Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[ProfessorCirno]

The point is that a ranged firearm weapon can be lethal at a distance and does not require much strength to use.

One could as easily ask in turn, why do people assume the introduction of firearms makes no difference to a setting? It sure made a difference on Earth.

To answer your question: Because none of the other much more Earth shattering things that D&D has makes a difference to the setting, and it seems kinda weird at best to declare that firearms has to be the exception to the unspoken rule.

 

[Derren]

The point is that a ranged firearm weapon can be lethal at a distance and does not require much strength to use.

One could as easily ask in turn, why do people assume the introduction of firearms makes no difference to a setting? It sure made a difference on Earth.

As are spells (directly casted or wands) or crossbows. And those things are far more lethal and effective than early firearms were.

And yes, firearms made a difference in the world. They created the type of knight we use as reference today. Without firearms no full plate.

 

[Hussar]

China is a valid and interesting case. They certainly seemed to progress at a slower rate than Europe but looking over my posts, I did try to caveat my comments that progress need not progress as it did in Europe. China still progressed in its innovation, developing a wide range of gunpowder weapons by the 1600s. Perhaps they were slower than the Europeans but they were changing as well.

While gunpowder's role in changes in Europe from the late middle ages into the Renaissance is hard to disentangle from other factors and precisely quantify, it sometimes feels that folks argue it had no affect whatsoever when it clearly had a dramatic effect.

That said, I'll freely admit it can be integrated into interesting fantasy settings. My objections are more aesthetic objections when it is poorly integrated into the setting (as it often is).

I wouldn't characterize China as progressing slowly, but rather, stagnating badly. I mean, they were still using crossbows against the British in the 19th century. Once the Chinese closed their borders in the 15th century, they pretty much stopped any innovation.

Japan suffers largely the same fate during the Edo period. They go from a vibrant, changing society in the 15th and early 16th century into a heavily codified, stratified society that doesn't really change for three hundred years until the Meiji Reformation, and even then, it isn't until the end of the Second World War that they really begin to change.

India, as well, has had access to firearms nearly as long as the Europeans, yet doesn't see the rapid changes that affect Europe. I'd almost say, in my rather uneducated, gut reaction, armchair historian opinion, that Europe is something of the outlier for rapid change.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I wouldn't characterize China as progressing slowly, but rather, stagnating badly. I mean, they were still using crossbows against the British in the 19th century. Once the Chinese closed their borders in the 15th century, they pretty much stopped any innovation.

Japan suffers largely the same fate during the Edo period. They go from a vibrant, changing society in the 15th and early 16th century into a heavily codified, stratified society that doesn't really change for three hundred years until the Meiji Reformation, and even then, it isn't until the end of the Second World War that they really begin to change.

India, as well, has had access to firearms nearly as long as the Europeans, yet doesn't see the rapid changes that affect Europe. I'd almost say, in my rather uneducated, gut reaction, armchair historian opinion, that Europe is something of the outlier for rapid change.

Generally speaking, I think you are getting this backwards. Sure, in some ways Europe certainly changed more rapidly than major eastern powers, but citing this as being due to eastern stagnation is flawed. It is not that Europe changed more rapidly than eastern powers, it is more that Europe stagnated and declined greatly after the fall of the Roman Empire, and it had delayed access to the major innovations that it had to import from the east much later. For most of the European medieval era, it was centuries behind the Middle East, China, and India in terms of technological, cultural, agricultural, and industrial advancements. Europe changed radically in later centuries because it was playing catch-up by importing generally completed technologies.

To address more specific things you have mentioned...

India never stagnated. At the time it was divided up by colonial powers, it was a fully modern society with a fully modern army. The main reason it fell to colonial powers was because it suffered a major period of political instability just as the European nations were gaining power due to the colonization of the New World (which they benefited from mostly due to physical proximity). Even then it took centuries of conflict for Britain to eventually take control.

Japan's Edo period was an odd case. It was mostly isolated, certainly, but it still underwent major cultural and societal changes during that period. All the values and culture of modern Japan emerged in that period, and it was due to the societal changes of that era (including the growth of a powerful merchant middle class) that allowed Japan to rapidly industrialize and become a major power as soon as its borders opened after the Meiji Reformation. It was far from stagnant and unchanging.

As for China... It was the center of the world and progress for most of human history. In many ways, it stagnated simply because it outpaced the development of the rest of human civilization. It was so much more advanced, developed, and wealthy than any other region of the world that it simply didn't need to trade. No one else had anything it didn't already have. And it was so large, well established, and populous that significant cultural change was extremely difficult to implement. And this was basically true for centuries and centuries. It was surprisingly close to being a modern industrial society in the 12th century. As I think my brother may have mentioned earlier in the thread, it may well be considered a fluke of geography that the steam engine was invented in 18th century Britain rather than 12th century China.

As for why things fell apart for China in later centuries... That is a very, very complicated issue. Simply saying that they stagnated because they closed their borders (which itself isn't even at all accurate) is a very, very flawed perspective. In truth, no one can really say why it happened. The best trained and most well-studied historians in the world can't really agree or understand on the hows and whys of it happening, so trying to apply armchair history to it is pointless.

