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

[Rechan]

I also have to chuckle at the argument about how introducing guns will lead to a total change in the campaign world, comparing longbowmen to musketeers.

Folks, we're talking about a medieval world that has not changed despite dropping monsters and magic into it.

To use a simple example: Castles would have to have an entirely different design. For starters, the "Large Wall, courtyard, then large building" design does not work:

Magic. With easy access to flying and teleportation spells, having an open aired area is stupid. Anyone could land in the courtyard or teleport in as they have a view of the courtyard (which they could get by flying, or higher vantagepoints on the landscape). That's just low level spells - the higher you go, the less reasonable a mere wall with a courtyard makes sense.

Monsters. Again, the flying issue. Anything from dragons to gryphon riders could easily get right past your first line of defense by just hopping over your front gate. Also, don't worry about cannons; that stone wall is rather pointless next to a giant earth elemental, or something that can scale it like a chain link fence (equally likely with something as tall as the wall itself).

The only time a stone wall as protection would work would be against non-magical humanoid invaders.

Now, the response is going to be either: 1) The response would be magical coutnermeasures! or 2) That wouldn't always occur, so having to change it is unnecessary.

The answer to both of those is the same: it's a blatant security risk. Rather than build the stone wall/open courtyard and THEN spend tons of money/time/effort/power on magical countermeasures, or take the chance that no medium level MU or monster comes along, the safest, most logical, least problematic method would be to redesign castles and other fortified buildings in the first place. They would never have developed (or, quickly changed after it happened the first time or two).

Simply put, the Historical Medieval Western World wouldn't be the same if fantasy elements are introduced wholesale; it would have developed differently. So to say "Introducing guns would make everything obsolete" is ignoring the obvious: magic would too.

Hell: in Eberron, you had mass-produced eternal wands of magic missiles handed out to low level NPC class spellcasters, filling up "Magic Missile Corps" during the Last War. If a squad of LOW LEVEL GRUNT guys (which magewrites were) firing magic missiles (auto-hit attacks that likely would kill your first level warrior), and that didn't change the nature of warfare, then a gun ain't going to do it.

 

[Desdichado]

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

For the same reason you wedge anything else into your D&D paradigm. Why wedge Greek mythology, Tolkien, Howard, Leiber, Norse mythology, native american tradition, Lovecraft, Judeo-Christian angel/demonology, and dinosaurs into the D&D paradigm?

Because someone thought it would be COOL! In any case, guns are hardly a blip on the "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot"-o-meter compared to a paradigm that already shoehorns all of the above in it anyway.

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.

Bully for you. You are not the sum total of the D&D playing audience, though, so while I'm glad you get what you want out of the game, that doesn't mean that what you want is the sum total of what all players want. Clearly, some people enjoy the idea of guns in D&D.

And the point is kinda moot anyway; most firearms rules I've seen are mechanically distinct from those other options you listed.

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.

I disagree. Strongly. I also disagree that there's a coherent and consistent D&D "paradigm and genre" anyway, and if there is one, it's "throw in the kitchen sink" which, if anything, is much more encouraging to would-be gunners in D&D than it is discouraging.

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.

This is a total threadjack. This discussion isn't, "Convince Umbran, who's naturally a skeptic on the issue, that he needs to have guns in his game." This is a more generic discussion about guns in D&D.

You're trying to shut down discussion by positioning your opinion on the question as a universal truth that first needs to be overcome. That ain't so.

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.

Well, keep the discussion firmly in the "personal taste" arena, and you're good to go. The prior post, though... that didn't mention personal taste even once, and implied that your personal taste was, actually, something much more than merely your personal taste.

 

[Dausuul]

Simply put, the Historical Medieval Western World wouldn't be the same if fantasy elements are introduced wholesale; it would have developed differently. So to say "Introducing guns would make everything obsolete" is ignoring the obvious: magic would too.

True, but magic has an out; you can throttle back the prevalence of magic in the campaign world. If only one in a thousand people has the capacity to wield magic, and most of those never get past the first couple of levels, then castles can be built without worrying too much about attack by high-level wizards. If monsters with extraordinary abilities are rare and difficult to recruit into armies, likewise, you can probably get by without designing your castle to meet that specific threat.

Since D&D magic doesn't exist in the real world, DMs and game designers are free to adjust the prevalence of magic to fit their needs. Guns, however, did exist in the real world, so there's an expectation there that they will work more or less the same way, including ease of production.

Now, all that said, if you're looking at a fantasy setting in the style of the Forgotten Realms, where the designers' motto is "an epic-level chicken in every pot of the archmagi," then I agree, it's silly to expect society to work the same way as it did in medieval Europe.

 

[Rechan]

True, but magic has an out; you can throttle back the prevalence of magic in the campaign world.

Again, you're cutting out monsters. Pretty much anything above 5th level has the capacity to get over that wall, since by then you're looking at flying monsters or things with spells.

