Why such an aversion to it? The default technological setting of most D&D fantasy settings is actually late medieval/ early renaissance; by which time Gunpowder definitely was around.
Also, there are some settings that go way beyond that in terms of the fantastical, clearly, and yet for some reason refuse to have gunpowder as part of the world; living statues and crazy alchemical concoctions and trains that run off magic energy and flying ships, sure... but cannons? That's just crazy talk!
Why?
RPGPundit
Because lots of people have trouble reconciling a world where people stab each other with swords with a world where people shoot each other with guns.
See the Satsuma Rebellion - in a world where every peasant can be taught to shoot a rifle in formation, there's no need for a samurai.
I think the attraction of the fantasy genre is in someway tied to a romantic notion of a simple, pure, pre-industrial world with knights and princesses, fairies and unicorns - the term "fantasy was your first clue. Guns are thematically part of the cold, industrial modern world and as such don't fit.
Unless of course its Warhammer. Nothing pure about Warhammer. Even the unicorns there are playing an angle and it ain't a pretty one.
It does kinda step on the toes of the wizards.
I agree that it has a lot to do with the aesthetics. If you want people to use swords, they have to be a more attractive option than gunpowder. And no two geeks seem to be able to agree on what the gunpowder rules should be, even within a single system.
That being said, gunpowder and fantasy is not unheard of. The Fantasy Trip had firearms and explosives. Dragon articles on adding firearms to D&D appeared very early on.
I think people have unrealistic perceptions of the stopping power of firearms in general, and archaic early firearms in particular; there's a perception that a well-placed musket ball should manage to bring down a big bad monster like a dragon or giant with a lucky shot. See also the myth about armor-piercing 16th-Century gunfire as the cause of death of armored combatants (plate armor managed to hold off gunshot for quite a few decades, maybe a century).
Hence exploding dice for firearms in D&D, and similar "nonsense". A sword thrust to the heart or a lucky hammer blow to the head will kill you just as dead as a bullet to either place (and most gamers would be surprised to learn how usual it is to survive a GSW to the head -- even from modern firearms), and I see no one advocating exploding damage dice to voulge-guisarmes and bearded axes.
Now bring in the matter of "game balance" -- firearms are easy to use (there's a reason gunpowder has been called "The Great Equalizer", and helped bring down the notion of a dominant warrior caste that dated back to the Proto-Indo-European people, paving the way for modern professional armies). So suddenly every character, regardless of race or class, has access to a mini-fireball dispenser (which is how people tend to treat guns in D&D), potentially at 1st level, and suddenly DMs are loathe to have this sort of firepower on the PCs' hands right out of the gate.
Nowadays I'm partial to treating firearms as decent damage, but occasionally unwieldly weapons. No xploding damage or crazy crits or anything. In BECMI/RC terms, a pistol might do 1d6 or 1d8 damage, an arquebus or dragoon carbine 1d10, a blunderbuss 1d10 with some scatter, and a musket or rifle a whopping 1d12; but carrying, loading and caring for ammunition (don't get your powder wet while you cross the Black River over to the City of Gold), not to mention a small but ever-present chance of catastrophic misfire of the explodey kind, should offset these benefits.
Quote from: The Butcher;579480See also the myth about armor-piercing 16th-Century gunfire as the cause of death of armored combatants (plate armor managed to hold off gunshot for quite a few decades, maybe a century).
Ned Kelly and company managed to hold it off right into the age of revolvers, at least for civil conflicts. There were a variety of factors leading to the dominance of powder weapons on the battlefield, not least of which was sheer intimidation, as The King proved to those primitive screwheads with his boomstick.
Quote from: The Traveller;579465It does kinda step on the toes of the wizards.
Only if your wizards are nothing but artillery!
I use firearms in my setting - to the point where every class can use 'em - and haven't really had an issue yet. It's just another weapon. However, I don't use 'exploding damage' or 'penetration' or any of that crap, they're just reskinned bows.
EDIT: The Butcher pretty much described my firearms house-rules in that final paragraph; although I don't use misfire for firearms any more than I use "snapped bowstring" rules for longbows.
I am fine with it. Makes campaigns more interesting IMO.
I haven't used gunpowder weapons in my "classic" campaigns, but also I haven't used the techno-gnome trope either. I can't remember if it was Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance that did that first.
In a magic rich world, I think wizards would also go out of their way to discourage or hinder their invention or use. Putting extra murder power into the hands of common folk wouldn't be to their benefit.
Now if I was specifically running a post apocalyptic campaign (like Anomalous Subsurface Environment or something along the lines of Thundarr the Barbarian), yeah, Id go for it.
I actually prefer it if I am going to be doing much in the way of seafaring. Too many assumptions ingrained in our conscious about ship, sailing, and pirates that go into swashbuckling fantasy come from an age when you could have cannons on ships.
Otherwise, it's just a setting decision for me. I am more likely to allow it in age of reason sorts of settings, otherwise probably not. It all has to do with the feel I am trying to build.
LotFP will be putting out a gun supplement soon. I'm looking forward to it.
Quote from: The Traveller;579465It does kinda step on the toes of the wizards.
Not really. Its nowhere near the same level of power as magic.
RPGPundit
Quote from: The Butcher;579480I think people have unrealistic perceptions of the stopping power of firearms in general, and archaic early firearms in particular; there's a perception that a well-placed musket ball should manage to bring down a big bad monster like a dragon or giant with a lucky shot. See also the myth about armor-piercing 16th-Century gunfire as the cause of death of armored combatants (plate armor managed to hold off gunshot for quite a few decades, maybe a century).
Hence exploding dice for firearms in D&D, and similar "nonsense". A sword thrust to the heart or a lucky hammer blow to the head will kill you just as dead as a bullet to either place (and most gamers would be surprised to learn how usual it is to survive a GSW to the head -- even from modern firearms), and I see no one advocating exploding damage dice to voulge-guisarmes and bearded axes.
Now bring in the matter of "game balance" -- firearms are easy to use (there's a reason gunpowder has been called "The Great Equalizer", and helped bring down the notion of a dominant warrior caste that dated back to the Proto-Indo-European people, paving the way for modern professional armies). So suddenly every character, regardless of race or class, has access to a mini-fireball dispenser (which is how people tend to treat guns in D&D), potentially at 1st level, and suddenly DMs are loathe to have this sort of firepower on the PCs' hands right out of the gate.
Nowadays I'm partial to treating firearms as decent damage, but occasionally unwieldly weapons. No xploding damage or crazy crits or anything. In BECMI/RC terms, a pistol might do 1d6 or 1d8 damage, an arquebus or dragoon carbine 1d10, a blunderbuss 1d10 with some scatter, and a musket or rifle a whopping 1d12; but carrying, loading and caring for ammunition (don't get your powder wet while you cross the Black River over to the City of Gold), not to mention a small but ever-present chance of catastrophic misfire of the explodey kind, should offset these benefits.
That's pretty well exactly how I run firearms; I do a d6 for pistols, a d8 for rifles, though I do allow them to "explode" (only to make them worth bothering with). They have the worst reload time of any weapon, and you have to bother with gunpowder etc.
RPGPundit
Quote from: The Butcher;579480See also the myth about armor-piercing 16th-Century gunfire as the cause of death of armored combatants (plate armor managed to hold off gunshot for quite a few decades, maybe a century).
I am soooo glad you brought this up. You are absolutely correct, and it's a myth that needs to go away. Plate armor was being used 100 years after the first gun saw the battlefield. The cause for the elimination of plate mail wearing knights was economics. It was damned expensive to be a knight, and it just wasn't cost effective anymore, especially with the way wars were beginning to be fought.
Quote from: RPGPundit;579559Not really. Its nowhere near the same level of power as magic.
RPGPundit
Especially in the context of period firearms. They weren't exactly the most reliable thing around, and after you fired, you better be good with melee weapons, because that's what you were left with for 90% of the battle.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579567I am soooo glad you brought this up. You are absolutely correct, and it's a myth that needs to go away. Plate armor was being used 100 years after the first gun saw the battlefield. The cause for the elimination of plate mail wearing knights was economics. It was damned expensive to be a knight, and it just wasn't cost effective anymore, especially with the way wars were beginning to be fought.
