Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[Haltherrion]

Going back to the OP’s question, one aspect of gunpowder weapons I don’t recall seeing on this thread (apologies if someone already raised it):

Historically, gunpowder weapons leveled the battle field. Meaning, they reduced the value of the highly trained, heavily armed and armored knight with respect to a levy with a firearm. As gunpowder weapons, tactics and training evolved, it is clear to my read of history that this leveling did happen and there were comments about it during the period.

The longbow also had something of that affect but in the end, it was much harder to raise large longbow troops. Crossbows had other issues such as rate of fire.

So, I think gunpowder weapons and subconsciously, I also think, fewer heroes. Does a game with such weapons have to be anti-hero? Certainly not. Most game systems don’t model firearms as especially lethal or especially effective against available personal defenses (armor, magic, etc.) to remove heroes from play.

I’m just observing that part of my dislike of gunpowder weapons in fantasy settings is related to that factor as well as the impact it would likely have on fortifications.

 

[pawsplay]

The death of heroism in medieval warfare was the pikeman, not the arquebusser. "Heroism" is a romanticized view of a bloody and often chaotic business; heroic melee has about the same relationship to actual melee that John Woo movies have to actual gunplay and CTHD to actual kung fu.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Put me down as, "No," mainly for flavor and system reasons. I usually prefer to play with 8th to 12th century technology + magic (roughly). I'm not ignorant of medieval history, but see the thing is I know I'm already bending to let in plate (and widespread scale over chain) and rapiers and so forth. I'd be really happy to leave those out, if it was just about what I want. But lots of players get a lot of fun out of those elements, it's already accounted for in the game, and players don't feel the need to push the implications. (Gee, got steel manufacturing capabilities sufficient that the entire paladin guard wears shiny plate? What does that say about possibilities?)

But even early black powder is exactly a bridge too far. Something snaps, and I can't pretend this is early to mid-medieval anymore. Unless there is some highly interesting mechanical addition to play via gunpowder, nothing appreciably is added to the game. A tiny minority of players in my kind of games even cares. And that minority always wants to push the implications of gunpowder.

I've thought a lot about this, and I think, like steam power, it is about the changing pace of technology. Roleplayers can accept plate as the pinnacle of hide-bound dwarven artisans in a relatively static society. But put gunpowder or steam into the setting, and minds are only a small leap from Moore's law (computer processers doubling in power every 18 months) and Star Trek tricorders. It's like throwing a subliminal flag into the system saying, "this campaign is about the suddenly explosive pace of technology changing the world."

Strangely enough, I don't think you get this effect if you go a bit farther. So if I want to do swashbuckling, then I want to go for the full Camus. You just need an era where "swashbuckling" is perfected, but sufficiently far from Napolean to avoid thinking about improved use of cannon. Likewise, if I'm going to go to 1800, I might as well jump to 1880 or modern times. Then if I still want fantasy, I can add magic to that, instead of adding all of that to D&D. But D&D probably isn't the system for that game. (I'd use Fantasy Hero.)

 

[Haltherrion]

The death of heroism in medieval warfare was the pikeman, not the arquebusser. "Heroism" is a romanticized view of a bloody and often chaotic business; heroic melee has about the same relationship to actual melee that John Woo movies have to actual gunplay and CTHD to actual kung fu.

Many weapons were heralded as the end of heroic combat but I can't see how firearms weren't a big part of it.

And yes, it is certainly fair to say RPGs romanticize combat.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't think gunpowder has any direct correlation to the loss of heroes in a setting. For one thing, the romanticization of combat and the creation of heroes has very little to do with the actual processes of war. Anyways, the "leveling" effect of the introduction of gunpowder is often very exaggerated. As has been said before in this thread, the introduction of gunpowder did not remove the knight from the battlefield, and even as the lance wielding knight did eventually fade away centuries later, he was simply replaced with other forms of elite well trained units, like the grenadiers or cuirassiers.

Also, the correlation between the introduction of gunpowder and the loss of heroism is flatly contradicted by a number of examples. Most of the great samurai of Japanese history were from the Sengoku period, which was a period of gunpowder warfare dominated by a mix of pikemen and troops armed with early guns. One samurai often regarded as the greatest warrior of his era, Tadakatsu Honda, spent most of his major battles commanding a group of musketmen. Not to mention various later periods like the golden age of piracy have had a lot of romanticism and heroism added onto them...

