Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[pawsplay]

The traditional D&D setting resembles the cusp of the high Medieval period and the early Renaissance, and thus I am comfortable saying it can go either way. Certainly cannons should be present in any D&D setting advanced enough to have articulated plate armor unless you deliberately choose anachronism.

LOTR is more similar to the so-called "Dark Ages," the early period of the Crusades, and hence has neither extensive gunpowder nor articulated plate armor, and crossbows are rare.

From a reality standpoint, a musket is in no danger of supplanting a longbow in effectiveness well into the 18th century. Despite good penetration, muskets are frankly slow, inaccurage, and have a fairly short effective range compared to the longbow (although it is possible, in theory, to make longer distance sniping shots with a well-tuned musket). Ben Franklin actually wanted to base the Revolutionary army on a longbow corps, but it was deemed impractical to acqurie so many longbows, or enough hired longbowmen to build effective fighting units particularly if it involved hiring many mercenaries. Guns don't overtake muskets in effectiveness until the late 18th and even early 19th century; the rise of gun warfare during the imperial era of US history had more to do with training issues and availability of bows than with the guns actually being more deadly. The Plains Indians did embrace firearms until the availability of rifling; prior to that, many battles were fought successfully using mostly traditional Amerindian bow and arrows.

So... unless you are planning on introducing rifling, or the Gatling gun, or you are making the breastplate omnipresent, there is no really good in-game reason why muskets should have superior combat abilities in D&D, even in a milieu that resembles a later era.

 

[luckless]

But probably not in a pseudo-14th century or earlier.

You mean a pseudo-era-of-development-of-firearms-in-Europe setting? If you disallow firearms because they are 'too modern', then the same would apply to full plate, longswords, and reliable steel.


As for "Science is hard, therefore we would only use magic if we had it", I still call bull. Science is hard, but not everyone in most settings can use magic. Either way why would people stop researching?

Science is hard only because the tools and thought process required to do them are hard to build. Fantasy is full of great and powerful magic users who delve into the mystic arts and research of the universe. What makes you think they wouldn't use that magic to further aid what we know of as science?

If you have a mage who can control fire and use it to accurately heat and shape materials, such as iron or glass, then he is going to have an easier time building the tools (Such as advanced optics) to explore the nature of things. If diamond dust is used to cast spells, don't you think at least one of those mages would be interested to know more about the nature of diamond dust?

Real Magic and Science aren't opposites, if magic was real it most likely would be a science.

 

[pawsplay]

You mean a pseudo-era-of-development-of-firearms-in-Europe setting? If you disallow firearms because they are 'too modern', then the same would apply to full plate, longswords, and reliable steel.

You can also add rapiers, 90% of what we consider to be classical martial arts, a legal requirement for marriages to be solemnized, and shoes that are specifically for the left or right feet.

 

[Mark Chance]

Used blackpowder weapons with 3.5 and Pathfinder. Published a set of rules for the same. No problems with them in the game.

 

[Umbran]

You mean a pseudo-era-of-development-of-firearms-in-Europe setting? If you disallow firearms because they are 'too modern', then the same would apply to full plate, longswords, and reliable steel.

The hand cannon and arquebus became common in Europe in the 15th century (the 1400s). For the 14th century and earlier, I'd ignore them.

You will note that I didn't say why I would not include them. It is a tad more complicated than "It is too modern". But, since you didn't even bother to ask, I don't think you're particularly interested in hearing my reasoning.

Real Magic and Science aren't opposites, if magic was real it most likely would be a science.

Whether or not it could be a science would depend upon how the magic worked. One can imagine a magical system upon which the scientific method is thoroughly ineffective.

For example - the scientific method depends on the laws governing a phenomenon behaving reproducibly. If I take action X, and get result Y, pretty much every time I take action X, I will get result Y (with margins of error for my not doing *exactly* X each time).

So, if magic does not act reproducibly, such that effect does not follow clear cause, then science would fail to apply.

Divine magic, for example - if the operation of magic is dependent on the will of a fickle divine being, then it might well remain impenetrable to science.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I agree that it depends on the campaign setting.

I kind of like the approach that many of the Final Fantasy games take. Yes there are guns, but plenty of people still use swords, because swords are cool.

 

[Mark Chance]

Whether or not it could be a science would depend upon how the magic worked. One can imagine a magical system upon which the scientific method is thoroughly ineffective.

It also depends on one's definition of "science". Limit "science" to "that which uses the scientific method" and magic might not pass the muster.

But in most games, that wouldn't be the case. These components plus this expertise equals this result, all things being equal.

Also, "science" has only recently been thought to be limited to "that which uses the scientific method". For a huge hunk of human history, "science" meant something a lot closer to "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". Thus, philosophy and theology were widely considered sciences, as was history.

IOW, just because magic might not work according to the scientific method doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be considered a science even if it isn't a science.

 

[Dausuul]

It's not that simple.

There are some fantasy settings in which gunpowder is definitely appropriate and fits the flavor. For instance, I would expect to see flintlocks and cannons in a swashbuckling pirate setting. There are other settings where it doesn't fit at all, like one based on Arthurian Britain. And there are many settings where it could go either way.

I hardly ever use firearms in my homebrew settings, partly because I lean toward a mythic/fairy tale style and partly because I don't want the bother of managing player expectations*--players who aren't history buffs need to be brought up to speed on the many, many differences between a flintlock musket and an AK-47. Still, I could imagine running the aforementioned pirate scenario and including them.

[size=-2]*Also, my players are heavily dependent on the Character Builder these days, and the CB doesn't have stats for firearms.[/size]

 

[Umbran]

IOW, just because magic might not work according to the scientific method doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be considered a science even if it isn't a science.

Admittedly, I am using a simplified definition, simply because you can write an entire book on the question, "What is science?" On the other hand, if you use wibbly-wobbly definitions, you can have the Mona Lisa be a work of science.

Have it as you will.

 

[amerigoV]

In the past, no - I would not consider them. It is not a "thats not fantasy" reason for me. I played WOW for awhile and the gun-toting dwarves did not bother me one bit.

D&D/d20 does not do firearms well IMO. I grew with 1e, and a mid-level fighter could just stand in an open field and arrows were irrelevant, if they even hit. I know you can build some pretty nasty archers in 3.5/4e, but that impression that missile weapons were "weak" still sticks with me. So I just could not wrap my mind around using firearms in D&D (ie, if I hit with a gun, it should damn well HURT - the fluff of HP just does not compute for me for guns, even though I can almost hand wave it for bows).

But I switched to Savage Worlds. That system grew up with a wild west background, and thus gives missile weapons their due (ie - get your butt to cover!). Its wound system works nicely across all genres, so I can see putting in some of those weapons or running some Old School stuff where PCs find advance tech in a crashed spacecraft, etc.

So, if the system supports it well, I have no problem with guns in a fantasy setting.