Raven Crowking
First Post
Or, guns are on the decline.....with most examples being ancient relics of a bygone age. Ala The Dark Tower.
Why DON'T people like guns in D&D?
- Thread starter Herobizkit
- Start date
Or, guns are on the decline.....with most examples being ancient relics of a bygone age. Ala The Dark Tower.
I feel the need to point out, I don't need guns in the game. if you don't want guns in your game, that's fine. But be honest about the reasons here. Just say "I don't like guns." Bam, game set. That's not arguable.
It's when the historical accuracy argument and stuff like that is thrown around that there's an issue.
Also, as for guns in a setting without overloading it, it's a rare and exotic weapon that only one group of people have, making sure to brutally ensure nobody else gets a hold of them or is able to research into them. A party member could be an envoy of that group, or maybe a rogue who left it and is being hunted down. While anyone who picked one up would initially be able to use it, they wouldn't know proper care or maintenance for it, and it would very quickly become useless.
It's when the historical accuracy argument and stuff like that is thrown around that there's an issue.
Also, as for guns in a setting without overloading it, it's a rare and exotic weapon that only one group of people have, making sure to brutally ensure nobody else gets a hold of them or is able to research into them. A party member could be an envoy of that group, or maybe a rogue who left it and is being hunted down. While anyone who picked one up would initially be able to use it, they wouldn't know proper care or maintenance for it, and it would very quickly become useless.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
I say play what you want. If you like a typical D&D game that is only loosely based on one or several time periods and technologies, then do just that. I like to game and design settings using real-world historical references and technology.
I can still get creative, while having armloads of reference material of historical locations of Earth. I enjoy being based within the confines of technological restrictions. My settings have weapon, armor, equipment and wondrous item restrictions based on what was available within a specific date in history.
That's surely not for everyone, obviously not you, ProfessorCirno. And I don't begrudge you for it. I'm glad you have fun in your preferred version, as should everyone - and I enjoy my preferred version, which don't include guns.
PS: you should review my other post, I editted it and added a whole second paragraph, explaining more...
I can still get creative, while having armloads of reference material of historical locations of Earth. I enjoy being based within the confines of technological restrictions. My settings have weapon, armor, equipment and wondrous item restrictions based on what was available within a specific date in history.
That's surely not for everyone, obviously not you, ProfessorCirno. And I don't begrudge you for it. I'm glad you have fun in your preferred version, as should everyone - and I enjoy my preferred version, which don't include guns.
PS: you should review my other post, I editted it and added a whole second paragraph, explaining more...
Last edited:
You think along the same lines as I do. Guns in my campaign are made by hobgoblins (very milataristic) and even then normally only the special or leader types have them.
People have tried to recreate the fire powder charges for the lead balls, but oddly no luck so far. Dang devious hobgoblins.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Always a good way to handle things, in my opinion. I settled on 1600-1650
for my campaign - a good deal later than most folks, I think.
The Timetables of History is a wonderful resource for planning things out in this fashion.
One of the Fantasy Craft campaigns that I am drawing up plans for is an espionage game set during the time of Queen Elizabeth I - with Dr. John Dee as spymaster.
The Auld Grump
They pretty much negate the ideas of armour, elves, wizards, orcs, 5000-year-long histories where the first kingdom has much the same structure as the latest .. edit: Either I accept the idea of technological progress and along with it accept that most of the D&D universe makes no sense, or I'll run a game in illo tempore, in fairytale-land (which does not at all mean a nice, happy, pretty or childish place). It's not acceptable or enjoyable to me to try to have it both ways. I won't speak for anyone else.
Last edited:
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
1) Tone. Flavor. Lore of the setting. Fantasy Gun Control. The flavor of guns and other "high-tech" items (even though early guns were not high tech) doesn't fit with most fantasy settings. Even fans of relatively high-tech settings like FR (where guns actually exist, although I believe they're from Starjammer) and Eberron resist having guns added to the setting.
Having magic available to only a small portion of the population, IMO, fits those settings better than having guns available to anyone who can afford or steal them. (Ironically, in FR, magic is all over the place, and in Eberron, anyone can buy a little magic from a store. Still, people can't afford Wands of Magic Missile unless they've got some kind of powerful sponsor.)
2) Rules.
Why does reloading a crossbow in DnD take such a short time, but reloading a gun takes so much longer? It's like, because guns are used in modern day combat, they have to take actual historical data and impose them on the game.
IIRC, you couldn't keep a bow strung all the time. If that rule were imposed in DnD, it would ... suck.
