Making guns palatable in high fantasy [Design Theory]

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Guns aren't lethal all the time. If you're high level (like someone who was in combat in war), it takes more bullets to kill you, obviously.

?He?s Superman?: Marine Survives Shooting By Plugging His Bullet Wounds With His Fingers - Yahoo! News

I'm thinking most people are low-level minions or commoners or 0-level characters (depending on ruleset) with at most 5 hit points. They'd be scared of a gun. Or a knife. Or a sword. Like real-life people. I'd be scared of someone coming after me with a knife, but not if I were Bruce Lee. But there's a strange effect in game terms if Bruce Lee does not fear a knife, but can still be one-shotted by a gun.

Even a fireball, a very frightening proposition, generally won't kill an adventurer in one hit. In such a world, a gun wouldn't seem as frightening.

 

[Derren]

Guns aren't lethal all the time. If you're high level (like someone who was in combat in war), it takes more bullets to kill you, obviously.

?He?s Superman?: Marine Survives Shooting By Plugging His Bullet Wounds With His Fingers - Yahoo! News

Yes, but even this "superman" couldn't continue to run after the thief after being shot.
Lets be realistic, in D&D ranged weapons are vastly less powerful than equivalent weapons in the real world. First the range is reduced most of the time, second normally when you are hit by a (cross)bow or gun the fight is over for you.

Even when you survive a musket ball, and miraceously keep all your limbs, you are bleeding so much that the fight is over for you (without magical healing,...). In D&D and many other "high fantasy" RPGs people can take dozens of arrows/bullets and still fight (or charge through a hail of bullets and never be hit once, depending on the way you narrate HP).
On a open field in D&D it is pretty much impossible to prevent the melee fighters to close in on a ranged fighter as the range of them is very short and they simply can't kill the melee fighter before he reaches them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ah, you see, that's not a, "problem with the system," unless you define, "does not follow real-world physics and biology," to be a problem.
...
The system is designed to support that - is that then a "problem"? No. It is a design goal!

You're correct that my use of the world "problem" is more of a value judgment than I intended. However, I do think this is the issue with guns. It's probably true that a human would lose to a bear in melee combat, but that just doesn't have the visceral imagery that modern people associate with a gunshot. An encounter in which a mighty hero stabs a bear with a sword until it dies seems to me to be fantastical, entertaining, but not completely implausible. An encounter in which a person repeatedly shoots another person with a gun at point plank range, hits, and does no appreciable damage is not heroic, it's ridiculous; the shooter appears comically inept. "It's just a flesh wound." This was my experience with d20 Modern/CoC d20. The underlying reality (and one which has shaped history) is that guns are much, much more deadly than arrows or swords.

There is also an issue of genre preference here. Certainly in some genres heroes do seem remarkably durable, and mid- to high-level D&D has long had superheroic heroes. I do, however, think that there's a great deal of cognitive dissonance associated with the reality factor in D&D. Many people keep meticulous track of the weight that their characters carry, the calendar, the effects of weather, and hunger/starvation, all in the name of being "gritty" or "realistic". I suspect these are often the people who are most shaken by the use of firearms in rpgs-it reminds them that the game is not as realistic as they thought it was and that the entire concept of hit points and damage is somewhat at odds with the rest of the rules.

None of this is to say that there is one correct level of simulationism for a D&D game.

 

[Glade Riven]

I'm actually a fan of the whole "poor man's magical weapon" aspect that guns would play out as. I'm huge fan of Iron Kingdoms stuff, and find that Pathfinder over-prices the weapon in the name of "balance."

For a campaign setting I'm looking at having guns as an option (smooth bore for lower ranges, 1 die of damage, worth using "untrained" because of the higher crit chance, but a feat has to be taken to be able to be a crack shot, full round action to reload). However, I was trying to think of a way to approach guns from different angle that may make them more palatable to those who aren't fans of guns in their fantasy. Then again, particular people are particular.

I suppose limiting a setting to primative cannonry or many of the creative chinese rocket-propelled weapons would work, but that's probably another thread.

EDIT: Missed a few things while I was taking my sweet time replying...

Cannons have a different objective IRL than a fireball, but in the simplified game terms of 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder multiple d6s of damage are multiple d6s of damage. Mechanically, "Fireball" in 3e/pathfinder is an explosion, and there were explosive cannonballs.

Considering how guns work in every action movie, I am surprised that people find it ruins the suspension of disbelief. I think it has more to do with Tolkien not using any sort of firearms in Lord of the Rings, followed by the myth that early guns revolutionized warfare overnight (cannons kinda did, though).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

For a campaign setting I'm looking at having guns as an option (smooth bore for lower ranges, 1 die of damage, worth using "untrained" because of the higher crit chance, but a feat has to be taken to be able to be a crack shot, full round action to reload).

Is this for PCs or NPCs?

Will you truly have NPCs using guns untrained? I don't think a -4 penalty (I'm assuming 3.x here) will ever make up for a high crit.

In addition, why would PCs ever take a weapon that takes a full action to reload? I've literally never seen a PC in 8 years of running 3.x D&D take a heavy crossbow. Not once. This, in fact, describes pretty well why designing "good gonnes" is so hard in fantasy games.

I suppose limiting a setting to primative cannonry or many of the creative chinese rocket-propelled weapons would work, but that's probably another thread.

