Why DON'T people like guns in D&D?

[Mark Chance]

Historical simulationism and D&D? down that road lies only madness.

If not madness, then certainly a barrel full of non-fun. From the introduction to the firearms section of Fencing & Firearms:

Before we get started with firearms rules, a few words about what this section is not intended to do. While the 16th through 18th centuries serve as our historical baseline for firearms, we are not hindered by real world concerns. Realism takes a backseat to playability and fun. Thus, firearms and the rules that govern them are deliberately unrealistic.​

Of course, I'm biased in this case, but seems like a good way to start.

 

[Desdichado]

Of course, I'm biased in this case, but seems like a good way to start.

I'm with you there. I don't want my firearms to be historically realistic. I want my firearms to remind me of all the swashbuckling movies I watched as a kid and all the Rafael Sabatini books I've read.

 

[Meatboy]

"Why do we expect guns to have a huge effect on the in game world if magic hasn't?" -ProfessorCirno
For me this hits the nail on the head for why I am not a big fan of guns in DnD.

As has been stated a few times in this thread longbows take years for someone to really master. Then again supposedly so does training a wizard. I am fairly certain that all it would take is one king or lord to note that fact and the entire dynamic of the game world should change.
I mean why spend thousands of gold training and arming knights. ( Let's not forget that knights spent a lifetime training in their arts too! ) when for a few hundred, assuming you had some relatively intelligent people in your land, say INT 13 or more, you could train them as wizards and just have them mass cast magic missile.

I really feel that if historically kings could field thousand of knights, bowmen or infantry that once you introduce magic it would not be long before massed mages became the norm and not the exception. Thus ensuring that something like the gun would probably never even be thought of.

 

[shadow]

It's about mythology and romanticism

What it essentially comes down to is romanticizing the sword. Sure, in real life sword fights were bloody affairs that ended rather quickly. However, there is a huge mythology built around gallant warriors and magic swords. Bows are often similarly romanticized - think about Robin Hood and all the other legendary archers. Firearms, however, don't have the same level of romanticism and legends built around them. (Well, in modern cinema there is "Gun-Fu", but that is a different genre altogether.)

As far as "magic would prevent the development of firearms" goes, I don't think that the argument holds much water. With that logic you could also argue that magic would prevent the development of the longbow. (Why develop a long range weapon that takes quite a bit of strength and training when it's easier and more efficient shoot a fireball?) Besides, since when has D&D been about "realism" or "believability"? If you want to start arguing about how magic would affect the campaign world, you should start with how "raise dead" and "resurrection" spells would affect society psychologically and sociologically.

Leaving questions of "realism" aside, I think the real reason is simply the "mythic" and "legendary" status afforded to swords.

If you want to emulate the "mythic heroism" genre and leave guns out of the mix, that's fine. If you want a different style of play that includes some firearms, that's fine too. Just don't argue it's a question of "realism".

 

[Desdichado]

What it essentially comes down to is romanticizing the sword. Sure, in real life sword fights were bloody affairs that ended rather quickly. However, there is a huge mythology built around gallant warriors and magic swords. Bows are often similarly romanticized - think about Robin Hood and all the other legendary archers. Firearms, however, don't have the same level of romanticism and legends built around them. (Well, in modern cinema there is "Gun-Fu", but that is a different genre altogether.)

Ahem. Perhaps you've heard of this little niche genre called The Western?

 

[Barastrondo]

Ahem. Perhaps you've heard of this little niche genre called The Western?

I was gonna say. The Western is pretty much the romance of the gun, right down to being deconstructed in works like Unforgiven. It's a different romance, one with a more level playing field, but it's distinct.

 

[Desdichado]

I was gonna say. The Western is pretty much the romance of the gun, right down to being deconstructed in works like Unforgiven. It's a different romance, one with a more level playing field, but it's distinct.

It's been a Brave New World for my personal gaming when I decided to ditch the strictly enforced subgenre chimneys that I used to operate with. Mix and match, all the way, that's me. I specifically call out Sergio Leone as an important influence on my current go-to setting, for instance. Along with Charles Dickens, H. P. Lovecraft, Robert Ludlum and Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom stuff.

 

[Storminator]

I think guns are unpopular in D&D because they clash with some of D&D's core assumptions. What are the skills of a great gun hero? You're a quick draw and a dead-eye shot. So you win initiative often, and when you do, you kill your foe right now.

This flies in the face of D&D's initiative system, where it's hard to win consistently, and the hit point system, where it's hard to one-shot your foes.

So you can fit guns into the initiative and hp systems (it's been done a billion times already), but you either completely break your game, or the guns have failed to live up to expectations.

So guns tend to be pretty unsatisfying. Personally, I'd rather have cannons. Pirate battles just don't feel right without cannons, which is something I miss in D&D.

PS

 

[Dausuul]

A dagger can't pierce platemail and nobody gives a damn that you can still stab a fighter in full plate to death.

You can do that IRL. In fact, a dagger is one of the better weapons available to deal with a guy in full plate. Because it's small and can be aimed precisely, you can drive it through the eyeslit, the joints, et cetera; something difficult to do with a larger weapon.

That's not to say daggers were the weapons of choice for taking down armored knights--you still had to get close enough to use the thing, after all. But it certainly could be done, and there were even daggers specifically designed for the purpose. The stiletto, the misericorde, and the rondel dagger were all made for getting past heavy armor.

 

[Mark Chance]

You can do that IRL. In fact, a dagger is one of the better weapons available to deal with a guy in full plate. Because it's small and can be aimed precisely....

...at a prone knight while he's being held down by other rabble. Otherwise, IRL, before you could get past the broadsword and shield to line up that precise aim, you'd almost assuredly end up with your torso split open.