Guns in a fantasy setting

[cignus_pfaccari]

In a fantasy setting, i want guns to be notably hazardous to thier wielders.

This is one of those things I've never really understood.

If they're notably hazardous to their wielders, where you'll probably take fatal damage from your chosen weapon over your career...then why use one? Why not invest in a more useful weapon that isn't going to blow up next to your face 5% of the time?

Brad

 

[Knightfall]

Well, let us consider - current thinking is that gunpowder was invented in China in the 9th century. And while there's some suggestion for recipes for its use in war following that, cannons didn't show up in in Europe until the 13th century, and matchlock rifles don't come along for anyone until the 14th century. And barrel-loaded muskets were still the usual form up until 1870 - that's the 19th century! One thousand years, and they're still using flintlocks!

So, while we might say things aren't static, by no means does that say that things actually move quickly.

This is great reasoning, and I'd like to take it a step further. All those improvements over time are dependant on a need to improve the technology. In a theoretical world with magic, how can anyone assume that there will be such a need? Magic blows things up without the need for guns and gunpowder, and it has an entire "industry" to support it.

Guns would start off as dangerous creations that are as much as a risk to the wielder as the intended target. Plus, arcanists might resent the idea of their "thunder" being stolen and work towards having guns banned depending on how much power arcanists wield in such a world. And if gunpowder is treated as an alchemcal item, then arcanists might feel the power of "the black powder" is better utilized powering their spells and magical creations.

Also, think about this question, "what are the chances that the best and brightest minds would willing choose to develop firearms?" Yes, those without any natural ability to learn magic would see the benefit to themselves, but how often are there intelligent and wise characters in a magical, fantasy gaming-world without the ability to learn some form of magic or psionics?

Now, perhaps the DM could create an entire race without the ability to learn magic or psionics, and in that case, it would be reasonable to assume that if such a race discovered guns and gunpowder that they would go out of their way to develop it. It would be seen as their saving grace. Imagine a race that is shunned by the world due to their inability to learn even the simplest cantrip. Now, give that race the ability to develop even the simplest flintlocks. What would be the result?

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Andor]

This is one of those things I've never really understood.

If they're notably hazardous to their wielders, where you'll probably take fatal damage from your chosen weapon over your career...then why use one? Why not invest in a more useful weapon that isn't going to blow up next to your face 5% of the time?

Brad

I'm reminded of a rather dry note under an old revolver actioned cap and ball rifle on display at West Point that observed the weapon "was unpopular with the troops due to a propensity to explode."

As I recall a brief history of gunpowder weaponry would start of course in China where black powered was invented. It was used mostly for fireworks and rockets, I don't think the chinese had cannon until they were invented in the middle east and filtered back. So early blackpowder weaponry was flashy and loud but not particularly dangerous. D&D is particularly bad at reflecting the effects of fear weapons unfortunately. (Anybody else remember morale listings in the MM?)

Early Cannon were still primarily fear weapons, evolving eventually into decent anti-personel weapons and then into true seige cannon.

Small cannons evolved down into hand cannons and then slimmed down into early arqebuses. The original arquebuses were fired by application of slow match, just like larger cannon were. Then were invented Matchlocks which were pretty much crap. Wheellocks came next, but were expensive, complicated and unreliable. These were then simplified to the flintlock which was a very decent weapon. And eventually some chemist figured out impact primers which led to cap-and-ball firearms and finally cartridge rounds.

The real advantage of a cartridge round of course is not in it's waterproofness, but it's handiness in a breech loading rifle, and it's superior reloading speeds. Although being waterproof does surely help.

It's worth noting that cartridge firearms are dependant on mass production and good distribution networks before they are superior to any of the earlier systems. When your local blacksmith made your rifle it didn't matter a tinkers damm it he made .72 caliber when your buddy had a .78 because he also made you a bullet mold and you made your own rounds as needed. And powder is powder.

Things get more complex when cartridges come into play. One of the reasons the S&W Schofield revolvers were never as popular as the Colt peacemaker in spite of a vastly superior reloading system was that S&W was only chambered in the .45 russian which was shorter than the .45 Long Colt. So somebody with a Colt could fire either sort of ammo, but the Schofield user was out of luck if all he could find was Colt ammo.

