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

[fuzzlewump]

As a side note, do guns exist in Eberron? Or canons, or anything of the sort? Seems like it would fit. But I dunno. I'm curious because I'm just recently getting into running it.

 

[Umbran]

It's when the historical accuracy argument and stuff like that is thrown around that there's an issue.

OMG!!! Someone is wrong on teh interwebs!

There are many times when people having incorrect data or impressions is a real problem. I don't see how this is one of them.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I'd be for guns if I could find a decent set of rules for them in D&D. The problem is that whenever I see guns played out in a D&D (or D&D like) setting, it is the swords, bows, armor of medieval (or even early Rennaissance) against guns that were made in the 18th or 19th centuries. And, I've heard a few times over the years that, "ok, these rules are great for firearms..." and it turns out to be similar to what I cited above.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I'd be for guns if I could find a decent set of rules for them in D&D.

Given that 4e bows go, what, 200ish feet? No need to do anything but give them, say

+2 Acc
d6/d8/d10 damage to taste
20/40 range increment

And you're good. Only decision is whether they're simple, military, or superior.

Brad

 

[ProfessorCirno]

OMG!!! Someone is wrong on teh interwebs!

There are many times when people having incorrect data or impressions is a real problem. I don't see how this is one of them.

Chill the hell out.

Bad arguments are bad arguments, no matter what they're a bad argument for. You seem to be reacting way more to this then I am.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Herobizkit]

Since I started the thread, I thought I'd better plant my flag for my camp of choice.

Mechanically (and I mean GAME mechanically), guns "should" be a dice better than standard range weapons. I am still running 3e; Handguns/pistols do 2d4, Rifles do 2d6, and Double Tap is borrowed from d20 Modern. Also IMC, I see guns potentially being as advanced as "Wild West" style revolvers and lever-action single-shot rifles. That's my own style choice for my own homebrew settings.

My campaigns also tend to run magic-high... insofar as all casters are spontaneous casters. For those races who do not traditionally embrace magic, they embrace technology instead. Iron Kingdoms would be the closest analogy to what I like to see in a fantasy setting.

Here's the argument I don't understand in the context of a D&D universe - if Plate Armor is designed to withstand bullets, why isn't there armor designed to withstand fireballs, too? The 'realism' of gun dynamics goes right out the window when you place them alongside magic.

If wands of magic missile are so common (ex Eberron), then so must be the persons who can use said wands, otherwise why mass-produce them? In a Core only game, such wands are generally limited to Wizards and Sorcerers; Bards and Rogues can finesse them with Use Magic Device, and a Cleric with the Magic domain can use them as well. But a generic peasant can't even make it glow funny. The same generic peasant CAN pick up a bow and pray that it works. The same generic peasant will be very happy to get his hands on a gun - easier to use (Pistols are Simple weapons IMC; Rifles are Martial) with no training necessary.

And don't even get me started on Mages who want to make guns better.

 

[gamerprinter]

Bad arguments are bad arguments, no matter what they're a bad argument for.

I think I have clearly and logically explained why my "doesn't fit my history" premise is not a bag argument. If you're referring to those that tried to insist that guns ended armor - which was a bad argument, but only due to lack of knowledge. Most non-historian types might not realize some of these "truths".

However, I think you missed my edit to a previous post where I explained that my interests stops with the Rennaissance (which had guns), meaning I don't play Rennaissance settings, as for me, that's too modern for me. And even qualified to say I prefer setting technologies between 500 BC and 1000 AD - which doens't even include the medieval period.

I did play your kind of non-historical though roughly middle ages to Rennaissance typical D&D back in 2e days. But my tastes have changed, and now I like settings loosely set in specific historical time frames, and in places where guns do not exist.

You may not want to play this kind of game, but I do. This does not make it a bad argument, just a personal preference.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

The big problem I have with Guns, and what EGG and I co-wrote in a sidebar of Living Fantasy, is the fact that the adoption of the gun pretty much changed a lot of things that would change the historical background. (And this has nothing to do with armor penetration).

A gun enabled conscripted peasants to have a lot more battlefield power. While a mage also has that power, a mage (or cleric) is equal to an archer, somebody who has to be trained for years and can't easily be replaced.

Once you factor this into play and did research, you see the introduction of gun and cannon changed a lot of things. You didn't need to have feudalism anymore. You couldn't have the medieval castle anymore, they would logically have to be converted to star or polygon forts with sloping walls.

I call shenanigans! Once you have mid level MUs, your castles may as well be made of glass. It takes a higher level MU to defend a castle against another MU, which is exactly the opposite of how castle defense is supposed to work.

 

[Umbran]

Chill the hell out.

I am perfectly chill, dude. I'm just being colorful in showing that you're kind of missing the forest for the trees.

Bad arguments are bad arguments, no matter what they're a bad argument for.

Yeah. So? Do you imagine the following discussion is going to take place?

Person A: "I don't want guns in my game."

Person B: "Why not?"

Person A: "Due to <technically incorrect reason>."

Person B: "Well, you're opinion is dumb, because that's technically incorrect!"

Person A: "Oh? Golly! I guess that means I want guns in my game after all!"

I'm going to hazard a guess that this will never happen.

Revealing that Renaissance armor would, in fact, stop Renaissance bullets isn't going to change how they feel about firearms in the game. Beating folks over the head with how wrongity-wrongwrong with wrong sauce they are about history (calling their opinions "bunk") is probably not going to lead them to enlightenment either so that they'll recognize why they really don't want the weapons in the game, or so that they'll reconsider the place of firearms in their game.

If you want to educate and enlighten, you need to be gentle.