I am doing research on the Engilsh Civil War for the sandbox I writing for James Raggi. Armor and bladed weapons are still in heavy use.
To support what Butcher said earlier, if you have gunpowder in your campaign what are we talking about? 15th century, 16th century, 17th century, etc?
There is gunpowder in the Majestic Wilderlands. It is a recently introduced technology and is considered as a specialty siege weapon. Some local noble and a genius got together and created the first cannons. Big cast bronze bombards intended for use in sieges. Noble was intending to rebel against the Overlord of City-State and the cannons would be his edge by allowing sieges to be completed faster.
Gunpowder or Dragon powder is a refined form of what alchemists know as fire powder. And the cast bronze bombards comes from craftsmen who know how to cast bells and statues out of bronze. There are no cannon carriages they hoist the things onto heavy duty wagons and then unload them for the siege. The entire platform is tilted to aim. The noble was busted by a group of PCs working for the Overlord.
A decade later only the Overlord of City-State has any siege bombards in quantity (about two dozen). There are some experiments using smaller bombard against the gate along loading up the cannon with smaller balls (grapeshot essentially). A couple of folks escaped when the Overlord swept in so the technology has spread with a half dozen other bombards been built. But their results has been mixed as they relying on accounts of lower echelon workers.
The point of me telling this is to explain that the introduction of gunpowder doesn't have to be the "big event" people like it is.
A excellent summary of the introduction of Gunpowder is GURPS 4th edition Low Tech.
Gunpowder can exist in my fantasy worlds and is a staple of alchemists. However, it is still fairly unreliable and firearms are of the "use once, then reload for 5 rounds" variety.
I think the d20 Iron Kingdoms handled firearms and magic very nicely together, even including the Gun Mage (http://files.meetup.com/47309/IK%20Gun%20Mage%20(as%20per%20character%20book).pdf)character class.
Quote from: Fiasco;579552LotFP will be putting out a gun supplement soon. I'm looking forward to it.
Ditto. I'll be quite interested in seeing how it will be done, as my current campaign uses Lamentations and has guns in it.
So far we've gone with Pundits take on it; 1D8, exploding dice, and the hussle with ammo and gun powder. And it has worked fine so far.All the characters with guns started out with 1D12 bullets for their weapons, which made getting more ammo quite the priority in the first session, as the two gun carrying characters had 3 bullets between them.
I don't like the medieval period at all, I prefer to draw on antiquity for my fantasy. Thus no gunpowder (though preferably no flashy magical artillery either).
I like primitive firearms (especially wheel lock pistols). It's just that a lot of people feel the inclusion of gunpowder as a foothold for including the whole industrial revolution and I don't really care for that.
Quote from: RPGPundit;579559Not really. Its nowhere near the same level of power as magic.
"Stepping on the toes of" means mildly irritating someone, not replacing them. Although technically sufficient quantities of gunpowder would be more than a match for any amount of destructive magic.
Magic and flashes/bangs/smoke clouds have always gone together, even today stage magicians make good use of pyrotechnics in their performances. Relegating the fireworks to footsoldier weapons takes away some of the mystique.
The dawn of the gun also heralded the sunset of many superstitions, so I guess that's why they are an unwelcome addition to what should be a universe of unicorns and dragons.
No one's mentioned it, so I would point out that gunpowder rarely appears in the inspirational literature for most fantasy - Tolkien, Howard, etc.
In general, I think that historical reality has little to do with most high / medieval / swords-and-sorcery fantasy.
Nothing wrong with breaking from the genre, but in general unless I've got a strong reason to break from genre I'm going to stick to the genre standards as a default because it's easier to get into for players.
It took only 200 years for black powder firearms to go from "meh" on the European battlefield to eliminating heavy armour as a viable defense. The pace of technological innovation there was remarkable. That said, 200 years is a short time from the POV of European history and a long time from the POV of a single person's military career, or a single campaign.
If we're going to drag historical accuracy into the discussion, it's important to pin down exactly what point in the development of black powder firearms we're dealing with. As the technology and accuracy of black powder firearms improves, the weight of plate needed to reliably stop a shot becomes prohibitively heavy, which is why it kept shrinking from full suit to half plate to back-and-breast and morion to steel plates sewn into a jacket.
There's also the skill factor involved; you can train a peasant to shoot a musket effectively in formation in a few weeks; a company of pikemen could take months to years to drill effectively; and to train a bowman, start training his grandfather. That distinction is generally not reflected in most RPGs (GURPS being a notable exception).
Quote from: The Traveller;579465It does kinda step on the toes of the wizards.
In the
BANESTORM/Yrth setting that is very much the attitude. So much so that the have a pecial council set up to stifle and suppress technological advancements like blackpoweder and gunpowder.
ON THE OTHER HAND: The setting of the
MAGE KNIGHT miniatures game had blackpoweder weapons as a centerpiece of the backstory. There was even a faction called the 'Blackpowder Rebels' - one sniper with a blackpowder rifle assassinated a powerful mage tyurant - and that set the stoiry in motion for the setting.
Always thought that it would have made a great background for a Role Playing Game.
- Ed c.
I like gunpowder in my fantasy, but then, I love a good mix of swashbuckling and fantasy. Swashbuckling without pistols and cannons just doesn't feel right to me.
I have no problem with firearms, explosives and artillery. They exist in my D&D campaign, but they are still early in development so they have yet to overtake either archery or melee weapons- especially at the man-to-man level wherein a D&D campaign centers itself. Pistols and muskets are smoothbore weapons that reload from the breech, that must be reloaded after every shot, and must load each component separately. They are not the wonder-weapons that too many people unfamiliar with firearms--which, sadly, includes a lot of people that make media creations featuring them--think that they are.
In practice, a longarm will be fired one and them be used as a spear (if the bayonet is fixed) or as a club in melee. Pistols will be fired once and then used as clubs. Players that want to be the rapid-firing marksman will stick with the longbow; firearms, therefore, are likely to used by characters whose primary action role is not fighting at range. Artillery, in practice, will be just a set-piece prop until characters transition into the domain-management game. Explosives--bombs, really--see more use, as they do what Fireball does (and allows Magic-Users to go with different spells), and can be carried/used by damn near every character because it's just a rock that blows up.
What makes firearms impressive, at this point, is beyond the scope of typical character activity: massed ranks/batteries firing upon similar-sized targets. I would not be concerned until a campaign's technology in firearms advances to where rifling exists (and thus the rifle emerges as a distinct weapon type; before that, rifles and shotguns are more-or-less the same thing; pistols get rifling also), smokeless powder exists (big boost in power produced meant more lethal projectiles in flight via greater momentum), self-contained metallic cartridges (faster and easier reloading), mechanics advance to allow for revolving cylinders (the revolver is a thing before self-contained cartridges emerged, as "cap-and-ball" types) and repeating longarms (lever rifles and shotguns first, then semi and full-auto), and so on as recorded in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Stick to technologies before the 19th century, and you'll have firearms that are balanced options to archery and melee weapons (and comparable to some spell effects). They won't overshadow them, because the drawbacks are serious at the skirmish/man-to-man scale of typical action. Good for the massed ranks, and not so much for individual actors.
Quote from: Koltar;579868ON THE OTHER HAND: The setting of the MAGE KNIGHT miniatures game had blackpoweder weapons as a centerpiece of the backstory. There was even a faction called the 'Blackpowder Rebels' - one sniper with a blackpowder rifle assassinated a powerful mage tyurant - and that set the stoiry in motion for the setting.
Always thought that it would have made a great background for a Role Playing Game.
That does sound awesome, one place powder weapons might fit would be in the hands of witchfinders, which again plays an anti-magic angle.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;579902Players that want to be the rapid-firing marksman will stick with the longbow; firearms, therefore, are likely to used by characters whose primary action role is not fighting at range.
Eh I remember in one of the Return to Treasure Island shows, I think it was the one with the brilliant Brian "Gordon's Alive" Blessed as Silver, he hoisted aside his overcoat at the final unearthing of the treasure to reveal eight pistols arrayed about his person. Never say you couldn't do rapid fire with flintlocks!
