Making guns palatable in high fantasy [Design Theory]

[Umbran]

1) historically, they existed in the time period echoed in most high fantasy.

Are you sure about that? Are you sure you aren't taking that date from the armor?

Let's remove the heavy armor, for a moment. That armor is, as others have noted, is 15th-16th century stuff: Renaissance era.

Robin Hood is set in the days of Richard Lionheart - that's the 1100s, aka 12th century. Not a fantasy, but a referent of relevant archetypes and tropes, yes?

Charlemagne (from whom we get the term "Paladin") had his nights in the 700s and 800s.

Saint George (from whom we get much of our dragon-slaying penchant) is often depicted in heavy armor. But, for cyin' out loud, he died in 303!

We get some of our other dragon-slaying tradition from Siegfried - oldest manuscript for him is 1200s, and there are people mentioned who are variously dated to the 6th century.

The oldest manuscript of Beowulf is from the 800s.

King Arthur (once you strip off the armor layered on by Romantic-era authors) is a figure best placed somewhere around the 6th century, give or take. Certainly the socio-political situation he's dealing with is not Renaissance Britain!

While Tolkien is not the end-all, be-all of high fantasy, but he's a pretty solid benchmark for the game, and sure as heck the War of the Ring isn't taking place in the equivalent of the Renaissance.

Dragonlance had Solamnic Knights in heavy armor, but for most other purposes, wasn't the War of the Lance set in something a lot more like Dark Ages?

You see the trend, here?

Now, there will certainly be fantasies solidly placed in something like the Renaissance. But it seems to me that most high fantasy is actually more like Middle Ages (in social structures, politics, and economics), with heavy armor tacked on - the armor isn't a telltale of the age, it is itself an anomaly.

You wonder why guns seem anomalous? That's because the situation depicted in most high fantasies really isn't from the era of the gun! Adding a gun isn't adjusting high fantasy to match its real-world era. It is adding another anomaly.

 

[Dausuul]

The way I see it, there are three main ways to approach firearms in a D&D campaign:

1. No such animal. This is pretty simple.

2. Firearms exist, but take a very long time to load. I would approach this by giving them excellent stats but prohibitive (2-3 rounds at least) reload times. Thus, the standard tactic would be to fire your gun once, then draw your sword for melee.

3. Firearms exist and can be reloaded relatively quickly. In this case, they should be treated more or less like any other ranged weapon.

I prefer #1 or #2, myself. #3 makes it feel like there's no difference between a musket and a bow, and that's kind of dull. #2 provides a clear difference between the weapons. Guns are for melee types who need a single-shot ranged option, and for casters who want a nonmagical sidearm for use in a pinch. Bows are for dedicated ranged fighters.

(Regarding the comparison with crossbows, I think crossbows ought to go the #2 route as well, to be honest. I don't understand why it's necessary to have crossbow specialists who can match the rate of fire of a longbow. If people want crossbow specialists, can't they do something different?)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Are you sure about that? Are you sure you aren't taking that date from the armor?

Let's remove the heavy armor, for a moment. That armor is, as others have noted, is 15th-16th century stuff: Renaissance era.

Robin Hood is set in the days of Richard Lionheart - that's the 1100s, aka 12th century. Not a fantasy, but a referent of relevant archetypes and tropes, yes?

Charlemagne (from whom we get the term "Paladin") had his nights in the 700s and 800s.

Saint George (from whom we get much of our dragon-slaying penchant) is often depicted in heavy armor. But, for cyin' out loud, he died in 303!

We get some of our other dragon-slaying tradition from Siegfried - oldest manuscript for him is 1200s, and there are people mentioned who are variously dated to the 6th century.

The oldest manuscript of Beowulf is from the 800s.

King Arthur (once you strip off the armor layered on by Romantic-era authors) is a figure best placed somewhere around the 6th century, give or take. Certainly the socio-political situation he's dealing with is not Renaissance Britain!

While Tolkien is not the end-all, be-all of high fantasy, but he's a pretty solid benchmark for the game, and sure as heck the War of the Ring isn't taking place in the equivalent of the Renaissance.

Dragonlance had Solamnic Knights in heavy armor, but for most other purposes, wasn't the War of the Lance set in something a lot more like Dark Ages?

You see the trend, here?

Now, there will certainly be fantasies solidly placed in something like the Renaissance. But it seems to me that most high fantasy is actually more like Middle Ages (in social structures, politics, and economics), with heavy armor tacked on - the armor isn't a telltale of the age, it is itself an anomaly.

