Fantasy Gun Control

[BraveSirKevin]

15 years ago I was very against guns in a fantasy setting, but now I'm pretty open to the idea of using them. ONe thing that changed my mind about it, is that I have seen it implemented relatively well in various settings where it is entirely appropriate, like the Warhammer Universe, Solomon Kane and practically every pirate themed movie ever made. Heck, even the Two Towers movie had a genuine gunpowder based bomb in it. That said, what REALLY changed my mind were all the clumsy implementations of "gun substitutes" where guns would have felt right, but weren't allowed to exist because of the fantasy gun control rule.

Places like:
• The clearly 17th century ships of Raymond E Feist's Midkemia novels being full of ballistas and bowmen.
• The painfully ridiculous Cimarron "Six Shooter" Crossbows. Again a case of anachronism fighting with itself. This originated in a part of a DnD world that was to all intents and purposes a slice of The Old West, but with crossbows instead of guns.
• Any swashbuckling campaign. In terms of the inspiring fiction, Swashbucklers tend to overwhelmingly come from a post-medieval setting. Anything from the renaissance to the late 19th century. The popularity of this them is the reason that rapiers show up in the weapons lists, but rapiers showed up after handguns in the real world.

I think guns should be used if they feel right to what you are doing. The use of guns should not be punished, but should be approached realistically. I like NewJeffCT's idea that they are a once-per-encounter weapon. It would be in perfect keeping with the fiction. There were hundreds of guns in Pirates of the Carribbean, but most of the fighting was done with swords.

 

[mxyzplk]

My thought is that guns have a place in renasaunce-esq fantasy settings, but they are more of a novelty. Early smooth bore guns kinda sucked - accurracy was sketchy, gunpowder was dangerous and had to be kept dry, your firing mechanism had to work; chinese rocketry had the same accuracy issues.

I agree 100%. I wrote some appropriately "early" black powder gun rules for my Pathfinder pirates campaign and they've been published as a free supplement by LPJ Design. They're inaccurate and expensive but especially the cannon do a hellacious amount of damage, albeit once every large number of rounds.

We've enjoyed the rules in my campaign; they are fun flavor but their drawbacks prevent things from going all gunbunny. As in real history, they aren't something you are going to use every round; they're a first shot or holdout weapon to give someone who is otherwise doing melee or other things a punch at range.

If you're a fighter that carries a longbow around for that one combat in ten when it makes sense for you to use it, use a gun instead! It doesn't feel "steampunk," it feels like Pirates of the Caribbean or Solomon Kane... I don't understand the argument of anachronism - you can like guns or not like guns but there's a lot of history in which melee was mixed with crappy guns and there's a lot of fun to be had there gaming.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think guns should only be used where appropriate. Not in a "standard medieval western Europe fantasy"* but in a 1700s pirate game? Sure.

Guns have less mystique than swords or other weapons. Guns are technical. They come in specific sizes. They come in specific types (shotgun vs SMG). Hell, they come in specific models (Desert Eagle vs Glock). And unlike swordplay, you can learn a lot about them just by reading Wikipedia. Or Google. Or Jane's. Or going to the range. Or getting a job as a police officer...

I used to visit the d20 Modern boards at WotC's forums all the time. There were constant complaints about how 10mm guns were statted the same as 9mm guns (but had less ammo, creating imbalance). D20 rules were (are?) just too coarse for that kind of realism. There were facts (and, of course, "facts") thrown around about how many foot-pounds of damage a 10mm bullet would do, the size of the permanent and temporary wound channels left behind by an 11mm shot, why hollow-points are good and/or suck, etc.

Last time I checked, a DnD longsword is a longsword, regardless of whether it is 3'7" long or 3'9" long, no matter what the handle is made of, and the bonuses are hugely expensive and/or level-dependent, since (beyond masterwork) all bonuses are magic. It's almost like they were designed for balance and playability first and realism far behind, from 1e to 4th, to Warhammer and many other settings.

Gun knowledge hit my own campaign. One of my players (in real life) practiced kendo for years. He knows a lot about swords. He's used (wooden) ones in actual practice. Turns out he knows guns too. He pretty much never discusses sword knowledge in my 4e campaign but in Modern... guns all the time. And another player has ambitions to design heavy weapons in real life. *Sigh* I was constantly having to restrain their in-game ambitions in order to keep the scale down. (You can't carry heavy weapons in a big city.) It's a bit difficult when there are real-life guns that are clearly superior to other real-life guns, and the players and I know that. (Yes, AK-47s are reliable, but they bend when they heat up. And apparently there's this shotgun that's "easy mode", which I actually learned about from my gaming group...)

So I found myself learning about real-life gun tactics (pinning fire, cover fire, firing mortars... I used those in a few encounters) but I kept coming up with overly complex rules, no surprise since I was (subconsciously?) trying to copy reality. So IMXP, don't do that.

I would personally not allow guns in any fantasy campaign I'm in with these players, as I have another player who knows everything you care to know about blackpowder weapons, including actual loading times (which would be horribly unfun to write rules around).