Since D&D magic doesn't exist in the real world, DMs and game designers are free to adjust the prevalence of magic to fit their needs. Guns, however, did exist in the real world, so there's an expectation there that they will work more or less the same way, including ease of production.

If a DM can dial back or change magic so it has no impact on his game world's progression, then he can dial back guns' impact or change guns so it has no impact on his game world's progression.

I mean, in the Real World, Medieval lead to Renaissance. Yet since D&D is in Medieval period, it... continues to stay in the medieval period. Removing guns, you would still have the progression to the Renaissance, but yet that doesn't stop folks from continuing the play in the medieval period. So dropping guns in the medieval period wouldn't cause a chain reaction that would result in wars fought with musketeers, the DM wouldn't ever have to run the game where this is occurring.

It is up to the DM to set the precedence with whatever he wants. The campaign world IS what the DM makes it, not once he introduces something that will get out of control in the world itself. Because otherwise, guns are apparently the only thing that unfreezes the time clock and makes the game world advance.

Now, all that said, if you're looking at a fantasy setting in the style of the Forgotten Realms, where the designers' motto is "an epic-level chicken in every pot of the archmagi," then I agree, it's silly to expect society to work the same way as it did in medieval Europe.

Or Eberron, or Greyhawk...

If typical D&D modules are any indication, there's a wizard in a tower over every hill.

 

[Dausuul]

Again, you're cutting out monsters.

No, I'm not. Read the rest of that paragraph.

"If monsters with extraordinary abilities are rare and difficult to recruit into armies, likewise, you can probably get by without designing your castle to meet that specific threat."

I mean, in the Real World, Medieval lead to Renaissance. Yet since D&D is in Medieval period, it... continues to stay in the medieval period.

Only if you design your world that way. If you take the "medieval stasis" approach in world-building and don't make at least some effort to justify it, then I'll agree that you've pretty well forfeited the argument on verisimilitude and the logical consequences of guns. But it's quite possible to design a world where technology evolves and changes.

 

[SKyOdin]

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.

You obviously have never played the Wild ARMS series of videogames. Those games mixed Western mood and weaponry with every standard fantasy trope you can imagine (with a heavy dash of Sci-Fi for good measure).

I guess this illustrates a possible major source of the difference between the pro-gun and anti-gun factions: their sources of inspiration. I for one have played a lot of videogame RPGs where guns, swords, magic, monsters, and technology freely mingle. I have barely blinked at games where a trio of gunners lay down automatic fire in an otherwise medieval fantasy setting. At this point I don't think that there is such a thing as a genre mismatch. I understand though that a lot of people have different inspirations and tastes.

This thread has made me strongly tempted to run a campaign based on the late 16th/early 17th centuries though.

 

[Rechan]

No, I'm not. Read the rest of that paragraph.

"If monsters with extraordinary abilities are rare and difficult to recruit into armies, likewise, you can probably get by without designing your castle to meet that specific threat."

Who said anything about armies?

A dragon doesn't need to be in an army to simply decide to drop down in the castle's front yard and start tearing it apart. It's now within the castle's defenses.

If you've just made monsters and magic rare, then no duh guns aren't for you. Neither is most things in D&D and your world all ready doesn't reflect the choices of everyone else.

But it's quite possible to design a world where technology evolves and changes.

Now, here's the point: So you care enough about all that to go out of yoru way to make your campaign world so very interwoven and historically/ecologically/technologically/magically/whatnot balanced.

So why should you say guns don't go into D&D? They don't fit in your world like a whole lot of other stuff doesn't. So why is this an argument against guns, isntead of against lots of magic and other things that threaten the delicate balance?

The argument for no guns is not, therefore, "Guns do not fit in D&D", but "Guns do not fit in MY handcrafted campaign world".

And by making it anything more than that, then you're arguing from the point that others' campaigns must be like yours, because guns have to be kept away from their worlds too.

 

[Herobizkit]

True story. Here's the easiest fix for my campaign world.

a) Add Guns (pistols and rifles).
b) Give them open-ended damage (as per 2ed arquebus et al).
c) Put the bows and x-bows in the hands of the savage humanoids.
d) Profit.

Sounds familiar somehow...

 

[Mishihari Lord]

For me it's simple. I like Lord of the Rings style fantasy, which leaves out guns.

I don't get the arguments that gun damage must be handled differently - they're not inherently more lethal than any other weapon. If a sword puts a hole in you you die; if a gun puts a hole in you you die too. Range, accuracy, and rate of fire are important advantages of a gun over a melee weapon, but none of those have anything to do with actual damage inflicted. A lot of the arguments sound to me like people want to handle melee weapon damage cinematicaly but gun damage realistically, which doesn't make much sense.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

According to medical science or the studies by military scientists, death spirals dont even fit well reality reality ;-) and since I don't enjoy them (.. accentuation of hopelessness is not my favorite genre feature) I can happily claim that's not realistic -> note I have no problem with non-realist when I do like the form it takes ;p