Quote from: jhkim;579683No one's mentioned it, so I would point out that gunpowder rarely appears in the inspirational literature for most fantasy - Tolkien, Howard, etc.
Discounting the movie, there's some debatable evidence in LOTR that gunpowder existed - the breaching of the Hornburg, and then Gandalf's fireworks.
Quote from: The Traveller;579959Eh I remember in one of the Return to Treasure Island shows, I think it was the one with the brilliant Brian "Gordon's Alive" Blessed as Silver, he hoisted aside his overcoat at the final unearthing of the treasure to reveal eight pistols arrayed about his person. Never say you couldn't do rapid fire with flintlocks!
It's called a "brace" of pistols, and it wasn't at all uncommon for people expecting trouble not on a battlefield. As were double-barrelled flintlock pistols with a completely separate lock for each barrel, and a double-length pull trigger. I used to own a replica of one such.
The few times I have used gunpowder in a dnd game I usually made it a dwarven creation that they were careful to hide the recipie of.
Mechanically primitive gunpowerder weapons are not a problem.
A bow is argueably superior to a very primitive firearm. (If the training time to learn to use it effectively is not a factor)
Flavor wise it really depends on the setting.
Gunpowder, especially the introduction of gunpowder, can make a nice scenario arc in a fantasy campaign. You just have to make it realistic, in which case (going with the early gunpowder era) the weapons are not that practical compared to other options, e.g. longbows. In RPG mano-a-mano combat they're essentially equivalent to crossbows - one shot and drop 'em. I've had a few games where the PCs just didn't want to use guns because they brought a whole lot of other problems (keeping your powder dry, misfires, the sheer weight of the things, etc.).
Of course once you get into artillery it's a different kettle of fish.
Historical, or semi-historical, settings use gunpowder all the time and such settings have rules for it (Renaissance, Legend, RQ, BRP all have black powder rules, for example).
Look at the Conquistadors, mounted knights in plate or semi-plate, with swords and pistols.
But, for generic fantasy, I agree that it rarely ever figures.
Quote from: Vile;582092Gunpowder, especially the introduction of gunpowder, can make a nice scenario arc in a fantasy campaign. You just have to make it realistic, in which case (going with the early gunpowder era) the weapons are not that practical compared to other options, e.g. longbows. In RPG mano-a-mano combat they're essentially equivalent to crossbows - one shot and drop 'em. I've had a few games where the PCs just didn't want to use guns because they brought a whole lot of other problems (keeping your powder dry, misfires, the sheer weight of the things, etc.).
Of course once you get into artillery it's a different kettle of fish.
My albion campaign started with gunpowder already existing on The Continent but being virtually unknown on Albion itself; then as things progressed, it starts to get slowly introduced. The first time the PCs saw a Bombard (cannon) in a battle, that was quite the thing; then they were very excited when they managed to loot some rifles or pistols from Frogmen. Then in the last large battles they've fought in so far, there were units of mercenary riflemen. The whole thing has been a very interesting development in the flavor of the game.
Not to mention the one PC specialist who likes to fool around with building bombs.
RPGPundit
I've used firearms in fantasy since AD&D 2nd edition. I use alchemical smokepowder rather than true gunpowder however,. Lets me keep a tighter rein on its use.
Depending, of course, on our games setting and tone, we've used gunpowder for a long time.
Ravenloft, Pirates, etc we will go with more realistic damage such as d6 for pistols, d8 for horse pistols, etc.
For games such as our Spaghetti westerns we use multiple d6's that explode. That's the nature of Spaghetti's though; a heavy focus on the gun as the ultimate weapon.
The funny thing is, in my game I don't really do much of anything (other than exploding dice) to make gunpowder weapons superior, and a lot that makes them inferior choices for ranged weapons (shorter range than bows, take 3 rounds to load making them even slower than crossbows without the crossbow's extra to-hit bonus, much more expensive) and yet my players still love them and all want to have one.
RPGPundit
I personally don't have a problem with it because Arquebus is already in the PHB. Guns of the time weren't rapid loading or very accurate so I don't really fear it for the time. In game it isn't so bad, it's like Strong X-bows, the reload time is atrocious. That and cannons are siege weapons, which sadly just does not get enough play in games. Just assume round ball front loading instead of rifled breach loading and throw in the occasional % backfire accident.
I think people too often think of modern times and try to overlay it upon the fantasy middle ages. It's gonna lead to weird interpretations, I think. Our modern gear took much innovation over the years to get where they are and that's easy to forget or overlook.
However, I tend to play in the early middle ages. I like knights and mount barding; it's expensive and makes your horse look like NASCAR. ;)
Quote from: RPGPundit;583325The funny thing is, in my game I don't really do much of anything (other than exploding dice) to make gunpowder weapons superior, and a lot that makes them inferior choices for ranged weapons (shorter range than bows, take 3 rounds to load making them even slower than crossbows without the crossbow's extra to-hit bonus, much more expensive) and yet my players still love them and all want to have one.
Eh they had air rifles that were the equivalent to an extended magazine 9mm semi automatic pistol while gunpowder weapons were still being operated from a standing position only, sometimes history takes funny turns. I make medieval armour half stopping power against guns usually, but keep them out of pure fantasy games.
Quote from: The Traveller;583406Eh they had air rifles that were the equivalent to an extended magazine 9mm semi automatic pistol while gunpowder weapons were still being operated from a standing position only, sometimes history takes funny turns.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you have some kind of a reference to what you're talking about?
RPGPundit
I had a country whose mages did not use a school of magics that gave them "direct" attacks (I think it was abjuration/invocation, but cannot recall, it was for AD&D2E.)
These mages carried Dragonnes, guns with a dragon motif for the frame. They were the only nation who knew how to make the dragon powder.
In the setting the country who had it had a very strong isolationist bent and had magics that were very effective defensively, to keep people out. Of course a few trickled in and a few out. So guns were possible elsewhere in the setting just very expensive and rare.
Quote from: RPGPundit;583786I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you have some kind of a reference to what you're talking about?
RPGPundit
Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle) a good example. These days they sell .50 air rifles used for hunting buffalo.
Quote from: RPGPundit;583786I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you have some kind of a reference to what you're talking about?
RPGPundit
Military grade air powered firearms existed in the 18th and 19th century. They were used by the Lewis & Clark expedition and Austria fielded an entire battalion with them. No gunpowder required.
I used to be against gunpowder, as already noted, it's not really in most fantasy books. Lately, though, I wouldn't mind it in limited doses. Something like the grenades and bombs used in the Malazan books would be pretty cool. Guns reserved to NPC monsters like skaven is also perfectly fine with me.
Quote from: The Traveller;583792Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle) a good example. These days they sell .50 air rifles used for hunting buffalo.
Ah. Ok. Hence my confusion; I thought you were talking about a much earlier time period than that. Now it makes sense.
RPGPundit
Quote from: danbuter;583794I used to be against gunpowder, as already noted, it's not really in most fantasy books. Lately, though, I wouldn't mind it in limited doses. Something like the grenades and bombs used in the Malazan books would be pretty cool. Guns reserved to NPC monsters like skaven is also perfectly fine with me.
Hmmm...skaven with guns...invading a low tech dnd setting...hmmmm
I don't get why its not in the fantasy books; ancient gunpowder is fucking cool; as evidenced by the way my players are all desperate to have it despite it being a clearly sub-optimal ranged weapon choice.
RPGPundit
Might just be that players connect gunpowder with modern guns in their head.
To me, a primitive gun is somewhat equal to a crossbow.
Well...a crossbow that might explode and hurt you when you fire it...but anyway...
Quote from: Bill;584379Might just be that players connect gunpowder with modern guns in their head.
To me, a primitive gun is somewhat equal to a crossbow.
Well...a crossbow that might explode and hurt you when you fire it...but anyway...
I think its that there's something swashbuckling about a flintlock.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;584317I don't get why its not in the fantasy books; ancient gunpowder is fucking cool; as evidenced by the way my players are all desperate to have it despite it being a clearly sub-optimal ranged weapon choice.
