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

[GSHamster]

I don't think the problem is with the fantasy genre as it is with the leveling paradigm.

The fundamental conceit of (combat) rpgs is that:

As I do stuff, I become harder to defeat.

In fantasy games, you have all sorts of explanations for this, from magical healing, to better armor, to better skill with weapons, to just being physically tougher than the other guy. Levelling up represents becoming tougher and better skilled. In a swordfight, we expect the more skilled fighter to come out alive. And a lot of the attraction of RPGs relies on this: our working on a character and slowly making them more and more powerful.

However, as you introduce technology, it becomes a lot harder to justify this basic idea. The entire point of technology, in a lot of ways, is to replace skill. There is an old saying, popular in the eighteenth century, that "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." This saying perfectly encapsulates the point that technology makes the unskilled deadlier. Non-fantasy games need to be able to account for this. If you have a game where a character can get shot with a gun at point-blank range and almost always survive, that's really hard to take.

 

[Fanaelialae]

However, as you introduce technology, it becomes a lot harder to justify this basic idea. The entire point of technology, in a lot of ways, is to replace skill. There is an old saying, popular in the eighteenth century, that "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." This saying perfectly encapsulates the point that technology makes the unskilled deadlier.

Technology, unsurprisingly, also makes those who are skilled deadlier. Keep a bit of perspective. Guns aren't distintegration rays or star trek phasers.

Non-fantasy games need to be able to account for this. If you have a game where a character can get shot with a gun at point-blank range and almost always survive, that's really hard to take.

That actually depends on a number of factors. Get shot in the skull with the high caliber rifle and you're almost certainly done for. Get shot in the leg by a 9 mil and odds are you'll live, even at point blank.

Curiously, if you get your skull cleaved by an axe, odds are you're dead. Get your leg slashed by a sword and your odds of survival aren't too bad (though probably worse than with the 9 mil, due to the bleeding).

In all of the above cases, dead or not, your average person is probably on the ground, doing little more than whimpering and bleeding.

Guns aren't magic (though I'm not disputing that in a fantasy game they could be). They function on the same principles as extremely primitive killing tech. Even in the stone age humans were capable of splintering bone, spilling blood, and puncturing organs. The biggest advantages guns have are ease of use and rate of fire (both relatively modern developments).

IMO, in a game where any decent ranger can give Legolas a run for his money, there's no reason why guns couldn't be roughly on par with bows. I don't use guns in every campaign I run, but I see no issues when I do use them. It's an matter of theme and atmosphere more than anything else.

 

[Guest 85555]

That actually depends on a number of factors. Get shot in the skull with the high caliber rifle and you're almost certainly done for. Get shot in the leg by a 9 mil and odds are you'll live, even at point blank.
.

I agree the specifics are what really matter here. But if you have a guy with an axe and a guy with a gun squaring off, my money is on the one with the gun. My guess is at point blank range, you are likely going to be shot multiple times, not hit by a single bullet. All things being equal, I do think a gun is by far the more effective weapon. Though I can see how there would be specific circumstances where an axe may be preferable.

In terms of having guns in a campaign, that is really about the individual gaming group and its prefrences. My experience is most D&D gamers are a little put off by having guns in their game, primarily for flavor reasons, but also for issues of balance. Personally I don't mind, I kind of like having guns in my game, because I think it adds a lot of flavor to the setting. But the kinds of firearms you find in a game like D&D are usually old 15th century-style weapons, not modern handguns or machine guns. And their potency is somewhat diminished (and sometimes enhanced) by the presence of magic.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Well, once again, for myself the gun is not how the combat engine of the game system handles things, but rather how the rise of gunpowder warfare changed things.

People have mentioned anachronisms in the core D&D world. That's fine. EGG wrote once that the "classic" fantasy setting including higher technologies like sailing ships and foot travel, magic artisans spent a lot of time improving the upper classes (so they had some conviencies that even seemed modern, such as "witch lights" (magic lights akin to modern outdoor street or neon lighting), and that he even saw experiments in steam, the introduction of movable type (printing press), plumbing and clocks, and other things as plausible.

But the introduction of Gunpowder changed things so much not having them influence a D&D society would be a little too much to accept. Siege Warfare, fortifications, even forms of government would change (and did change in history). An introduction of higher tech would also make it easier for a dominant race or culture to wipe out the more primitive. (If humans have guns and orcs don't, so long to the orcs after some wars).

Certain inventions change societies immensely. I can accept a "steampunk" setting but things have to change with it. If you have steam and machines, wouldn't that lead to mass production and the Industrial Revolution. And once that happened, what happens to magic? If magic does not go through a similar revolution, it might become a lot less valuable in the long run.

I think--and mind you, like the subject says, this is why I don't like it--guns and other inventions such as electrical machines changes the dynamic so much it no longer has the classic feel. That's fine if you want a different setting, but if you're playing in an idealized quasi-European (or general historical) setting we've come to know and love, some of these things stand out. If the gun removes the knight and the classic castle, is it easier to change the setting, or remove the gun?

