected costs of items (mostly magical gear) for characters of a level where they are interested in the the mount of your example, which is perfectly reasonably given that it's a game. Even if the 3E authors were attempting to model the economics of their world, I frankly don't trust them to have done a strong enough job of that rather difficult task to take that as a baseline in such a discussion.

I agree that the adoption and prevalence of magic would be a function of attractiveness (aesthetics/utility), cost of materials and other availabilty issues. Most of these discussions start spinning around without resolution because these fundamental factors that drive adoption are hard to quantify and most often, those discussing it are making wildly different assumptions.

It is certainly possible to have a game world or other fantasy setting where the barriers to magic are such that it is never widely adopted and never causes a "magic revolution". I've never found the standard D&D settings to be such a world, to be honest. 3E did introduce the mechanic of requiring XP for item creation, which if strictly interpreted will likely limit magic items although there are still cast spells. But in general, the D&D systems have a lot of magic lying around for adventurers to find which if taken on face value could suggest sufficient prevalence and ease of access to allow it to start shaping societies.

The idea of mage cantrips introduced some editions ago just scratches the surface of using magic for convenience. The industrial revolution was focused more on convenience and basic necessities than war yet in the D&D settings, magic is mostly focused on war and the like and not convenience items. Is it because magic is not useful for convenience? Or is it because D&D is a game with a large amount of combat? I'd suggest the latter.

It's certainly fine for the game world. You could also put magic item prevelance into a whole category of game prevalence items that are "bent" for game enjoyment and would not necessarily be so easy to come by in a "real" fantasy world (I think random encounter rates and implied monster populations could also be considered rather high, but again those are useful for _gaming._)

In any case, to take such discussions on whether the presence of magic results in magico-industrial revolutions and the like requires a better definition of the magic and its accessibility. This is separate from gunpowder weapons as generally treated. We have a pretty good idea how that can evolve.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, in other words, in order to get D&D to do what you want it to do, you strip out significant elements and house rule the rest. Or, to put it another way, you barely play D&D anymore.




Hardly so, Hussar. You do seem to like putting words in my mouth though. Please cease to do so.

My house rules are quite limited. As for "stripping out elements", official pubished D&D already has a number of fairly different settings. Clearly there is a place for other settings, published by WOTC or created by gamers. These published settings also come sometimes with... setting specific rules! So house-rules to support a setting is hardly against the spirit or letter of D&D. Is Dark Sun no longer D&D? Eberron? I don't care for either setting but would hardly claim they aren't D&D.

If you stepped to my table and joined my game, you would find it essentially a vanilla 4E campaign in my own setting. The stuff I strip out (Ithilids, planes, sometimes angels, deities); it's all setting material. Not rules. The line seems fairly bright and clear to me. If you don't believe me, you can read the house rules sections for my current campaign on the wiki in my signature.

I could make a sounder case than yours that anyone not playing 4E isn't playing D&D (which I don't care to, of course).


----------



## Wolf1066 (Dec 1, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> Besides, castles are designed to kill things in their courtyards, so flying a handful of soldiers over the outer wall isn't likely to change the tide of battle.



I never said anything about _landing_, and I suspect a "handful" of soldiers flying far above bow-shot, dropping flasks of lamp-oil and lit rags, would make the battle quite "interesting" - especially in the vicinity of the castle's grain store and stables.

As to the rest, I never encountered any such restrictions - it's an enduring trope that every party has it's own mage and eventually they learn to do some pretty cool stuff.  How common are they?  Pretty much every tavern has at least one aching to sign up for adventure with a bunch of random strangers... that's another enduring trope.

I've never played 3E to my knowledge, I think 2E was the most recent I've played.  We just wandered around learning how to cast spells that we found useful - never cost us anything.  Why pay for it if your party already has someone who can do it and will do so for the good of the group?

And if you do have to pay for it, who says you have to save up the money?  Money lenders have been around for almost as long as there's been money.  I suspect that before that it was, "sure, I'll give you this net but I get one fish out of every ten you catch..."  Cost is not a prohibiting factor when you're expecting to get filthy rich due to your initial investment - just like today, really.  You borrow the money knowing that you will pay it back when the enterprise starts paying off.

As to mills working around the clock:  What is more cost effective:  Having one mill that can process all the output from your land by working around the clock or three mills in order to process that same output during daylight hours only.  If a continuous light spell costs less in labour and materials and actual currency than building two more mills then, by your own argument, they are going to take the magic route.

If the local mill can't process your grain for a week because they can only work during the day and it's harvest season, *everyone *wants their grain milled but five miles further up the road is a mill that will do it tomorrow as they're working around the clock, which mill will be getting your money?

And by nature of the game, magic is easier and cheaper than the labour intensive/cost intensive ways because if you make magic so prohibitively expensive or labour-intensive (costlier for a "continuous light" spell than for two bloody-great stone mills, easier to throw some lamp oil and a burning rag than to cast a fireball spell, easier to do field surgery than a healing spell etc), you effectively remove it from the game - no one's going to do it at all and you're back to doing things the natural way - which means that, eventually, people are going to discover gunpowder or similar chemicals to do what they would have done by magic.


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 1, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> I never said anything about _landing_, and I suspect a "handful" of soldiers flying far above bow-shot, dropping flasks of lamp-oil and lit rags, would make the battle quite "interesting" - especially in the vicinity of the castle's grain store and stables.




All it takes is a catapult with a flaming projectile to get fire over a castle's walls, so fire raining down from above is something that medieval castle design already had to take into account. I agree that if flying troops were introduced to be a common and widespread part of military combat, castle design would probably change to include more anti-air defenses. It probably wouldn't be a very significant change to the overall design unless the flying troops could drop actual high-explosive bombs though.

Anyways, my point has never been that it would be impossible for there to be a magic-industrial revolution in D&D. Rather, my point was that is a setting designer didn't want an industrial revolution, magical or otherwise, to take place in a setting, then it would be relatively easy to make some adjustments to make it true. I am a fan of Eberron, so I definitely am not fundamentally opposed to a magic-industrial revolution. However, I think that many people who argue for one often do so on weak grounds that rely on fridge logic. If you want to have a magic-industrial revolution, make certain that the magic in question is both cheap to use, and has a direct influence on agricultural output and industrial production.

To get this discussion somewhat back on track, lets look at firearms from the 16th century: the matchlock and the wheel-lock. The wheel-lock was superior performance wise to the matchlock, since the matchlock had to loaded immediately before firing and the wheel-lock could be loaded, then holstered to be fired later. However, the matchlock was the dominant weapon of war, while the wheel-lock was never mass-produced for military use. The reason was cost: the wheel-lock was significantly more complicated in design and harder to maintain, thus more expensive.

Building on that, lets exaggerate the difference with fantasy clockwork technology and maybe a little magic. It would be possible to justify having an advanced fantasy clockwork-magic self-loading firearm alongside near-medieval warfare. Since such a weapon would naturally be prohibitively expensive, it wouldn't see much use in warfare and would have little effect on military strategy, but would be useful to the comparatively wealthy, i.e. adventurers. So it is justifiable to have adventurers using repeating firearms in a near-medieval world, if a DM wanted to have effective guns without the minute loading times. (Credit for the idea goes to my brother.)


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 1, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> Anyways, my point has never been that it would be impossible for there to be a magic-industrial revolution in D&D. Rather, my point was that is a setting designer didn't want an industrial revolution, magical or otherwise, to take place in a setting, then it would be relatively easy to make some adjustments to make it true. I am a fan of Eberron, so I definitely am not fundamentally opposed to a magic-industrial revolution. However, I think that many people who argue for one often do so on weak grounds that rely on fridge logic. If you want to have a magic-industrial revolution, make certain that the magic in question is both cheap to use, and has a direct influence on agricultural output and industrial production.




Personally, I've always felt that the main way magic/fantasy would affect castle design is not flying mounts but the D&D equivalent of a mid to high level party.

I'll acknowledge that it clearly depends on the prevalence of such parties both for offence and defense but in general, a classic walled fortification is good for 2D defense: keeping people outside the walls. If people can subvert the gates or go over the walls, much of the value of a classic castle or walled town goes away.

As a case in point, while the ancient world developed impressive siegecraft in time, it took a long time and was for most of the period, a time consuming and costly endeavor to crack a fortification by siege. Much preferred was to take it by treachery. For some of the period, certainly in the Punic Wars, commanders would also early on try to take a fortification by storm. It didn't often work but it might and it was worth trying before laying siege.

To my read, a reasonably high level, group of 4-5 adventurers/mercenaries, typical of your normal combined arms D&D party ought to be able to accomplish the same thing as a treachery. They should be able to scout out a weak point and penetrate it in a way to allow an army in.

Defensive parties would offer some counter measure but in a large fort or walled town, it might get hard for the defense to "defend everywhere".

A counter to this, at least for smaller fortifications, not necessarily towns, is to build things that look more like bunkers: self contained strong points with limited ways of ingress. You might still have some walled out works but the balance of effort and cost might be towards the strong points and less towards multiple concentric walls, for instance. I'd rather defend a few stout block houses connected by tunnels than some lighter towers connected by open curtain wall and courtyard.

Alternately, one could have light towers and walls, even towers open on the inner face (as was sometimes built). This might be a light deterent and readily abandoned at limited harm with the real defense centered on a heavy keep. Even then, I would imagine a compartmentalized center keep that allowed for interior defenses which would make sense in case someone penetrated the keep.

Put another way, in the presence of small, hard hitting raiding parties, I'd rather defend a few portals than a lot of wall.

Aerial mounts offer an interesting axis of attack. One could imagine that for any one attacker and any one defender, the attacker might be able to muster a large aerial force and use it to breach the walls but in general, it would seem that large aerial forces would be extremely expensive.

You can look at the normal cavalry to foot ratios and extrapolate something even worse for aerial mounts. Aside from the cost of acquiring and training the aerial mount (which is setting specific and possibly no where near what the D&D source books make it), they would still *eat* a huge amount and ought to be very hard to maintain.

I took a stab at  the cost of feeding a griffin force based on energy expenditures of large flying creatures in one of my EnWorld blogs. Lots of different choices to make in such an analysis and different ways to cut it but all of them seem to suggest a griffin eats a lot more than a horse, almost certainly meat. I came up with 17-26 cows per griffin per year, YMMV of course. That might be practical for a small party or a lord and his attendants but even a decent size kingdom probably could maintain no more than a few scouting squadrons, it seems to me. So castle impact from aerial forces might be minimal.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Dec 2, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> As to mills working around the clock:  What is more cost effective:  Having one mill that can process all the output from your land by working around the clock or three mills in order to process that same output during daylight hours only.  If a continuous light spell costs less in labour and materials and actual currency than building two more mills then, by your own argument, they are going to take the magic route.




Also, note that inexpensive artificial lighting means you can work indoors during the winter, when there's less sunlight.  This is more useful in higher latitudes, but it's still useful unless you're on the equator.  Continual flame beats candles hands down.

Brad


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 2, 2010)

Saying that all it takes a wizard is saying "a few words" is pretty much the same thing as saying gallery-quality art is cheap: all it takes is Pablo Picasso and "a few charcoal streaks." 

Why are magical solutions so expensive? Because to cast it, you first need someone with at least Int 12, meaning 2/3 or so of the population does not have a reasonable expectation of even becoming such a wizard. Then they need to spend 2 to 10 years in apprenticeship to someone who knows spells that can kill people, turn them to stone, or enslave minds. In the meantime, their family probably dies in a famine or an orc attack. Finally, having mastered the basics of arcane magic, this person embarks on a career of study and/or adventurer, seeking magical lore and possessing magical lore also sought by other individuals capable of killing or enslaving people with magical words. Having finally achieved some significant level of ability, they are approached by the mayor of the local township.

"Master Wizard. So sorry about your family being eaten by hungry orcs during the famine. I was wondering if you could be troubled to create magical lights so that we may continue to grind flour and tan leather around the clock, boosting the local GDP by at least 25%? ... How much would you charge for such a service?"

So, how much?

There are good lawyers who can get you off the hook with a "few words," and surgeons who can fix your heart with some basic material components and "a few gestures." Don't expect them to come cheap, though.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 2, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Saying that all it takes a wizard is saying "a few words" is pretty much the same thing as saying gallery-quality art is cheap: all it takes is Pablo Picasso and "a few charcoal streaks."
> 
> Why are magical solutions so expensive? Because to cast it, you first need someone with at least Int 12, meaning 2/3 or so of the population does not have a reasonable expectation of even becoming such a wizard. Then they need to spend 2 to 10 years in apprenticeship to someone who knows spells that can kill people, turn them to stone, or enslave minds. In the meantime, their family probably dies in a famine or an orc attack. Finally, having mastered the basics of arcane magic, this person embarks on a career of study and/or adventurer, seeking magical lore and possessing magical lore also sought by other individuals capable of killing or enslaving people with magical words. Having finally achieved some significant level of ability, they are approached by the mayor of the local township.
> 
> ...




I think that's grossly overstated. For starters, you seem to be assuming that the wizard only undertakes his profession for combat reasons. In a magic world, it would seem that there would be those studying to practise these arts for reasons of convenience or aesthetics since, from our own world example, we know people pay for that. Do they pay as much as for an attack spell? No but the market for convenience is much larger than the market for mayhem, at least in certain settings; certainly was the case for much of earth history. Our lighting-mage could learn his art from these kinder, gentler folks. Also, in general D&D, you know the spell, you can cast it.

You yourself have allowed for only 2 years of apprenticeship in the lower bound. That isn't a horrible investment in time for access to useful magic (think cantrips for starters). How long it really takes and whether there are other barriers to studying the magic arts are setting specific.

Also setting specific is how close to subsistence the society is. In a low population, low agriculture capability world, you could imagine many bright lads and lasses having to weigh helping the family eat versus studying magic. But that's not the case for many settings (or even certain places in the same setting).

In some versions of D&D, continual light will last forever. Forever is a long time. Makes that spell quite useful. Makes it worth something. Could feed a lot of family members casting that spell.

That said, it isn't clear to me that continual light alone would cause a revolution. But factor in other spells, especially clerical healing and curing spells and one could see an extremely powerful attraction for acquiring these arcane and divine arts.

But how much can this really change a world? It depends on so many other factors related to uptake, availibility, aptitude required, even world history and time.

The barriers presented in most standard D&D rulesets and settings never seemed so high to me that were magic really available on the terms described people wouldn't use it more, especially for non-combat purposes. But does that mean your game must have a magic revolution? No, of course not. As always, you can simply ignore the issue, you can introduce other barriers that don't affect the players but inhibits spread (requiring a 10 year apprenticeship could certainly do it and with a long apprenticeship, what mage is going to take anyone without a really high int, say 16+; similarly, the gods might not have the bandwidth and/or inclination to take many priests), you can introduce a timeline and state of the world that hasn't achieved a magic revolution yet, you name it.

These arguments about whether D&D magic would spread are pointless without a mutually agreed upon set of assumptions (and I've been in more than one ).

As a side note, sometimes people try to use the D&D standard spell costs to decide these matters. Aside from the fact that all D&D prices are mostly driven by the need to run a game (some editions even stating that their prices reflect inflated prices of an adventuring area for instance IIRC), it seems plain silly to me that all spells of a given level will cost the same. Like anything else, the prices will be driven by supply and demand. Know alignment is likely to sell for a lot less than continual light, assuming they are the same level, for instance.


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 2, 2010)

marcq said:


> Personally, I've always felt that the main way magic/fantasy would affect castle design is not flying mounts but the D&D equivalent of a mid to high level party.
> 
> I'll acknowledge that it clearly depends on the prevalence of such parties both for offence and defense but in general, a classic walled fortification is good for 2D defense: keeping people outside the walls. If people can subvert the gates or go over the walls, much of the value of a classic castle or walled town goes away.