Mostly a stylistic choice, I think, hearkening (as others have pointed out) to Tolkien's Middle-Earth, Howard's Hybroian Age and other well-known and well-regarded fantasy milieu from which gunpowder is noticeably absent.
I want to say WFRP was the first (thesis: WFRP 1e is The Warhound and The World's Pain RPG -- it's all there: C16 Germany, apocalyptic forces of Chaos with Satanic trappings, etc. -- plus dwarves, elves and orcs) really popular fantasy RPG with black powder guns in the core rulebook but I can't say for sure.
Quote from: The Butcher;584549Mostly a stylistic choice, I think, hearkening (as others have pointed out) to Tolkien's Middle-Earth, Howard's Hybroian Age and other well-known and well-regarded fantasy milieu from which gunpowder is noticeably absent.
I want to say WFRP was the first (thesis: WFRP 1e is The Warhound and The World's Pain RPG -- it's all there: C16 Germany, apocalyptic forces of Chaos with Satanic trappings, etc. -- plus dwarves, elves and orcs) really popular fantasy RPG with black powder guns in the core rulebook but I can't say for sure.
I think you may well be right, unless you count the Boot Hill conversion notes in the AD&D DMG.
RPGPundit
Quote from: The Butcher;584549Mostly a stylistic choice, I think, hearkening (as others have pointed out) to Tolkien's Middle-Earth, Howard's Hybroian Age and other well-known and well-regarded fantasy milieu from which gunpowder is noticeably absent.
For myself, gunpowder marks the end of the 'fantasy age' using magic and the beginning of the 'industrial age' using technology. I suppose that could be called a stylistic choice, but I see it as the demarcation of genres. The former covers pretty much anything pre-Renaissance, while the latter is everything from steampunk forward to the distant future. I just don't see a way to mix them without irrevocably changing the fantasy setting by moving it inexorably forward.
Quote from: StormBringer;584858For myself, gunpowder marks the end of the 'fantasy age' using magic and the beginning of the 'industrial age' using technology. I suppose that could be called a stylistic choice, but I see it as the demarcation of genres. The former covers pretty much anything pre-Renaissance, while the latter is everything from steampunk forward to the distant future. I just don't see a way to mix them without irrevocably changing the fantasy setting by moving it inexorably forward.
I think that's a result of conflating "fantasy" with the rampant medievalism that's entrenched in fantasy rpgs. They're not the same thing at all. Limiting yourself to pseudo-medieval fantasy and setting 'magic' and 'industry' as opposites is denying yourself some pretty fun options.
Of course, in the end it's all just recombining elements as a stylistic choice, as you mention. But I don't think a game (or novel, or film) is any less "fantastic" because it has guns in it.
If you move "the technology slider" wholesale, then yes, you might get what you're talking about as a result. But there's no reason to think you have to advance tech all together, or even in the same direction.
In my campaign, have gunpowder and revolvers, but no steam or electricity, for example.
Quote from: VectorSigma;584863I think that's a result of conflating "fantasy" with the rampant medievalism that's entrenched in fantasy rpgs. They're not the same thing at all. Limiting yourself to pseudo-medieval fantasy and setting 'magic' and 'industry' as opposites is denying yourself some pretty fun options.
Well, in my view, that is getting into sub-genres. I prefer a medieval sort of fantasy when I play those kinds of games. Other kinds of fantasy, perhaps 'weird horror', certainly have merit; I just don't prefer them wholesale. I have no qualms about stealing various elements and incorporating them into a medieval fantasy setting, however. Good artists create, great artists steal and all that. :)
QuoteOf course, in the end it's all just recombining elements as a stylistic choice, as you mention. But I don't think a game (or novel, or film) is any less "fantastic" because it has guns in it.
It was The Butcher's choice of words, but I think it is a good choice. I dig sword-and-planet stuff, or various kinds of firearms mixed with archaic armour and weapons on occasion. The problem I have with quasi-rampant re-mixing is that...
QuoteIf you move "the technology slider" wholesale, then yes, you might get what you're talking about as a result. But there's no reason to think you have to advance tech all together, or even in the same direction.
In my campaign, have gunpowder and revolvers, but no steam or electricity, for example.
Generally, technology moves somewhat together. For a variety of reasons, electricity will not be far behind gunpowder or revolvers and would probably pre-date it by a number of decades. And steam will be in use possibly a century or more before firearm technology catches up. The Ancient Greeks knew how to harness steam power.
The technology to cast and drill out a revolver cylinder implicitly supposes that one has already figured out how to extrude wire out of a number of materials. Notably copper in this case. And batteries have been around for thousands of years, so generating electricity isn't actually as difficult as is often assumed. Creating and maintaining an infrastructure for widespread use of electricity is difficult, to be sure.
Again, not a criticism of your campaign; if you and your players are having fun with it, more power to you. I just can't suspend my disbelief enough to have more or less common laser guns in a world with chainmail, swords and only very crude medical advances. To say nothing of lasers and magic in the same campaign. Perhaps a one off, like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. I just wouldn't enjoy primitive weapons/armour/etc. alongside slug throwers or laser guns. There is virtually no way that would make sense to me.
Or you could infer from all the clay jar "batteries" littering the Fertile Crescent and Egyptian reliefs depicting what seems to be light bulbs that a fantasy world where electricity came millennia before black powder is wholly plausible.
Or you could infer an Andean land that knew how to weave airtight textiles several centuries before the industrial revolution, create the Nazca lines, invent a 'written language' out of thread, placed mammoths blocks atop another so expertly without mortar, etc. and hadn't the foundational wheel or even iron age could justify any old fantasy world wholly obviating the need of other assumed tech advances.
Gun powder does not equal industrial revolution. Modern civilization does not assume an age of ignorance throughout the rest of the world. Technology does not have to spread at a homogeneous rate. Nor is needed our popularly accepted narrative of how the "tech tree flows;" Civilization/Sim City games are just games, not the "Truth!"
Imaginary worlds thus have outrageous amounts of leeway just from using our limited immediate perspective from a singular planet, from a singular dominant intelligent species. I find there's no excuse to be stuck on the same old song at this point. And the arquebus is still in the PHB.
Quote from: Opaopajr;584880Or you could infer from all the clay jar "batteries" littering the Fertile Crescent and Egyptian reliefs depicting what seems to be light bulbs that a fantasy world where electricity came millennia before black powder is wholly plausible.
Well, that's rather my point, isn't it? Having revolvers with no electricity present is rather... odd.
QuoteOr you could infer an Andean land that knew how to weave airtight textiles several centuries before the industrial revolution, create the Nazca lines, invent a 'written language' out of thread, placed mammoths blocks atop another so expertly without mortar, etc. and hadn't the foundational wheel or even iron age could justify any old fantasy world wholly obviating the need of other assumed tech advances.
The Incas, Aztecs and Mayans all knew about the wheel. They simply didn't use it for transportation like other civilizations. The reasons are still debated. Ancient Celtics erected Stonehenge before the iron age, Ancient Egyptians constructed the pyramids without mortar, Sumerians had a written language five thousand years ago, the geoglyphs at Nazca are hardly unique, and since they made wide use of rubber, air- and water-tight textiles are unsurprising.
What they didn't have were laser guns, rocket ships, or powered armour. And if these had been present, you can bet they would have long since given up on moving giant stone blocks around and scratching 200m drawings in the desert.
So, no, you can't just assume that any level of technology will continue to exist alongside any other level of technology. Do you still have a buggy whip? Is the hand crank for your horseless carriage stored in the trunk or under the hood? What's the address for the cooper that makes your chariot wheels? Technology doesn't advance in a silo; it inexorably pulls everything along with it.
QuoteGun powder does not equal industrial revolution. Modern civilization does not assume an age of ignorance throughout the rest of the world. Technology does not have to spread at a homogeneous rate. Nor is needed our popularly accepted narrative of how the "tech tree flows;" Civilization/Sim City games are just games, not the "Truth!"
