Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023274I don't think anyone was arguing that.  The issue I've found (again, anecdote) is the American culture of guns being the ultimate super-killer quickly turns most fantasy into shoot outs with massive, unrealistic damage.

But for D&D, no one would use Gonne's when you can get Wands of Damage that don't jam, misfire or otherwise fail.  Also, keeping gunpowder 'safe' is a near impossibility when you have people who can heat metal or set fires from a distance.

I dunno. Anecdotally I don't think this is true. I've run a *LOT* of D&D with gunpowder in my games, and it has never happened where any dilution of the fantasy elements happened. Though when I first thought about allowing them I was skeptical for those reason. It simply turned out to not be the case, ever. In fact like the second part of your statement (which directly goes against the first claim) - that's exactly what happened for good reasons.

1) Smokepowder is easily controlled in manufacture, distribution, and care within D&D.
2) Powder-weapons are not easily found or made
3) They're expensive to own and operate
4) Depending on what edition you're using - it might be prohibitive to become skilled at where using a bow, crossbow, etc. isn't simply easier.

And then there's magic items and spells.

At most it's a curio unless you're going to make it big part of your fantasy game. Which as I mentioned, the production is easily controlled. So are the evolutionary modifications that would ultimately always benefit the PC's that put their time/effort into such endeavors. Controlling the scalability of smokepowder weapons should be an assumed conceit before having them in your game. It's not that hard.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023274But for D&D, no one would use Gonne's when you can get Wands of Damage that don't jam, misfire or otherwise fail.  Also, keeping gunpowder 'safe' is a near impossibility when you have people who can heat metal or set fires from a distance.

Do you have any arguments against guns that don't also apply to anything else a fighter might carry? "Oh no! Someone might cast fireball and detonate your powder horn! Or the evil priest might cast heat metal on your gun and set it off prematurely!" Well, gosh, I guess I'll just have to use a longbow. It's not like that shit isn't flammable. If I get hit by a fireball, I won't have to worry about snapping a bow string. I guess I won't wear armor though in case I run into that metal heating guy. People would use a gun instead of a Wand of Damage for the same reason they use bows, crossbows, javelins, or fucking pointy rocks on a stick.

In action fiction, a hero with a sword can fight a bunch of nobodies with swords. The hero takes some scratches but the nobodies get cut down or run through with one blow. No problem. The sword does 1d8 damage which is enough to kill the typical goon with d6 hit points but only inconvenience the fighter with 5d10 hit points. That's perfectly fine.

Oh, but when they have guns, it's totally different. The bad guys get taken down instantly with one shot while the hero gets grazed on the shoulder and keeps on going with only a minor stain on his shirt. We need all new mega-damage rules to handle these magic death sticks!

Oh, but guns can shoot really fast! If you had a pistol like a 1911 and proper training, you could get off 2 or 3 good shots in one round for d8 damage EACH! That's the kind of godlike power that only a wizard or an archer should have. That's much more reasonable because archers are limited by the fact that they need to use both hands.

If you don't get carried away with the magic death wand nonsense, a decent pistol in D&D is basically a short-ranged longbow that you can use with one hand and you can carry it through doorways without worrying about which way you're holding it.

Wow, that's a non sequitur.

And anybody who puts an M1911A1 into a D&D game deserves whatever happens.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023343Wow, that's a non sequitur.

And anybody who puts an M1911A1 into a D&D game deserves whatever happens.

What exactly do you think would happen?

Quote from: Xúc xac;1023342Do you have any arguments against guns that don't also apply to anything else a fighter might carry? "Oh no! Someone might cast fireball and detonate your powder horn! Or the evil priest might cast heat metal on your gun and set it off prematurely!" Well, gosh, I guess I'll just have to use a longbow. It's not like that shit isn't flammable. If I get hit by a fireball, I won't have to worry about snapping a bow string. I guess I won't wear armor though in case I run into that metal heating guy. People would use a gun instead of a Wand of Damage for the same reason they use bows, crossbows, javelins, or fucking pointy rocks on a stick.

Longbows don't explode hitting multiple targets when set on fire.

Quote from: Xúc xac;1023342In action fiction, a hero with a sword can fight a bunch of nobodies with swords. The hero takes some scratches but the nobodies get cut down or run through with one blow. No problem. The sword does 1d8 damage which is enough to kill the typical goon with d6 hit points but only inconvenience the fighter with 5d10 hit points. That's perfectly fine.

Very often, the Hero doesn't get visually touched.  And if two experts of equal skill go off on each other, it's a lot of cool visual wiffing until one scores that lethal hit, which hit points model terribly in the modern consciousness in my experience, but guns?  A random shot and you're out of the fight according to Hollywood, which is where most North American gamers derive their knowledge of weapons from.

