Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[SKyOdin]

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.

This would only be true if suspension of belief was actually related to how much something varies from reality or believable consequences. Truth be told, suspension of disbelieve has nothing to do with reality or logic, and everything to do with how comfortable someone is with the tropes and fundamental assumptions of a setting.

For example, people are completely comfortable with FTL travel in sci-fi despite it being as possible as (in your words) tossing a ball into the sky and watching it gently float up to the moon. I have never seen a Sci-Fi work actually deal with the convoluted, world-changed consequences of traveling faster than the speed of light. However, because every major sci-fi story in modern memory involves starships jumping through hyperspace to reach alien worlds, most sci-fi fans have no problem with it.

There are only two reasons why many fantasy fans feel uncomfortable with guns in fantasy:
1) Most fantasy fiction, particularly older fantasy fiction, doesn't have guns. As such, adding guns brings fans out of their comfort zone.
2) Most people have grown up on Hollywood gun and explosion physics, and thus have exaggerated and twisted ideas of what guns and explosives are capable of.

As such, most people talk about adding "barrels of gunpowder" to D&D, they aren't talking about real-world barrels of gunpowder (which I don't really know the capabilities of), but instead about Hollywood barrels of gunpowder, which can magically level buildings in glorious balls of fire. I doubt that a real keg of gunpowder is actually as powerful and gamebreaking as many people have claimed it is.

If someone grew up on fantasy fiction that includes guns, even in a wildly unrealistic manner, I think that person would be perfectly comfortable with guns in their D&D. As such, I think the arguments about realistic consequences has very little to do with the actual reasons people like or dislike guns in D&D.

 

[Haltherrion]

This would only be true if suspension of belief was actually related to how much something varies from reality or believable consequences. Truth be told, suspension of disbelieve has nothing to do with reality or logic, and everything to do with how comfortable someone is with the tropes and fundamental assumptions of a setting.

My quote you used actually said I might find gunpowder a greater suspension of disbelief which contradicts your statement right there. In context, it would mean I could find it a greater suspension than magic which certainly varies more greatly from reality than gunpowder by any assessment.

There are only two reasons why many fantasy fans feel uncomfortable with guns in fantasy:
1) Most fantasy fiction, particularly older fantasy fiction, doesn't have guns. As such, adding guns brings fans out of their comfort zone.
2) Most people have grown up on Hollywood gun and explosion physics, and thus have exaggerated and twisted ideas of what guns and explosives are capable of.

I suppose you could conduct a survey to see if you are right but you seem to be presuming a great deal.

Per point #1, a more neutral way might be to say many fantasy fans prefer a different, gunless aesthetic. I've said that clearly myself as have others on this thread so if you rephrase to avoid the somewhat perjorative "comfort zone" no arguments there.

Per point #2, I couldn't speak for the "many" but as an engineer and an amateur military history buff, I feel I have a reasonable understanding of the capability of gunpowder.

 

[Hussar]

I dunno if he's presuming quite a bit, but SkyOdin's observations seem pretty spot on.

 

[Haltherrion]

I dunno if he's presuming quite a bit, but SkyOdin's observations seem pretty spot on.

He seems to be minimizing anyone's dislike of gunpowder in a fantasy setting.

On the aesthetic issue, it was rudely put but aesthetics are aesthetics, so however he wishes to phrase it, so be it.

On the second point of folks not liking gunpowder because they only understand gunpowder from movies? That seems rather contemtpuous. It may apply to some but to "many"? The objections to gunpowder in this thread seem to me to be more thoughtful than that on the whole.

 

[The Shaman]

I doubt that a real keg of gunpowder is actually as powerful and gamebreaking as many people have claimed it is.

I read an engineering analysis about the Guy Fawkes plot, and based on knowledge of where the plotters placed the powder, the amount of powder, and the nature of gunpowder in the early 17th century, and the engineers concluded the blast would in fact have leveled Parliament.

So, there's that.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yes, guns are known to kill every single person ever shot by them, such as former president Roosevelt who was tragically killed by an assassin while giving a speech.

You know.

Not like running a sword through someone. That's never fatal.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Oh, and before I forget;

On the aesthetic issue, it was rudely put but aesthetics are aesthetics, so however he wishes to phrase it, so be it.

Ok, but I think we can both agree it's related to the safety zone.

Consider the presence of sci-fi in D&D. When D&D first came out, there was sci-fi elements all over the dang place. And it rightfully so - sci-fi and fantasy mixing together was rather "in" at the time amongst nerd circles. The basis of the game was a group of amoral mercenaries doing it for the gold and wenches.