Gun powder is very much a by-product of industrialization. And no one assumed an age of ignorance in the rest of the world, nor that technology advances at some exact pace. But when gun powder and rifles were introduced to the battlefield, swords and armour stopped being used. Just about instantly. You may have noticed that no current armed forces fields an infantry unit composed of archers, swordsman and pikes. Cavalry units don't actually ride horses with lances anymore.
QuoteImaginary worlds thus have outrageous amounts of leeway just from using our limited immediate perspective from a singular planet, from a singular dominant intelligent species. I find there's no excuse to be stuck on the same old song at this point. And the arquebus is still in the PHB.
The arquebus is in the 2nd Edition PHB.
And there are only outrageous amounts of leeway when you mis-read history.
Quote from: StormBringer;584867The problem I have with quasi-rampant re-mixing is that...
Generally, technology moves somewhat together.
I just can't suspend my disbelief enough
There is virtually no way that would make sense to me.
Oh, Stormy. It's called fantasy.
Say it with me now: fan-ta-sy.
I appreciate that you're not criticizing my campaign or anything like that, but I'm still going to give you shit on this. You sound like a GURPS-head, all twitchy and shouting "TECH LEVEL!" at your monitor. ;)
Quote from: VectorSigma;584907Oh, Stormy. It's called fantasy.
Say it with me now: fan-ta-sy.
I appreciate that you're not criticizing my campaign or anything like that, but I'm still going to give you shit on this. You sound like a GURPS-head, all twitchy and shouting "TECH LEVEL!" at your monitor. ;)
That's fine. :)
Like I said, gun powder = technology for me, and I don't like the two to mix very much. But if it works at other folks' tables, no skin off my nose. :)
As far as I'm aware, gunpowder weapons were extremely inaccurate until the invention of the rifle: they were a battlefield weapon where massed ranks of men would pour masses of shot into massed ranks of other men, and thus score hits by dint of sheer blind luck.
In the kind of skirmishing melee fights that go on in RPGs, with combatants numbering usually less than a dozen or so, gunpowder weapons would be worse than useless - too inaccurate to aim and fire at an individual enemy, and then once you've fired it you have to drop it and pull out a sword because somebody is trying to axe you to death.
Quote from: VectorSigma;584907Oh, Stormy. It's called fantasy.
Say it with me now: fan-ta-sy.
I appreciate that you're not criticizing my campaign or anything like that, but I'm still going to give you shit on this. You sound like a GURPS-head, all twitchy and shouting "TECH LEVEL!" at your monitor. ;)
Your version of fantasy is not the version that sell millions of copies every year. It's been dead since the 70's.
The world has more than enough anomalies to take outrageous amounts of leeway with fantasy. And history isn't as static with facts as we assume; it's an ongoing dialogue of discovery and interpretation. We rewrite and argue plenty. Besides, give everything a few hundred years and so much of what we know will be considered wrong.
Therefore about fantasy world building, go have fun with it! If it doesn't work for you, fine. All I care about is if the human motivations feel genuine in my setting. But that's still a crazy broad spectrum, and the best answer I can give for fantasy choices ends up being "it feels right... in my gut." The world's crazy, so for your own dream bigger.
And the arquebus is still in my PHB (2e :p).
Quote from: noisms;584992As far as I'm aware, gunpowder weapons were extremely inaccurate until the invention of the rifle: they were a battlefield weapon where massed ranks of men would pour masses of shot into massed ranks of other men, and thus score hits by dint of sheer blind luck.
Definitely. The early arquebusses were little more than smooth-bore man-portable mini-canons. Regardless, they could punch through steel armour relatively easily, so everyone stopped wearing it.
QuoteIn the kind of skirmishing melee fights that go on in RPGs, with combatants numbering usually less than a dozen or so, gunpowder weapons would be worse than useless - too inaccurate to aim and fire at an individual enemy, and then once you've fired it you have to drop it and pull out a sword because somebody is trying to axe you to death.
I have somewhat fewer problems with immediate combat concerns as much as the overall impact on society. Even primitive grenades are not reliable enough to stake the outcome of combat on, assuming they don't go off randomly before you even get to fight.
The overall technological improvements that go along with gunpowder (or any explosive, really) are what I like to avoid in my fantasy games. Just using it to quarry rock will bring about major changes as castles and other such constructions become much cheaper to build and maintain.
I don't think it should be universally banned for any fantasy setting. As I said earlier replying to Vector: it's your table, go wild. Part of Pundit's post was asking why there are issues with it, and I think my opinion is somewhat common.
Quote from: Opaopajr;585010The world has more than enough anomalies to take outrageous amounts of leeway with fantasy. And history isn't as static with facts as we assume; it's an ongoing dialogue of discovery and interpretation. We rewrite and argue plenty. Besides, give everything a few hundred years and so much of what we know will be considered wrong.
Therefore about fantasy world building, go have fun with it! If it doesn't work for you, fine. All I care about is if the human motivations feel genuine in my setting. But that's still a crazy broad spectrum, and the best answer I can give for fantasy choices ends up being "it feels right... in my gut." The world's crazy, so for your own dream bigger.
And the arquebus is still in my PHB (2e :p).
I can find nothing to disagree with here. :)
Except your preference for 2e. That is a sure sign of mental illness. ;)
Quote from: noisms;584992As far as I'm aware, gunpowder weapons were extremely inaccurate until the invention of the rifle: they were a battlefield weapon where massed ranks of men would pour masses of shot into massed ranks of other men, and thus score hits by dint of sheer blind luck.
In the kind of skirmishing melee fights that go on in RPGs, with combatants numbering usually less than a dozen or so, gunpowder weapons would be worse than useless - too inaccurate to aim and fire at an individual enemy, and then once you've fired it you have to drop it and pull out a sword because somebody is trying to axe you to death.
This is mostly false.
Of course, addressing it opens up a whole can of worms. In short, a 'fair fight' is usually determined by the side with the most powerful military, and fair is whatever lets them use that military to gain victory. For example, modern militaries consider staying in your own sides uniform as 'fair' and using civilians as shields 'unfair'.
Muskets can be fairly accurate (not to the same degree as rifles, but surprisingly accurate by most standards within 100 yards). The problem is that the militaries of the day relied on professional officers and a bunch of people that were expected to be good soldiers, but they were mostly drawn from lower classes and were seen as expendable - while officers, like knights before them, were not. Shooting accurately and killing officers was considered 'unfair'. It would be better to take a surrender and ransom them back to their wealthy families - even in a world with gunpowder. Thus, shooting randomly into massed ranks of 'common soldiers' was preferable - even though some officers died,they made a much smaller portion of the casualties.
American minutemen (not including those using rifles) targeted British Officers, causing outrage. Even though it was on the field of battle, it was considered tantamount to murder.
Quote from: danbuter;585000Your version of fantasy is not the version that sell millions of copies every year. It's been dead since the 70's.
Perhaps so, but I don't need to sell millions of copies, I only need to please myself and my players, as you know.
What in particular are you referring to in the 70's, btw? The Tolkien resurgence? Moorcock? Or just the general descent of 'fantasy' to mean 'pseudomedieval with wizards and dragons and other things painted on the side of panel-vans'?
In my Eberron I use the firearms from the DMG, they are not really per PCs but they are not a bad choice in a world where the large number of soldiers are 1st or 2nd level warrior, they are sold by the gnomes but they are little more than a novelty, they are quite expensive, and you must specially train your soldiers to use them, with the same money you could buy a wand of fireball, or hire some ogre mercenaries. They are an interesting option but just an option.
(Iwhile gnome have the exclusive on firearms and gunpowder trade they are actually a kobold invention, gnomes appropriate of the idea like they did with elemental binding but outside of the gnomes nobody know that.)
Quote from: StormBringer;585033I can find nothing to disagree with here. :)
Except your preference for 2e. That is a sure sign of mental illness. ;)
You must be crazier than the world to dream bigger than it. ;) As of late, it's been a tall order. But then I also have 2e.
By the way, I realize I slip into second person a lot. Ends up sounding more aggro and personal than I want. But it's there to drown out the voices in my head that want to use every 2e supplement and setting at once, including PO: Skills & Powers.