You wonder why guns seem anomalous? That's because the situation depicted in most high fantasies really isn't from the era of the gun! Adding a gun isn't adjusting high fantasy to match its real-world era. It is adding another anomaly.

The earliest depiction of a gunpowder weapon i know of is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-10th century silk banner from Dunhuang. The Tê-An Shou Chhêng Lu, an account of the siege of De'an in 1132, records that Song forces used fire-lances against the Jurchens.

And gunpowder itself was invented in the 9th century, The first mention of a mixture resembling gunpowder appeared in Taishang Guaizu Danjing Mijue by Qing Xuzi (@ 808AD); the first reference to its incendiary properties is in a Taoist text tentatively dated to the mid-9th century AD.

So that gets us pretty far back. Besides...even tossing out the armor, you have other things in the game and much genre fiction that push timelines ahead instead of back: rapiers, for instance. Certain types of transport, especially ships. Even certain castle designs. Most fantasy writers weren't really historians, after all.

And the thing is, in the real world, just because some form of new weapon, armor ship or castle design showed up, doesn't mean the old stuff got abandoned. Until necessity forced them, the old stuff kept getting used, since it was still generally good enough.

 

[Glade Riven]

Well, the twisted logic of "no guns, even primative guns" and yet lasers are acceptable (wand of scorching ray) kinda bugs me. The veil between scifi and fantasy is a thin one, but a passionatly defended one. At least until gnomes show up.

That thin fantasy coating is what makes Wand of Scorching Ray fantasy instead of scifi. Hense, what I'm trying to do is add that same schlack to guns.

While we're talking fun facts of the real world, most bullets fired in actual combat do not contribute to kills - those shots are to pin down the enemy and make them duck behind cover.

Since several people seem intent on pointing out the expense of Wizards and the training time for guns...just how much time does it take to train someone to use a wand of fireballs or scorching ray? Considering that a rogue off the street can figure it out, it can't be too hard. That's a nice "clip" of 50 shots per wand, no reload times, and a simple point interface.

Gotta go...I'll "catch up" with some of the other posts shortly.

 

[amerigoV]

Ah, you see, that's not a, "problem with the game," unless you define, "does not follow real-world physics and biology very closely," to be a problem.

...

This is what I mean by it being a genre issue. In the high fantasy genre, heroes are incredibly difficult to kill, by real-world standards. They're all Conans and Rambos and John McClanes. The system is designed to support that - is that then a "problem"? No. It is a design goal!

OTOH even Rambo would hesitate if someone was pointing a gun at him (with him in the open). Not in a fantasy world -- so they must be Rambo Paragons!

D&D has always been built around swords and sorcery. Its interesting that the system always forced you "build" an effective archer when most sane people would prefer to kill things at range. Its a D&D trope (but then again, I think D&D has become its own genre, thus a problem attempting to heavily modifying it).

 

[Derren]

Since several people seem intent on pointing out the expense of Wizards and the training time for guns...just how much time does it take to train someone to use a wand of fireballs or scorching ray? Considering that a rogue off the street can figure it out, it can't be too hard. That's a nice "clip" of 50 shots per wand, no reload times, and a simple point interface.

Gotta go...I'll "catch up" with some of the other posts shortly.

In 3E you did need to sink quite a lot of skillpoints into Use Magic Device which was rogue exclusive and still unreliable.
And as magic item the costs are still very high for every wand charge. Gunpowder weapons are much cheaper.

In the end the effectivenes of guns over magic items depends on the size of armies. The more soldiers you have the better is it to use gunpowder weapons because of useability and costs.

 

[Umbran]

So that gets us pretty far back.

Yep. Far back. And also several thousand miles away, and in a different culture than the typical English-language high fantasy. So, I'm not sure that's relevant.

Besides...even tossing out the armor, you have other things in the game and much genre fiction that push timelines ahead instead of back: rapiers, for instance.

I don't argue that there aren't anomalies all over the place. My point is that "the armor was there, so it is equivalent to this year in history, so there should be guns", tends to fall apart. Whether or not other anomalies exist, the basic setting for most of the standard tropes looks more Middle Ages to me.

Certain types of transport, especially ships. Even certain castle designs. Most fantasy writers weren't really historians, after all.

True. There's lot of anomalies. But, let's face it, most of them are window dressing (almost literally - they're visual, and that's about it). The author names the wrong kind or structure of ship. Big whoop - they still don't pull a Magellan, even if they're using the right kind of ship to do so. And the world doesn't have DaVinci or Copernicus, or massive, economy changing trade that creates the Medicis.