Did I forget to mention I live in urban Canada? I have my own tendencies in these regards (I've pretty much memorized the statistics of all American military aircraft in use up to the First Gulf War, especially the Warthog and Spectre, which incidentally means I'd never try to use those things in a campaign). I don't know what it is about modern technology that does this to people. I need to follow the advice of the writer of Neuromancer, paraphrased as "the reason I can write about computers so well is because I know nothing about them".

So IMO don't do real-life guns in fantasy. Make them magic. Even if you're doing Pirates of Penzance. That way you can make them cool, or not, balanced ... or, if you really want to, not. The DM can control them that way.

Now that you've decided to make guns magic,** good luck writing rules about guns that are fun and balanced. Moving away from realism will at least make that possible, although there will still be a ton of work required to write a good set of rules. I've never seen it done well, although to be fair, after seeing a few sets of gun rules, I've become so exhausted by them I suffer measurable penalties to Int and Wis (IRL!) when exposed to them.

*I know Western Europe had "hand gonnes" as far back as the Hundred Years' War, but they were rare, probably expensive, seen as curiosity pieces, and they'd probably be impossible to balance in-game due to their rarity. (Once a PC has a gun, there's one in every encounter.)

**I have mind control and predictive powers over the internet. Well, not really.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Given that Kublai Kahn's doomed invasion fleet (sunk by typhoon in 1281) had gunpowder bombs, I have no problem with gunpowder weaponry in my fantasy games...when I can get the balance & feel right, that is. They should be powerful but temperamental and not 100% safe & reliable.

One way I've handled it is that it is a state secret- like drow poison or the manufacture of elven chain- so it is rare. (See Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame series.)

 

[jefgorbach]

while I dont have a problem mixing tech/magic, the biggest problem I see with guns in fantasy is WHY would the kingdoms bother?? as others have pointed out, early models where expensive, heavy, and highly inaccurate prototypes requiring equally expensive and dangerous to carry/store ammo, not to overlook requiring special training to use effectively, and can only do ONE thing.

Conversely, wands are accurate, light weight, and while they too require special training to use effectively, once learned can do MANY things.

teach a squad of serfs to fire a gun well and you -might- be able to replace your archers for short-range volleys. teach that same squad to use wands effectively and not only have you drastically increased your ranged attacks (fireball/etc), they can hamper/repel the enemy at close range (entangle/cloudkill/fog) and aid/restore the wounded (healing wands) or booster stockpiles (create food/water).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

WHY would the kingdoms bother?

The answer to that question is setting dependent, but ultimately, it's like the question "if the longbow is so superior, why make crossbows?" Because crossbows have certain advantages of their own.

If magic is something only a rare few can do, gunpowder is somewhat of an equalizer. You can make many firearms in the time it takes to make a wand. And once made, all it needs is more ammo and gunpowder. An expended wand (depending on system) is just a stick.

Not every spellcaster WANTS to make wands- it probably takes time away from their REAL interests. Besides, it demeans the robes- you've gone from being a master of the secrets of time & space to being a craftsman in a shed. And why put such a weapon in the hands of a know-nothing peasant who could turn on you?

Unless gunpowder is magical as well, it will function when wands will not. Where magic is forbidden, gunpowder may be permitted. Magic is detectible by many means...gunpowder is too, but not necessarily as many. Or as easily.

All of those are possible reasons that may or may not be true depending upon RPG system and campaign setting.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Yeah, yeah, a touchy subject for some people - let's try to keep it civil.

First off, I understand why guns don't feel like fantasy to a number of people. Tolken didn't have guns, therefore most modern High Fantasy doesn't have guns, and the medival folklore and literature that serves as the basis for modern High Fantasy doesn't have guns. So Guns don't equal High Fantasy - Fair enough.

Actually, Tolkein did have guns, typically in the form of a farmer's blunderbus.

Guns also can mess with the dynamics of Low Fantasy, sword and sorcery (which is light on sorcery except for the Big Bad Evil Guy). Also Fair Enough.

I grew up reading Solomon Kane - sword and sorcery, with guns.

The third reason some people don't like guns is because the game mechanics for them either [guns = too strong] or [guns = too weak], or the mechanics are awkward and just don't feel right. Also, Fair enough.

This, I'll grant you. Guns were neither a super weapon nor were they something to ignore. In the case of guns I will hold with the engineering term KISS - high damage, high critical multiplier, short range. Don't add silly rules that make things complicated.

On the other side of the coin we have people who like guns, even in their fantasy, and "guns are historic and go back farther than you think" people. They also have decent points.

My thought is that guns have a place in renaissance-esque fantasy settings, but they are more of a novelty. Early smooth bore guns kinda sucked - accuracy was sketchy, gunpowder was dangerous and had to be kept dry, your firing mechanism had to work; chinese rocketry had the same accuracy issues. A wand of fireballs is probably cheaper than outfitting your pesantry with guns so they can line up and fire off an Area-of-Effect volley. you don't put dangerous weapons in the hands of people you don't want to have such things, and you probably have a chance to get off more than one shot before the enemy closes.