:p
Quote from: VectorSigma;585176Or just the general descent of 'fantasy' to mean 'pseudomedieval with wizards and dragons and other things painted on the side of panel-vans'?
(http://nofatclips.com/02009/03/18/stunts/respect-the-van-honda-odyssey.jpg)
Wish I could see that pic, Ronin. For or against, I bet it's funny.
Link for Vector (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=respect+the+van&num=10&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1024&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=b9DiFNAimO3ECM:&imgrefurl=http://dekku.nofatclips.com/2009/03/honda-odyssey-van-stunts.html&docid=b6Tzx5g09ejwvM&imgurl=http://nofatclips.com/02009/03/18/stunts/respect-the-van-honda-odyssey.jpg&w=768&h=576&ei=twBhULfnOdPlyAGJ_4HACw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=286&vpy=186&dur=1281&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=123&ty=112&sig=107247421839783206704&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=177&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:90):)
I was right to trust my instincts.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;585165This is mostly false.
Of course, addressing it opens up a whole can of worms. In short, a 'fair fight' is usually determined by the side with the most powerful military, and fair is whatever lets them use that military to gain victory. For example, modern militaries consider staying in your own sides uniform as 'fair' and using civilians as shields 'unfair'.
Muskets can be fairly accurate (not to the same degree as rifles, but surprisingly accurate by most standards within 100 yards). The problem is that the militaries of the day relied on professional officers and a bunch of people that were expected to be good soldiers, but they were mostly drawn from lower classes and were seen as expendable - while officers, like knights before them, were not. Shooting accurately and killing officers was considered 'unfair'. It would be better to take a surrender and ransom them back to their wealthy families - even in a world with gunpowder. Thus, shooting randomly into massed ranks of 'common soldiers' was preferable - even though some officers died,they made a much smaller portion of the casualties.
American minutemen (not including those using rifles) targeted British Officers, causing outrage. Even though it was on the field of battle, it was considered tantamount to murder.
So the only reason units of infantry in the Napoleonic era targeted each other was because they didn't want to kill the other side's officers? That makes no sense at all. Surely, all considerations about accuracy aside, firing into massed ranks of enemy common soldiers was preferable because there were loads of the fuckers and they were the ones who were were going to do the things you wanted to stop - occupy ground and fire
back. Common soldiers are always going to tangle with other common soldiers by definition, because they make up the vast bulk of each other's armies.
The Hussites used early hand-guns to great effect in the early 15th century. Although it's probably fair to say that their Wagenburg tactics coupled with the ineptitude of the opposing commanders in trying to overcome the Wagenburg were factors that magnified the actual effectiveness of the hand-guns.
Quote from: noisms;585291So the only reason units of infantry in the Napoleonic era targeted each other was because they didn't want to kill the other side's officers?
No, that's not the only reason. Don't be stupid.
Someone pointed out that muskets are not accurate. Now, that may be true compared to things like modern rifles, but modern rifles aren't very accurate compared to lasers. Compared to weapons of the day, muskets were fairly accurate.
Quote from: WikipediaA typical smooth bore musket firing at a single target was only accurate to about 100 to 150 yd (91 to 140 m) using the military ammunition of the day, which used a much smaller bullet than the musket bore to compensate for accumulation of ash in the barrel under battlefield conditions. Rifled muskets of the mid-19th century, like the Springfield Model 1861, were significantly more accurate, with the ability to hit a man sized target at a distance of 500 yards (460 m) or more.
Compare that to the Longbow:
Quote from: WikipediaRange and penetrationThe range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with estimates from 165 to 228 m (180 to 249 yds). Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd).[23] A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yds. It is also well known that no practice range was allowed to be less than 220 yds by order of Henry VIII.[24]
The longbow was capable of long range, and was highly accurate at short range. Most of the longer-range shooting mentioned in stories was not marksmanship, but rather thousands of archers launching volleys of arrows at an entire army. Longbowmen armies would shoot a rain of arrows landing indiscriminately in the target area. An archer could hit a person at 165 m (180 yards) "part of the time" and could always hit an army
Now, obviously a longer accurate range is often preferable, but once you close within 100 yards, if both weapons are accurate at that distance, the relative accuracy at longer distances hardly matters. Both weapons could hit whatever target you aim at.
As far was whether it is sensible to aim or sensible to volley - that's a totally different question.
Imagine, for a moment, that you were standing in a line of fellow musketeers. You all aim for an opposing officer. You all fire, killing him instantly. Then the other side releases a volley, killing half of your soldiers. You probably lost that exchange. One major advantage of the volley is that, while you didn't know who you were going to hit, you'd probably hit someone, and it'd probably be someone different from the person on your left and the person on your right. Collectively, you might do more damage than if you each aimed and fired (possibly at the same target).
The fact that volleys were used is not a testament to the poor accuracy of muskets. They
could be used to target individual opponents at ranges of 100-150 yards (ie, they could be used for hunting or sniping), but those tactics were
discouraged because of the accepted rules of battle - not because of a deficiency in the weapon.
Saying 'muskets were inaccurate' is easy, but the actual story is more complex. While the accuracy of the weapons is a concern by modern standards, they could have been used with a number of modern tactics - including sniping. This was generally considered 'unmanly' and certainly 'ungentlemanly'. Targeting a specific opposing soldier with a musket was considered tantamount to murder. That may seem silly and quaint to modern sensibilities, but it's certainly true that attitudes about 'acceptable practices' in war trumps 'effectiveness'.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;585328No, that's not the only reason. Don't be stupid.
Someone pointed out that muskets are not accurate. Now, that may be true compared to things like modern rifles, but modern rifles aren't very accurate compared to lasers. Compared to weapons of the day, muskets were fairly accurate.
Compare that to the Longbow:
Now, obviously a longer accurate range is often preferable, but once you close within 100 yards, if both weapons are accurate at that distance, the relative accuracy at longer distances hardly matters. Both weapons could hit whatever target you aim at.
As far was whether it is sensible to aim or sensible to volley - that's a totally different question.
Imagine, for a moment, that you were standing in a line of fellow musketeers. You all aim for an opposing officer. You all fire, killing him instantly. Then the other side releases a volley, killing half of your soldiers. You probably lost that exchange. One major advantage of the volley is that, while you didn't know who you were going to hit, you'd probably hit someone, and it'd probably be someone different from the person on your left and the person on your right. Collectively, you might do more damage than if you each aimed and fired (possibly at the same target).
The fact that volleys were used is not a testament to the poor accuracy of muskets. They could be used to target individual opponents at ranges of 100-150 yards (ie, they could be used for hunting or sniping), but those tactics were discouraged because of the accepted rules of battle - not because of a deficiency in the weapon.
Saying 'muskets were inaccurate' is easy, but the actual story is more complex. While the accuracy of the weapons is a concern by modern standards, they could have been used with a number of modern tactics - including sniping. This was generally considered 'unmanly' and certainly 'ungentlemanly'. Targeting a specific opposing soldier with a musket was considered tantamount to murder. That may seem silly and quaint to modern sensibilities, but it's certainly true that attitudes about 'acceptable practices' in war trumps 'effectiveness'.
You've clearly latched on to muskets for some reason, perhaps to show off amateur historical knowledge - in which case, fair play. But nobody said "muskets were inaccurate" - or at least, I didn't. I said gunpowder weapons were not generally accurate until the invention of the rifle.
I think it was fairly obvious from context that I wasn't talking about what was going on in 1815 or the revolutionary war, but much earlier than that. If it makes you feel better, you win the "I know more about muskets" pissing contest, but I'll stick with the assumption that 15th-17th century style hand guns in small D&D-type melee skirmish affairs are slow, unwieldy, inaccurate and mostly useless.
Quote from: noisms;584992As far as I'm aware, gunpowder weapons were extremely inaccurate until the invention of the rifle
Look, I don't care if you think gunpowder weapons were extremeley inaccurate or not, nor do I care how you define it.
But a PC should be able to use a non-rifled musket to shoot an opponent pretty accurately in the types of distances PCs usually fight if you're using a historical basis.