Of course a small band of mid to high level adventurers can compromise a castle. A band of mid to high level adventurers can topple entire kingdoms or save them from destruction according to their whims. Adventurers can invade the well-defended underground lair of a thousand year old lich and overcome its traps, slay city-devouring dragons, and defeat hordes of bloodthirsty orc barbarians. Truth be told, there is very little that can be done to fool-proof anything against adventurers, even if you use vast quantities of magical defenses. This is a feature of D&D.

However, adventurers, particularly mid to high level ones, are not very common at all. I doubt that there are enough roving bands of adventurers around at once in a setting to warrant changing castle design around to take them into consideration.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 2, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> However, adventurers, particularly mid to high level ones, are not very common at all. I doubt that there are enough roving bands of adventurers around at once in a setting to warrant changing castle design around to take them into consideration.




It doesn't take many roving adventurer bands to change things. Moreover, wouldn't normal military activity similar to the Roman Era, early middle ages, high middle ages (most of the eras ) result in mid- to high level groups within these forces? These groups could then leave the military or, working within the military, attack enemy strong points.

I don't think they would be as rare as you suggest. Would it be *easy* to create these groups? No. But neither is it easy to make a large stone castle, easy to lay siege, easy to build sophisticated siege weapons, easy to raise fleets. But these castles, fleets, etc. were created repeatedly throughout history because they were so useful. Just like those mid-to-high level adventuring bands might be.

You say they are too rare to matter. I say they aren't. Hard to really settle it without setting some baselines for a discussion (which would be better put in another thread if you really want to do it.)

Just to be clear, I'm speaking of the equivalent of mid-to-high level adventurers. They don't actually have to be adventuring. Could be veterans from some of the Roman Republican armies. How would you map one of Caeser's seasoned legions into D&D levels? Might be an awful lot of "mid-level adventuring group" equivalents and not a few high level ones. One would assume, of course, that the Romans would have exploited more than just the warrior professions in their armies and have some amount of healers and wizards available as well. They certainly had highly trained surgeons and engineers.

In any case, as I stated in my post, this is how I see things. You are free to see it how you like  I'd rather not argue it much further without trying to agree on some starting assumptions.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 2, 2010)

On a side note about flying mounts.

Attacking a castle would be the least impact of having flying mounts.  It's the logistical effects that would be huge.  Imagine a medieval battlefield where you have lines of communication beyond line of sight.  Intelligence on enemy troop movements that are minutes instead of hours old.  The ability to move supplies or small groups of men massive distances in very short periods of time.

Effectively, you've added small helicopters to the battlefield.  That's an enormous impact.  A good example of this is Steven Erikson's Malazan books where one empire manages to gain the services of giant flying insects.  It completely revolutionizes how they conduct wars.

Outside of wartime, again the logistical effects of flying mounts would be huge.  Being able to transport small goods, but more importantly, information, at such a high rate would have very large impacts.

Dropping big rocks on castles would be the least effect.

-----------

On the effect of wizards.  The thing Pawsplay, that you ignore is the fact that something like Continual Light/Flame is permanent.  It never ends.  Even if only one a day is created somewhere in the land, after a couple of centuries, you have thousands of these items floating around.  And they never end.  Most fantasy settings have a couple of thousand years of history.  Now you're talking millions of these items floating around.

I think this is the one thing that a lot of people ignore in this discussion - time.  You don't have to mass produce this stuff to make it have an impact.  Small, very reasonable amounts will simply add up over time.  Sure, you need a 3rd level cleric to cast continual flame.  Ok.  But, in the entire land, how many 3rd level clerics are there?  Even if it's only half a percent of the population, you're still talking hundreds or even thousands of individuals.  

And, of those hundreds or thousands, only one per day has to cast continual flame for the impact to be seen.  This is hardly unreasonable.


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 2, 2010)

marcq said:


> It doesn't take many roving adventurer bands to change things. Moreover, wouldn't normal military activity similar to the Roman Era, early middle ages, high middle ages (most of the eras ) result in mid- to have level groups within these forces? These groups could then leave the military or, working within the military, attack enemy strong points.
> (trimmed for length)




In my book, the only adventurers likely to exist are the PCs, who only exist because of the peculiar circumstances that drive the campaign. NPCs rarely get over 4th or 5th level (in 4E terms). There might be only a few dozen level 10+ NPCs in the entire setting (depending on the needs of the campaign), and even they are probably not on par with equal leveled PCs. So for my notions of D&D demographics, the idea of a military unit of even mid level characters is ludicrous. Of course, my preference in D&D leans towards a major focus on the importance of the PCs. I see no reason why NPCs need to gain experience or otherwise follow the rules PCs do, since D&D rules are not natural laws. People with other preferences will probably produce different demographics.

As for your previous post:


> You yourself have allowed for only 2 years of apprenticeship in the lower bound. That isn't a horrible investment in time for access to useful magic (think cantrips for starters). How long it really takes and whether there are other barriers to studying the magic arts are setting specific.
> 
> Also setting specific is how close to subsistence the society is. In a low population, low agriculture capability world, you could imagine many bright lads and lasses having to weigh helping the family eat versus studying magic. But that's not the case for many settings (or even certain places in the same setting).



Remember that in a pre-industrial society where more than 90% of people need to live off the land, it is extremely uncommon for someone to even have the opportunity to learn how to read, let alone acquire higher knowledge. In medieval villages, there were only a handful of literate people. The only people who had access to any kind of real education were the wealthy elite. There was no place in the world where this wasn't true up until the 19th century. If we assume that magic is a particularly difficult subject, at least on par with a college education, then there would be no way a peasant could learn magic without very special circumstances, and there would only be a few skilled mages even among the wealthy elite.

Remember, magic and alchemy were considered legitimate fields of study through most of human history. It is possible to get a pretty reasonable idea of how many mages might exist in a historically based setting by looking at the demographics of real world wizards and alchemists. There definitely wasn't one or two in every town and village. Of course, randomly occurring appearances of sorcerers might skew these estimates, but there is no guarantee they would know any useful magic.

This discussion is getting way off topic. Maybe we should fork it off into another thread, again.


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> On the effect of wizards.  The thing Pawsplay, that you ignore is the fact that something like Continual Light/Flame is permanent.  It never ends.  Even if only one a day is created somewhere in the land, after a couple of centuries, you have thousands of these items floating around.  And they never end.  Most fantasy settings have a couple of thousand years of history.  Now you're talking millions of these items floating around.




The use of the term permanent is a little open to discussion. For the most part, any given D&D campaign only covers a finite period of time, usually a few decades at the outside limit. The duration of 20 years, a hundred years, and forever are effectively the same thing as far the rules are concerned in a practical sense. It wouldn't disrupt the rules or a campaign to say that these torches do run out after a certain length of time. There is also the chance of magical dispelling or physical destruction to take into consideration. So, I am inclined to think that continual flame torches are lost, destroyed, or just run out at around the same rate they are created in the first place.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 2, 2010)

@SKyOdin

If you choose to limit the number of adventurers to your PCs plus some foes, that's perfectly reasonable but that's hardly how most people are likely to see it. This is what I mean about setting a common baseline 

So, your view is consistent, reasonable and useful but it does seem a bit of a stretch to tell me I'm wrong because of this previously (to my knowledge) unstated way you handle it in your settings.

Regarding using earth magic/alchemy as an analogue for a magic world, I think the problem there is that earth magic/alchemy is either entirely powerless (my personal view) or of very limited, measurable power (allowing for other view points on this). D&D class magic is so much more patently powerful I don't see how you can use it as an example. I'd pick instead access to medieval universities or ancient world engineers; rare but not unheard of it.

I'm up for another thread but, if I may suggest, please take a stab at some ground rules to the discussion. Someone can always start another thread if they don't care for the ones you pick 

I'll take a stab  at my own thread regarding a premise similars to yours which I described as a "distortion bubble". I think it does have it's place.


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 2, 2010)

marcq said:


> @SKyOdin
> 
> If you choose to limit the number of adventurers to your PCs plus some foes, that's perfectly reasonable but that's hardly how most people are likely to see it. This is what I mean about setting a common baseline
> 
> ...




I was talking about access to medieval universities. I could cite comparisons to ancient/medieval Chinese education too, since it followed the same patterns: only the wealthy elite had access to any kind of advanced education, and only a fraction of them succeeded at it.

Anyways, once again I reiterate that my argument that has never been that it is wrong for people to create a setting with an advanced magic-industrial revolution or a setting full of high-level characters. I have no problem if you want to create a setting where every street-corner has a ten-thousand year old everburning lantern on it, or a setting where war is fought between small, elite armies of 15th level magic wielding ninjas (I am a Naruto fan, after all). I am just arguing against the idea that it is impossible for a DM to adjust things to make these outcomes impossible. I am also arguing against the idea that these outcomes are an inevitability of the D&D rules system or that such settings are a natural progression of fantasy itself. My main point is that if you want to avoid it, you can do so quite easily.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 2, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> The use of the term permanent is a little open to discussion. For the most part, any given D&D campaign only covers a finite period of time, usually a few decades at the outside limit. The duration of 20 years, a hundred years, and forever are effectively the same thing as far the rules are concerned in a practical sense. It wouldn't disrupt the rules or a campaign to say that these torches do run out after a certain length of time. There is also the chance of magical dispelling or physical destruction to take into consideration. So, I am inclined to think that continual flame torches are lost, destroyed, or just run out at around the same rate they are created in the first place.




A sensible approach and one I often use myself but it isn't what the standard D&D rules say and thus, not exactly fair or appropriate to use in a discussion if the other person is appealing to standard D&D rules.

This whole thread is sorely in need of an agreed reference or baseline


----------



## Hussar (Dec 2, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> The use of the term permanent is a little open to discussion. For the most part, any given D&D campaign only covers a finite period of time, usually a few decades at the outside limit. The duration of 20 years, a hundred years, and forever are effectively the same thing as far the rules are concerned in a practical sense. It wouldn't disrupt the rules or a campaign to say that these torches do run out after a certain length of time. There is also the chance of magical dispelling or physical destruction to take into consideration. So, I am inclined to think that continual flame torches are lost, destroyed, or just run out at around the same rate they are created in the first place.




Permanent is open to discussion?  How?  There is no definition of permanent that isn't, well, forever.  That's what permanent means.  Now, you can start changing the definitions, but, that's house rule territory and then all gloves are off.

Granted dispelling is an issue.  Although, it seems a bit disingenious to, on one hand, talk about how incredibly rare a 2nd level cleric spell is, while positing that there are enough casters capable of casting 3rd level spells deliberately trying to destroy the continual flames.  

Same goes with your demographics.  At least in 3e, this is very counter to how the demographics are presented in baseline 3e D&D.  Earlier D&D didn't spell it out quite so well, but, numerous towns and whatnot are detailed in supplements and modules that show a fairly large number of higher level NPC's.  Certainly in greater numbers than what you are talking about.

Again, there's nothing wrong with stating that this is true in your campaign, that's fine.  But, when talking about baseline assumptions, we can't really use your or my campaign.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 2, 2010)

I wanted to read the entire thread because this is a topic I really like to think about, but there was just too much information.

As far as I'm concerned the problem with guns is they generally lack the right style as far as I'm concerned: point, shoot, maybe dakka.  They tend to seem more set pieces of the scene than parts of the character.  (I do have similar problems with crossbows, bows, and ranged magic that's point finger --> shoot.)  This doesn't make want to ban them from the setting itself, just me wanting to make the mechanics such that they stay in the roll of set-piece.  If it's not possible to relegate them to set-pieces then yes, I will ban them in favor of encouraging muscle-powered weapons.


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Permanent is open to discussion?  How?  There is no definition of permanent that isn't, well, forever.  That's what permanent means.  Now, you can start changing the definitions, but, that's house rule territory and then all gloves are off.
> 
> Granted dispelling is an issue.  Although, it seems a bit disingenious to, on one hand, talk about how incredibly rare a 2nd level cleric spell is, while positing that there are enough casters capable of casting 3rd level spells deliberately trying to destroy the continual flames.
> 
> ...



Hussar, look, I have never been talking about baseline D&D assumptions and how they affect everyones campaigns. I have never been saying that you can't have a setting full of continual light spells if you really want to. I have just been saying that if someone doesn't want those things in their setting, it is quite easy to have it be the case.

For the most part, I reject the idea that the D&D ruleset represents any kind of laws of physics or strict implied setting. They are nothing more than rules for running a game, which are very distinct from rules governing a setting. Permanent is a game rule, not a setting rule. What is permanent in the context of a game might not be permanent in the context of a setting. While game rules are roughly based on notions of how the laws of physics work in a setting, they also are too lacking and imprecise to themselves function as the rules that govern a world. 

It is impossible to create an internally consistent world given the rules of D&D and nothing else. You need to add something else in order to create an actual believable world. That added 'something else' is very malleable and open to interpretation.

For one thing, D&D does not have a coherent magic system. It just has a list of effects that a magic system can produce. At no point does any D&D book explain the hows and whys of magic's inner workings. As such, magic is completely open to interpretation if someone wants to create actual setting rules for it. I could list out a half dozen different metaphysical systems that could be used whenever a wizard casts a fireball spell, each of which has different setting implications.

If you look at a fire elemental, there is all kinds of room for different interpretations on what a fire elemental actually is. The D&D rules simply leave it that it is a semi-intelligent mass of fire from an inner plane or the Elemental Chaos. That tells us nothing about how it might be applied to the situations people try to apply it to. Some people interpret it to be a tame-able source of free, infinite energy. However, that interpretation has no direct basis in the D&D rules. It is simply one possible expression of the rules.

As such, I don't think there is one rule in the D&D books that isn't heavily open to being reflected in numerous different story or setting forms.


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 2, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> There are good lawyers who can get you off the hook with a "few words," and surgeons who can fix your heart with some basic material components and "a few gestures." Don't expect them to come cheap, though.




Ultimately, though, every mother wants their child to be lawyers and doctors, and there are in fact many doctors and lawyers in modern society. If what you need is someone argue a judge into dropping a speeding ticket, or to clean and sew up a nasty cut, it will run you a few hundred dollars, which isn't that big of a deal.

It strikes me as likely that every large village, along with its idiot, will have its genius, who upon reaching apprentice age will be dragged to the nearest wizard's tower, who will be begged to accept the youth as an apprentice. Will it cost the family? Yes, but a lot of people will sacrifice a lot to help their children, and this is a farmer's one chance to retire in the lap of luxury.

One roadblock might be for only people of some status to be apprentices. As a wizard, however, I might prefer an apprentice that doesn't balk at doing hard work, and whose family won't threaten me should he get eaten by a demon or burnt by a fireball backlash.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2010)

SkyOdin said:
			
		

> Hussar, look, I have never been talking about baseline D&D assumptions and how they affect everyones campaigns. I have never been saying that you can't have a setting full of continual light spells if you really want to. I have just been saying that if someone doesn't want those things in their setting, it is quite easy to have it be the case.
> 
> For the most part, I reject the idea that the D&D ruleset represents any kind of laws of physics or strict implied setting.




This I have a bit of a problem with.

How can you reject the idea that the D&D ruleset represents an implied setting?  Every ruleset of D&D, from Basic/Expert, through to 4e has a very strongly implied setting.  The cosmology and all of its consequences, gods, and, yes, how magic works.  While they don't get down to the bare details of how magic works, that's true, they do tell you pretty specifically what happens when you do X.

