D&D General Tech in DnD; What should be included and how much is too much? (+)

[ezo]

Personally if I'm going to be mixing guns and fantasy I'll go full cyberpunk future so we can have imps with laser blasters and dragons with shoulder mounted gatling guns with smart ammo and succubi who teleport through cursed dating apps.

Yep, give me something like Shadowrun then... Just as happy with that if that is what I want.

 

[Mecheon]

Swords and Sorcery / Medieval Fantasy, which D&D is primarily (almost entirely, really) based on, shouldn't have the tech-level for guns and such. Sure, expansions like Spelljammer brought it in for the minority of players who wanted it, but even that was never very popular IME.

Guns have existed since the 13th century, D&D's tech level is well in the space of guns given a lot of the other things in-game

Mind when I say 'gun' I am talking older stuff like the arquebus

 

[deganawida]

Tolkien had a blunderbuss in Farmer Giles of Ham. Just saying that guns actually have a history in fantasy and faerie stories.

 

[James Gasik]

So here's the thing I've noticed. When you say "guns in D&D", most people immediately think of firearms that kill you dead with one shot and can penetrate any medieval armor. They think of how guns are portrayed in media. I've played in other games that have guns, and had players complain that guns are so pathetic in them, because surely they would be far more effective?

Barring that one strange Ravenloft setting, firearms in D&D canonically (AFAIK) get to about the very early 1500's in development (the wheel lock pistol, imported to the Forgotten Realms from Spelljammer).

Now when dealing with firearms of this period, they generate a lot more kinetic energy than most other weapons. So what your armor is made out of really matters. A heat-treated Milanese armour with the mark of a famous armourer might resist a mid-15th century handgun (at least at moderate ranges and angles), an unmarked breastplate of low-carbon steel made for use by infantry might not.

D&D metallurgy is usually quite good, however, as metalworkers can work with fine steel, meteoric iron, mithral, adamantine, and other strange minerals. So there's no real expectation that firearms would be world beaters- and that's before we get into the downsides of firing rates, mechanical failure, reloading under pressure, damp powder, and so on.

And about that firing rate, by the early 19th century, expert riflemen could fire at an astounding three rounds per minute! Compare and contrast that to a 5th level Fighter armed with a longbow, able to fire 20 shots in the same amount of time.

Firearms wouldn't necessarily be world beaters, but a lot of people think they should be.

 

[Incenjucar]

For the record, there are no eras of guns I enjoy in my D&D, not even slow muzzle-loader stuff. Closest I want to see is an awkward unsafe cannon, magical blow dart, or a crossbow.

 

[ezo]

Guns have existed since the 13th century, D&D's tech level is well in the space of guns given a lot of the other things in-game

Mind when I say 'gun' I am talking older stuff like the arquebus

Yep, I know, but still don't fit in "medieval fantasy" for me. No cannons, nothing with gunpowder, etc.

Most of my fantasy revolves anywhere from about 300 AD to 1300 AD, with a focus around 1000-1100 AD in real-life terms anyway.

Tolkien had a blunderbuss in Farmer Giles of Ham. Just saying that guns actually have a history in fantasy and faerie stories.

Nobody's perfect.

Seriously though, for me and most people I know, guns (in any form) just don't belong in D&D-type fantasy.

 

[ezo]

As a side-note, even when I played in AD&D, I very rarely ever allowed field or full plate armor, either, as these represent a level of advancement in armor-making a bit beyond my normal D&D games.

So, it isn't just "guns" for those gun-lovers out there.

 

[Laurefindel]

So here's the thing I've noticed. When you say "guns in D&D", most people immediately think of firearms that kill you dead with one shot and can penetrate any medieval armor. They think of how guns are portrayed in media. I've played in other games that have guns, and had players complain that guns are so pathetic in them, because surely they would be far more effective?

Barring that one strange Ravenloft setting, firearms in D&D canonically (AFAIK) get to about the very early 1500's in development (the wheel lock pistol, imported to the Forgotten Realms from Spelljammer).

Now when dealing with firearms of this period, they generate a lot more kinetic energy than most other weapons. So what your armor is made out of really matters. A heat-treated Milanese armour with the mark of a famous armourer might resist a mid-15th century handgun (at least at moderate ranges and angles), an unmarked breastplate of low-carbon steel made for use by infantry might not.

D&D metallurgy is usually quite good, however, as metalworkers can work with fine steel, meteoric iron, mithral, adamantine, and other strange minerals. So there's no real expectation that firearms would be world beaters- and that's before we get into the downsides of firing rates, mechanical failure, reloading under pressure, damp powder, and so on.

And about that firing rate, by the early 19th century, expert riflemen could fire at an astounding three rounds per minute! Compare and contrast that to a 5th level Fighter armed with a longbow, able to fire 20 shots in the same amount of time.

Firearms wouldn't necessarily be world beaters, but a lot of people think they should be.

No, but they do change the paradigm significantly. By the mid 18th century, even if melee weapons are not obsolete, warfare revolves around firearms. Genre has shifted from faux-medieval to (faux) Napoleonic Europe, with rank soldiers using guns rather than swords or polearms. Swords and polearms still exist obviously, you even get elite mercenary companies based around those, but the focus has shifted.

I don’t think most people resist guns because they outshine melee weapons in a skirmish, but because they think it ultimately changes the focus of warfare and of the campaign’s world.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'm surprised how many folks say guns take them right out of it.

I think perhaps, in coming directly from the tolkien mold-breaker thread when I wrote the OP, where it was specifically being discussed the thematic mental box that alot of people leave themselves in when considering what is appropriate for DnD and being able to expand outside of it, that I forgot to explicitly inquire for people to push their ingrained boundaries to what could be rather than for what is.

That is not to say people are unimaginative or close minded or anything else of the sort just that there is alot of habit of thought and tradition that it often feels wrong to ‘betray’ by adding any sorts of more advanced technologies, as it is, DnD’s most ‘tech based-setting’ (ebberon isn’t it?) Is kind of treated as the ‘red-haired stepchild’ of the franchise

Perhaps a better question to ask would have been ‘what more technologies could DnD support in its worlds?’

 

[Kobold Avenger]

No, but they do change the paradigm significantly. By the mid 18th century, even if melee weapons are not obsolete, warfare revolves around firearms. Genre has shifted from faux-medieval to (faux) Napoleonic Europe, with rank soldiers using guns rather than swords or polearms. Swords and polearms still exist obviously, you even get elite mercenary companies based around those, but the focus has shifted.

I don’t think most people resist guns because they outshine melee weapons in a skirmish, but because they think it ultimately changes the focus of warfare and of the campaign’s world.

I clearly don't mind Faux Napoleonic. But even if warfare itself has changed, how often are PCs actually involved in the warfare anyways?

They're hardly ever out there leading troops whether or not they have muskets, or swords, or phalanx formations, or clubs and thrown rocks.