Luckily today we can buy reproduction Schofields chambered for the Colt Longs.

 

[Kesh]

One of the supplements for 2e was a campaign setting(?) called "Red Steel", and it was a sorta musketeers-like setting with red steel, red stuff which gave people mutations and red powder which was gunpower all interlinked into the setting. It seemed like a fun idea.

I still think Wizards screwed up by not making a Red Steel/Savage Coast supplement setting book at the height of the Pirates of the Caribbean craze. Hell, All Flesh Must Be Eaten had a pirate-themed supplement because of that! Wizards just sat on a property that geeks would have gobbled up.

I have less hope for a 4e supplement, even though 4e fits the swashbuckling feel of RS even better. Probably have to homebrew it.

 

[Korgoth]

Guns were actually invented during the "Medieval" period. Guns and swords did coexist. In D&D, people run around with Halberds, Zweihanders and Gothic Plate, all of which are very late, but somehow guns are going to change everything? I don't see why. Nor do I see why they would radically change social organization or cause trench warfare... they didn't do those things historically.

I don't see any problem with guns in D&D. Primitive matchlocks and cannon seem to match historically with some of the other advanced technologies of standard D&D. Now, if you're running something more like the Dark Ages then you're right to skip them, but then you might think about restricting armor to chain hauberks at most.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And if gunpowder is treated as an alchemcal item, then arcanists might feel the power of "the black powder" is better utilized powering their spells and magical creations.

But non (or minimally)-magical alchemists might see a lot of bang for the buck ( ) out of alchemical gunpowder.

"what are the chances that the best and brightest minds would willing choose to develop firearms?" Yes, those without any natural ability to learn magic would see the benefit to themselves, but how often are there intelligent and wise characters in a magical, fantasy gaming-world without the ability to learn some form of magic or psionics?

Actually, there are many fantasy stories and novels in which the ability to work magic is a matter of heredity. Merely being smart or wise or charismatic (to use the D&D "caster" stats) would mean nothing if you didn't possess the necessary "spark."

In such a world (again, in D&D terms) the difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer would be the ease in which one accesses magic. Both would have the innate talent for manipulating mana, but Wizards would need to study in order to unlock their abilities, while Sorcerers and their ilk merely let the magic flow.

Divine magic would require both belief and your acceptance by the divine force in which you believe.

As for Psionic powers...ever hear of mitichlorians?

OK, not the best example...but the point remains- there is at least some fiction out there in which psionic ability is determined by one's heredity.

Heck...it was kind of that way in 1Ed.

 

[Knightfall]

But non (or minimally)-magical alchemists might see a lot of bang for the buck ( ) out of alchemical gunpowder.

True. But can they even get it legally? If anybody can buy alchemical items, then, sure, you have a free-for-all on how alchemical gunpowder gets used. However, if the world isn't created equal, then arcanists might keep the knowledge for themselves.

I guess it all depends on how a DM designs his campaign world.

Actually, there are many fantasy stories and novels in which the ability to work magic is a matter of heredity. Merely being smart or wise or charismatic (to use the D&D "caster" stats) would mean nothing if you didn't possess the necessary "spark."

I was speaking specifically about a D&D world not a world of fantasy fiction beyond the scope of the game. And, yes, there are roleplaying games that are designed with that need for a heredity "spark" to use magic. I guess I just don't considered that kind of limit when talking about a general D&D game.

I've never ran a game where a player can't choose to be a wizard/sorcerer or psionicist because the player's character just doesn't have that "spark" based on family lineage. (I'm more of a let the player choose what they want sort of DM when it comes to the "core rules" of D&D.) Yes, a NPC with a high Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma might not have the "spark," but that doesn't mean they will choose to use a firearm in a magical world just because they can't use magic. (I admit it's an option; however...)

I would think the average NPC would choose to pick up and use a sword rather than use a strange (alchemical) weapon that might blow up in their face. Most people would understand the concept of how a sword works (the sharp end goes towards your foe) but a firearm might confuse even the smartest/wisest NPCs.