Again, if you want to reject that and talk about your specific campaign setting, fine.  That's cool.  I believe it was in this thread that Marcq talked about ejecting the cosmology from his setting and changing a number of other details.  That's fine.

But, we're not talking about your or my or Marcq's campaign.  We're talking about the world that's described in the D&D books.  Once we start rejecting pieces of the rules that don't fit our particularly views, we're into homebrew territory.  Very cool homebrew territory, but, still homebrew nonetheless.  

Can you interpret the rules and make changes so that you get a static world where none of the elements in the game have any setting implications?  Sure.  Of course you can.  But, doing so requires some pretty serious rewriting of the game.  It makes it very difficult to have any conversation without setting a baseline for comparison.


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> This I have a bit of a problem with.
> 
> How can you reject the idea that the D&D ruleset represents an implied setting?  Every ruleset of D&D, from Basic/Expert, through to 4e has a very strongly implied setting.  The cosmology and all of its consequences, gods, and, yes, how magic works.  While they don't get down to the bare details of how magic works, that's true, they do tell you pretty specifically what happens when you do X.
> 
> ...




First off, there is no singular D&D setting. Whenever someone creates a setting or campaign for D&D, they interpret the basic rules and ideas of D&D in different ways. Look at Eberron, Forgotten Realms, and Dark Sun for example: all three of those official settings take the same basic rules and draw out very different setting paradigms. And nothing I have suggested is beyond the same bounds of interpretation that those settings use. I haven't suggested anything involving changing actual rules, only the setting interpretations of those rules.

Second off, D&D doesn't tell you anything about how magic works. Let me ask this, what does a wizard do when he casts fireball? The 3E rules tell us that the wizard says something, does something with his hands, and then does something with bat guano. The 4E rules tell us absolutely nothing about what the wizard does when he casts fireball. There is no explanation whatsoever of where the fire comes from in either rule set. That isn't even an attempt at an explanation, let alone an actual system. Does the wizard invoke a pact with fire spirits, draw out the ideal form of fire from an alternate dimension, call upon a miracle from his guardian angel, or draw out the power from a local ley-line of energy? D&D makes no attempt to give an explanation for arcane magic on even that fundamental level. So there is no implied understanding of how magic works in D&D; it is just a blank slate for DMs to fill in as they wish.

Likewise, the only setting material given in core D&D rules deals with cosmology, lists of gods, and so on. However, those things are explicitly designed to be replaced and modified at will. I don't consider changing the list of gods or what the planes are to be house rules, since those things aren't rules in the first place.

Also, I don't think that just because a monster or race is included in a book means that that creature exists in a setting. It is also safe to assume that creatures are governed and affected by considerations that are not directly addressed or explicitly stated by the game rules. Otherwise, creatures wouldn't need to eat and couldn't procreate. In my opinion, saying that dragons exist in a setting and saying that dragons never existed in a setting are equally valid options.

Let me summarize my argument. I think that it is possible to prevent a magic-industrial revolution in a D&D setting without changing a single word of rules text. It can be done simply by being selective about what is included in the setting and adding some rather logical qualifiers to magic that don't affect the in-game use of magic. Likewise, it is possible to have a world dominated by advanced, commonly used magic by adjusting those non-rule factors in a slightly different way.

EDIT: I suppose I should say that there is an implied setting of sorts in D&D. However, my point is that it is a very vague, ill-defined thing. People tend to overstate how real the implied setting is. There are many things that don't work with D&D, but far, far more things that do. Honestly, I think many people's ideas of what "generic D&D" means are colored by their own preferences and experiences. However, those preferences are not an inherent part of the ruleset.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2010)

SkyOdin said:
			
		

> I haven't suggested anything involving changing actual rules, only the setting interpretations of those rules.




Actually, yes you have.  You've changed the rules for Permanent duration, to less than forever.

AFAIC, how doesn't matter.  How does a wizard make a fireball?  Who cares?  All I need to know is that when caster does X, Y happens.  Every time.  The exact way in which that works?  Totally not important.  Anything which changes Y is moving beyond the rules.  

Can you make a static setting where none of the rules have any implications?  Sure.  I just personally find it very unbelievable and think it's about as consistent as jello.

Then again, I tend not to worry about it too much when I'm actually playing.


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Actually, yes you have.  You've changed the rules for Permanent duration, to less than forever.
> 
> AFAIC, how doesn't matter.  How does a wizard make a fireball?  Who cares?  All I need to know is that when caster does X, Y happens.  Every time.  The exact way in which that works?  Totally not important.  Anything which changes Y is moving beyond the rules.



Except that I didn't change the Y of the continual flame spell. If X is the player choice to utilize an in-game effect, then Y is the in-game effect determined by the rules. If a player casts continual flame under my interpretation, then it will not run out on them within the context of the game or the campaign. What I changed was the less well-defined factor of how rule effects work when utilized by NPCs in a historical sense.

To draw a comparison, let's look at how non-magical physics are emulated by D&D. For the most part, the game doesn't spell out anything specific about how the laws of physics work in a D&D rules. It just generally presumes a general similarity with real-world physics. The D&D rules don't even attempt to accurately model real world physics (this can be seen in the oddities of falling damage, which only roughly approximate the effects of gravity). Furthermore, the D&D rules are not in any way dependent on a setting that follows real world physics. The D&D rules work just as well in a flat world held up by a turtle where objects fall based on the ordering of elements Aristotle proposed. Either trying to emulate real world physics or trying to emulate a completely fantastic world work equally well under the same rules.

To make another comparison, what happens when a PC imbibes a lot of alcohol? There are no rules for drunkenness in most versions of D&D. However, it would be unbelievable for most DMs and players if there was no consequence for being drunk, whether is represented by rules for not. So players are certainly comfortable with the application of non-rules logic into the game world.

As such, there is no direct correlation between game rules and the details of setting logic.



> Can you make a static setting where none of the rules have any implications?  Sure.  I just personally find it very unbelievable and think it's about as consistent as jello.
> 
> Then again, I tend not to worry about it too much when I'm actually playing.




Since when was I arguing for a "static setting". I haven't even been advocating any specific setting! All I have been saying is that D&D settings are highly malleable based on what assumptions a DM puts into them. For example, most of the arguments around whether or not mages would be commonplace are completely dependent on questions of class/level demographics. Those demographics are purely based on DM whim, rather than rules. A world where half the population are level 10 or higher is just as legitimate under the rules as a world where no-one except the PCs is above level 1. As such, the DM can adjust the class/level demographics to suit the needs and tone of the setting.

What bugs me is that when I said that it was _possible_ to have a setting where there was no industrial revolution or magical revolution, a few people including you started telling me that such a setting either shouldn't exist or just dismissed it as "house-ruled" (i.e. not _real_ D&D). Shouldn't DMs be free to create the settings they like as long they do so intentionally and with internal logic?


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 3, 2010)

Going back to the OP’s question, one aspect of gunpowder weapons I don’t recall seeing on this thread (apologies if someone already raised it):

Historically, gunpowder weapons leveled the battle field. Meaning, they reduced the value of the highly trained, heavily armed and armored knight with respect to a levy with a firearm. As gunpowder weapons, tactics and training evolved, it is clear to my read of history that this leveling did happen and there were comments about it during the period.

The longbow also had something of that affect but in the end, it was much harder to raise large longbow troops. Crossbows had other issues such as rate of fire.

So, I think gunpowder weapons and subconsciously, I also think, fewer heroes. Does a game with such weapons have to be anti-hero? Certainly not. Most game systems don’t model firearms as especially lethal or especially effective against available personal defenses (armor, magic, etc.) to remove heroes from play.

I’m just observing that part of my dislike of gunpowder weapons in fantasy settings is related to that factor as well as the impact it would likely have on fortifications.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 3, 2010)

The death of heroism in medieval warfare was the pikeman, not the arquebusser. "Heroism" is a romanticized view of a bloody and often chaotic business; heroic melee has about the same relationship to actual melee that John Woo movies have to actual gunplay and CTHD to actual kung fu.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 3, 2010)

Put me down as, "No," mainly for flavor and system reasons.  I usually prefer to play with 8th to 12th century technology + magic (roughly).  I'm not ignorant of medieval history, but see the thing is I know I'm *already* bending to let in plate (and widespread scale over chain) and rapiers and so forth.  I'd be really happy to leave those out, if it was just about what I want.  But lots of players get a lot of fun out of those elements, it's already accounted for in the game, and players don't feel the need to push the implications.  (Gee, got steel manufacturing capabilities sufficient that the entire paladin guard wears shiny plate?  What does that say about possibilities?)

But even early black powder is exactly a bridge too far.  Something snaps, and *I* can't pretend this is early to mid-medieval anymore.  Unless there is some highly interesting mechanical addition to play via gunpowder, nothing appreciably is added to the game.  A tiny minority of players in my kind of games even cares.  And that minority *always* wants to push the implications of gunpowder.

I've thought a lot about this, and I think, like steam power, it is about the changing pace of technology.  Roleplayers can accept plate as the pinnacle of hide-bound dwarven artisans in a relatively static society.  But put gunpowder or steam into the setting, and minds are only a small leap from Moore's law (computer processers doubling in power every 18 months) and Star Trek tricorders.  It's like throwing a subliminal flag into the system saying, "this campaign is about the suddenly explosive pace of technology changing the world."

Strangely enough, I don't think you get this effect if you go a bit farther.  So if I want to do swashbuckling, then I want to go for the full Camus.  You just need an era where "swashbuckling" is perfected, but sufficiently far from Napolean to avoid thinking about improved use of cannon. Likewise, if I'm going to go to 1800, I might as well jump to 1880 or modern times.  Then if I still want fantasy, I can add magic to that, instead of adding all of that to D&D.  But D&D probably isn't the system for that game.  (I'd use Fantasy Hero.)


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 3, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> The death of heroism in medieval warfare was the pikeman, not the arquebusser. "Heroism" is a romanticized view of a bloody and often chaotic business; heroic melee has about the same relationship to actual melee that John Woo movies have to actual gunplay and CTHD to actual kung fu.




Many weapons were heralded as the end of heroic combat but I can't see how firearms weren't a big part of it.

And yes, it is certainly fair to say RPGs romanticize combat.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 3, 2010)

I don't think gunpowder has any direct correlation to the loss of heroes in a setting. For one thing, the romanticization of combat and the creation of heroes has very little to do with the actual processes of war. Anyways, the "leveling" effect of the introduction of gunpowder is often very exaggerated. As has been said before in this thread, the introduction of gunpowder did not remove the knight from the battlefield, and even as the lance wielding knight did eventually fade away centuries later, he was simply replaced with other forms of elite well trained units, like the grenadiers or cuirassiers.

Also, the correlation between the introduction of gunpowder and the loss of heroism is flatly contradicted by a number of examples. Most of the great samurai of Japanese history were from the Sengoku period, which was a period of gunpowder warfare dominated by a mix of pikemen and troops armed with early guns. One samurai often regarded as the greatest warrior of his era, Tadakatsu Honda, spent most of his major battles commanding a group of musketmen. Not to mention various later periods like the golden age of piracy have had a lot of romanticism and heroism added onto them...


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 3, 2010)

The fact that knights co-existed with firearms for a while does not say that firearms did not have an effect. Just as with fortifications, it took time for the firearms to develop in capability and availability to cause a change. More-over, effective use of firearms requires effect technique, drill and such.

In Europe there were many factors at work in the decline of the knight in this period. Firearms were not the only one but the knights themselves complained of them.

Regardless, it's how it "feels" to me. The impact on the nature of combat along with its reasonable impact on fortifications make it something I prefer to avoid in the settings I create and games I play in. The bang-and-flash of a firearm don't add enough to a fantasy setting for it to outweigh its negatives for me.

Clearly, I'm in the minority from the poll and comments on this thread though. Certainly not saying you can't use it. I'm assuming no one is telling me I must use it


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 4, 2010)

Taking the 'heroic' battle concept further as practiced in a game. Consider two scenarios:

In scenario 1, the 12 year old boy of a slain lord takes his father's best weapon, a finely crafted dwarven rifle equivalent to a snipers rifle from the Civil war. He lies in wait for his father's killer and puts a bullet through his head at 200 yards.

In scenario 2, we have the same basic situation but the best weapon is his father's bow. He can't string it yet so he takes his father's sword, also a nice weapon. He springs out of a hiding place at his father's killer, inflicts a minor wound with his clumsy blow and is rapidly dispatched.

I prefer scenario 2. I don't like firearms enabling non-combatants, or in game terms, low level types. I don't like the "color" of it, but I also don't like the arguments with my technically and historically savvy players about what can be achieved with firearms and what is a reasonable progression of the technology. Why bother? As a player, I don't l ike ignoring the effectiveness of firearms or their likely progression to enjoy the game. Given a choice, I'd choose a game without them.

That's a personal preference, of course. Some people can't stand fantasy RPGs, with or without firearms. Not going to tell them, they are "wrong."


----------



## jonesy (Dec 4, 2010)

marcq said:


> Clearly, I'm in the minority from the poll and comments on this thread though.



I wouldn't be so sure, actually. Following this thread I've been getting the impression that there might be a very sharp divide between people saying 'I'd allow firearms' and 'I'd welcome firearms'.



marcq said:


> In scenario 1, the 12 year old boy of a slain lord takes his father's best weapon, a finely crafted dwarven rifle equivalent to a snipers rifle from the Civil war. He lies in wait for his father's killer and puts a bullet through his head at 200 yards.
> 
> In scenario 2, we have the same basic situation but the best weapon is his father's bow. He can't string it yet so he takes his father's sword, also a nice weapon. He springs out of a hiding place at his father's killer, inflicts a minor wound with his clumsy blow and is rapidly dispatched.



A fresh shooter hitting and killing from 200 yards? Or getting the drop on someone and not hitting properly with a sword? And why specify a finely crafted gun, but not a superb sword, or bow? And if he can't spring a bow, why would he be able to load the gun? Why would the gun be instantly ready, but the bow not? The two are asymmetric enough to put the setup under suspicion.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 4, 2010)

jonesy said:


> A fresh shooter hitting and killing from 200 yards? Or getting the drop on someone and not hitting properly with a sword? And why specify a finely crafted gun, but not a superb sword, or bow? And if he can't spring a bow, why would he be able to load the gun? Why would the gun be instantly ready, but the bow not? The two are asymmetric enough to put the setup under suspicion.




Fair enough. When I constructed these two scenarios, I was thinking of my cousins who at this age were avid hunters and could in fact use a rifle. Could they hit a man at 200 yards? Not so sure but possible. Even if the scenario 2 lad could use a bow, he almost certainly could not string a heavy pull bow or use it effectively.

At 12 a noble would have had some basic martial training but was still a long way from being an effective warrior.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 4, 2010)

jonesy said:


> A fresh shooter hitting and killing from 200 yards? Or getting the drop on someone and not hitting properly with a sword? And why specify a finely crafted gun, but not a superb sword, or bow? And if he can't spring a bow, why would he be able to load the gun? Why would the gun be instantly ready, but the bow not? The two are asymmetric enough to put the setup under suspicion.




Fair enough, I'll add more to the scenario. The weapons are all of high quality. The bow has a pull strength of a strong adult male. Don't see a 12 year old stringing it or using it well. Can he use a sword? Probably had some training but just don't see him doing that much to a seasoned adult foe with it.

On the firearm scenario, I think of my cousins who at age 12 were respectable hunters. Could they down a man at 200 yards? Possibly. Maybe they'd have to be somewhat closer. But the basic point, they could certainly kill their target with the gun. It's a lot more questionable with the bow or sword.