Quote from: Xúc xac;1023342Oh, but when they have guns, it's totally different. The bad guys get taken down instantly with one shot while the hero gets grazed on the shoulder and keeps on going with only a minor stain on his shirt. We need all new mega-damage rules to handle these magic death sticks!

Incorrect in my experience, every player wants guns, but refuses to adventure or even play the game when they have to face bad guys with said weapons.

Quote from: Xúc xac;1023342Oh, but guns can shoot really fast! If you had a pistol like a 1911 and proper training, you could get off 2 or 3 good shots in one round for d8 damage EACH! That's the kind of godlike power that only a wizard or an archer should have. That's much more reasonable because archers are limited by the fact that they need to use both hands.

NO one, not even here has limited firearms to single dice of damage, always going on about how they should do 3d6 or some such, per shot.  Thing is, real guns aren't that lethal.  Yes, they can put down a man in a single shot, often do.  But so do swords, axes, maces, sticks can and have.  But that's not how they've been portrayed.

Quote from: Xúc xac;1023342If you don't get carried away with the magic death wand nonsense, a decent pistol in D&D is basically a short-ranged longbow that you can use with one hand and you can carry it through doorways without worrying about which way you're holding it.

You're perfectly right.  A pistol would be at best, a Crossbow, with no need to reload per shot up to 12 times, depending on the weapon, doing 1d8.  But most gamers in my experience flip at the idea that a ultimate KILLA does so 'little' damage.

But Hollywood has people falling over like tenpins in a hurricane whenever a firearm is brandished in the main hero's hand.

What makes Guns in a fantasy game a fantasy killer is how easy they are to use.  Point, shoot and most people assume 'dead'.  Takes five minutes of training, and makes most other classes moot, why bother with a sword, when a pistol (as per Gronan's fascination with the Colt .45ACP pistol) will do the same job faster?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023354Very often, the Hero doesn't get visually touched.  And if two experts of equal skill go off on each other, it's a lot of cool visual wiffing until one scores that lethal hit, which hit points model terribly in the modern consciousness in my experience, but guns?  A random shot and you're out of the fight according to Hollywood, which is where most North American gamers derive their knowledge of weapons from.

The best way I saw this dealt with was in d20 Star Wars, where instead of hit points you had Health and Vitality. Health was equal to your Constitution Score, and Vitality worked like the usual hit points. Vitality was deducted first UNLESS a critical hit was scored, in which case damage was applied directly to health. In that game, a heavy blaster did 2-3d8 or something like that and could very well one shot someone. Suddenly, when multiple stormtroopers are shooting at you and they are mathematically likely to roll a 20 in four or less rounds, they seem a lot scarier. That could easily be adapted to modern firearms because it's faster than pulling out Phoenix Command.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023354Incorrect in my experience, every player wants guns, but refuses to adventure or even play the game when they have to face bad guys with said weapons.

A good way to mitigate this is to not only give the bad guy guns, but throw in the odd nice one that the players can salivate over. Greed will overcome fear, it's just a matter of time.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023354NO one, not even here has limited firearms to single dice of damage, always going on about how they should do 3d6 or some such, per shot.  Thing is, real guns aren't that lethal.  Yes, they can put down a man in a single shot, often do.  But so do swords, axes, maces, sticks can and have.  But that's not how they've been portrayed.

My solution to this for old school D&D is to pull out the AD&D 1e DMG with the Boot Hill and Gamma World conversions. It's what I've always used. I like 5e. There's no rate of fire rule, so guns work like bows that are easier to carry and fire. Also, katanas are long swords. Players can just suck it up.  

Remember hit points are an abstraction. Damage doesn't necessarily have to be from a direct hit. It could be a graze, or a near miss showering wall fragments on the character. Or being hit in a non vital area while pumped full of adrenaline. Or if you want hardcore damage, use Health and Vitality without Vitality. Your Constitution Score is you hit points and that's it forever. It's all math anyway, so you really just need to tweak the numbers until you get a casualty rate that you like.

Quote from: Krimson;1023362The best way I saw this dealt with was in d20 Star Wars, where instead of hit points you had Health and Vitality. Health was equal to your Constitution Score, and Vitality worked like the usual hit points. Vitality was deducted first UNLESS a critical hit was scored, in which case damage was applied directly to health. In that game, a heavy blaster did 2-3d8 or something like that and could very well one shot someone. Suddenly, when multiple stormtroopers are shooting at you and they are mathematically likely to roll a 20 in four or less rounds, they seem a lot scarier. That could easily be adapted to modern firearms because it's faster than pulling out Phoenix Command.

It was a clunky mechanic that confused a lot of people.  Vitality should have been called 'Dodge Points', because that's what they do.  Allows you to avoid damage, all it does.  It's not very health oriented.

Quote from: Krimson;1023362A good way to mitigate this is to not only give the bad guy guns, but throw in the odd nice one that the players can salivate over. Greed will overcome fear, it's just a matter of time.