I suppose it is fair to say that China is a great example why gunpowder doesn't at all lead to some kind of rapid forced societal change. Of course, it was amazingly modern from the point where it actually developed gunpowder and gunpowder weaponry, starting off already centralized and not at all feudal (the last Chinese feudal period was in pre-Christian times).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

To be completely honest I would allow laser blasters.

This isn't an issue of "Well if you are going to step over the line of guns you might as well hit the futuristic arms store", I really just like lasers. They have more style than bullet guns.

Plus they can fit right into the magic.

Heh, for me it is very much a, "step over the line of guns," issue. It's one of the reasons, I don't much care for steampunk. About the only good reason I can see to run steampunk, is to do a S.M. Stirling, "Peshewar Lancers" style game, and have fights in blimps. And to be fair, it's more pulp than steampunk. But mainly, I'm not stopping there.

About the earliest I would stop, once crossing that line, is to do something along the technological lines supposed by the Turtledove "Dragons war" series. For those that don't know (and don't want to wade through the terrible dialog and alt-history style narrative fantasy history), it is a thinly veiled retelling of WWII, with magic. Instead of rifles, soldiers have magically charged "sticks" that shoot beams and have to be recharged. Flyers get on dragons, from which they discharge sticks and drop bombs. And so forth. It's all about lots of key ways that people get magic to go "boom!"--and rapid advancement of same in a world at war.

So yeah, a cold war analogue, directly after such a war in such a setting, is something I can sink my teeth into. You'll note still no gunpowder ...

 

[Haltherrion]

To answer your question: Because none of the other much more Earth shattering things that D&D has makes a difference to the setting, and it seems kinda weird at best to declare that firearms has to be the exception to the unspoken rule.

There are many who would claim magic would not alter the setting much either (I’m not one of them). But there is a difference. In most media, especially fantasy, some suspension of disbelief is required. How much? As little as you can get away with. The impact of magic and monsters on settings is arguable. The impact of firearms is much less arguable. In some ways it requires a bigger suspension of disbelief than magic IF it is not well integrated into the setting.

I would avoid a setting where firearms were well integrated into a fantasy world for personal, aesthetic reasons given other choices. But if it was something a trusted ref wanted to run, I’m sure I’d have a good time with it. But when firearms are tossed in casually, that’s too much suspension of disbelief for me:“Hey, Joe, can I use a blunderbuss?” “Uh, sure, I guess so.”

Do I require the setting to agree with every little detail of how I’d integrate them, were I to do so? No, just a good faith effort is fine for me. As I’ve said before, I object to their being firearms and not being allowed to use a keg of gunpowder to blow something up or a cannon to knock down a high middle ages style wall. These issues should be dealt with in an integrated setting. (Kegs cost X, walls aren’t built that way, etc.)

I'd also object if my character tossed a ball into the air and the ref had it float off towards the moon...

 

[Haltherrion]

Japan suffers largely the same fate during the Edo period. They go from a vibrant, changing society in the 15th and early 16th century into a heavily codified, stratified society that doesn't really change for three hundred years until the Meiji Reformation, and even then, it isn't until the end of the Second World War that they really begin to change.

Technologically, things did stagnate in the 1600s but they were also under a strong central government with no external threats. They began a rapid series of changes, societal and technological in the secnod half of the 1800s.

During the 15th and 16th centuries, change was rapid and very much shaped by the introduction of firearms and other western and Chinese technology, strategy and other influences. The firearm influence was particularly strong as cited in, among others, Stephen Turnbull's excellent books on Samurais and Japanese warriors. He describes the Warring States period (the same period) as the time when "samurai warfare went through its biggest revolution in history under the influence of strategy and technology from both Europe and China" (in a context where he was also saying "it was also a time of nostalgia" as the samurai looked backwards for inspiration and traditions.)

I'm less familiar with the CHinese periods but a quick web search seemed to find plenty of scholars refuting a slow adoption of gunpowder weapons (not just guns and rockets but bombs) in a similar period.

It does seem that both societies had periods where military technological progress stalled or slowed but that happened after dramatic changes already occured, changes that would be dramatic in most D&D settings, for instance.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The point is that a ranged firearm weapon can be lethal at a distance and does not require much strength to use.

One could as easily ask in turn, why do people assume the introduction of firearms makes no difference to a setting? It sure made a difference on Earth.

That presupposes that I didn't have guns make a difference. A poor supposition at best - my world does have snowflake and star forts, dirt has replaced rubble as the filler inside fortress walls, castles do have powder stores, and the 'civilized' races are merrily slaughtering the aboriginals.

And because I can - Hwacha!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM2NcPwsngU]YouTube - Mythbusters - Hwacha - The super rocket pod[/ame]

The Auld Grump

 

[Haltherrion]

That presupposes that I didn't have guns make a difference. A poor supposition at best - my world does have snowflake and star forts, dirt has replaced rubble as the filler inside fortress walls, castles do have powder stores, and the 'civilized' races are merrily slaughtering the aboriginals.

Cheers Sounds like a setting with gunpowder nicely integrated into it.

 

[prosfilaes]

...