*Sorry for the double reply. Thought my earlier one did not post and I had lost it.*


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 4, 2010)

Here's another way I look at it.

At a high level, a useful mental exercise might be to consider a high middle ages setting in a roleplaying game. Let’s say this setting is modeled closely on European technology and society in 1100.


Now to this setting, let’s add D&D magic. Would the addition of magic cause any changes to the setting? Well, as a game setting the designer can do what he or she wishes, but should magic cause a change?

The answer is we can’t say just yet. There is some tiny amount of added magic that is little more than the case of no magic, this would cause no perceptible change to the setting. On the other extreme, there is a large amount of magic that clearly would cause a change in the setting. Somewhere in between, the addition of magic would start causing changes to the setting, subtle at first but eventually one would expect changes to armies, fortifications, quality of life, all sorts of stuff.

How much magic is required? Well, here reasonable people can differ. We don’t really know and you can construct credible ranges of magic for the “tipping point”. I happen to think the level of magic described in the D&D rules is sufficient, others don’t. Many years of arguments have not resolved this.

Now let’s add firearms to the equation. From earth history, we know they perturb the setting as well. Moreover, it is difficult to control the “how much” of firearms. Magic can be restricted by various means of controlling access, percent of population that can acquire it, time required, etc. Firearms are technology that is well understood and not so easy to limit, given time. And what can be done from an initial introduction through the modern era can be easily extrapolated from Earth history.

So, for setting designers wanting to restrict changes to a setting, in this case a high middle ages one, but one that could as easily apply to any pre-firearms setting, it seems to me firearms are problematic. In game terms, as long as the setting creator and players are comfortable with it, it’s fine. But some players will have reasonable objections to firearms that might affect their acceptance of the setting.


----------



## jonesy (Dec 4, 2010)

marcq said:


> At 12 a noble would have had some basic martial training but was still a long way from being an effective warrior.





marcq said:


> On the firearm scenario, I think of my cousins who at age 12 were respectable hunters.



See, there's another asymmetry. Unequal training.

I'd make the scenario more like this:
Our young noble has practised archery, swordmanship, and his fathers rifle, with his father. The father is killed, and the noble rushes to avenge him. He takes all three with him. He ambushes the killer, and, from a short range, uses one. Which is the most effective in the hands of a novice? I'm not really sure that I'd be able to answer that.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 4, 2010)

jonesy said:


> See, there's another asymmetry. Unequal training.
> 
> I'd make the scenario more like this:
> Our young noble has practised archery, swordmanship, and his fathers rifle, with his father. The father is killed, and the noble rushes to avenge him. He takes all three with him. He ambushes the killer, and, from a short range, uses one. Which is the most effective in the hands of a novice? I'm not really sure that I'd be able to answer that.




I guess I needed to clarify my scenario further  As the son of a nobleman, he would have in had training the bow and sword as well but there's only so far you can take a 12 year old with those weapons. So postulate equally trained 12 year olds. My thought is the rifle is much more usable to him than the other weapons. In both scenarios he is a 12 year old nobleman's son destined to be a warrior.

But to work with your scenario, I think in the hands of an untrained person, a firearm might be much more lethal. There is the issue of how to load the weapon which does suppose a certain level of technology to make it feasible. But let's say the kid say his dad load his musket, he might be able to do that himself although certainly not hit a target at 200 yards first time. But in the hands of someone untrained at close range, which is more lethal? A bow he can't string, a sword he can hardly wield or a musket he might be able to load (or a modern pistol he can certainly use)?


----------



## jonesy (Dec 4, 2010)

marcq said:


> But in the hands of someone untrained at close range, which is more lethal? A bow he can't string, a sword he can hardly wield or a musket he might be able to load (or a modern pistol he can certainly use)?



Okay. The gun. But not enough to make it a clear cut victory in my mind.

But if you make it a modern pistol, a modern bow, and the best sword, the gun wins every time. The modern bow will be slower to operate, and the sword will just be outclassed.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 4, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Okay. The gun. But not enough to make it a clear cut victory in my mind.
> 
> But if you make it a modern pistol, a modern bow, and the best sword, the gun wins every time. The modern bow will be slower to operate, and the sword will just be outclassed.




Well, no scenario is perfect but basically, I don't like the firearm lethality in my campaign world. Or, if it is modeled essentially the same as a bow or crossbow, I don't want the arguments about whether the gun *should* be more lethal  But to each his own.


----------



## jonesy (Dec 4, 2010)

Hmm. If one assumes firearms, one almost automatically assumes technological progress, and then new and better firearms. A flintlock rifle isn't necessarily a gamebreaker if you want to maintain a certain level of romantics, but a winchester starts to get pretty close to one. But in the real world it took over two hundred years to get from the one to the other. Timeline for the progress is tricky, and people tend to assume that it would advance the same way it did in the real world.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 4, 2010)

TVTropes Fantasy Gun Control page makes the point that a lot of the time stories like to reduce their protagonist/antagonist final fight to melee because there's more action involved.  Maybe the problem with guns vs. bows is that not as many people are able to subconsciously understand the melee-eliminating power of _all_ ranged weapons vs. just guns doing it.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 4, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Hmm. If one assumes firearms, one almost automatically assumes technological progress, and then new and better firearms. A flintlock rifle isn't necessarily a gamebreaker if you want to maintain a certain level of romantics, but a winchester starts to get pretty close to one. But in the real world it took over two hundred years to get from the one to the other. Timeline for the progress is tricky, and people tend to assume that it would advance the same way it did in the real world.




Yes, I think there is a presumption that there will be technological progress. The same as Earth? That's not necessary. But if all you need is incremental metallurgical advancements and some experimental chemistry, a steady series of improvements in firearm technology does not seem unreasonable.

There are multiple axis for advancement. One is the progression from anti-personal weapons to anti-personal canons to anti-fortification canons and various degrees of effectiveness thereafter. There were problems to overcome on the path but at anyone step, it isn't hard to see or desire the next step and the technical problems aren't such that it takes an Einstein to progress. For this reason, there is often a presumption of technological progress. Does it automatically lead to an industrial revolution, steam engines and the like? Less likely but certainly not out of the question.

But here you see I may not have convinced you but we've discussed it back and forth for some time. Some of this thread went off into magic but much of it is firearm based. Some light weight arguments, some heavy weight but why go there at all? What do firearms really add to the setting? 

For me, its simple, I don't like the aesthetics for multiple reasons already given and I don't see the need to toss my engineering, history, and firearm savvy players red-meat for an argument and why castle walls don't make sense. So no firearms for me

I suppose you could posit that firearms don't advance quickly or at all because magic is so much more attractive but that seems to require a higher level of magic than most people are comfortable with, at least those saying that magic and firearms have little affect on the setting.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 4, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> TVTropes Fantasy Gun Control page makes the point that a lot of the time stories like to reduce their protagonist/antagonist final fight to melee because there's more action involved. Maybe the problem with guns vs. bows is that not as many people are able to subconsciously understand the melee-eliminating power of _all_ ranged weapons vs. just guns doing it.




Perhaps but I think it may also be that most gamers are more able to imagine a shield or armor stopping an arrow than a bullet.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 4, 2010)

marcq said:


> Perhaps but I think it may also be that most gamers are more able to imagine a shield or armor stopping an arrow than a bullet.



You do have a point, though that _would_ lead into it being easier to wade through a hail of arrows to get into that action-packed melee range.


----------



## jonesy (Dec 4, 2010)

marcq said:


> I suppose you could posit that firearms don't advance quickly or at all because magic is so much more attractive but that seems to require a higher level of magic than most people are comfortable with...



Ahh, but does it? Magic missile vs Colt .45, which would you pick?

Edit: that's a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm assuming you'd take magic missile. I mean, I would.


----------



## luckless (Dec 4, 2010)

marcq said:


> Taking the 'heroic' battle concept further as practiced in a game. Consider two scenarios:
> 
> In scenario 1, the 12 year old boy of a slain lord takes his father's best weapon, a finely crafted dwarven rifle equivalent to a snipers rifle from the Civil war. He lies in wait for his father's killer and puts a bullet through his head at 200 yards.
> 
> ...




scenario 3: He takes _any_ weapon, and takes his revenge while his target is sleeping.



jonesy said:


> Ahh, but does it? Magic missile vs Colt .45, which  would you pick?
> 
> Edit: that's a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm assuming you'd take  magic missile. I mean, I would.




This depends: Do I get bullets with the Colt? How many magic missiles can I cast in a day? In a round?


----------



## Meek (Dec 4, 2010)

My setting has magic firearms (I'm actually trying to write an article on my setting blog about this that I hope to post soon) (EDIT: It's here now). However, most people in the setting who are good melee fighters learn crazy wuxia martial arts stunts, so the gun hasn't completely outmoded the sword. The common weapons use sharp-ended cartridges that contain a volatile alchemical solution. The trigger causes a hammer to strike the cartridge and launch it at the enemy. The cartridge strike has a bit more force than an arrow and it's much easier to train someone to shoot it, even if it is loud. It's also relatively safe if you've gotten training to use it.

There are also magic railguns of a sort (a certain weapon uses supernatural kinetic force to fire a bolt at an enemy, but the weapon has to be magically charged every few shots, so you either have to have an esoteric practitioner around or you have to be one to use it). There's also alchemical grenade launchers and other stuff.

Due to how very superstitious everyone in the setting is (religion is the #1 most important thing to the setting), making a magic gun takes a lot of time. Certain procedures must be done under certain constellations, prayers must be sang while forging the chasis, and if you interpret your morning tea as giving you a weird omen that's a reason to stop working until you get a good moon, and other weirdness. So that's hampered the ability of each nation (and every nation has them) to get magic guns. If you fail to do this, the common belief is at some point the weapon will turn on you, because all unsactified artifice produces genocidally unholy things.

So the guns add a cool touch and fit well into the setting's culture and help to bring certain aspects of it to light.

The setting is not tied to any RPG system (I'm making my own homebrew fantasy RPG that I'd feel comfortable using with it), though (certainly not to D&D). In D&D 3e guns would have little to no feat support and be super lame, and in 4e they would probably be thematically out of place, or too functionally equivalent to bows to really matter. My setting is also definitively not based on medieval europe like a lot of fantasy settings are, which is also a factor.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 4, 2010)

Going back to the OP, I did vote that I'd allow firearms provisionally.  Actually, I've never allowed firearms in D&D.    Although, there was an excellent article for 4e firearms here on En World a couple of weeks ago, so, I might give that a spin next campaign.

I totally understand not wanting firearms in the game.  It is a flavour breaker.  Many of the archetypal fantasy didn't have guns, so, we probably think that way too.  

As was mentioned way, way earlier in the thread, it's not so much guns that are the problem as 50 pounds of gunpowder rolling down the dungeon passage.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 4, 2010)

To be completely honest I _would_ allow laser blasters.

This isn't an issue of "Well if you are going to step over the line of guns you might as well hit the futuristic arms store", I really just like lasers.  They have more style than bullet guns.

Plus they can fit right into the magic.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 4, 2010)

I think if there's anything we've shown it's that when you try to apply "realism" to _any_ aspect of D&D, the whole thing just collapses like a flan in a cupboard.


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 6, 2010)

marcq said:


> Taking the 'heroic' battle concept further as practiced in a game. Consider two scenarios:
> 
> In scenario 1, the 12 year old boy of a slain lord takes his father's best weapon, a finely crafted dwarven rifle equivalent to a snipers rifle from the Civil war. He lies in wait for his father's killer and puts a bullet through his head at 200 yards.
> 
> In scenario 2, we have the same basic situation but the best weapon is his father's bow. He can't string it yet so he takes his father's sword, also a nice weapon. He springs out of a hiding place at his father's killer, inflicts a minor wound with his clumsy blow and is rapidly dispatched.




I can see one big problem with this comparison that hasn't been addressed. Why are you talking about a gun thats "roughly equivalent to a snipers rifle from the Civil war"? Civil war era firearms represented about the third major revolution in firearms technology, which obsoleted Napoleonic warfare and ushered in the age of WW1-era trench warfare. Essentially, you are not comparing an early modern firearm to contemporary melee weapons, you are comparing a modern, accurate firearm to a melee weapon. If we were talking about a 16th century firearm, the kid would have had to somehow had to sneak a lot closer to his target while carrying a weapon with a lit match on it (in other words, very easy to see or smell).

And again, why do people always use swords as the point of comparison? As far as melee weapons go, they are somewhat hard to use and were rarely the primary weapon of soldiers. Why not an axe or a spear? Even a clumsy blow with an ax has the potential to do some serious damage.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 7, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> And again, why do people always use swords as the point of comparison? As far as melee weapons go, they are somewhat hard to use and were rarely the primary weapon of soldiers. Why not an axe or a spear? Even a clumsy blow with an ax has the potential to do some serious damage.




The point is that a ranged firearm weapon can be lethal at a distance and does not require much strength to use.

One could as easily ask in turn, why do people assume the introduction of firearms makes no difference to a setting? It sure made a difference on Earth.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 7, 2010)

To be fair though Marcq, and I do agree mostly with what you said, the introduction of gunpowder doesn't actually have to have a massive effect.  Look at China.  China had gunpowder for centuries, yet did not go the European route of massive changes.

History is really too complicated to point to any one thing and say, "Yes, this is what drives the changes in society."


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> To be fair though Marcq, and I do agree mostly with what you said, the introduction of gunpowder doesn't actually have to have a massive effect. Look at China. China had gunpowder for centuries, yet did not go the European route of massive changes.
> 
> History is really too complicated to point to any one thing and say, "Yes, this is what drives the changes in society."




China is a valid and interesting case. They certainly seemed to progress at a slower rate than Europe but looking over my posts, I did try to caveat my comments that progress need not progress as it did in Europe. China still progressed in its innovation, developing a wide range of gunpowder weapons by the 1600s. Perhaps they were slower than the Europeans but they were changing as well.

While gunpowder's role in changes in Europe from the late middle ages into the Renaissance is hard to disentangle from other factors and precisely quantify, it sometimes feels that folks argue it had no affect whatsoever when it clearly had a dramatic effect.

That said, I'll freely admit it can be integrated into interesting fantasy settings. My objections are more aesthetic objections when it is poorly integrated into the setting (as it often is).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 7, 2010)

marcq said:


> The point is that a ranged firearm weapon can be lethal at a distance and does not require much strength to use.
> 
> One could as easily ask in turn, why do people assume the introduction of firearms makes no difference to a setting? It sure made a difference on Earth.




To answer your question: Because none of the other much more Earth shattering things that D&D has makes a difference to the setting, and it seems kinda weird at best to declare that firearms has to be the exception to the unspoken rule.


----------



## Derren (Dec 7, 2010)

marcq said:


> The point is that a ranged firearm weapon can be lethal at a distance and does not require much strength to use.
> 
> One could as easily ask in turn, why do people assume the introduction of firearms makes no difference to a setting? It sure made a difference on Earth.





As are spells (directly casted or wands) or crossbows. And those things are far more lethal and effective than early firearms were.

And yes, firearms made a difference in the world. They created the type of knight we use as reference today. Without firearms no full plate.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 7, 2010)

marcq said:


> China is a valid and interesting case. They certainly seemed to progress at a slower rate than Europe but looking over my posts, I did try to caveat my comments that progress need not progress as it did in Europe. China still progressed in its innovation, developing a wide range of gunpowder weapons by the 1600s. Perhaps they were slower than the Europeans but they were changing as well.
> 
> While gunpowder's role in changes in Europe from the late middle ages into the Renaissance is hard to disentangle from other factors and precisely quantify, it sometimes feels that folks argue it had no affect whatsoever when it clearly had a dramatic effect.
> 
> That said, I'll freely admit it can be integrated into interesting fantasy settings. My objections are more aesthetic objections when it is poorly integrated into the setting (as it often is).