The problem with a musket tends to be the relatively long loading time. But even before breech loading or repeating rifles, a well trained soldier could fire between four and six times per minute (between 10 seconds to 15 seconds per round).
Also from Wikipedia:
Quote"With the heaviest bows [a modern warbow archer] does not like to try for more than six a minute."
There is a whole accepted history about firearms in RPGs that's mostly false.
Now, I don't make any claim to be an expert - and I don't usually use firearms in RPGs, but when I do, they should usually be a viable weapon choice for PCs. Because some PCs like the idea of using guns.
Quote from: noisms;585354I think it was fairly obvious from context that I wasn't talking about what was going on in 1815 or the revolutionary war, but much earlier than that. If it makes you feel better, you win the "I know more about muskets" pissing contest, but I'll stick with the assumption that 15th-17th century style hand guns in small D&D-type melee skirmish affairs are slow, unwieldy, inaccurate and mostly useless.
And it's a fairly good assumption: Arquebus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus).
Of course, basing an argument about pre-Renaissance firearms on a musket or the M1 Garand or whatever is a special form of unsmart.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;585385Now, I don't make any claim to be an expert - and I don't usually use firearms in RPGs, but when I do, they should usually be a viable weapon choice for PCs. Because some PCs like the idea of using guns.
If that's the basis for your argument, then fine.
Quote from: StormBringer;585421And it's a fairly good assumption: Arquebus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus).
Of course, basing an argument about pre-Renaissance firearms on a musket or the M1 Garand or whatever is a special form of unsmart.
Do you even read the things you post links to?
The Arquebus is a smoothbore longarm firearms, like a musket. The musket is a heavier version of the arquebus, designed to fire a heavier shot with more powder at higher velocity in order to penetrate thicker armor. The two weapons existed simultaneously, and initially the distinction between them was pretty vague.
This is from the musket:
Quote from: WikipediaBy the 16th century the handheld firearm became commonplace, replacing the crossbow and longbow in all advanced armies, and known as the arquebus. Most infantry were pikemen who normally wore some armour, especially the front ranks, and gave protection against cavalry to the arquebusiers. The rise of firearms led to thicker and heavier armour, from 15 kg in the 15th century to 25 kg in the late 16th century.[12] Armour 2 mm thick required 2.9 times as much energy to defeat it as armour 1 mm thick.[13] The need to defeat armour gave rise to the musket proper referring to a heavier weapon, firing a heavier shot, which had to balance on a rest. The initial role of the musket was as a specialist armour piercing weapon; it therefore coexisted with the arquebus over the period c. 1550 – c. 1650.
The Renaissance may be dated to as early as the 13th century in Florence (the writings of Dante), but 1401 is a popularly accepted date. For myself personally, I like to use the fall of Constantinople as a handy reference point - I think that it is the cornerstone on which the Age of Exploration is built. That's 1453. So let's look at firearms in 1453, shall we?
The first major use of the arquebus in a military formation dates to 1458. That'd be five years after the Renaissance even using my 'Johnny-come-lately' dating scheme.
Handcannons - the predecessor of the Arquebus, continued to be the dominant firearm in Europe until the mid 15th century.
So, basically, pre-Renaissance firearms include the Hand-cannon. Post-Renaissance firearms include the arquebus and musket - the musket essentially being a larger and more powerful version of the same weapon designed to defeat armor.
Both weapons were effective at shooting 'small' targets, like you might do while hunting. If you can use a weapon for hunting deer, you can pretty much trust that you can use it to shoot humans at sufficient range to make it an effective weapon in D&D style combats.
Now, I understand that it doesn't fit in every world, and I don't object to that. But the 'game version' of early firearms are often much worse than those weapons are in real-life. Swords and bows compare favorably to pretty much everything else because designers want to encourage their use, and discourage firearms.
If your campaign supports firearms, there's plenty of ways to do them better than any edition of D&D without being untrue to the historical material. If you care.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;585592Do you even read the things you post links to?
I don't read the things you post anymore, no. It's almost always you making a hasty mistake to show everyone how smart you are, only to end up flailing around trying to backpedal, move goalposts, and weasel-word your way to 'victory' to protect your fragile ego. I am guessing you are like this in real life, but a couple of fists to the mouth taught you to keep it on the internet.
Because once again, you assume your amazingly retarded preferences should be some kind of axiom of game design, and the only thing you are arguing is for everyone to agree with you.
You like firearms in your game? Fine. Now shut the fuck up about it.
Quote from: StormBringer;585603You like firearms in your game? Fine. Now shut the fuck up about it.
No. I don't like firearms in my game. I don't think it fits a fantasy setting most of the time. I pointed that out, earlier.
I also don't think it's 'bad/wrong/unfun' if people choose to include firearms. But if people do choose to include firearms, I think it's worth discussing how they should be represented in game terms.
Penalties to attack rolls, unreasonably long loading times, excessive chances of backfiring - these are all common ways used to 'nerf' firearms beyond their historical limitations. And that's fine if you do it
deliberately, but most people do that because they
misunderstand those limitations.
Now, obviously firearms have a pretty extensive history - without specifying exactly what we're talking about it can get murky. But in general, firearms are pretty accurate - at least at the distances a typical party will use them. Modern pistols are usually only accurate to within 50 yards (150 feet). But even when wielding a longbow, most of my D&D fights happen well within that range. 30-50 feet would be pretty generous, and the pistols tend to be pretty accurate within that range (provided that the shooter is skilled). It doesn't matter how accurate the weapon is if the person wielding it is a bad shot.
I don't have a dog in te firearm fight, and know very little about the accuracy of muskets in different periodsof history, but do we have a better source on this than wikipedia. Not challenging your assertion DeadDM, but I have been burned by wikipedia too many times.
I don't need anyone to believe me. If they care, they can research the topic on their own. Simply put, I don't mind if people choose to make firearms less effective than they were historically, but it's easy to be
mistaken on the topic.
Most importantly, when people refer to 'primitive firearms' being 'inaccurate', that is usually compared to 'modern firearms'.
If people want to accurately reflect the nature of the weapons, it bears some independent research. I can point you to plenty of different places to look, but if you don't care for firearms, it hardly matters.
Here's one:
http://www.renaissance-spell.com/Renaissance-Weapons.html
QuoteThe science of artillery and handguns had made considerable progress during the Renaissance. Weapons like the arquebus and the caliver replaced the bow, due to their accuracy and penetrating power, coupled with their rate of fire. However, the change did not come easy, and throughout the 16th Century there was an obstinate struggle between the arrow and the bullet. The advocates of the first had a clear advantage on the side of eloquence and ingenuity; but in the field, the "shot" made a steady advance, and the Bow, that weapon which had decided victories from the beginning of the world, and of late had constantly won them almost single-handed, was driven from the battlefield.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;585616And that's fine if you do it deliberately, but most people do that because they misunderstand those limitations.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;585625I don't need anyone to believe me. If they care, they can research the topic on their own. Simply put, I don't mind if people choose to make firearms less effective than they were historically, but it's easy to be mistaken on the topic.
No one gives two shits about your OCD, either.
And the best way to win the "I don't always have to be right" discussion isn't pointing out how you always have to be right.
Huh?
Noism posted something I see commonly that I addressed in the context of the thread at hand. He essentially asked a clarifying question (why this tactic if the weapons were accurate) so I explained that.
You then jumped in to claim that the basis of my claim is entirely with late 18th century weapons (ie, Revolutionary War onward) and I pointed out that the weapons I was referring to predate that period significantly.
I never made a claim that I don't need to be right. At least, not until now. But if I happen to be right, of course I'll defend my assertion. Especially for gamers that are interested in historical accuracy/simulation, having the basis for emulating real things via game rules is important.
In my games, based off of 3rd edition, it takes 3 rounds to load a firearm. That's 18 seconds. They're still best as a single shot before switching to other weapons. We happen to be using firearms because we're playing a Pirates themed campaign. They're an important part of the setting (and this is a low-level game) so they're good for the initial salvo and then switching to a melee weapon.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;585592Both weapons were effective at shooting 'small' targets, like you might do while hunting. If you can use a weapon for hunting deer, you can pretty much trust that you can use it to shoot humans at sufficient range to make it an effective weapon in D&D style combats.