Warhammer Fantasy has more realistic rules, with long reload times for both crossbows and guns. No one uses a crossbow unless they have to, and I've seen players waste up to two full rounds trying to reload a pair of pistols. (Or is it four rounds? I don't recall.) And of course, there's the brace of extremely expensive guns. Then again, Warhammer prevents you from using a longbow properly unless you have Rapid Reload.
On a similar note, one of my few beefs with d20 Modern are the myriad versions of guns. You don't have 2'-6" foot long swords doing more damage than 2'-9" swords in either d20 Modern or DnD, but for some reason people become consumed with muzzle velocity, caliber, etc when it comes to guns. (For my games, I ruled that all automatic rifles have the same stats. Not realistic, but I just don't give a damn.) I think this type of thinking carries over to DnD designers.
renau1g
First Post
One of my PC's was a gnomish inventor from Lantan (3e FR) and his goal was to create a handheld weapon, similar in power to a wizard's blast. He jealously guarded his research and when he finally finished his weapon decided that there's no way he was going to give it to the masses or sell it no matter how much gold it earned him. In that way he was the creator, not some nameless guy, and also kept it from messing too much with the setting.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
I think he and I means fantasy versions...
I think the Auld Grump means his basic setting idea is based on an historical period, yet still is a fantasy realm. Whose to say there no Elves in his 1600 to 1650 based setting? Probably not, but so what.
While my first published setting and adventure is based on 12th Century Japan, its not Japan and includes the full range of mythical beings of East Asia, including Oni, Kitsune, Korobokuru, etc. My setting doesn't have elves, dwarves, halflings. It also doesn't have Druids. Because social castes are a major aspect of the setting, the default start of the setting places all characters in the Commoner caste (with optional rules if you want to play otherwise.) Thus in the basic setting, no one starts off as Samurai or Yakuza, those castes are above and below the starting caste, which does include: barbarians, sorcerers, a kind of paladin (sohei), rangers, rogues (shinobi, members of Ninja clans), fighters, cleric types, etc. (most of the basic classes, though heavily Japanese flavored.)
Also while the setting does allow the Samurai tropes as sword wielding soldiers, the core setting is more focused on mounted archers as the base samurai class - as it was in its start from 1185 AD forward.
My setting is definitely not Tokugawa Japan (1600 - 1850), and most of the technology and culture is different than what is in my setting, as it is about 500 years earlier.
Its historically based, yet still deeply a fantastical setting and not to be confused with the real thing, just adapted from it.
I think the Auld Grump means his basic setting idea is based on an historical period, yet still is a fantasy realm. Whose to say there no Elves in his 1600 to 1650 based setting? Probably not, but so what.
While my first published setting and adventure is based on 12th Century Japan, its not Japan and includes the full range of mythical beings of East Asia, including Oni, Kitsune, Korobokuru, etc. My setting doesn't have elves, dwarves, halflings. It also doesn't have Druids. Because social castes are a major aspect of the setting, the default start of the setting places all characters in the Commoner caste (with optional rules if you want to play otherwise.) Thus in the basic setting, no one starts off as Samurai or Yakuza, those castes are above and below the starting caste, which does include: barbarians, sorcerers, a kind of paladin (sohei), rangers, rogues (shinobi, members of Ninja clans), fighters, cleric types, etc. (most of the basic classes, though heavily Japanese flavored.)
Also while the setting does allow the Samurai tropes as sword wielding soldiers, the core setting is more focused on mounted archers as the base samurai class - as it was in its start from 1185 AD forward.
My setting is definitely not Tokugawa Japan (1600 - 1850), and most of the technology and culture is different than what is in my setting, as it is about 500 years earlier.
Its historically based, yet still deeply a fantastical setting and not to be confused with the real thing, just adapted from it.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Are you trying to say that there was no lore about fairies in Elizabethian England? Most of our fairy lore only goes back that far.... Shakespeare wrote an entire play about them, perhaps you have heard of it? John Dee was widely called a Wizard* in the real world - as well as Necromancer (look up John Dee Converses With Some Spirits - a period illustration.)
In what way does the invention of the firearm prevent the belief or practice of magic?
In what way do they prevent the existence of orcs?
China had gunpowder and 5000 year histories of not much changing....
And as has been pointed out - firearms did not cause the disappearance of armor! - Maximillian and Gothic Plate were about advanced as armor could be, and both were from the time of gunpowder. Guns were less able to penetrate armor than a crossbow.
The Auld Grump
*Wizard was also sometimes used to describe Benjamen Franklin, with less support....
Similar Threads