I wouldn't characterize China as progressing slowly, but rather, stagnating badly.  I mean, they were still using crossbows against the British in the 19th century.  Once the Chinese closed their borders in the 15th century, they pretty much stopped any innovation.

Japan suffers largely the same fate during the Edo period.  They go from a vibrant, changing society in the 15th and early 16th century into a heavily codified, stratified society that doesn't really change for three hundred years until the Meiji Reformation, and even then, it isn't until the end of the Second World War that they really begin to change.

India, as well, has had access to firearms nearly as long as the Europeans, yet doesn't see the rapid changes that affect Europe.  I'd almost say, in my rather uneducated, gut reaction, armchair historian opinion, that Europe is something of the outlier for rapid change.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I wouldn't characterize China as progressing slowly, but rather, stagnating badly.  I mean, they were still using crossbows against the British in the 19th century.  Once the Chinese closed their borders in the 15th century, they pretty much stopped any innovation.
> 
> Japan suffers largely the same fate during the Edo period.  They go from a vibrant, changing society in the 15th and early 16th century into a heavily codified, stratified society that doesn't really change for three hundred years until the Meiji Reformation, and even then, it isn't until the end of the Second World War that they really begin to change.
> 
> India, as well, has had access to firearms nearly as long as the Europeans, yet doesn't see the rapid changes that affect Europe.  I'd almost say, in my rather uneducated, gut reaction, armchair historian opinion, that Europe is something of the outlier for rapid change.



Generally speaking, I think you are getting this backwards. Sure, in some ways Europe certainly changed more rapidly than major eastern powers, but citing this as being due to eastern stagnation is flawed. It is not that Europe changed more rapidly than eastern powers, it is more that Europe stagnated and declined greatly after the fall of the Roman Empire, and it had delayed access to the major innovations that it had to import from the east much later. For most of the European medieval era, it was centuries behind the Middle East, China, and India in terms of technological, cultural, agricultural, and industrial advancements. Europe changed radically in later centuries because it was playing catch-up by importing generally completed technologies.

To address more specific things you have mentioned...

India never stagnated. At the time it was divided up by colonial powers, it was a fully modern society with a fully modern army. The main reason it fell to colonial powers was because it suffered a major period of political instability just as the European nations were gaining power due to the colonization of the New World (which they benefited from mostly due to physical proximity). Even then it took centuries of conflict for Britain to eventually take control.

Japan's Edo period was an odd case. It was mostly isolated, certainly, but it still underwent major cultural and societal changes during that period. All the values and culture of modern Japan emerged in that period, and it was due to the societal changes of that era (including the growth of a powerful merchant middle class) that allowed Japan to rapidly industrialize and become a major power as soon as its borders opened after the Meiji Reformation. It was far from stagnant and unchanging.

As for China... It was the center of the world and progress for most of human history. In many ways, it stagnated simply because it outpaced the development of the rest of human civilization. It was so much more advanced, developed, and wealthy than any other region of the world that it simply didn't need to trade. No one else had anything it didn't already have. And it was so large, well established, and populous that significant cultural change was extremely difficult to implement. And this was basically true for centuries and centuries. It was surprisingly close to being a modern industrial society in the 12th century. As I think my brother may have mentioned earlier in the thread, it may well be considered a fluke of geography that the steam engine was invented in 18th century Britain rather than 12th century China.

As for why things fell apart for China in later centuries... That is a very, very complicated issue. Simply saying that they stagnated because they closed their borders (which itself isn't even at all accurate) is a very, very flawed perspective. In truth, no one can really say why it happened. The best trained and most well-studied historians in the world can't really agree or understand on the hows and whys of it happening, so trying to apply armchair history to it is pointless.

I suppose it is fair to say that China is a great example why gunpowder doesn't at all lead to some kind of rapid forced societal change. Of course, it was amazingly modern from the point where it actually developed gunpowder and gunpowder weaponry, starting off already centralized and not at all feudal (the last Chinese feudal period was in pre-Christian times).


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 7, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> To be completely honest I _would_ allow laser blasters.
> 
> This isn't an issue of "Well if you are going to step over the line of guns you might as well hit the futuristic arms store", I really just like lasers. They have more style than bullet guns.
> 
> Plus they can fit right into the magic.




Heh, for me it is very much a, "step over the line of guns," issue.  It's one of the reasons, I don't much care for steampunk.  About the only good reason I can see to run steampunk, is to do a S.M. Stirling, "Peshewar Lancers" style game, and have fights in blimps.  And to be fair, it's more pulp than steampunk.  But mainly, I'm not stopping there.

About the earliest I would stop, once crossing that line, is to do something along the technological lines supposed by the Turtledove "Dragons war" series.  For those that don't know (and don't want to wade through the terrible dialog and alt-history style narrative fantasy history), it is a thinly veiled retelling of WWII, with magic.  Instead of rifles, soldiers have magically charged "sticks" that shoot beams and have to be recharged.  Flyers get on dragons, from which they discharge sticks and drop bombs.  And so forth.  It's all about lots of key ways that people get magic to go "boom!"--and rapid advancement of same in a world at war.

So yeah, a cold war analogue, directly after such a war in such a setting, is something I can sink my teeth into.  You'll note still no gunpowder ...


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 7, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> To answer your question: Because none of the other much more Earth shattering things that D&D has makes a difference to the setting, and it seems kinda weird at best to declare that firearms has to be the exception to the unspoken rule.




There are many who would claim magic would not alter the setting much either (I’m not one of them). But there is a difference. In most media, especially fantasy, some suspension of disbelief is required. How much? As little as you can get away with. The impact of magic and monsters on settings is arguable. The impact of firearms is much less arguable. In some ways it requires a bigger suspension of disbelief than magic *IF* it is not well integrated into the setting.

I would avoid a setting where firearms were well integrated into a fantasy world for personal, aesthetic reasons given other choices. But if it was something a trusted ref wanted to run, I’m sure I’d have a good time with it. But when firearms are tossed in casually, that’s too much suspension of disbelief for me:“Hey, Joe, can I use a blunderbuss?” “Uh, sure, I guess so.”

Do I require the setting to agree with every little detail of how I’d integrate them, were I to do so? No, just a good faith effort is fine for me. As I’ve said before, I object to their being firearms and not being allowed to use a keg of gunpowder to blow something up or a cannon to knock down a high middle ages style wall. These issues should be dealt with in an integrated setting. (Kegs cost X, walls aren’t built that way, etc.)

I'd also object if my character tossed a ball into the air and the ref had it float off towards the moon...


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Japan suffers largely the same fate during the Edo period. They go from a vibrant, changing society in the 15th and early 16th century into a heavily codified, stratified society that doesn't really change for three hundred years until the Meiji Reformation, and even then, it isn't until the end of the Second World War that they really begin to change.




Technologically, things did stagnate in the 1600s but they were also under a strong central government with no external threats. They began a rapid series of changes, societal and technological in the secnod half of the 1800s.

During the 15th and 16th centuries, change was rapid and very much shaped by the introduction of firearms and other western and Chinese technology, strategy and other influences. The firearm influence was particularly strong as cited in, among others, Stephen Turnbull's excellent books on Samurais and Japanese warriors. He describes the Warring States period (the same period) as the time when "samurai warfare went through its biggest revolution in history under the influence of strategy and technology from both Europe and China" (in a context where he was also saying "it was also a time of nostalgia" as the samurai looked backwards for inspiration and traditions.)

I'm less familiar with the CHinese periods but a quick web search seemed to find plenty of scholars refuting a slow adoption of gunpowder weapons (not just guns and rockets but bombs) in a similar period.

It does seem that both societies had periods where military technological progress stalled or slowed but that happened *after* dramatic changes already occured, changes that would be dramatic in most D&D settings, for instance.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 8, 2010)

marcq said:


> The point is that a ranged firearm weapon can be lethal at a distance and does not require much strength to use.
> 
> One could as easily ask in turn, why do people assume the introduction of firearms makes no difference to a setting? It sure made a difference on Earth.



That presupposes that I _didn't_ have guns make a difference. A poor supposition at best - my world _does_ have snowflake and star forts, dirt _has_ replaced rubble as the filler inside fortress walls, castles _do_ have powder stores, and the 'civilized' races are merrily slaughtering the aboriginals.

And because I can - Hwacha!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM2NcPwsngU]YouTube - Mythbusters - Hwacha - The super rocket pod[/ame]

The Auld Grump


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 8, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> That presupposes that I _didn't_ have guns make a difference. A poor supposition at best - my world _does_ have snowflake and star forts, dirt _has_ replaced rubble as the filler inside fortress walls, castles _do_ have powder stores, and the 'civilized' races are merrily slaughtering the aboriginals.




Cheers  Sounds like a setting with gunpowder nicely integrated into it.


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 8, 2010)

...


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 8, 2010)

marcq said:


> There are many who would claim magic would not alter the setting much either (I’m not one of them). But there is a difference. In most media, especially fantasy, some suspension of disbelief is required. How much? As little as you can get away with. The impact of magic and monsters on settings is arguable. The impact of firearms is much less arguable. In some ways it requires a bigger suspension of disbelief than magic *IF* it is not well integrated into the setting.



This would only be true if suspension of belief was actually related to how much something varies from reality or believable consequences. Truth be told, suspension of disbelieve has nothing to do with reality or logic, and everything to do with how comfortable someone is with the tropes and fundamental assumptions of a setting.

For example, people are completely comfortable with FTL travel in sci-fi despite it being as possible as (in your words) tossing a ball into the sky and watching it gently float up to the moon. I have never seen a Sci-Fi work actually deal with the convoluted, world-changed consequences of traveling faster than the speed of light. However, because every major sci-fi story in modern memory involves starships jumping through hyperspace to reach alien worlds, most sci-fi fans have no problem with it.

There are only two reasons why many fantasy fans feel uncomfortable with guns in fantasy:
1) Most fantasy fiction, particularly older fantasy fiction, doesn't have guns. As such, adding guns brings fans out of their comfort zone.
2) Most people have grown up on Hollywood gun and explosion physics, and thus have exaggerated and twisted ideas of what guns and explosives are capable of.

As such, most people talk about adding "barrels of gunpowder" to D&D, they aren't talking about real-world barrels of gunpowder (which I don't really know the capabilities of), but instead about Hollywood barrels of gunpowder, which can magically level buildings in glorious balls of fire. I doubt that a real keg of gunpowder is actually as powerful and gamebreaking as many people have claimed it is.

If someone grew up on fantasy fiction that includes guns, even in a wildly unrealistic manner, I think that person would be perfectly comfortable with guns in their D&D. As such, I think the arguments about realistic consequences has very little to do with the actual reasons people like or dislike guns in D&D.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 8, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> This would only be true if suspension of belief was actually related to how much something varies from reality or believable consequences. Truth be told, suspension of disbelieve has nothing to do with reality or logic, and everything to do with how comfortable someone is with the tropes and fundamental assumptions of a setting.




My quote you used actually said I might find gunpowder a greater suspension of disbelief which contradicts your statement right there. In context, it would mean I could find it a greater suspension than magic which certainly varies more greatly from reality than gunpowder by any assessment.



SKyOdin said:


> There are only two reasons why many fantasy fans feel uncomfortable with guns in fantasy:
> 1) Most fantasy fiction, particularly older fantasy fiction, doesn't have guns. As such, adding guns brings fans out of their comfort zone.
> 2) Most people have grown up on Hollywood gun and explosion physics, and thus have exaggerated and twisted ideas of what guns and explosives are capable of.




I suppose you could conduct a survey to see if you are right but you seem to be presuming a great deal.

Per point #1, a more neutral way might be to say many fantasy fans prefer a different, gunless aesthetic. I've said that clearly myself as have others on this thread so if you rephrase to avoid the somewhat perjorative "comfort zone" no arguments there.

Per point #2, I couldn't speak for the "many" but as an engineer and an amateur military history buff, I feel I have a reasonable understanding of the capability of gunpowder.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 9, 2010)

I dunno if he's presuming quite a bit, but SkyOdin's observations seem pretty spot on.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I dunno if he's presuming quite a bit, but SkyOdin's observations seem pretty spot on.




He seems to be minimizing anyone's dislike of gunpowder in a fantasy setting. 

On the aesthetic issue, it was rudely put but aesthetics are aesthetics, so however he wishes to phrase it, so be it.

On the second point of folks not liking gunpowder because they only understand gunpowder from movies? That seems rather contemtpuous. It may apply to some but to "many"? The objections to gunpowder in this thread seem to me to be more thoughtful than that on the whole.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 9, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> I doubt that a real keg of gunpowder is actually as powerful and gamebreaking as many people have claimed it is.



I read an engineering analysis about the Guy Fawkes plot, and based on knowledge of where the plotters placed the powder, the amount of powder, and the nature of gunpowder in the early 17th century, and the engineers concluded the blast would in fact have leveled Parliament.

So, there's that.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 9, 2010)

Yes, guns are known to kill every single person ever shot by them, such as former president Roosevelt who was tragically killed by an assassin while giving a speech.

You know.

Not like *running a sword through someone*.  That's never fatal.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 9, 2010)

Oh, and before I forget;



marcq said:


> On the aesthetic issue, it was rudely put but aesthetics are aesthetics, so however he wishes to phrase it, so be it.




Ok, but I think we can both agree it's related to the safety zone.

Consider the presence of sci-fi in D&D.  When D&D first came out, there was sci-fi elements all over the dang place.  And it rightfully so - sci-fi and fantasy mixing together was rather "in" at the time amongst nerd circles.  The basis of the game was a group of amoral mercenaries doing it for the gold and wenches.

As D&D went on, that changed.  Adventurers slowly became main protagonists and/or heroes, and the sci-fi was filtered out.  See, the amoral mercenaries and the sci-fi was based on the popular literature at the time amongst nerds, which in that case was abhorrantly terrible pulp books.  When those went out of style due to having insurmountable prose, so too did the tropes along with them.

So Player A says he doesn't mind Keep on the Borderlands and funny little robots and wizards with laser guns.  Player B says "That's not D&D."  The catch?  Player A has been playing longer then Player B.

See, that's the thing.  "It's not fantasy" is such a nebulous statement.  Of course it's fantasy.  And yes, it's D&D, too.  It's just not in your comfort zone.

As for aesthetics?  A wanderer from a foreign land with a strange exotic weapon?  That's like half the D&D characters that have ever been imagined since the dawn of time.  The aesthetics really don't change that much if his or her exotic weapon happens to be a rifle instead of a katana.

Now let's talk believability.  Or verisimilitude.  Or suspension of disbelief.  See, they all come down to one thing, and that one thing is _not_ how believable the world is; it's the opposite.  It comes down to this statement: "This thing here is utterly unbelievable and does not fit in with reality.  However, I am willing to forgo this because my desire for "fun" in this case outweighs my desire for "realism."

That's why several of those of us who are totally into guns with our fantasy don't get the complaint of them not being real or breaking suspension of disbelief.  As far as I'm concerned, you have castles and dragons going hand and hand - that's far more "belief shattering" then guns are.



> On the second point of folks not liking gunpowder because they only understand gunpowder from movies? That seems rather contemtpuous. It may apply to some but to "many"? The objections to gunpowder in this thread seem to me to be more thoughtful than that on the whole.