I call bullshit on this, I'm afraid. Hunting a deer involves waiting patiently for hours, sneaking around in the undergrowth to get downwind, carefully lining up a shot, and then shooting. Basically, acting as a sniper. This is not the same things as trying to shoot somebody who knows you are trying to shoot them and, by the way, is coming after you with an axe.
I've seen an arquebus. It is long, heavy and unwieldy. You have to carry around a rope to shoot it with, and that rope has to be continuously burning to be used properly. Once fired, you have to fiddle around with the thing while you reload it, during which time you are totally exposed. I don't accept it would be a suitable weapon for adventuring with or fighting with in a D&D skirmish.
If you're so keen on realism, you need to incorporate some pretty heavy modifiers on the usage of the things.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;585625I don't need anyone to believe me. If they care, they can research the topic on their own. Simply put, I don't mind if people choose to make firearms less effective than they were historically, but it's easy to be mistaken on the topic.
I am really not trying to argue against you here. What you say sounds quite reasonable. But just for the purpose of forming a conclusion I don't consider
poster-on-the-internet+wikipedia a reliable way to go. So I was wondering if you had a better source.
Firearms in a fantasy setting do not have to follow the same technical evolution as they did in our world. This is why I use 'smokepowder' (an alchemical substance) and not gunpowder (a chemical substance) in my games. Gunpowder would not work if brought from our world to the fantasy setting. Though the caps would still function. I also use special quartz crystals that transmit a piezoelectric charge from one end to the other when struck by a metal object. Piezoelectric charges are a real world thing. But the crystals behave in a slightly non-real manner. So you end up with muzzle loading firearms that use hammers which fall onto the special quartz crystals. Not a type of firearms that has ever nor could ever exist in our world.
But if you don't like firearms, don't use them. I would recommend not saying they can be used and then putting so many convoluted hurdles in the way that they will just frustrate and annoy a player. Just ban the darn things.
Quote from: noisms;585731I call bullshit on this, I'm afraid.
No, it's not. I was specifically addressing your concerns about the
accuracy of the weapon. Ie, you can use it to hit a specific target.
As far as the disadvantages of the weapon, they tend to be very similar to the disadvantages of a crossbow. It takes a long time to load, and while you're loading (and firing), you're vulnerable to people in melee.
Clearly, it's a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon. If your opponents are within reach, it would not be a good choice.
But if your enemies are approaching, you could use it. If your enemies are engaged with an ally, you could use it. If you're standing atop a tower and repelling invaders, you could use it.
Pretty much every situation you could use a bow or crossbow, you could use a firearm.
I don't want to pretend that firearms were a perfect weapon - they had many disadvantages. But the way some gamers talk about the superiority of the longbow, you'd think firearms would never have taken hold. The longbow has a number of disadvantages that aren't well represented in most RPGs - particularly that even skilled warriors often needed special and extensive training to use a longbow effectively. Making longbows Exotic Weapons (and firearms simple weapons) would address most of the historical advantages and disadvantages.
That said, a arquebus or a musket should be about as effective in your RPG as a crossbow if not moreso.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;585737No, it's not. I was specifically addressing your concerns about the accuracy of the weapon. Ie, you can use it to hit a specific target.
As far as the disadvantages of the weapon, they tend to be very similar to the disadvantages of a crossbow. It takes a long time to load, and while you're loading (and firing), you're vulnerable to people in melee.
Clearly, it's a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon. If your opponents are within reach, it would not be a good choice.
But if your enemies are approaching, you could use it. If your enemies are engaged with an ally, you could use it. If you're standing atop a tower and repelling invaders, you could use it.
Pretty much every situation you could use a bow or crossbow, you could use a firearm.
I don't want to pretend that firearms were a perfect weapon - they had many disadvantages. But the way some gamers talk about the superiority of the longbow, you'd think firearms would never have taken hold. The longbow has a number of disadvantages that aren't well represented in most RPGs - particularly that even skilled warriors often needed special and extensive training to use a longbow effectively. Making longbows Exotic Weapons (and firearms simple weapons) would address most of the historical advantages and disadvantages.
That said, a arquebus or a musket should be about as effective in your RPG as a crossbow if not moreso.
There is an old saying, "If you want a great archer, begin with the grandfather."
The crossbow comparison is valid. I also make firearms Simple weapons. They are no more mechanically complex than a heavy crossbow.
I use minis in the games I run, and one of the things that has kept me from having many gunners in my games is the general style of minis armed with an arquebus. Mostly, you find minis that are dressed in a renaissance style - either historical minis like landsknect or the Warhammer empire gunners - or they're pirates. The former is generally out of place in the otherwise medieval milieu my games are set in, and while pirates are great on the sea, every gunner being a pirate mini is a little silly. Privateer press makes a handful of minis that look like they could be an adventurer with a gun, and I'm happy to have them, but it's not enough for guns to be all that common in the games I run.
Quote from: noisms;585731I call bullshit on this, I'm afraid. Hunting a deer involves waiting patiently for hours, sneaking around in the undergrowth to get downwind, carefully lining up a shot, and then shooting. Basically, acting as a sniper. This is not the same things as trying to shoot somebody who knows you are trying to shoot them and, by the way, is coming after you with an axe.
As tenuous as the Denners grasp on D&D is, did you really expect them to supplant that with knowledge about the real world, let alone experience of it?
QuoteI've seen an arquebus. It is long, heavy and unwieldy. You have to carry around a rope to shoot it with, and that rope has to be continuously burning to be used properly. Once fired, you have to fiddle around with the thing while you reload it, during which time you are totally exposed. I don't accept it would be a suitable weapon for adventuring with or fighting with in a D&D skirmish.
Nuh uh, because muskets.
QuoteIf you're so keen on realism, you need to incorporate some pretty heavy modifiers on the usage of the things.
Denner 'realism' is not connected to our reality in any way, shape or form.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585620I don't have a dog in te firearm fight, and know very little about the accuracy of muskets in different periodsof history, but do we have a better source on this than wikipedia.
Like the wall of the nearest men's room.
QuoteNot challenging your assertion DeadDM, but I have been burned by wikipedia too many times.
There's a reason wikipedia is
not considered a valid source.
As far as smoothbore weapons are concerned, they have three advantages:
1) They don't require the extensive training bowmen and slingers do.
2) Gunshots are more effective against armor and in some cases, cover.
3) The same powder used by smoothbores (and rifles) can, if ground differently, be used for things like demolition, bombs, etc.
Quote from: Opaopajr;584880Or you could infer from all the clay jar "batteries" littering the Fertile Crescent and Egyptian reliefs depicting what seems to be light bulbs that a fantasy world where electricity came millennia before black powder is wholly plausible.
Incidentally, stuff like that, or the roman steam engine, all demonstrate that you don't need to have a substitute "alchemical smokepowder" or something like that to explain how gunpowder might be rare and limited in availability. If the recipe for creating it is a well-kept secret, it could certainly be a restricted or even lost technology.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;586021Incidentally, stuff like that, or the roman steam engine, all demonstrate that you don't need to have a substitute "alchemical smokepowder" or something like that to explain how gunpowder might be rare and limited in availability. If the recipe for creating it is a well-kept secret, it could certainly be a restricted or even lost technology.
RPGPundit
An "Arrows of Indra" tangent, but related to what you bring up here: have you incorporated anomalous tidbits, like the Iron Pillar of Delhi? Where certain tech ends up a secret, and possibly end up a lost tech?
Quote from: Opaopajr;586173An "Arrows of Indra" tangent, but related to what you bring up here: have you incorporated anomalous tidbits, like the Iron Pillar of Delhi? Where certain tech ends up a secret, and possibly end up a lost tech?
I didn't put anything in the setting about that (there was nowhere that seemed to fit normally); in the setting, though, the whole society is in a transition from iron to steel weapons; iron was in fact the great advantage that made certain nations of the Bharata Kingdoms so powerful a few thousand years earlier, and now there is the beginnings of steel production in weapons in the largest cities.
RPGPundit