As D&D went on, that changed. Adventurers slowly became main protagonists and/or heroes, and the sci-fi was filtered out. See, the amoral mercenaries and the sci-fi was based on the popular literature at the time amongst nerds, which in that case was abhorrantly terrible pulp books. When those went out of style due to having insurmountable prose, so too did the tropes along with them.

So Player A says he doesn't mind Keep on the Borderlands and funny little robots and wizards with laser guns. Player B says "That's not D&D." The catch? Player A has been playing longer then Player B.

See, that's the thing. "It's not fantasy" is such a nebulous statement. Of course it's fantasy. And yes, it's D&D, too. It's just not in your comfort zone.

As for aesthetics? A wanderer from a foreign land with a strange exotic weapon? That's like half the D&D characters that have ever been imagined since the dawn of time. The aesthetics really don't change that much if his or her exotic weapon happens to be a rifle instead of a katana.

Now let's talk believability. Or verisimilitude. Or suspension of disbelief. See, they all come down to one thing, and that one thing is not how believable the world is; it's the opposite. It comes down to this statement: "This thing here is utterly unbelievable and does not fit in with reality. However, I am willing to forgo this because my desire for "fun" in this case outweighs my desire for "realism."

That's why several of those of us who are totally into guns with our fantasy don't get the complaint of them not being real or breaking suspension of disbelief. As far as I'm concerned, you have castles and dragons going hand and hand - that's far more "belief shattering" then guns are.

On the second point of folks not liking gunpowder because they only understand gunpowder from movies? That seems rather contemtpuous. It may apply to some but to "many"? The objections to gunpowder in this thread seem to me to be more thoughtful than that on the whole.

Again I dispute this, because most of the objections to gunpowder in this thread involve claims that guns were this machines of destruction that never missed, and that a single barrel of gunpowder could destroy entire castles. It's been pretty strongly proven by now that there's a lot of misinformation floating around.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

As for aesthetics? A wanderer from a foreign land with a strange exotic weapon? That's like half the D&D characters that have ever been imagined since the dawn of time. The aesthetics really don't change that much if his or her exotic weapon happens to be a rifle instead of a katana.

Well that depends on what set of aesthetics you're talking about: the aesthetics of the strange wanderer, or the aesthetics of not having guns at all.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I read an engineering analysis about the Guy Fawkes plot, and based on knowledge of where the plotters placed the powder, the amount of powder, and the nature of gunpowder in the early 17th century, and the engineers concluded the blast would in fact have leveled Parliament.

So, there's that.

The Guy Fawkes gunpowder plot involved putting at least 36 barrels of gunpowder into a cellar directly beneath the Parliament building. That is both a lot of gunpowder and a pretty optimal location for utterly destroying a building's foundation. That is a pretty different scenario than the "roll a single barrel of gunpowder down a dungeon hall to destroy a campaign" idea that gets tossed around in these threads. Honestly, when people talk about barrels of gunpowder in these threads, they seem to be imagining the barrel of gunpowder from the LotR movies, which is indeed a classic hollywood overdramatic and unrealistic world-crushing fireball.

 

[Haltherrion]

Ok, but I think we can both agree it's related to the safety zone.

If by this you mean one's sense of aesthetics, what one finds intriguing, then yes. Safety zone has mild negative connotations (think: does out of the safety zone mean fear?) whereas aesthetics is more neutral.

Again I dispute this, because most of the objections to gunpowder in this thread involve claims that guns were this machines of destruction that never missed, and that a single barrel of gunpowder could destroy entire castles. It's been pretty strongly proven by now that there's a lot of misinformation floating around.

From my viewpoint, one could characterize the defense of gunpowder in fantasy settings on this thread as much weaker with more credibility.

There are over 20 pages of replies here. A lot has been said both ways, some bald assertions, some of it backed up.

On the Pro-side, some agree gunpowder would change things and they have changed their setting accordingly. Others argue that gunpowder really wouldn't change things much at all. Others agree it could change things but don't want to make those changes in their setting. Of those, the first is fine with me and could be a game I played in. THe second seems unsupported to me. The third is fine; I wouldn't choose to play in that game but I can see others doing so.

Sweeping the anti- side into a starwman mischaracterization is silly. Moreover, at this point in a long, contentious thread, it's as close as you ever get to a concession from the other side. So, thank you for the concession