Again I dispute this, because most of the objections to gunpowder in this thread involve claims that guns were this machines of destruction that never missed, and that a single barrel of gunpowder could destroy entire castles.  It's been pretty strongly proven by now that there's a lot of misinformation floating around.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> As for aesthetics?  A wanderer from a foreign land with a strange exotic weapon?  That's like half the D&D characters that have ever been imagined since the dawn of time.  The aesthetics really don't change that much if his or her exotic weapon happens to be a rifle instead of a katana.



Well that depends on what set of aesthetics you're talking about: the aesthetics of the strange wanderer, or the aesthetics of not having guns at all.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 9, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I read an engineering analysis about the Guy Fawkes plot, and based on knowledge of where the plotters placed the powder, the amount of powder, and the nature of gunpowder in the early 17th century, and the engineers concluded the blast would in fact have leveled Parliament.
> 
> So, there's that.



The Guy Fawkes gunpowder plot involved putting at least 36 barrels of gunpowder into a cellar directly beneath the Parliament building. That is both a _lot_ of gunpowder and a pretty optimal location for utterly destroying a building's foundation. That is a pretty different scenario than the "roll a single barrel of gunpowder down a dungeon hall to destroy a campaign" idea that gets tossed around in these threads. Honestly, when people talk about barrels of gunpowder in these threads, they seem to be imagining the barrel of gunpowder from the LotR movies, which is indeed a classic hollywood overdramatic and unrealistic world-crushing fireball.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ok, but I think we can both agree it's related to the safety zone.




If by this you mean one's sense of aesthetics, what one finds intriguing, then yes. Safety zone has mild negative connotations (think: does out of the safety zone mean fear?) whereas aesthetics is more neutral.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Again I dispute this, because most of the objections to gunpowder in this thread involve claims that guns were this machines of destruction that never missed, and that a single barrel of gunpowder could destroy entire castles. It's been pretty strongly proven by now that there's a lot of misinformation floating around.




From my viewpoint, one could characterize the defense of gunpowder in fantasy settings on this thread as much weaker with more credibility.

There are over 20 pages of replies here. A lot has been said both ways, some bald assertions, some of it backed up.

On the Pro-side, some agree gunpowder would change things and they have changed their setting accordingly. Others argue that gunpowder really wouldn't change things much at all. Others agree it could change things but don't want to make those changes in their setting. Of those, the first is fine with me and could be a game I played in. THe second seems unsupported to me. The third is fine; I wouldn't choose to play in that game but I can see others doing so.

Sweeping the anti- side into a starwman mischaracterization is silly. Moreover, at this point in a long, contentious thread, it's as close as you ever get to a concession from the other side. So, thank you for the concession


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 9, 2010)

marcq said:


> My quote you used actually said I might find gunpowder a greater suspension of disbelief which contradicts your statement right there. In context, it would mean I could find it a greater suspension than magic which certainly varies more greatly from reality than gunpowder by any assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First off, I would like to say that it was never my intent to spin the preferences of people who don't like guns in a negative light. My point was simply that "suspension of disbelief" is often more related to what people find cool or familiar than it is based on logic.

Let's look at a World of Warcraft as an example. World of Warcraft's world of Azeroth is currently one of the most popular fantasy settings in the world, and it contains guns. Moreover, it doesn't just include gunpowder, it has _steam-powered flying machines armed with machine guns and bombs_. However, it also still has traditional Edwardian fantasy castles and fortresses. There is no attempt at all made to build on the logical consequences of gunpowder in particular or the other forms of crazy steampunk technology in the setting in general. Yet, fans of the game and the setting don't seem to mind this.

I think the disconnect between fans of settings like Azeroth and fantasy fans who can't accept guns at all can only be explained by differences in taste brought about by the differences in what pieces of fiction they have experienced and enjoyed. That is what I was trying to get at earlier. In my case, I grew up playing videogames, and the first console RPG I ever played included a space-ship that took you to the moon, dwarven tanks, and a giant doomsday robot. I think that makes me more inclined to enjoy stranger forms of fantasy.


----------



## Brutalskars (Dec 9, 2010)

Here is my take on the issue.
Look to games like Warhammer and Warcraft. Then take traditional fantasy and look over to DnD: Ebberron.

In Ebberron, the tech is built with magic.
Instead of saying that science will do away with the magic or be too strong. Scale your technology with the magic of the setting. For example, Warhammer is a dark fantasy, or gothic fantasy, so the firearms and such are more gritty, and primitive.
Then look to Ebberron, it has airships and submarines using magic engines using bound elementals.

But the real big jump is into the realm of Warcraft, massive battleships like the Skybreaker float in the sky armed with massive earthshaking cannons. And there are train like underground tunnels between the capitals of the humans and the dwarves.
Many of the guns are fantastic, since Warcraft is of heroic, flavor heavy of action combat. Rapid fire, innacurate weapons of very small caliber. Then things like the wolfslayer sniper rifle, a long rifle that fires two rounds at a time, it has a revolver like build that holds 12 shots, or 6 double taps effectively. 
Then we get to magic floating fortresses in Outland, with devices ment to gather magic essence from the world as fuel, or currency for the species called the ethereals. And there are even massive robotic things made by the Burning Legion, a faction of demons. These machines made from demonic metal, powered by pure demonic fire.

So?
As we can see, technology does have a place in fantasy if you give it one. As I see it, one can also look to Privateer Press, with Hordes and Warmachine. Then take what they wish from that as well. Undead enchanced with metal and clockwork parts. Unhol machines ment to reap the living. All the way to primitive salvaged weapons used by trolls and boar-men.

Examples of what I have done in homebrew gaming in random fantasy worlds made with myself and my players. Alchemy, engineering, magic and martial all are able to find homes.
We have lizardfolk with towers using mages that channel light spells into prisms and mirrors to create blazing beams of light.

We have firearms that find more use to players, multiple barrels to do away with reload times for a short moment. But when reloading it still takes awhile. We go to real world examples, how flintlocks glance off plate, platemail was made around the same time as flintlocks and those firearms. We take the terms heroic fantasy, gothic fantasy, and traditional fantasy and slam them together to get a great balance between the magic and the arteficial.

One of the players in my group is an artificer, and he made a new arm for the fighter of the group. Because it was cut off by a cursed weapon that stopped it from ever being healed. So, science found a use.

Give it room to interact and find balance. And then make basic rules for gameplay.
Bows and crossbows find equal use in our games even by NPCs compared to guns.
Mini-bombs like fist sized smoke bombs are fun, even if not practical.
Remember guys, dragons are not practical either.


Take the excuses and throw them away, give your -fantasy- room to grow and be fantastic.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 10, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> First off, I would like to say that it was never my intent to spin the preferences of people who don't like guns in a negative light. My point was simply that "suspension of disbelief" is often more related to what people find cool or familiar than it is based on logic.




Fair enough. And there is certainly a large aesthetic component, both the immediate sense of whether folks see fantasy as allowing gunpowder and the aesthetics of how much you like your settings to be consistent and where your suspension of disblief boundaries lie. 



SKyOdin said:


> Let's look at a World of Warcraft as an example.




An interesting example. I played WOW for years and enjoyed it although it wasn't because of their stellar, consistent setting  The appeal was gaming when I wanted to and the mechanics of combat. Didn't find it very RP heavy as implemented (that has nothing to do with gunpowder, of course). The steampunk side of it was never my favorite aspect, either. It seemed casually tossed in there but was entertaining enough.

Firearms seemed poorly integrated. For one thing, they acted pretty much like bows and crossbows. Same damage, similar rates of fire. The gun was just a different 'skin' on the same mechanism although at least they did take different ammo. On the plus side, the engineering profession did allow characters to create explosives

Perhaps you wouldn't be surprised to hear that my hunter never used firearms  My good gaming friend, and RL hunter, never used firearms on his hunter either...


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 10, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> I think the disconnect between fans of settings like Azeroth and fantasy fans who can't accept guns at all can only be explained by differences in taste brought about by the differences in what pieces of fiction they have experienced and enjoyed. That is what I was trying to get at earlier. In my case, I grew up playing videogames, and the first console RPG I ever played included a space-ship that took you to the moon, dwarven tanks, and a giant doomsday robot. I think that makes me more inclined to enjoy stranger forms of fantasy.




Sounds like reasoning from too narrow a sample, to me. Heck, I just started playing WoW again (casually) after a three year absence. None of the guns or tech bother me in WoW. But then, WoW is totally incoherent when viewed at that kind of level. That's not the point of WoW. So it's ok. But not in a million years would I run a game set in Azeroth. I might play in one, on a lark, with the right DM, though it would have to be more character-driven (in the literary sense) than the online game.

See, three different reactions to the same setting from a single person? Aesthetic tastes are seldom as straight-forward as you are arguing them, and context matters a lot.

There is also who you play with. I can *imagine* running a fantasy game with gunpowder where half the players didn't take it as a huge red flag to make the campaign about rapid technological change. Maybe I could even get a group to sign a pledge to that effect. But as it is, I'm quite happy playing with the same 10-11 people year after year, and we have about three core things that we *all* like to do, and never get tired of. So mostly we do those. Gunpowder seldom makes the cut. 

When you read, it's just you. I read a wide range of stuff, and a great deal of it sounds reasonably interesting, theoretically, to run a game about. But the other 11 people read overlapping but different stuff. They have their own preferences. The intersection is pretty small.


----------



## Brutalskars (Dec 10, 2010)

As for World of Warcraft's "guns are treated just like bows and the like" that is only true for the game play of the MMO.
In the d20 rpg guns are superior in damage, but have drawbacks like enhanced fumble chance and long reload times. And as for role play in the books, dwarven, goblin and gnomish firearms are role played as to their creators.
Goblins -> high damage, low reliablity weapons. Comical, or very deadly
Gnomes -> low damage, low caliber, less failures, better aim. Precise, calculated
Dwarves -> medium damage, medium reliablity and overall better combat weapons.


Then other guns exist in the demons, and humans. As well as the orcs.

Orcish guns tend to be loud, heavy of damage, very bad aim, put as much ammo near the enemy as possible. And shrapenal. Orcs though seem to use these weapons only on certain occassion, preferring axes, crossbows and the like.
Humans are much like the dwarves and gnomes in their practice of gunpowder weapons, but they seem to prefer them only as support. In favor of bows and traditional weapons.

Demonic guns fire demon fire/blood infuesed ammunition. These weapons instead of using gunpowder, most likely run off a magical, demon based projection of blasts.


But comparred to warhammer. It seems warhammer uses firearms very similar to the dwarven design in warcraft, but the skaven(rat men) seem to lean towards pseudo-energy weapons using lightning and crystal made magic fire that is highly unreliable. But horrifyingly deadly.


So it kind of all goes back to the fact that, it is story, role playing. Do you want overpowered, unrealisticly overused flintlocks with horrible reload times? Or do you want small differences in anged weapons, making them mostly ascetic?

My idea even for 3.5 DnD is to go to 4th edition with the weapon trait, -Brutal-

Say the common flintlock rifle or matchlock is 2d8 with brutal 2. Meaning if either die rolls a 1 or 2 the dice are rerolled.
But then give it a full round or so reload, with a fumble rating of 2-5 or so. THis means you just have an even higher chance of missing. And if you wish throw away the fumble chance at point blank, and give bonus to hit?
Whatever you think is good is what you should work with.

But it is an idea, it all can be reworked depending on what you want.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 10, 2010)

marcq said:


> Firearms seemed poorly integrated. For one thing, they acted pretty much like bows and crossbows. Same damage, similar rates of fire. The gun was just a different 'skin' on the same mechanism although at least they did take different ammo.



I know you are not talking about D&D here, but these same comments have been used time and time again to talk about potential D&D gun mechanics, so I thought I may as well comment on them.

Honestly, I don't understand how having guns be "re-skinned bows" is actually a problem, especially for D&D. Generally speaking, the D&D ruleset doesn't have the granularity to describe even fundamentally different weapons in anything but the most limited of terms. A dagger, an axe, and a spear are all very, very different weapons, easily as different as guns are from bows, yet the only degree to which they are separated mechanically are damage values and a few added properties. Most people seem okay with that. I don't see why it wouldn't be okay to take the exact same approach regarding the mechanical similarities of guns to bows. If a different proficiency bonus and damage value is good enough to differentiate a sword from an axe, why isn't is good enough to differentiate a bow from a gun?

To get any more meaningful differences between bows and guns, you would probably need to change the way D&D actually handles the differences between all weapons. At least, that is the only way to do so and avoid adding often onerous rules like gun-specific failure rates and smoke rules. I would love to see a ruleset that made swords and axes feel very different mechanically, but until that happens I see no need to make bows and guns very different.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 10, 2010)

TwinBahamut said:


> I know you are not talking about D&D here, but these same comments have been used time and time again to talk about potential D&D gun mechanics, so I thought I may as well comment on them.
> 
> Honestly, I don't understand how having guns be "re-skinned bows" is actually a problem, especially for D&D. Generally speaking, the D&D ruleset doesn't have the granularity to describe even fundamentally different weapons in anything but the most limited of terms. A dagger, an axe, and a spear are all very, very different weapons, easily as different as guns are from bows, yet the only degree to which they are separated mechanically are damage values and a few added properties. Most people seem okay with that. I don't see why it wouldn't be okay to take the exact same approach regarding the mechanical similarities of guns to bows. If a different proficiency bonus and damage value is good enough to differentiate a sword from an axe, why isn't is good enough to differentiate a bow from a gun?
> 
> To get any more meaningful differences between bows and guns, you would probably need to change the way D&D actually handles the differences between all weapons. At least, that is the only way to do so and avoid adding often onerous rules like gun-specific failure rates and smoke rules. I would love to see a ruleset that made swords and axes feel very different mechanically, but until that happens I see no need to make bows and guns very different.




It begs the question, why have them at all if they aren't actually treated differently? Especially since some players will ask legitimate questions as to why they aren't treated differently and why they can't use gunpowder itself for other purposes.

Why not have laser rifles that are also treated exactly like a bow? Why not have a PAK 88mm that is treated like a ballista? Why stop there? Why not a full salvo of an M270 MLRS treated like 12 slingers?

I assume at some point you'd find modeling advanced weapon systems as the equivalent of much simpler systems inappropriate. It would seem I find find that point earlier on the technology spectruum than you do. Are you right and I'm wrong? I wouldn't think so any more than the converse can be stated. But am I unreasonable for not liking them to be treated that way? I don't think so. Am I unreasonable for avoiding games that don't meet my needs as gamer? Again, I don't think so. We all invest a lot of time in a campaign; why invest it in one that is continually offending the suspension of disbelief you are willing to accept?

As for the game mechanics, I believed I offered my opinion on this exact point some pages ago in this thread, IIRC: the D&D game system isn't designed to span a wide range of weapon capability. I personally don't think it is well designed to handle firearms all that well as do my other players, who as I've said before include a high proportion of engineers and a hunter.

If it works for your group, that's fine but this whole thread was about whether one personally likes firearms and gunpowder weapons. I don't and I've tried to give reasonable reasons for it without simplifying or belittling the contrary viewpoint.

If you see nothing wrong with treating the firearms as equivalents of non-firearm weapons in your game, go for it. No doubt the firearms you use are considerably more primitive than my examples weapons; they were selected to make a point that there is a spectruum of weapon capability and as setting designers, you have a choice on how to model them and how, if at all, to distinguish them.

To recap my own issue with firearms, they introduce some reasonable questions and expectations from the players. If you aren't going to address them, why bother having them? If you do address them, as many have made clear they do in their own settings, and I assume Eberron does as well, then cool. It's purely a matter of aesthetics at that point.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 10, 2010)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Sounds like reasoning from too narrow a sample, to me. Heck, I just started playing WoW again (casually) after a three year absence. None of the guns or tech bother me in WoW. But then, WoW is totally incoherent when viewed at that kind of level. That's not the point of WoW. So it's ok. But not in a million years would I run a game set in Azeroth. I might play in one, on a lark, with the right DM, though it would have to be more character-driven (in the literary sense) than the online game.