Like I said before, I guess it depends on how the game world is run. I wouldn't limit a player's choice of class just because he/she designs a character background that doesn't include a heredity "spark." YMMV.

In such a world (again, in D&D terms) the difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer would be the ease in which one accesses magic. Both would have the innate talent for manipulating [/I]mana, but Wizards would need to study in order to unlock their abilities, while Sorcerers and their ilk merely let the magic flow.

Divine magic would require both belief and your acceptance by the divine force in which you believe.

All good points. I see where you're coming from. It sounds like you build characters based on the "fluffy" bits of a game world's background, which is great. I wish I'd had more players like this in the past but beggars can't be choosers.

A lot of times I end up with players that insist on playing a specific type of character that goes completely against the background I design for a campaign world, which can be both challenging and annoying. I know one player who prefers to play the same "type of wizard," always.

It didn't bother me to much because I didn't mind his character being some extraplanar human from another time and world that just popped into the campaign world due to a miscast teleport spell. But in a campaign with a need for that heredity "spark," such an outsider might not be possible. How would you include such a character in a "magical spark" campaign? (I'm truly asking; Id like to hear your ideas on this matter.)

As for Psionic powers...ever hear of mitichlorians?

OK, not the best example...but the point remains- there is at least some fiction out there in which psionic ability is determined by one's heredity.

Ack. Not a good example.

Psionics is a unique concept depending on whether or not you define it as being different from magic. I do for my campaign worlds, but I still don't define who can take psionic classes based on heredity.

Note that I do limit psionics based on a specific campaign concept, but it has more to do with dividing different D&D elements into different campaign flavor for different campaign regions. On one continent of World of Kulan, psionics is more prominant than magic, while on another it is nearly unheard of by the masses.

However, if someone really wants to play a psionic character in a campaign set on that second continent, I won't forbid it. I will make them roll dice to see if they have that 1 in a 100 chance of being a psion, but if the character doesn't fall into that 1% bracket, then they have to play a wilder.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I'm reminded of a rather dry note under an old revolver actioned cap and ball rifle on display at West Point that observed the weapon "was unpopular with the troops due to a propensity to explode."

Yes, I understand that firearms reliability has a long and spotty history.

But in general, the times I've seen people talking about wanting firearms to be dangerously lethal to their user, they're talking about rates of error that're somewhere around 1/36 or more.

Brad

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But can they even get it legally?

Well, black powder recipes vary but most of the ingredients are fairly common.

However, if black powder itself were illegal because of its danger to the "wizardy" upper class...possession of it might be as illegal as poison.

I would think the average NPC would choose to pick up and use a sword rather than use a strange (alchemical) weapon that might blow up in their face.

Well, in a world where "spark" is required, and you're a dude who is the same general physical and intellectual type as Morpheus the Archmage of Dream...but you don't have the "spark?"

You might find alchemy a lot more your speed than hefting a sword.

I know one player who prefers to play the same "type of wizard," always.

Is his name "Russ?" My buddy has played variations on the same wizard for the past 20 years (with brief interruptions for things like the odd Paladin), and his PCs' spell-lists would probably be immediately identifiable to people like Thanee. There may not be more than a 5% variance in them over the years.

It didn't bother me to much because I didn't mind his character being some extraplanar human from another time and world that just popped into the campaign world due to a miscast teleport spell. But in a campaign with a need for that heredity "spark," such an outsider might not be possible. How would you include such a character in a "magical spark" campaign? (I'm truly asking; Id like to hear your ideas on this matter.)

"Spark" can have a lot of origins- artificial or natural, singular or multiple- which could be more common in the PC's world of origin. He (and the people of his world) could also simply be unaware of the "spark" requirement...those with it are somehow simply called to it, subconsciously.

"Spark" could be a simple mutation/variance in the gene codes. Like the fluff from the Sorcerer, it could be the result of long-ago miscegenation with beings who are innately magical- Demons and other outsiders, Fey, dragonkin...you get the picture.

