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

[shadow]

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

I almost mentioned the Western genre. Although the Western does tend to romanticize the gunslinger, it's a slightly different romanticism. Also, most Westerns take place in the late 19th century - a few hundred years of technological development from the "default" assumption of the D&D game.

That said, core D&D seems to be all over the place when it comes to weapons, technology, and mythology. (We have bronze age slings next too late medieval long bows. We have monster out Greco-Roman myth next to the clerics loosely inspired by medieval religious orders.) Therefore, fitting gunslingers into D&D could be done without too much problem. It would be a different type of fantasy, but it would not be any less "realistic" than the "baseline" assumption of D&D.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

We think weapons are more accurate than they are too..

Only minions/level zeros die instantly...and IRL police studies show 1 in 6 shots in short(under 50 yards) range actually connect this is from well trained dudes. But they still might do hit point damage . Suppression fire could be smacking down hit points. Remember that bit about HP not being wounds... its significant ...

In D&D that cleave attack might only really hit the one guy just fatigue the second who moved out of the way.... the police records dont record this effect .

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.

Part of us "knows" we are all minions.... and guns are not fantasy unless we work our brains in to "Western mode"

 

[Umbran]

Part of us "knows" we are all minions.... and guns are not fantasy unless we work our brains in to "Western mode"

I think you'll find that, guns in "western mode" don't behave the way the rest of D&D combat behaves. In Western mode, even the non-minions often die after one shot.

The face-to-face duel in standard D&D fantasy is a longish thing, with folks dancing around bobbing and weaving, cutting nicks and scratches in each other - ablative combat.

The face-to-face duel in Westerns is one-hit, one-kill, over quickly, usually based on whoever drew first.

Genre mismatch.

 

[Rechan]

The face-to-face duel in standard D&D fantasy is a longish thing, with folks dancing around bobbing and weaving, cutting nicks and scratches in each other - ablative combat.

The face-to-face duel in Westerns is one-hit, one-kill, over quickly, usually based on whoever drew first.

Except one can characterize a normal "shootout" as a typical combat. The "dozens of guys on a street", ducking for cover and shooting at one another is a normal combat.

How is it HP was described by Gygax? No actual physical damage until the killing blow (so you don't have a fighter who gets shot with three dozen arrows while the noob is taken out by a glancing blow).

A shootout can easily be described as a typical HP wittling battle. Except that all those misses are, in a lot of cases, successful attacks that reduce HP. It's just that the final hit kills the target.

However, when looking at the Western where it's a Duel, or just a few guys standing twenty paces from one another, it comes out to something much different:

Save or Die spells.

The Gunslinger is just the mundane equivalent of a caster. You hit the target, and either he saves (and takes some hefty damage), or he just dies. Because the Save-or-Die caster that wins initiative often kills his target rather swiftly.

 

[Umbran]

A shootout can easily be described as a typical HP wittling battle. Except that all those misses are, in a lot of cases, successful attacks that reduce HP. It's just that the final hit kills the target.

Can you wedge guns into the D&D paradigm? Sure. But why?

I already have missile weapons - bows, crossbows, thrown weapons, and wands of magic missile (and other spells). If the gun is not going to be mechanically differentiated from those other things, I fail to see the point in including them. I have no need for just another missile weapon that does damage like all the other missile weapons. The niche is already filled.

And the areas where guns are really interesting - the things that make guns cool and give them their own forms of romance as a weapon - are where they strongly deviate from the D&D paradigm and genre.

Stop trying to tell me I can include guns - I have been playing and houseruling rpgs for decades, and know that full well. The fact that it is possible is not meaningful to me. "Can do" is not equivalent to "should do". I will not do so unless someone shows me something cool, that I want in my game, that I get out of doing so that I don't get with what's already in the rules.

There, sir, is your challenge.

 

[Meatboy]

The things about "western style" shootouts is that they just emphasize another reason why people don't like guns in DnD. They remove that heroic face to face confrontation. Even if you could get decent mechanics for guns shootouts seem to involve two or more guys hiding behind things and trying to score the first shot. And unless I'm the rogue or severely out numbered when I play DnD I really dislike hiding for the durations of my fights.