There's a certain level of logic I demand from my entertainment. I'm not saying everything has to be modeled on historical reality or real-world physics, and I accept "suspension of belief" to some extent, but I also demand that such settings don't insult the intelligence either. For instance, while Peter Jackson's LoTR adaptations were mostly good, I kept getting mad every time I saw human settlements surrounded by moor and no farms. (Sorry, but humans do not import stuff from the hobbits). It's also why some SF settings (be they games or tv shows/books/movies) get dated after time passes and new theories and inventions take hold. It's why I never liked illogical weapons in 3e such as the "double-sword".

Granted, we each have our own tolerance and lack of tolerance points. A biologist might dislike D&D a bit more because of biomechanics and the square-cube law, at least where things like giants and dragons come into play. (And this isn't just with Fantasy, a Lawyer or Doctor will pretty much hate the things typical Hollywood screenwriters portray of their professions.) However, there are some thing that can be waved away with "it's magic", like giants (I remember articles on Dragons saying they fly through supernatural means since the wings would never support their weight), but the general nature of the game involves some belief of real-world physics and civilization, so I can't just wave away the influence of the gun on culture nor can I accept a double-sword which would be incredibly hard to fight with (outside of a wuxia like campaign).

So, at least, that is why I dislike guns. If we have guns, lets make sure the effect on society is handled as accurately and as plausible as possible.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree the specifics are what really matter here. But if you have a guy with an axe and a guy with a gun squaring off, my money is on the one with the gun. My guess is at point blank range, you are likely going to be shot multiple times, not hit by a single bullet. All things being equal, I do think a gun is by far the more effective weapon. Though I can see how there would be specific circumstances where an axe may be preferable.

Assuming we're dealing with period appropriate tech, it would be a guy with a musket against that guy with an axe. You could just as easily replace the musket with a crossbow, and I'd say the odds would be the same. If the ranged attacker is successful, he'll probably win because a solid shot with either musket ball or crossbow bolt will drop most people in their tracks (even if it doesn't kill them outright). If he misses or wings the axeman, he's probably dead because reloading either weapon should be nearly impossible when someone is chasing you with an axe.

Of course, if you're suggesting someone with an AK-47 is shooting the guy with an axe, of course the situation changes dramatically. However, I don't think most people mean "adding modern, automatic firearms" when they say "adding guns to D&D". As I said before, the reason that modern firearms are so advantageous in combat is because of their ease of use, coupled with their high rate of fire. Primitive firearms (such as those you're likely to find in D&D) don't retain much of that undeniably deadly combination.

In terms of having guns in a campaign, that is really about the individual gaming group and its prefrences. My experience is most D&D gamers are a little put off by having guns in their game, primarily for flavor reasons, but also for issues of balance. Personally I don't mind, I kind of like having guns in my game, because I think it adds a lot of flavor to the setting. But the kinds of firearms you find in a game like D&D are usually old 15th century-style weapons, not modern handguns or machine guns. And their potency is somewhat diminished (and sometimes enhanced) by the presence of magic.

I completely agree about it being a matter of preference. I've known quite a number of players who loved the idea of firearms in D&D, which is partly why I include them in my campaigns now and then.

 

[Guest 85555]

Assuming we're dealing with period appropriate tech, it would be a guy with a musket against that guy with an axe. You could just as easily replace the musket with a crossbow, and I'd say the odds would be the same. If the ranged attacker is successful, he'll probably win because a solid shot with either musket ball or crossbow bolt will drop most people in their tracks (even if it doesn't kill them outright). If he misses or wings the axeman, he's probably dead because reloading either weapon should be nearly impossible when someone is chasing you with an axe.

Of course, if you're suggesting someone with an AK-47 is shooting the guy with an axe, of course the situation changes dramatically. However, I don't think most people mean "adding modern, automatic firearms" when they say "adding guns to D&D". As I said before, the reason that modern firearms are so advantageous in combat is because of their ease of use, coupled with their high rate of fire. Primitive firearms (such as those you're likely to find in D&D) don't retain much of that undeniably deadly combination.

I agree. In my example I was actually thinking more modern semi automatic pistol v. axe.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So, at least, that is why I dislike guns. If we have guns, lets make sure the effect on society is handled as accurately and as plausible as possible.

It isn't necessarily difficult to make guns low-impact in a setting though. Just establish guns as something uncommon and you're set.


For example, one of my players is a big fan of the Dark Tower, so in a particular "Dark Ages" campaign I established a small peacekeeping order of gunslingers (ronin with Peacemakers). Guns were relics of a previous age, the secrets of which had been lost to all but the Gunslingers, who were quite careful protecting and preserving their secret. Unsurprisingly, that player chose to be a member of the Gunslingers and had a blast. There were less than a thousand functional firearms in the entire setting, and moreover, the secrets of gunpowder were lost to all but the order. Hence, the world was in no danger of being overturned by six-shooter technology.


Another idea I've had, for a future campaign, is that guns were invented by the dwarven people. Moreover, the process of creating gunpowder requires exposure to deep earth radiation that dwarves are highly resistant to, but which is deadly to most other races (hence, even if some human lord were to learn the secret of making gunpowder, it would be effectively useless). Since the dwarves are staid and largely isolationist, they merely use the technology to defend themselves (which has made dwarven strongholds largely unassailable).

