Fantasy Gun Control

[Glade Riven]

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.

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.

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.

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 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. 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.

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

 

[Asmor]

Just as an example of a wildly popular fantasy setting with guns, see the Warcraft universe. Warcraft is fantasy first and foremost, but there's a very heavy dose of steampunk thrown in there with pseudo-technology and, of course, very common guns.

On a different tack, I've been reading the Shadows of the Apt series by Adrian Tchaikovsky (which I highly recommend). As a bit of background, most races are either apt or inapt, which is a hard divide between technology and magic, respectively. The apt don't believe in magic, come up with rationalizations when confronted with it, and in fact their very presence tends to dimish magic. The inapt races, on the other hand, are completely and utterly incapable of working anything beyond the simplest technology. They can use bows but are incapable of firing a crossbow or even opening a latched door.

Anyways, without giving away too many spoilers, the series deals heavily with the impact of the progress of technology, including a new mini-revolution when what is essentially a rifle is invented and mass produced.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I am usually against guns in a fantasy setting because it almost always ends up being guns from the 19th, or even 20th, century against medieval or early Renaissance era swords and armor. I could see guns being a good once-per-encounter weapon for a PC, which is somewhat how they were 600-700 years ago. Shoot once and then charge into combat with your sword (or later, a bayonet)

Not only do they have the issues you had mentioned, but reload times on early guns were in minutes, not D&D six second rounds. Which is why I think they make for a good once-per-encounter weapon.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think guns have a place in a fantasy setting, but mostly if they work through magic. If they work via technology, then there is a lot of technology that needs to be accounted for.

Guns are the pinnacle of a lot of different technologies, chemical, industrial, metallurgical and so on. If those advances are ignored, it seems weird, too.

To me, guns are too much trouble to add to a game, but I can see them having a place in some campaigns. I enjoyed them in a Spelljammer game I ran ages ago in 2E.

 

[steeldragons]

I'll take my fantasy without bullets, please.

If I want to play steampunk, I'll play steampunk. If I want to play sci-fi, I'll play sci-fi (least then it's usually laser guns). If I want to play Rennaissance or some pseudo-historical setting or some modern day military thing, I'll play that.

If I want fantasy (and I since the OP made the distinction, I prefer "High" fantasy to "Low"), I do not want guns.

Thanks fer askin' though.

--Steel Dragons

 

[Rechan]

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.

Or they're too damn expensive in-game, as an equalizer or a way to prevent them from getting too commonplace.

There's other things afoot. The other group who likes guns are those who don't care about historical accuracy. They want their revolvers and shotguns or cannons and bombs because those things are cool.

Although there is the fact that guns have an immediate effect on the world, so it's hard to keep the genie half way in the bottle. For instance, once you introduce cannons, it means that castles have to change to deal with cannonfire. Traditional castles are prettymuch useless against cannons. (People forget that traditional castles are pretty much useless against MAGIC too; an open courtyard behind walls is a huge target for flying enemies to just a landing strip inside your defensive wall). Now you can either adapt things in a natural fashion, or you can ignore it and leave it an anachronism. Since D&D et al is not necessarily historically accurate and all that good stuff.

 

[Rechan]

Thing is why this is such a hot contest, especially if rules are available or not, etc etc.

Look folks, guns in fantasy are like psionics in fantasy. Or evil PCs at a table. Or drow as PCs. Some people like them, some don't. It's your choice if you use them. Just because x number of groups do not use them doesn't mean that the rules shouldn't be there and balanced and enjoyed by those who want them.

I take a very strong kitchen sink approach to my fantasy. Ultimately unless it involves Time Travel or Space-anything, I say bring it. Ultimately it comes down to 1) the fluff and way it's integrated into the setting/game, 2) the tone and how it jives with the campaign/group, 3) how well does it work, and 4) is it cool.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

*shrug*

I'm fine with guns in my fantasy. But I never really got the "I hate psionics" either.

To me, wands _are_ the fantasy version of guns. The fact that they can be loaded up with something other than fireballs doesn't change the essential nature of them as far as I'm concerned. The "distinction" of a gun "being able to be picked up and used by anyone, but a wand can't be!!!" is insignificant enough as to not exist in my own view.

As for the mechanics.... *shrug*

It's a tough call. You've got people that want it to be "realistic" but "realistic" also doesn't usually make for "fun", unless the person in question is into pretty "gritty" stuff to begin with. Lots of people have a disconnect where a "gun" is doing similar damage to a bow. You start getting into optimisation things, with people either saying guns are worthless in comparison to a bow or nobody will ever take a bow because guns are too good.

Shuffling guns into the "magic" area seems to calm things down at least somewhat because "magic" is usually accepted as having funky limitations, in a way that "ordinary" weapons aren't.

Ultimately though... lots of folks want their D&D looking like pseudo-medieval earth with a bit of magic tossed in. In figuring out the _hows_ (mechanics) of guns, you need to explicitly design them with the setting in mind; too many people offer up mechanics without giving the context of the setting for which these mechanics are supposed to be operating within. For better or worse "D&D" isn't just a rule set, it's got settings (both implicit as well as explicit) and people really need to provide more context.

 

[NewJeffCT]

You start getting into optimisation things, with people either saying guns are worthless in comparison to a bow or nobody will ever take a bow because guns are too good.

Shuffling guns into the "magic" area seems to calm things down at least somewhat because "magic" is usually accepted as having funky limitations, in a way that "ordinary" weapons aren't.

Ultimately though... lots of folks want their D&D looking like pseudo-medieval earth with a bit of magic tossed in.

I think if you make guns accurate based on the era, then guns are not really a good choice as an individual weapon. Early guns were inaccurate, had limited range, were unreliable and had reloading times that made them nearly useless in a D&D setting. The primary advantage of the early gun was the loud noise & smoke would scare horses. That also makes them too boring for PCs - hence the reason why guns are almost always upgraded to 19th century tech with much faster reload times and handguns that are equivalent to a Colt .45 revolver.

If you had a group of 100 gunners who could fire in volleys of 10 at a time, then you had a potential advantage. After 10 fired, they would step back and reload while the next 10 stepped up & fired. The same could be said if you have 100 heavy crossbowmen who could fire in volleys of 20 at a time, and most likely for a longer effective range than early guns.

I agree on making the setting pseudo medieval with some magic thrown in...

 

[Aeolius]

I run my games in the World of Greyhawk, where gunpowder "doesn't work". Granted, as a DM, I am not opposed to letting PCs blow themselves up trying to invent the stuff.

The fact that my current game is set underwater might also put a damper (damp... heh heh) on typical gunpowder use.