Not really.  If there's ONE TIME people get hurt, they will refuse to do it again, just in case it happens again.  Why do you think there's new safety regulations when someone gets hurt?  Like how jungle gyms were considered dangerous, when they've been around for decades before.

Quote from: Krimson;1023362My solution to this for old school D&D is to pull out the AD&D 1e DMG with the Boot Hill and Gamma World conversions. It's what I've always used. I like 5e. There's no rate of fire rule, so guns work like bows that are easier to carry and fire. Also, katanas are long swords. Players can just suck it up.

And then you have players no longer invested in the game, and you all play something else together.  Because RPGs are cooperative.

Quote from: Krimson;1023362Remember hit points are an abstraction. Damage doesn't necessarily have to be from a direct hit. It could be a graze, or a near miss showering wall fragments on the character. Or being hit in a non vital area while pumped full of adrenaline. Or if you want hardcore damage, use Health and Vitality without Vitality. Your Constitution Score is you hit points and that's it forever. It's all math anyway, so you really just need to tweak the numbers until you get a casualty rate that you like.

People know this intellectually, but in play, it never works out that way.  In my experience.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022094If the firearms have appropriate expense and reliability, sure.

The reason I have a kneejerk reaction against gunpowder in fantasy is too many years of gamers wanting "firearms in D&D" to mean M16s and M1911A1s.

Same. I find it too often "The Camel Nose in the Tent." Very similar to Martial Arts fetishists. It's only a matter of time before the arguments begin from unrealistic expectations, and then afterward the wheedling and whinging for power creep.

And it is rarer than hen's teeth to see such fanatical players not metagame modern technological advancements, let alone attitudes, direct into early variants of these weapons. The second they can they ask about researching rifling, bullet casing, mass production, developing high grade steel, or act fearless of blowback, worry about stances, etc. It's sad and laughable at the same time. I usually ask if they'd rather play a kitchen sink game, like RIFTS, Torg, or GURPS w/o restrictions -- and if they say yes, ask them which of 'em is willing to step up and GM it.

It's just easier to say no and reserve it for a reward for players that seem like they can keep their fandom in check.

I think it's more of players wanting to deal out lots of damage at range, which puts players more out of harm's way- and guns do that.  If you made guns do the same damage as other ranged weapons, I don't think it'd matter.  

I have a flintlock muzzleloader.  I enjoy the process of measuring powder, loading a patched ball, priming, firing, not seeing anything but a cloud of smoke- but it'd never be my choice for delving into a dungeon.  Mostly because I'm a huge wimp and would stay away from such things.

Well, early firearms actually had worse range than longbows, so I'm not sure that "range" was the real factor.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1022667I think those claims are nonsense.

Swords are bad weapons compared to polearms, they've only been used as primary weapons paired with a shield and sometimes from horseback (or in very specialized roles such as two handed swords mixed into a pike formation). The reason why swords are ubiquitous throughout history is because they are  great sidearms. They are light and easy to carry so when your primary weapon (a ranged weapon or a polearm) is broken or you're up too close to make effective use of it the sword is your backup. Swords are to polearms what pistols are to rifles. Rifles do more damage and are easier to use yet pistols are what people carry for self defense most of the time.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023728Swords are bad weapons compared to polearms, they've only been used as primary weapons paired with a shield and sometimes from horseback (or in very specialized roles such as two handed swords mixed into a pike formation). The reason why swords are ubiquitous throughout history is because they are  great sidearms. They are light and easy to carry so when your primary weapon (a ranged weapon or a polearm) is broken or you're up too close to make effective use of it the sword is your backup. Swords are to polearms what pistols are to rifles. Rifles do more damage and are easier to use yet pistols are what people carry for self defense most of the time.

I get it, well 'got it' technically. It's like how I learned metal armor was not the norm for everyday wear. Basically taking that type of gear out is like a signal how serious something became. Most of the time people didn't walk around as if they were readied-for-war. (It interferes with getting the groceries or chillaxing with your homies. )

Quote from: RPGPundit;1023724Well, early firearms actually had worse range than longbows, so I'm not sure that "range" was the real factor.

I was thinking more in line where players wanted to raid dungeons with Browning Hi Powers (take that Gronan!  Your 1911a1.....   ) and what not.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1023724Well, early firearms actually had worse range than longbows, so I'm not sure that "range" was the real factor.

Yes.  Sweet Caroline, yes.

Also, can you imagine a hand gonne down in a dungeon crawl?  Between keeping the powder dry and trying to keep the touch wire hot... whee!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023837Yes.  Sweet Caroline, yes.

Also, can you imagine a hand gonne down in a dungeon crawl?  Between keeping the powder dry and trying to keep the touch wire hot... whee!

I can say the same thing with one guy and polearm in a dungeon crawl.  About as effective, and yet, most historical war gamers praise the polearm as the ultimate weapon.