While they do sell firearms and gunpowder to outsiders, the dwarves moderate the sale of the latter. They aren't stupid and recognize that allowing greedy lords sufficient quantities of gunpower would render the dwarves somewhat vulnerable to attack (and enslavement). As such, guns aren't used by armies, as there simply isn't sufficient gunpowder available. Rather, they are the toys of nobles, adventurers, and occasionally small elite military units.


Overall, I prefer to keep gunpowder limited in some fashion (although I generally advance the technology itself to include six shooters, as I feel that those typify the West and help engender a "romance of the gun" feel). It limits the use of guns which adds to their charm and mystique, and explains why guns haven't overthrown the "natural order" of the times. I have to agree with others that, outside of a low-magic setting, if magic hasn't overthrown the "natural order" then guns certainly shouldn't either.

 

[SKyOdin]

Well, once again, for myself the gun is not how the combat engine of the game system handles things, but rather how the rise of gunpowder warfare changed things.

...

But the introduction of Gunpowder changed things so much not having them influence a D&D society would be a little too much to accept. Siege Warfare, fortifications, even forms of government would change (and did change in history). An introduction of higher tech would also make it easier for a dominant race or culture to wipe out the more primitive. (If humans have guns and orcs don't, so long to the orcs after some wars).

...

I think--and mind you, like the subject says, this is why I don't like it--guns and other inventions such as electrical machines changes the dynamic so much it no longer has the classic feel. That's fine if you want a different setting, but if you're playing in an idealized quasi-European (or general historical) setting we've come to know and love, some of these things stand out. If the gun removes the knight and the classic castle, is it easier to change the setting, or remove the gun?

There's a certain level of logic I demand from my entertainment. I'm not saying everything has to be modeled on historical reality or real-world physics, and I accept "suspension of belief" to some extent, but I also demand that such settings don't insult the intelligence either.

...

So, at least, that is why I dislike guns. If we have guns, lets make sure the effect on society is handled as accurately and as plausible as possible.

Why do people tend to attribute every change that happened in the Early Modern period to the existence of guns? There seems to be a fairly common belief that the rise of gunpowder immediately obsoleted the knight, which then caused a chain reaction in Europe's social structure that swept aside the feudal system and transformed the Western world.

There is no way I can understate how wrong that simplistic notion is. Guns in of themselves did little to change Europe. Many of the changes that people claim that guns are responsible for are the results of a complex mix of factors and only came about gradually across centuries.

The gun didn't eliminate knights, the pike did. Even then, the knight just evolved into new forms, abandoning the lance in favor of pistols and arquebuses. Cuirassiers and harquebusiers, gun-wielding, plate-armored cavalry that still predominately used the sword, were a major force on the battlefield in the Thirty Year's War, in the early 17th century.

Even if the gun had completely eliminated the knights, that in of itself wouldn't have caused any kind of social upheaval. The transformation from the feudal system to absolute monarchies and the modern nation state was the result of extremely complex factors, and it can be in no way simplified down to being a side effect of the gun. Regardless, the stereotypical fantasy kingdom more closely resemble an Early Modern nationalistic absolute monarchy than a medieval feudal government anyways. That is one of the classic anachronisms of "medieval" fantasy.

Guns didn't eliminate castles either. Fortresses were still in use in the American Civil War, and weren't totally obsoleted until the advent of air power (even then, they persist in the form of the armored bunker to this day). Versailles wasn't built because castles were useless, it was built because the French Kings had no fear that an enemy army would get that close to them, and thus they could afford the luxury. Fortifications remained a pertinent part of warfare, there just came a time when kings no longer felt like living in them anymore.

So, I don't see where all of this talk about guns transforming society with their existence talk is coming from.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Guns didn't eliminate castles either. Fortresses were still in use in the American Civil War, and weren't totally obsoleted until the advent of air power (even then, they persist in the form of the armored bunker to this day). Versailles wasn't built because castles were useless, it was built because the French Kings had no fear that an enemy army would get that close to them, and thus they could afford the luxury. Fortifications remained a pertinent part of warfare, there just came a time when kings no longer felt like living in them anymore.

Yes, but they were POLYGONAL forts, not the classic castle. And yes, a Palace is not a fortification.

So while you may attribute the pike and other factors removing the knights, gun and gun warfare did change a lot of things, especially the invention of the actual canon. There are anachronisms and the classic fantasy takes items from the Early Modern (and magic adding some almost high-tech elements to the society), but the Gun might just be a key factor from making it feel like Castles and Wizards or whatever tropes you expect. Adding the gun would likely make it different enough to not feel the same.

 

[Rechan]

but the Gun might just be a key factor from making it feel like Castles and Wizards or whatever tropes you expect. Adding the gun would likely make it different enough to not feel the same.

And that's the key.

As I pointed out earlier, Magic would have as much an impact on castle design as guns would. Guns wouldn't be the only thing that would cause change, etc etc. The issue isn't change.

The issue is how it feels.