Yes and no, mostly no. Rank and volley is your friend with early guns - while it was unlikely that any one gonner would get off more than one shot it was pretty certain that multiple ranks would. And once guns came into common usage they were much less expensive than D&D would lead you to believe - about the same price as a crossbow. Like a crossbow a gun was easy to learn, and faster to reload than a cranquin wound crossbow. Longbows, on the other hand were expensive, and took considerable training.

The weapon that really changed the face of warfare was not the gun, but the crossbow - the gun merely continued a change that the crossbow had already begun.

Cannons do make good siege weapons, though, even in magically locals.

That they are. Good cannon showed a lot sooner than reliable hand gonnes.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I just finished statting up a small setting based around the French and Indian War. Orcs replacing Indians, Elves replacing French, and dwarfs standing in for the Highland Brigades.

 

[David Howery]

This, I'll grant you. Guns were neither a super weapon nor were they something to ignore. In the case of guns I will hold with the engineering term KISS - high damage, high critical multiplier, short range. Don't add silly rules that make things complicated.

I've been a black powder firearm enthusiast for a long time and own a few replica muzzleloaders, and am fairly knowledgeble about the history and workings of early firearms. So, when I decided to allow firearms in my FR campaign, I probably burdened the game down with a few too many 'silly rules.' I modified the 'blows up in yur hand!" result to a table of more likely results (various misfires). I kept the loooooong reloading times, and made the special gear rather expensive (since it was all hand-forged brass). As others on here have said, the guns tended to be 'one shot and then drop them' weapons. Of course, the 'extended damage' potential was always something that could be useful to them... I can remember an ogre being taken out with one shot, although that was the only time that happened...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I've been a black powder firearm enthusiast for a long time and own a few replica muzzleloaders, and am fairly knowledgeble about the history and workings of early firearms. So, when I decided to allow firearms in my FR campaign, I probably burdened the game down with a few too many 'silly rules.' I modified the 'blows up in yur hand!" result to a table of more likely results (various misfires). I kept the loooooong reloading times, and made the special gear rather expensive (since it was all hand-forged brass). As others on here have said, the guns tended to be 'one shot and then drop them' weapons. Of course, the 'extended damage' potential was always something that could be useful to them... I can remember an ogre being taken out with one shot, although that was the only time that happened...

I am another blackpowder enthusiast. Don't it stink like the Devil's own flatulence?

I kept my 'silly rules' to the armor worn, rather than the guns. Piecemeal armor, and rules for what happens if you are shot while wearing chain mail. (Don't. Really.)

My biggest problem with long reload times is that guns were faster to reload than heavy crossbows. If you are going to give guns a long reload then you have to give crossbows an even longer one.

While there are a lot of possible misfires they really aren't that common. The only one I have ever experienced was a hangfire. (I didn't clean the gun properly between shots, just that once. Nervous making enough that I never made that mistake again.)

I never had a gun burst on me, and while I knew someone who had a weld shot it was because he did a poor job with his wadding.

My favorite gun was the Brown Bess - simple, reliable, and common as mud.

The Auld Grump

 

[David Howery]

I am another blackpowder enthusiast. Don't it stink like the Devil's own flatulence?

I kept my 'silly rules' to the armor worn, rather than the guns. Piecemeal armor, and rules for what happens if you are shot while wearing chain mail. (Don't. Really.)

My biggest problem with long reload times is that guns were faster to reload than heavy crossbows. If you are going to give guns a long reload then you have to give crossbows an even longer one.

While there are a lot of possible misfires they really aren't that common. The only one I have ever experienced was a hangfire. (I didn't clean the gun properly between shots, just that once. Nervous making enough that I never made that mistake again.)

I never had a gun burst on me, and while I knew someone who had a weld shot it was because he did a poor job with his wadding.

My favorite gun was the Brown Bess - simple, reliable, and common as mud.

The Auld Grump

yes, it does stink something awful.
I generally restricted available guns to the earliest kinds... arquebuses and the like. I did allow crude pistols which doubled as emergency clubs. Of course, these were all matchlocks with the joy and wonder of long burning slowmatches. This is one type of firearm I have no experience with (how about you?), but from what I've read, reloading them in the heat of combat was kind of like playing a piano in the back of a moving van... plus, you had to be careful to keep hot coals around to light them, and be careful not to spill powder on the slowmatch, and if the party wasn't going to be in combat for a long time, they had to extinguish the slowmatches or they'd burn away (usually right before the giants jumped them; I'm sadistic that way ).
I modified the misfire table to 'only happens on a natural 1', and drew up a list of about 10 different things that could happen, with only one of them being 'blowed up in yur hand!". The rest were things like 'your match went out', 'hangfire', 'the primer powder fizzled', etc. I've had some of these happen to me when I was target shooting, and in my experience, a 1 in 20 chance isn't so wrong.
I've never tried a Brown Bess, or any musket, for that matter. My favorite is my replica long rifle... it's just purty all over