Perhaps the "spark" derives from a pact that someone in the family (even the PC) made with otherplanar intelligences. That worked for writers like Moorcock and the Binder & Warlock's fluff-writers.

If your campaign world is secretly a post-apocalyptic one in which high-tech societies fell, being replaced with resurgent magic (see Brook's Shanarra and RIFTS, for instance), the "spark" for some forms of "magic" like psionics could even be the result of bioengineering or nanotech.

It could be that the teleport accident itself is the source of this PC's "spark."

Perhaps, like Kal-el traveling from doomed Krypton to Earth (or that one episode of Sliders), the rules of his world of origin are different enough that, while mundane in his homeworld, he is magical in this one. This kind of "spark" has all kinds of interesting RP and mechanical implications- there may be some planes in which this guy's magic simply doesn't work...while everyone else's does. And vice versa!

 

[Knightfall]

Well, black powder recipes vary but most of the ingredients are fairly common.

However, if black powder itself were illegal because of its danger to the "wizardy" upper class...possession of it might be as illegal as poison.

True. I guess it depends on whether or not a DM decides that the creation of black powder requires a not so common ingredient. In my campaign, I use the Forgotten Realms concept of magical smokepowder, so it can't be created by just anyone.

I like the idea that it might be illegal in some area. That might work well in my version of Izmer.

Well, in a world where "spark" is required, and you're a dude who is the same general physical and intellectual type as Morpheus the Archmage of Dream...but you don't have the "spark?"

You might find alchemy a lot more your speed than hefting a sword.

True. I guess I just don't associate Craft (alchemy) with non-spellcasting classes whether PC classes or NPC classes. Hmm, I guess I can see it for the bored aristocrat. Sounds dangerous.

Is his name "Russ?" My buddy has played variations on the same wizard for the past 20 years (with brief interruptions for things like the odd Paladin), and his PCs' spell-lists would probably be immediately identifiable to people like Thanee. There may not be more than a 5% variance in them over the years.

Nope. His name is Rob. His last wizard character was named Hezekiah Grofus. It was a fun character.

"Spark" can have a lot of origins- artificial or natural, singular or multiple- which could be more common in the PC's world of origin. He (and the people of his world) could also simply be unaware of the "spark" requirement...those with it are somehow simply called to it, subconsciously.

"Spark" could be a simple mutation/variance in the gene codes. Like the fluff from the Sorcerer, it could be the result of long-ago miscegenation with beings who are innately magical- Demons and other outsiders, Fey, dragonkin...you get the picture.

Perhaps the "spark" derives from a pact that someone in the family (even the PC) made with otherplanar intelligences. That worked for writers like Moorcock and the Binder & Warlock's fluff-writers.

If your campaign world is secretly a post-apocalyptic one in which high-tech societies fell, being replaced with resurgent magic (see Brook's Shanarra and RIFTS, for instance), the "spark" for some forms of "magic" like psionics could even be the result of bioengineering or nanotech.

It could be that the teleport accident itself is the source of this PC's "spark."

Perhaps, like Kal-el traveling from doomed Krypton to Earth (or that one episode of Sliders), the rules of his world of origin are different enough that, while mundane in his homeworld, he is magical in this one. This kind of "spark" has all kinds of interesting RP and mechanical implications- there may be some planes in which this guy's magic simply doesn't work...while everyone else's does. And vice versa!

Hmm, all very interesting. I like the secret post-apocalyptic idea.

My World of Kulan campaign is a little like that but without any "real" high-tech in its past. (Magitech, maybe.) I'd describe it more as a "high magic" post-apocalyptic world. There have been two ice ages. One natural and one brought about by a magical disaster.

Very few of the "learned" populace knowns about the pre-second ice age incarnation of the world. (Note: I've tied both Freeport and Bluffside's histories into this concept.) The world's previous Goddess of Magic is now the world's overdeity.

To get back on topic, smokepowder is common in many areas of my campaign world but I don't want it to dominate the world. I see smokepowder weapons as simply flavor. Sort of like the use of steam-powered gnome skyships and submersibles.