 

[Haltherrion]

The fact that knights co-existed with firearms for a while does not say that firearms did not have an effect. Just as with fortifications, it took time for the firearms to develop in capability and availability to cause a change. More-over, effective use of firearms requires effect technique, drill and such.

In Europe there were many factors at work in the decline of the knight in this period. Firearms were not the only one but the knights themselves complained of them.

Regardless, it's how it "feels" to me. The impact on the nature of combat along with its reasonable impact on fortifications make it something I prefer to avoid in the settings I create and games I play in. The bang-and-flash of a firearm don't add enough to a fantasy setting for it to outweigh its negatives for me.

Clearly, I'm in the minority from the poll and comments on this thread though. Certainly not saying you can't use it. I'm assuming no one is telling me I must use it

 

[Haltherrion]

Taking the 'heroic' battle concept further as practiced in a game. Consider two scenarios:

In scenario 1, the 12 year old boy of a slain lord takes his father's best weapon, a finely crafted dwarven rifle equivalent to a snipers rifle from the Civil war. He lies in wait for his father's killer and puts a bullet through his head at 200 yards.

In scenario 2, we have the same basic situation but the best weapon is his father's bow. He can't string it yet so he takes his father's sword, also a nice weapon. He springs out of a hiding place at his father's killer, inflicts a minor wound with his clumsy blow and is rapidly dispatched.

I prefer scenario 2. I don't like firearms enabling non-combatants, or in game terms, low level types. I don't like the "color" of it, but I also don't like the arguments with my technically and historically savvy players about what can be achieved with firearms and what is a reasonable progression of the technology. Why bother? As a player, I don't l ike ignoring the effectiveness of firearms or their likely progression to enjoy the game. Given a choice, I'd choose a game without them.

That's a personal preference, of course. Some people can't stand fantasy RPGs, with or without firearms. Not going to tell them, they are "wrong."

 

[jonesy]

Clearly, I'm in the minority from the poll and comments on this thread though.

I wouldn't be so sure, actually. Following this thread I've been getting the impression that there might be a very sharp divide between people saying 'I'd allow firearms' and 'I'd welcome firearms'.

In scenario 1, the 12 year old boy of a slain lord takes his father's best weapon, a finely crafted dwarven rifle equivalent to a snipers rifle from the Civil war. He lies in wait for his father's killer and puts a bullet through his head at 200 yards.

In scenario 2, we have the same basic situation but the best weapon is his father's bow. He can't string it yet so he takes his father's sword, also a nice weapon. He springs out of a hiding place at his father's killer, inflicts a minor wound with his clumsy blow and is rapidly dispatched.

A fresh shooter hitting and killing from 200 yards? Or getting the drop on someone and not hitting properly with a sword? And why specify a finely crafted gun, but not a superb sword, or bow? And if he can't spring a bow, why would he be able to load the gun? Why would the gun be instantly ready, but the bow not? The two are asymmetric enough to put the setup under suspicion.

 

[Haltherrion]

A fresh shooter hitting and killing from 200 yards? Or getting the drop on someone and not hitting properly with a sword? And why specify a finely crafted gun, but not a superb sword, or bow? And if he can't spring a bow, why would he be able to load the gun? Why would the gun be instantly ready, but the bow not? The two are asymmetric enough to put the setup under suspicion.

Fair enough. When I constructed these two scenarios, I was thinking of my cousins who at this age were avid hunters and could in fact use a rifle. Could they hit a man at 200 yards? Not so sure but possible. Even if the scenario 2 lad could use a bow, he almost certainly could not string a heavy pull bow or use it effectively.

At 12 a noble would have had some basic martial training but was still a long way from being an effective warrior.

 

[Haltherrion]

A fresh shooter hitting and killing from 200 yards? Or getting the drop on someone and not hitting properly with a sword? And why specify a finely crafted gun, but not a superb sword, or bow? And if he can't spring a bow, why would he be able to load the gun? Why would the gun be instantly ready, but the bow not? The two are asymmetric enough to put the setup under suspicion.

Fair enough, I'll add more to the scenario. The weapons are all of high quality. The bow has a pull strength of a strong adult male. Don't see a 12 year old stringing it or using it well. Can he use a sword? Probably had some training but just don't see him doing that much to a seasoned adult foe with it.

On the firearm scenario, I think of my cousins who at age 12 were respectable hunters. Could they down a man at 200 yards? Possibly. Maybe they'd have to be somewhat closer. But the basic point, they could certainly kill their target with the gun. It's a lot more questionable with the bow or sword.

Sorry for the double reply. Thought my earlier one did not post and I had lost it.