Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[prosfilaes]

The main reason why people don't "mix" guns with fantasy?

[...]

If anything most people can tolerate "point and click" guns in fantasy, just look at WoW.

I think you're mixing two different things. Most people can tolerate them. But when I think of D&Dish fantasy, guns don't appear. LotR, Conan, Dragonlance, Garrett PI, they all lack guns. The Guardians of the Flame has guns, but as much introduced by the PCs from another dimension as local. For guns to show up, it usually has to be historical or modern fantasy.

 

[Dausuul]

I haven't read the thread but if "verisimilitude" was brought up once congrats you are objectively wrong.

You were the first person to bring it up. And hey, look! You're wrong!

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Wrong. I can imagine magic where the scientific method was ineffective. But the second I had a magic system it would be open season. The scientific method can handle just about any system possible.

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

And for this to be the case, you'd need no spells to ever work twice, no possible research on new spells, and there to be no serious spellcasters.

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.

Nope. Just massive margins of error. And fewer for the scientists than anyone else who actually tried to use that sort of magic. Spellcasting would be no more than "It's good!" or "It's bad!" and a fervent hope. That's not a magic system. (And even if that worked, it would give the scientific method something).

Actually, there is one way to make the scientific method fail on magic. Magic comes from an omniscient deity that gives anyone who tries to use anything approaching the scientific method selective amnesia (or worse).

 

[Zaran]

I just started an adventure where the dwarven kingdom is being corrupted into Duergar. Their ranged weapons are all gunpowder weapons. I told my players that the muskets they have found are Superior Weapons +3 Prof, Range 20/40 d10 damage and High Crit They also have a Move Action reload.

 

[Leatherhead]

I think you're mixing two different things. Most people can tolerate them. But when I think of D&Dish fantasy, guns don't appear. LotR, Conan, Dragonlance, Garrett PI, they all lack guns. The Guardians of the Flame has guns, but as much introduced by the PCs from another dimension as local. For guns to show up, it usually has to be historical or modern fantasy.

To be fair: You don't see many fat, furry-footed hobbits in DnD anymore. Conan is in a time before the traditional pseudo-middle ages. And Dragonlance is about DnD, not the other way around. Not that they are bad places to be in, they are simply not the end-all-be-all of DnD flavor.

Also, consider Warhamer Fantasy.

But that's besides the point that gun rules in DnD have been convoluted to the point where even people who would tolerate guns in fantasy don't want to use them. Which I view as the greatest obstacle to having them in game.

 

[Dausuul]

But that's besides the point that gun rules in DnD have been convoluted to the point where even people who would tolerate guns in fantasy don't want to use them. Which I view as the greatest obstacle to having them in game.

Were I making gun rules for (4E) D&D, I'd keep it fairly simple... damage comparable to a crossbow (heavy for musket or arquebus, light for pistol), 3 standard actions to reload, +3 proficiency bonus, brutal 2, high crit. Basically, you shoot somebody on the first round, then drop the gun and pull out a sword. I don't think misfire rules are worth bothering with.

 

[prosfilaes]

To be fair: You don't see many fat, furry-footed hobbits in DnD anymore. Conan is in a time before the traditional pseudo-middle ages. And Dragonlance is about DnD, not the other way around. Not that they are bad places to be in, they are simply not the end-all-be-all of DnD flavor.

Dragonlance is one of the works that defined fantasy for many of us. I don't see any of your reply actually a response to the claim that most people don't mix guns with fantasy is because the defining works of fantasy in most people's minds don't include guns.

 

[Aeolius]

As I posted over at Canonfire the other week; psionics, incarnum, Tome of Magic, warlocks, Heroes of Horror, and most of the 3.5e supplements... Yes.

Gunpowder... No

Granted, that's mainly because my past two games have been set beneath the surface of the sea. Also, my games are set in the World of Greyhawk where gunpowder "doesn't work". Not that I would stop an enterprising wizard from blowing themselves up trying to invent the stuff, of course.

However, the deep-dwelling water dwarves, a red-skinned chemosynthetic race that dwells near hydrothermal vents and uses the black smokers to forge calciferous weapons and armor, have recently discovered ice crystals they call "Frozen Thunder"... methane hydrate. They have not yet refined it's usage, however.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, the question was: "Generally speaking, do muskets mix with fantasy?"

In the most general meaning of the term, fantasy can be about anything, so that would be a 'yes'.

In the context of RPGs we're often looking at a particular subset of 'general' fantasy which often does not include the concept of muskets, but they can and do mix with fantasy in some settings.
The same is true for fantasy novels: If they're well-written and the author spent some thought about the impact of muskets on a setting in which magic is a reality, I'm fine with it.
So the answer would be 'sometimes'.

However, personally, I dislike fantasy rpg settings including muskets (or more advanced [weapon] technology), so for me the answer is 'no'.

 

[Rel]

I haven't read the thread but if "verisimilitude" was brought up once congrats you are objectively wrong.

I haven't read the thread but if ProfessorCirno acts like a dick one more time congrats he's banned.