The author names the wrong kind of armor - but rather than leading troops with primitive muskets, they're still clashing with sword and shield.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the whole desire to add guns is that they *not* be mere window dressing, but that they be effective, and functional, not just visual. That's the point at which you risk infringement on the fictional tropes. Not that I'm a trope purist - I'm running Deadlands right now, which is all about trope mash-ups. The thing is that when I sit down to play a game, I'm enacting a fiction, not re-enactign a history. The condition of my tropes is more important than the condition of my historical accuracy. So, telling me, "But it was there in history!" does not give me confidence that the appropriate thought about what it means for the fiction has yet taken place.

And, all in all, I find the argument for guns based on historical accuracy or consistency is weak (and ironic) when you are only asking for consistency for your one favorite item, but are fine with the rest of the anomalies. Inconsistent consistency?

 

[Derren]

Yep. Far back. And also several thousand miles away, and in a different culture than the typical English-language high fantasy. So, I'm not sure that's relevant.

European Hand Cannons are 14th century (About 1312 they came to England), maybe even 13th century.
Cannons fall in the same century (early 14th, 13th when you count islamic countries. And a lot earlier for China)

I don't argue that there aren't anomalies all over the place. My point is that "the armor was there, so it is equivalent to this year in history, so there should be guns", tends to fall apart. Whether or not other anomalies exist, the basic setting for most of the standard tropes looks more Middle Ages to me.

The problem is that the existence of guns played a very important part in the development of those armors. Without guns you would not have thick full plate armor. And there is nothing else in D&D which would promt armors to develop the same way. Actually for D&D it would make sense to wear less or more agile armor becuse there are so many things which can simply crush you (dragons, giants) or bypass armor (magic).
And a lot of other things depend on advanced armor. Two handed weapons and bastard swords were only invented after full plate armor reduced the need of a shield. A lot of typical D&D weapons were only invented at the same time or after cannons. There are not just a few anomalies but actually quite a lot.

The issue is simply that D&D is not "vikings with crude axes" but "knights in shining armor". And to even et knights in shining armor you also need guns from which exactly this armor protects.

And about your tales,they had been created in earlier ages, but by now everyone associates them with the late middle ages. The modern society as romanticed those tales and the "romantic idea of the middle ages" is set in the high to late middle age, meaning 15th century and onward.

PS: There is gunpowder in Lord of the Rings...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yep. Far back. And also several thousand miles away, and in a different culture than the typical English-language high fantasy. So, I'm not sure that's relevant.

Then we need to toss the D&D monk out as well, because- inaccurate though it may be- it most closely resembles the fantastic Eastern martial monk tradition, not the clergymen of the West at all.

Likewise, for consistency, certain weapons need to be tossed from "Western" fantasy fiction & RPGs: kukris, shuriken (and almost any "monk weapon" except the quarterstaff), repeating crossbow (Hawk the Slayer, OH NOES!), etc.

 

[Hassassin]

Since several people seem intent on pointing out the expense of Wizards and the training time for guns...just how much time does it take to train someone to use a wand of fireballs or scorching ray? Considering that a rogue off the street can figure it out, it can't be too hard. That's a nice "clip" of 50 shots per wand, no reload times, and a simple point interface.

Supposing a first level trained user in 3.5 there's still a quite large chance to fail. If you train a normal soldier (a first level warrior) you'd probably only have +2 UMD for a 1/10 chance to succeed - not worth it. So you'd need specialized troops (experts) for this purpose. Let's say Cha 14, 4 ranks, and only 14-20 succeed - about two in three chance to misfire. There's also a 1/20 chance of "jamming" the wand for the day. Even if successful, the attack roll (with scorching ray) may miss.

A full fireball wand costs over 11k. Let's say an average of 6k for procuring used wands. Barded heavy cavalry costs 400 (heavy warhorse) + 800 (splint barding) = 1.2k on top of whatever the rider needs. So for the price of five heavy horse you'd get one wand. Not terribly expensive. Actually, equipping each rider costs at least 200 gp, which you'd only pay once for the wandman, so four to one is closer.

I don't think scorching ray is worth it, since a CL 3 magic missile wand is half the cost, has no chance of missing the target, has longer range, and is still powerful enough to have a decent chance of killing first level targets. Such wands cost (used) about as much as cavalry.

Same goes for wand of cure light wounds, of course. You get more "clerics" by training some soldiers to use wands. Better yet, give one both a cure wand and a fireball wand and you have a versatile wizard/cleric. Since CLW is so cheap you'd be insane not to give one of those to everyone you give a fireball wand. I definitely think these troops should be a part of armies.

Yes, wands would have interesting consequences for war.

I really wish there was a proper, well thought writeup of what D&D warfare looks like. Or is there? I haven't seen any.