Good points regarding the thread topic and LOL on WOW being incoherent. As a setting, I'd have to agree. Was a lot of fun for me for a long time, though, but it wasn't because of the setting.

Talk about suspenion of disbelief: how about the gnome wielding the sword that is three times longer than he is tall and probably weighs twice as much? 

It was fun for quite a while but eventually I couldn't face the gear treadmill. It was all about gearing, and the re-gearing when the next minor patch came out. Plus putting up with more ill-behaved people than I care to.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 10, 2010)

To be honest - guns _don't_ need to be reskinned bows to be used in the game.

For early unrifled guns their inaccuracy is best handled by a sort range increment. I typically go with 30 ft. increments for short barrels, 40 ft. for muskets.

They pack a hefty punch - 1d10 or 1d12 is reasonable. They have a good critical multiplier - x3, but are no more likely to cause a critical than most weapons - they do a lot of damage but lack precision.

They do not pierce armor better than either the longbow or the crossbow - so that can be left alone.

Contrary to popular opinion they are _faster_ to load and fire than a heavy crossbow. Since putting crossbows at their proper speeds would make them pretty much useless to players I suggest just giving guns and crossbows the same nowhere-near-slow-enough reload speeds. However they also need cleaning - every shot past the first without cleaning adds 1 to the chance of misfire. (Just a fumble chance, nothing fancy, on a confirmed fumble you _need_ to spend d6 rounds clearing/cleaning your gun. Guns blowing up really is not that common.)

Powder and shot is _cheap_ - I run half the price of a crossbow bolt, if I am feeling lazy. If not feeling lazy I use some price lists from various countries during the 16th or 17th century. (Pain in the arse - prices in general, not just for powder, vary wildly from place to place. Generally, I am lazy.  )

Powder can go *boom!* if you are carrying powder and are hit by, say, a fireball then the container takes damage, if it fails then the person wearing the flask takes 1d6 for every five shots they are carrying. (Having your powder horn blow up is painful, but seldom fatal, the fireball is likely to do more damage.)

Barrels of gunpowder are a different story - with fresh dry powder being far more explosive than powder stored in a dank damp dungeon. Typically I go with 1d6 per pound of powder, with a +1 per die for well stored powder, -1 per die for poorly kept powder, and half damage from damp powder, if it goes *boom!* at all.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 10, 2010)

marcq said:


> It begs the question, why have them at all if they aren't actually treated differently? Especially since some players will ask legitimate questions as to why they aren't treated differently and why they can't use gunpowder itself for other purposes.



I think the reason people are trying to come up with a way to integrate gunpowder despite not wanting to think too much about it is that somewhere else someone else has asked why it isn't existing in settings that have other technology from the same era.  There seems to be a continual cycle of questions as soon as one person bothers to suggest any setting element that isn't precisely accurate.

(Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you, there's nothing wrong with your specific question.)


----------



## Stoat (Dec 10, 2010)

marcq said:


> It begs the question, why have them at all if they aren't actually treated differently? Especially since some players will ask legitimate questions as to why they aren't treated differently and why they can't use gunpowder itself for other purposes.




Speaking for myself, I want firearms in D&D and I want them to be treated differently from bows.  However, it seems that in many cases "treating firearms differently" translates to "making firearms an unplayable PITA."  If using a firearm requires accepting multi-round load times, frequent catastrophic criticals, or the risk of my shot spontaneously exploding, then firearms aren't really a viable choice for me.

On the other hand, a system similar to the one outlined by the Auld Grump draws a flavorful difference but also makes firearms playable.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2010)

Marcq, I think you're missing the point though.  Players, by and large, don't ask why there aren't differences between a spear and a hand axe.  After all, in 2e, anyway, they both did a d6 damage.  Both could be thrown about the same distance.  Effectively, there was no mechanical difference.  

In 3e, a club and a short spear are almost identical.  A short spear has a 10 foot longer range increment and does piercing instead of bludgeoning damage.  That's the only difference.

So, why have clubs and spears in the game?  It's mostly asthetics.  Some people wand a club and others want a spear.

It's interesting that you would appreciate TheAuldGrump's rules there as somehow being "different".  The only difference between his rules and a crossbow is the idea that the gun might jam.  Of course, we don't ask how people keep firing crossbow bolt after bolt without the string stretching or breaking, so, I'm not really sure we need jamming rules, but, that's just a minor thing anyway.

But, essentially, TheAuldGrump's gun is a heavy crossbow.  Yet, you say you don't want reskinned weapons.  

On a completely side note, I just remembered that back in high school, after the Stephen King Gunslinger books started rolling out, one of my players built a 2e ranger around the idea of Roland.  Worked fine.


----------



## Brutalskars (Dec 10, 2010)

Alright. I found my groups stats for the following weapons. If it means anything.

Flintlock Rifle: 2d6(4-12) ballistic(or piercing depending on what you want), range 45ft, Brutal 1, Fumble 3, Reload 2 move actions
Cost 45 gold

Flintlock Pistol: 1d10(3-10) ballistic(*^*) range 30 ft, brutal 2, fumble 3, reload 1 move action
Cost 30 gold

Small Bomb: 2d6 fire, blast radius 10ft, range thrown of some sort or placed.
Cost 20 gold

Blunderbuss: 2d8(4-16) ballistic(*^*), range 15ft cone, reflex 15 for half, reload 2 move actions, allies are effected, brutal 1, fumble 3(Your attack roll is simply to see if you fumble)
Cost 40 gold

Ammunition for flintlocks is about 5 bullets for 2 gold, and a powder horn is 1 gold, enough powder for the horn to fuel 20 shots is 15 gold.

Refined powder for 20 shots is 30 gold, but reduces fumble from 3 down to 2, and adds 5ft onto the range increment. It also makes blunderbuss DC go up to 17.

Imbued Powder for 20 shots is 45 gold, but has the same effects as refined powder, but this powder was alchemically and magically imbued to fire even when wet.


A keg of basic gunpowder, or enough fuel for 200 shots of flintlocks costs 1,500 gold. Refined costs 2,200 and Imbued costs 3,000.





Feats for the weapons are here.
Flintlock Knack - reduce reload time by one move action on all flintlock weapons
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int or Wis 13

Blunderbuss Accuracy- Increase DC for half damage by 1, this may only be taken once
Prerequisites: Int or Wis 13

Pistol Whip/Rifle Combat- You may use flintlock weapons as melee weapons without damaging them. Pistol, 1d4 bludgeoning. Rifle/blunderbuss, 1d8 bludgeoning. 
Prerequisites: None

It is important to remember, crossbows and bows are much more quiet than guns, the sound of these weapons is extremely hard to conceal unless using magic.


Other possible weapons you may make from this list are things like double barreled weapons, so you can fire two shots, but reloading both barrels takes the reload time of a single barreled weapon x2. So Flintlock Pistols would take 2 move actions for example for both barrels.

Or perhaps get real creative and make a grenade launcher, like a spring loaded mechanism, or make them able to be used in slings.


But yeah. These are just some homebrew basics.


----------



## SKyOdin (Dec 10, 2010)

marcq said:


> It begs the question, why have them at all if they aren't actually treated differently? Especially since some players will ask legitimate questions as to why they aren't treated differently and why they can't use gunpowder itself for other purposes.



I don't think anyone has brought up the idea of arbitrarily disallowing the use of gunpowder outside of guns. I am not sure where you pulled that from.



> Why not have laser rifles that are also treated exactly like a bow? Why not have a PAK 88mm that is treated like a ballista? Why stop there? Why not a full salvo of an M270 MLRS treated like 12 slingers?



That's hyperbole. No one has been saying anything like that. People have been disputing the necessity of complex additional rules such as failure rates and so on. No one has even suggested using identical stats for a musket and a longbow so far.

To be honest though, it would be much simpler to model a modern or futuristic weapon in D&D than an early modern firearm. The only big thing that causes the need for additional rules is tracking the ammo loaded in the gun. People know that older guns needed to be reloaded after every shot, and generally don't like hand-waving that away. However, that problem doesn't exist for more modern or futuristic weaponry. A laser rifle could conceivably be powered by a battery that won't run out in combat, so it dodges the ammo tracking concerns. Modern guns on the other hand can be quickly reloaded by swapping magazines, which is so fast that it wouldn't even take an action. You could abstract out bullet tracking to the same degree that people track arrows in D&D currently. So the concerns about reloading go away with modern weapons, making them arguably a better fit for D&D than older firearms.




> As for the game mechanics, I believed I offered my opinion on this exact point some pages ago in this thread, IIRC: the D&D game system isn't designed to span a wide range of weapon capability. I personally don't think it is well designed to handle firearms all that well as do my other players, who as I've said before include a high proportion of engineers and a hunter.



Meh, D20 Modern worked well enough for me, and it used the 3E D&D rules for guns and sci-fi weapons. I don't see what those rules are lacking. Can you point out what _would_ be needed for gun rules in your opinion? We can't have a discussion if all you say is "no, that won't work" without any explanation of why.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 10, 2010)

Stoat said:


> On the other hand, a system similar to the one outlined by the Auld Grump draws a flavorful difference but also makes firearms playable.




Yeah, I liked Auld Grump's system and left a note on it. Seemed a reasonable disctinction without being a lot of trouble.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It's interesting that you would appreciate TheAuldGrump's rules there as somehow being "different".




Guess I don't play often enough with heavy crossbows to catch that or might be an edition difference. He seemed to be giving it its own damage and range increments, dealing with the mechanics of tihs type of weapon, its ammo and applied some thought to how it affected armor. While I wouldn't necessarily pick the same numbers, that sort of treatment seemed fine to me.

Per your general comment about why we don't, in D&D, differentiate weapons so much, I touched on that in another recent reply. Take the extreme case of a ballista versus a WWII anti-tank gun. Should those be treated the same? Few would do so I would think, therefore most would agree that at some point in weapon capability it is worth differentiating. Where thay point falls on the spectrum is up to some discretion. As I said in that reply, I think firearms are worthy of being differentiated. Obviously many others don't. For simpler firearms, it isn't such a big deal. By the time you get to World of Warcraft and it's crossbows, bows and monster "hand" cannons , it seems somewhat silly to not differentiate but that's just me.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 10, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> That's hyperbole. No one has been saying anything like that. People have been disputing the necessity of complex additional rules such as failure rates and so on. No one has even suggested using identical stats for a musket and a longbow so far.




Yes, tried to make it clear later in that post  My point was at some span of capability, you need to differentiate. Where in that span do you start differentiating? Reasonable people can disagree. Myself, I think it starts with firearms, partly based on my _players'_ reaction to such things. They quibble over such things. Others may not differentiate with most firearms likely to be in their system.



SKyOdin said:


> Meh, D20 Modern worked well enough for me, and it used the 3E D&D rules for guns and sci-fi weapons. I don't see what those rules are lacking. Can you point out what _would_ be needed for gun rules in your opinion? We can't have a discussion if all you say is "no, that won't work" without any explanation of why.




I think it is the _span_ that is the issue, not the basic mechanic. If you have a wide range of systems with varying capability, it gets hard to model with something as simple as the d20 system. It could be ignored or one could not introduce weapons that cause such a large span (what requires such a span is up for interpretation of course) or one could tweak or change the system. Lots of ways to handle it.

As for what would work, I already indicated Auld's basic approach seemed fine for the simpler firearms likely to be in a fantasy system. I might make some different choices and probably would allow penetration bonuses on some armor types were I to do it. That would then beg the point of why other weapons would also not be modeled more precisely. I don't really want to get into that so I'd rather just leave the firearms out.

Why would I care? Partly for my own level of suspension of disbelief and partly because I don't want to hear the players make a comment about how the gun ought to _really_ be handled every time they used one or saw one used. It is a distraction to the game immersion and there are already plenty of such distractions. This is a combination of my own aesthetics and my own sense of what my players would tolerate for their own aesthetics and suspension of disbelief. YMMV


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 10, 2010)

Brutalskars said:


> But yeah. These are just some homebrew basics.




Looks interesting and a reasonable cut of it. Thanks for sharing.


Your treatment of them (and other recent posts) does suggest another way to look at this whole firearm element:
It could be casually integrated. Essentially reskins of other ranged weapons without much on how they act differently or ramifications of gunpowder in the world setting.
It could be lightly integrated. Firearms are distinct weapons with their own characteristics. Setting impact is light but basic economic factors are accounted for and some impact on society and fortifications, armies, etc. is considered.
It is tightly integrated and is one of the cornerstones of the campaign, or at least part of a larger theme, like a steampunk setting.
Seems like you did at least #2 (maybe #3, can't tell from what you said). Without complicating things too much for the players, it is fairly easy to incorporate a few (1-3) level 2 changes.

If firearms seem intriguing and they get at least a level two treatment, that seems reasonable treatment to me. I might still choose another campaign on aesthetic reasons but I wouldn't be making such a choice out of worry that there would be lots of arguments over the use of such weapons or I would have trouble with the suspension of disbelief.

My own personal preference also likes introducing a few concepts in a setting that require "level 2" type changes but I tend to pick things like how divine classes associate with gods or spirits and don't have much interest in doing so for firearms. That's just me


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 10, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> I think the reason people are trying to come up with a way to integrate gunpowder despite not wanting to think too much about it is that somewhere else someone else has asked why it isn't existing in settings that have other technology from the same era. There seems to be a continual cycle of questions as soon as one person bothers to suggest any setting element that isn't precisely accurate.




It gets back to the people's personal boundaries for suspension of disbelief. These are _personal_ which to me means both that it varies from person to person and there isn't much inherently wrong or right about them. You might like peanut butter more than chocolate; I don't  Neither is objectively wrong.

That there are boundaries to suspension of disbelief itself is not really arguable. Some may draw them tight and some may draw them loose. A few people might like an anything goes kind of story (Hitchhiker's guide ) but I don't know anyone who has no boundaries all the time. Particularly in an interactive game, nearly everyone wants some consistency so they have some ability to evaluate their decisions.

I've always had issues with firearms and these boundaries, both my own boundaries and my players'. I prefer to avoid the issue by not having firearms but with a reasonable amount of attention from a setting designer, they can certainly be integrated into the fantasy game and 'reasonable' does not mean a 200 page dissertation 




SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> (Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you, there's nothing wrong with your specific question.)




Not at all; it's all good


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 10, 2010)

marcq said:


> It begs the question, why have them at all if they aren't actually treated differently? Especially since some players will ask legitimate questions as to why they aren't treated differently and why they can't use gunpowder itself for other purposes.



I guess my question is "why do they need to be treated differently?" Why do guns need to be different in order to justify including them? Why can't they just be one more weapon choice, no different than the choice between a shortsword and a rapier? Honestly, I have absolutely no interest in unique gun rules for a D&D game. The rules we have right now for differentiating weapons are good enough. What is more, the list of major ranged weapons really could use the addition of guns. It is kind of limited right now, and ranged weapon users would benefit from having the same kind of variety that melee weapon users have.

Of course, the best reason is simply that I think they would be fun to have and I don't have any objection to guns in fantasy. I don't see the need for any other reason.

Also, I never said anything about there being a mysterious lack of gunpowder use outside of guns.