 

[Garthanos]

I think you'll find that, guns in "western mode" don't behave the way the rest of D&D combat behaves. In Western mode, even the non-minions often die after one shot.

The face-to-face duel in standard D&D fantasy is a longish thing, with folks dancing around bobbing and weaving, cutting nicks and scratches in each other - ablative combat.

The face-to-face duel in Westerns is one-hit, one-kill, over quickly, usually based on whoever drew first.

Genre mismatch.

Well true... reality says that hit points serve old west no worse than they do other eras. .. its just not in sync with myth and "western mode."

Shoot out at OK Corral was not bang your dead... 1 shot 1 kill... Not sure about wiki sources on it but "thirty shots were fired in thirty seconds"..."and only 3 men killed."

Where did this data come from no clue? but it makes it sound very much like police stats which I have seen from reliable sources. Most shots miss ... freaking out your enemy and avoiding it yourself (alah hit points in the form of determination loss are as important to staying in the game as anything) and sometimes only a minor flesh wound will kill somebody (damn saving throw based death in the real world for this one).

 

[Umbran]

Well true... reality says that hit points serve old west no worse than they do other eras. .. its just not in sync with myth and "western mode."

Yes. That's why I refer to it as "genre clash", rather than an issue of the system not matching some version of historical accuracy.

I mean, really, it isn't like any commonly played game simulates real-world combat very well. The systems are designed to be fun to play, and/or to simulate some semi-mythical combat.

For my personal tastes, I prefer games with death spirals or hit locations when I'm dealing with guns (with, say, Shadowrun and Deadlands being examples I've found fun to work with) - these things accentuate the menace of firearms, and fit the fictional mythology, but they don't fit into the D&D paradigm well at all - in fact, I'd really prefer my D&D to *not* have those things.

 

[Rechan]

Stop trying to tell me I can include guns - I have been playing and houseruling rpgs for decades, and know that full well. The fact that it is possible is not meaningful to me. "Can do" is not equivalent to "should do". I will not do so unless someone shows me something cool, that I want in my game, that I get out of doing so that I don't get with what's already in the rules.

I return sir: why?

No one here is saying "You SHOULD have guns in your game". In fact, this thread has been about "Why shouldn't you". So, what purpose is there in trying to convince someone who DOES NOT like guns that they're missing something?

In fact, the entire thread has been:
Argument: Here's why guns don't belong in D&D.
Counter-argument 1: But here's something that conflicts with that explanation/argument/opinion.
Counter-argument 2: I don't care; I want guns in my D&D, and here's how I'd do it.

I mean, if I like Psionics in my games, and you don't... I shouldn't try to convince you to put Psionics in your game. That's not how it works. I merely ask for Psionics rules for my game. I don't care what you don't allow/don't want for your game - I'm not playing in it.

After all, the 3e DMG had rules for guns, and it was clearly a Variant rule that didn't require them to be in your game. So, what gives?

 

[David Howery]

one thing you have to decide on ahead of time is just what types of early firearms you'd allow in the campaign. From what I remember of my old FR campaign, I only allowed the crudest ones to appear; arquebus, blunderbuss, and horse pistol, all matchlocks. IIRC, I simplified the damage rules on them all a lot (arquebus 2d4, blunderbuss 1d6, pistol 1d8, extended damage on max. die roll), and made them all horrendously inaccurate at mid and long ranges. Plus, with matchlocks, you can't just carry around the guns ready to use at all times (those slow matches had to be lit, and only lasted so long). Armies were able to make good use of matchlocks because they had a lot of people, some of whom were in charge of keeping pots of hot coals ready to use in battle... not so easy with a small group of PCs. In fact, lighting up those slow matches proved to be about the hardest part of the job when they were in a hurry. In my experience, the guns were only useful when the party knew they were going to be in combat in a few rounds, were handy for one volley, and then put away as melee came around. I never once saw even a middling size monster/enemy character killed by one shot, much less a big one.