I believe those weapons were more commonly used in that period than "hand gonnes". (I vaguely recall reading that it took more than a half hour for a cannon to be reloaded in the Hundred Years' War, but so little non-religious material was written then, one source isn't that great.)

Cannons have a different objective IRL than a fireball, but in the simplified game terms of 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder multiple d6s of damage are multiple d6s of damage. Mechanically, "Fireball" in 3e/pathfinder is an explosion, and there were explosive cannonballs.

IMO, anti-building cannons should never even be fired at PCs. They have next to no chance to hit (unlike a fireball, which always does damage unless you've got Evasion).

I can certainly imagine anti-infantry cannons being very similar to fireballs though.

Considering how guns work in every action movie, I am surprised that people find it ruins the suspension of disbelief. I think it has more to do with Tolkien not using any sort of firearms in Lord of the Rings, followed by the myth that early guns revolutionized warfare overnight (cannons kinda did, though).

Most people have never been shot or chopped by a sword in real life, creating a myth that having a small but deep hole through several vital organs is deadlier than having a large but somewhat shallower slash being put through you by a sword. They'll both hurt you bad, and hit points are never realistic, but ... guns have to be realistic whereas swords do not.

You're correct that my use of the world "problem" is more of a value judgment than I intended. However, I do think this is the issue with guns. It's probably true that a human would lose to a bear in melee combat, but that just doesn't have the visceral imagery that modern people associate with a gunshot.

It does to me. Having my face literally ripped off by one swing of a bear's claw means I'll never provoke one. I'd end up on my back, blinded, in one blow. Even if that's not "deadly", being shot in the gut is not necessarily "deadly" immediately.

An encounter in which a mighty hero stabs a bear with a sword until it dies seems to me to be fantastical, entertaining, but not completely implausible.

I think this is because it's possible to dodge a bear, or let armor take the hit. Against a gun, you can't dodge, but most people don't shoot very well at all in a combat situation (I think the figures are less than 25% for cops). "Realistically", a gun might be much less accurate but do very high damage, but that isn't going to work in a balanced game system.

The underlying reality (and one which has shaped history) is that guns are much, much more deadly than arrows or swords.

Is that "reality"? Learning to use a sword might take more time and effort, but I'm not seeing a sword as anything but an efficient killing instrument. Very efficient, if your target isn't in heavy armor. Use an axe or mace if they are.

 

[steeldragons]

First, I'm pretty much with everything Umbran said.

However, I was trying to think of a way to approach guns from different angle that may make them more palatable to those who aren't fans of guns in their fantasy.

And all I can think of, here, is...well...Why?

What angle do you think might exist that would "make" someone who doesn't want guns in their fantasy to suddenly find them palatable?

If you want guns in your game...then play a game with guns. Why you would and others "should" think that such a game is "high fantasy" does not seem to fly with my understanding of the definition of "high fantasy."

"Steampunk" perhaps...or, ya know, like Umbran suggested "Three Musketeers with magic" whatever period that would be....or some Pirate-Islands-Voodoo-with-Mermaids thing...all of which are/could be considered in the "fantasy" genre...but they're not "high fantasy."

So...it would seem, making people accept guns in high fantasy would require you making the definition of high fantasy different.

--SD

 

[Glade Riven]

Is this for PCs or NPCs?

Will you truly have NPCs using guns untrained? I don't think a -4 penalty (I'm assuming 3.x here) will ever make up for a high crit.

In addition, why would PCs ever take a weapon that takes a full action to reload? I've literally never seen a PC in 8 years of running 3.x D&D take a heavy crossbow. Not once. This, in fact, describes pretty well why designing "good gonnes" is so hard in fantasy games.

Already tested successfully, using NPC foes to show the players how to do it. Fire the guns, hope they hit, switch to melee and close the gap. A player got crited while at first level and nearly died. The players could have hocked the guns later, and didn't. They even used the tactic themselves. It made for an interesting game.

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]
I apoligize if I am misconstruding this, but it seems from your post that somehow you are under the impression that I am out to try to force something down someone's throat. If that is the case, that is not my intent. The intent is to open up possibilities. Apparently my communication on that point wasn't clear, but sometimes when I am posting late at night I get a little...skewed. Or ranty.

It is, ultimately, a thought experiment.

As for High Fantasy/High Magic definitions, I had that argument..er..discussion on Enworld a while back. It was...informative, and I think finally locked.

 

[Derren]

"Steampunk" perhaps...or, ya know, like Umbran suggested "Three Musketeers with magic" whatever period that would be....or some Pirate-Islands-Voodoo-with-Mermaids thing...all of which are/could be considered in the "fantasy" genre...but they're not "high fantasy."

Sproutz on deviantART

Still, what likely irks several people is that in the time period which is considered the basis for high fantasy, guns already existed.

 

[D'karr]

Sproutz on deviantART

Still, what likely irks several people is that in the time period which is considered the basis for high fantasy, guns already existed.

On our world, yes. What does that matter to the D&D world?

In D&D you can find dinosaurs, medusas, grizzly-bears, and dragons all in the same time period. What does it matter that "guns" are specific to one time period in our world?

I think that the genre conventions are the real issue, not the time period.

If someone is playing Star Wars, they might not be too keen on using a gunpowder musket. It seems to break the "acceptable" genre convention.

 

[was]

In the campaigns in which I have seen firearms work, they were still very primitive and took forever to load. This seemed to minimize the possibility of them becoming overpowering.