> Why not have laser rifles that are also treated exactly like a bow? Why not have a PAK 88mm that is treated like a ballista? Why stop there? Why not a full salvo of an M270 MLRS treated like 12 slingers?
> 
> I assume at some point you'd find modeling advanced weapon systems as the equivalent of much simpler systems inappropriate. It would seem I find find that point earlier on the technology spectruum than you do. Are you right and I'm wrong? I wouldn't think so any more than the converse can be stated. But am I unreasonable for not liking them to be treated that way? I don't think so. Am I unreasonable for avoiding games that don't meet my needs as gamer? Again, I don't think so. We all invest a lot of time in a campaign; why invest it in one that is continually offending the suspension of disbelief you are willing to accept?



I think everything here is based on rather strange logic. You are rather arbitrarily saying that guns are "more advanced" than other weapons, and are basing your claim on the idea that "more advanced weapons" must have different rules than other weapons. I don't agree with either.

Guns are not more advanced than other D&D weapons. Historically speaking, they all existed alongside each other for centuries. I thought this point had been well established in this thread. The technology for making guns is no more advanced than the technology needed to make good plate armor and crossbows. Stating that the changeover occurs because of advancements in the "technology spectrum" means you would have to apply the same logic to other equipment in the game, like the rapier or full plate armor. Because you are not, it is simply not a consistent or logical way of looking at things.

As for the idea that more advanced technology requires different rules... My response would be "not necessarily". Sure, a few things need different rules, but only because they have elements that make them behave completely unlike previous weapons. For example, a homing missile may need different rules than other weapons, simply because homing attacks and area of effect attacks work very differently than most default weapons do. However, the level of abstraction the current rules provide can easily cover any less significant change in technology. It is the change in effect and usage that matters, not the level of technology itself.

Ultimately, a gun and a bow really are not very different. The physical principles behind them are very different, but they are nothing more than two different ways of throwing a projectile at an enemy at lethal speed. Nothing more, and nothing less. Why should they have different rules (beyond the normal rules differences, at least) when their basic effect is so similar?

To further address the point that "we need different rules for more advanced weapons", I have to ask how is a laser weapon any different than a Brilliant Energy weapon. Would a Brilliant Energy rifle and a laser rifle have any meaningful differences? Would a laser rifle have any more impact on a setting than a Brilliant Energy bow would (assuming the cost is the same)? I really don't think they would be different at all. Advances in technology and advancements up the chart of magical weapon bonuses are not that different.



> As for the game mechanics, I believed I offered my opinion on this exact point some pages ago in this thread, IIRC: the D&D game system isn't designed to span a wide range of weapon capability. I personally don't think it is well designed to handle firearms all that well as do my other players, who as I've said before include a high proportion of engineers and a hunter.



Sure, the D&D system doesn't make weapons feel different all that well. But, as I've been trying to argue, that hardly matters in the case of guns. I honestly believe that, as far as it matters for game rules, guns are more similar to bows than swords are to axes. If the rules for swords and axes work, I don't see why rules for guns would not.



> If it works for your group, that's fine but this whole thread was about whether one personally likes firearms and gunpowder weapons. I don't and I've tried to give reasonable reasons for it without simplifying or belittling the contrary viewpoint.



I don't see where I have been simplifying or belittling anything...

As for your reasons... I've done nothing but try to point out why I don't accept those reasons, and why I don't share them.



> If you see nothing wrong with treating the firearms as equivalents of non-firearm weapons in your game, go for it. No doubt the firearms you use are considerably more primitive than my examples weapons; they were selected to make a point that there is a spectruum of weapon capability and as setting designers, you have a choice on how to model them and how, if at all, to distinguish them.



I don't think whether guns are primitive or not really has a lot of bearing on this topic. Of course, neither does any discussion of what I may use in my game, if for no other reason than the fact that I don't have a game right now. I've only been talking about the abstract, and perhaps my preferences for the potential inclusion of guns in a rulebook or future iteration of the rules.



> To recap my own issue with firearms, they introduce some reasonable questions and expectations from the players. If you aren't going to address them, why bother having them? If you do address them, as many have made clear they do in their own settings, and I assume Eberron does as well, then cool. It's purely a matter of aesthetics at that point.



Eberron doesn't have guns...

Anyways, nitpick aside, I simply don't understand what you mean by "addressing" guns. There are countless ways of implementing guns and gunpowder into the rules and into a setting, some of which may have an impact on the setting, some of which may not. These impacts would have an impact regardless of how the rules for guns may work. And honestly, even if guns were thrown in without anything being "addressed" I don't think it would be a problem for the game.


----------



## Brutalskars (Dec 10, 2010)

"It could be lightly integrated. Firearms are distinct weapons with their own characteristics. Setting impact is light but basic economic factors are accounted for and some impact on society and fortifications, armies, etc. is considered" -Marcq

Yes. See we found that we were able to use the firearms both in a colonial way and in other ways. In one part of our campaign a halflinf sniper pinned down the group using a +2 "Ultra-Keen" Flintlock, basically had a critical range of 18-20 x3. And he pegged two of the NPC soldiers that were with the party, killing both.
There were plenty of times guns were outclassed, one instance was a human captain bragged of his men's rifles, double barrel flintlocks. They were attacked at twilight along with the party. The enemy was gnolls armed with composite short bows with poisoned arrows. The poison was a paralytic.

Twenty riflemen did not stand a chance against a rabble of about 12 gnolls that caught them by suprise. The heros hardly won the fight. One of the gnolls was actually shot. 


Tactics changed a lot in our world. Knights generally carried a preloaded pistol with them and sometimes a blunderbuss and would ride into battle discharging the blunderbuss instead of using a lance. Then they would switch to longswords.
A dwarven gatling gun of sorts was in one game, the party took it and used it to keep back an ogre advance of about twenty or so ogres. No ogres died from it, but it made them halt the charge and take over while NPC riflemen got ready and swordsmen lined up.


Guns caused combat to evolve. It actually caused healers to rethink their efforts. Because the use of guns caused men to drop from a volley at close range, so healers were closer to battles. More combat medic like, instead of a cleric being a good fighter clerics focused on being very hard to kill and healing comrades.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 10, 2010)

TwinBahamut said:


> Also, I never said anything about there being a mysterious lack of gunpowder use outside of guns.




Okay, I'll take your word on it. I don't recall saying you did but if you read it that way, I apologize. 

I've been dealing with multiple, different objections to my posts from different people. Some have argued firearms have little change, some have argued there is nothing wrong with reskinning other weapons as firearms, others have made it clear that they have put some thought into these impacts, others tell me (I think) I'm not being imaginative enough if I don't have them. My posts sometimes address more than one objection and its hard to keep the crossfire straight 



> Guns are not more advanced than other D&D weapons. Historically speaking, they all existed alongside each other for centuries.




Certainly, few weapon systems immediately replace another. But during this period of co-existence, they rapidly evolved from a somewhat ineffective peripheral system to the core weapon systems in armies. Were the first guns more advanced? Arguable. Were the latter ones more advanced? Seems clear to me. Maybe we mean different things when we say advanced.


> Ultimately, a gun and a bow really are not very different. The physical principles behind them are very different, but they are nothing more than two different ways of throwing a projectile at an enemy at lethal speed. Nothing more, and nothing less. Why should they have different rules (beyond the normal rules differences, at least) when their basic effect is so similar?




Given that on Earth no one uses bows for military or law enforcement purposes anymore and they use guns, it seems there must be some differences between the two worthy of note.



> To further address the point that "we need different rules for more advanced weapons", I have to ask how is a laser weapon any different than a Brilliant Energy weapon.




Always thought Brilliant energy weapons were analogs to light sabers myself. Also thought that in 3.5 they ignored armor. That's pretty different from a sword. Perhaps I recall differently but in any case, not sure what your point is. The brilliant energy weapon is treated very differently than a sword. Not sure why it matters whether it ought to be treated differently than a light sabre (assuming that is the better analog than laser weapon) but if you really did mean laser weapon, seems like in Star Wars blasters (laser weapon standin) were different from light sabres so sure, treat them differently 



> As for your reasons... I've done nothing but try to point out why I don't accept those reasons, and why I don't share them.




I feel I've done nothing but try to clearly explain where and why I view firearms as I do. At this point, I think we'll have to simply note the differences and move on.



> Eberron doesn't have guns...



Oopsie. Never read it; thought someone said it did.



> And honestly, even if guns were thrown in without anything being "addressed" I don't think it would be a problem for the game.







Here's how I think it would be a problem with the gamers I play with:
If I did not treat firearms sufficiently differently, each use or each time the setting did not account for them (say in castle design), my players would have a reasonable chance of starting a discussion on why it should be different. That's wasted session time in my book.
A subset of my players would question my judgement as a referee in other areas if I ignored things about firearms that they thought were obvious.
Some folks may not care about either of these points or may not have these issues with their players so YMMV.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 10, 2010)

Brutalskars said:


> Guns caused combat to evolve. It actually caused healers to rethink their efforts. Because the use of guns caused men to drop from a volley at close range, so healers were closer to battles. More combat medic like, instead of a cleric being a good fighter clerics focused on being very hard to kill and healing comrades.




Bravo! No doubt some suspect I must have paid you to say that 

Put another way, you modeled guns in a differentiated enough way that they caused changes in the behavior of your players. This is a microcosm of earth history where they also caused substantial changes.

To turn it around, it rubs me wrong if they are modeled in a way that doesn't cause changes. But that's my view, others have made it perfectly clear they don't see it that way and have provided lengthy rebuttals 

By "rubs me wrong" I mean I wouldn't do it in my settings and I would avoid such games, not that I insist anyone must differentiate. I'm just explaining how I see it.


----------



## Brutalskars (Dec 10, 2010)

Well. I have to say, the changes I saw in my group were quite favorable. I saw reckless strategy cast aside once they realized how every weapon, every spell and every terrain had some sort of affect.

So, guns should enhance your story, not debilitate it.

I also dislike making a weapon that is simply for aesthetics. Coming from someone that has studied martial combat both oriental and European middle aged; all weapons were designed for certain tasks. I believe that like what 4th edition did to make differences between many of the weapons was useful, useful to the point I stole 4th edition weapons for my 3.5 games and got help from my players and other DMs in designing these things at least in a basic way.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 11, 2010)

Guns need to have dramatic changes on a setting.

You know, not like literal magic.

I'm sorry, this is just too much of a disconnect for me.  You're saying that guns need to have a super huge big dramatic change on the setting, but the fact that clerics can literally _talk to god_ doesn't.


----------



## Brutalskars (Dec 11, 2010)

Well, would they make a massive change on a setting? That is up to the setting to decide, players and the DM, mostly the DM.

Who are we too say how much firearms would change a fantasy world that has magic, fireballs, healing spells and the like. I hardly believe rifles provide a massive change, but cannons begin to scale a big change, because giantkin and dragons suddenly have a bit more to fear.

Magic would help nullify the drastic-ness of the implementation. If I can use healing magic, no need to worry about the problems from the civil war with amputation being needed so often, because it will not be infected.


----------



## Orius (Dec 11, 2010)

Well, I'm going to test guns in D&D for myself.  I'm starting up a 3.5 pirate campaign, and I felt that the flavor just had to have some guns:



Orius said:


> As part of the pirate crew, everyone starts with 1 pistol and enough powder and ammo for 20 shots.  This is a bonus to your regular gear.  Medium-sized pistols do 1d10 damage, have a crit multiplier of x3, a range increment of 50 ft, weigh 3lbs. and do Piercing damage.  They are considered Simple weapons for members of the pirate crews.




Just took the stats out of the DMG really, and allowed Rapid Reload to be applied to guns as well as crossbows.  It shouldn't mess things up too badly.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 13, 2010)

marcq said:


> Bravo! No doubt some suspect I must have paid you to say that
> 
> Put another way, you modeled guns in a differentiated enough way that they caused changes in the behavior of your players. This is a microcosm of earth history where they also caused substantial changes.
> 
> ...



Heh - I just went with a period where guns were around, and had been for a century or two. The changes had already happened. (I like the Reformation/Counter-Reformation, and the religious strife that accompanied it.)

For my setting I had magic returning, or at the least getting stronger - and that _was_ fueling cultural changes, most particularly feeding into the religious strife of the period (I folded it in with the indulgences that so irked Martin Luther - wizards could be 'licensed' for either worthy deeds or a wheelbarrow full of money, with a License being a limited form of indulgence). Over much of the world magic had stopped functioning roughly a thousand years before play began. With the weakening of the Church magic returned.

Curiously, in the Orthodox and few remaining pagan lands magic was still accepted, and still worked. (In the real world Albertus Magnus is a saint on the Orthodox calendar.) The Orthodox faith accepted magic as a gift from god, and many of the priests, both cloistered and clerical, are either wizards or multiclassed wizard-clerics.

I have a lengthy table on how various faiths feel about magic, the presence of hedge magic, and what punishments, if any, are common for the crime of magic use.

For that matter I have a table of 'what can breed with what'....

The Auld Grump, prone to the creation of tables and charts.


----------



## Phaezen (Dec 14, 2010)

This article from the Nevermet Blog has some interesting thoughts on Firearms in fantasy.  I am particularly interested to see the second part with some firearms for 4e.

From the comments:



			
				Grump Celt said:
			
		

> It is probably not giving too much away to say that (A) I  made firearms encounter weapons, and (B) I assigned them levels based  on the damage they do. I like simple solutions and this seemed a  reasonable course of action, a plausible way of balancing a number of  issues.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 17, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I'm sorry, this is just too much of a disconnect for me. You're saying that guns need to have a super huge big dramatic change on the setting, but the fact that clerics can literally _talk to god_ doesn't.




Well, no, I'm not saying firearms and gunpowder have to have a "huge super dramatic change" on the setting nor that it has to be a bigger change than for gods or magic. But it should have *some* change on the setting.


----------



## Derren (Dec 17, 2010)

Haltherrion said:


> Well, no, I'm not saying firearms and gunpowder have to have a "huge super dramatic change" on the setting nor that it has to be a bigger change than for gods or magic. But it should have *some* change on the setting.




Considering that gods and magic only have a minimal effect of most settings (mediveal feudalism or any other copy of a specific point in time of earths history), gunpoweder changing anything would be a bigger effect than everything fantastic in D&D.


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 18, 2010)

Derren said:


> Considering that gods and magic only have a minimal effect of most settings (mediveal feudalism or any other copy of a specific point in time of earths history), gunpoweder changing anything would be a bigger effect than everything fantastic in D&D.




So the addition of multiple, tangible power granting gods shouldhave little affect? Perhaps that should affect a setting as well


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 18, 2010)

Haltherrion said:


> So the addition of multiple, tangible power granting gods shouldhave little affect? Perhaps that should affect a setting as well



I say again, Down Styphon!






The Auld Grump, from Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen and Gunpowder God. FGU had a pike and musket game based on the stories.


----------



## Derren (Dec 18, 2010)

Haltherrion said:


> So the addition of multiple, tangible power granting gods shouldhave little affect? Perhaps that should affect a setting as well




Actually it should have a huge effect as should the existance of magic.

But apart from Planescape and maybe a few other rare exceptions, in nearly all settings I have seen, official or homemade, it has no effect at all.
Everything is still (romantic) feudalism where gods and magic only affect the PCs/Adventurers.

And in such settings where magic does not have an effect, why should guns have one?


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 18, 2010)

Derren said:


> And in such settings where magic does not have an effect, why should guns have one?




Don't look to me to argue that point. I like my settings to be robust and at least make a reasonable attempt to integrate these other components. And I have elsewhere argued that magic should have more dramatic effects on settings so I'm not being inconsistent.

For those who like to crib off of earth historical settings (nothing wrong with saving some time), there are many to choose fit better with polytheism, and to a lesser extent, magic. Middle Ages Europe isn't the only game in town although it can be made to work.


----------

