Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[Jon_Dahl]

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

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

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

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

 

[David Howery]

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

 

[Sunseeker]

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

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

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

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

 

[Stormonu]

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

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

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

 

[Stormonu]

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

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

For the most part, my gun rules for fantasy games equates them to single-charge wands with a crossbow's reloading time.

 

[Celebrim]

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

 

[Jon_Dahl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[the Jester]

It depends, mostly on the setting.

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

 

[Sunseeker]

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

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

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

 

[Jack Daniel]

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

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