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

[BenBrown]

My question about guns is always What do they add?.

We've got a dozen different races with nifty special abilities, a slew of existing ranged weapons, and more ranged offensive spells than you can shake a wand at. Guns don't really add anything other than a bit of color or a way of saying "Look at me! I'm not standard D&D!" I tend to think there's too much stuff in D&D already, so my campaign creation generally starts with stripping stuff out. I could add guns, but I'd have to add a whole bunch of other stuff. There's feats and prestige classes and powers and such already to make bows really freakin' nifty. If I were to add guns, I'd have to add stuff to make guns really freakin' nifty. It's work I don't particularly want to do since, as someone mentioned above, if I'm going with early renaissance guns, I've got to disabuse players of some of their ideas about how guns work, and if I go with 18th-19th century guns, I'm... wait, why are you still wearing armor and carrying a crossbow?

Rational? Not necessarily, but I just don't feel they add anything.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Lots of people here don't seem to like reading

I don't care what the personal history of your campaign is. That's cool.

I don't care that you hate guns. That's cool.

The issue is when someone whinges about how guns would drastically alter the universe, or that they're totally not historically accurate to D&D medieval world assumptions.

Will they allow guns into their game if they're wrong? No, probably not. But stupid and bad logic shouldn't just be welcome with a smile and "Well, that's absolutely correct! I mean it's not, but I totally accept it!"

Let's look at one example of a complaint: If I allow guns, there's no reason to have knights. Why is this a bad argument? Because there's nothing there showing how guns would exclude knights.

The mark of these arguments is those first three words: "If I allow." The issue isn't with guns, it's with something different! We could talk until we're blue in the face about plate armor and the origin of "bullet proof" and such, but that's not the issue. "If I allow" is an indicator that says "The following is an excuse"

I'm saying, enough with the excuses, just be honest. Say you hate guns in your fantasy games and move on. Stop trying to develop excuses that make no sense.

Ben Brown - the problem is, there are no crossbow PrCs. At all. There is literally nothing you can do with a crossbow that you can't do better with a bow. Wait no, you can lie down and give yourself -4 AC with a crossbow, so there's that. Why do people take a crossbow then, if there's nothing good about it? Because it's cool. Why do people go "I'd really like a gun?" Because it's cool.

D&D was founded on "Hey, isn't this awesome?" As long as the firearms fit the game's consistency, and there's no reason they can't unless you don't want them to, which is, I see I'm forced to repeat again, perfectly fine, then there's no real reason to bar them.

The problem with "Standard D&D" is that, yes, it does get old. When your only option for "ranged guy" is either "Spellcaster" or "Use a bow," then people get really tired of the same crap repeated.

 

[gamerprinter]

Really, I don't hate guns in D&D, they have their place in the RIGHT SETTING. I create really deep and detailed settings, but I only have so much time. I certainly like a more ancient setting, older than most, that's why guns don't work for me. Its not because I hate the concept.

I have even considered looking to build a fantasy New World setting, roughly overlapping Auld Grump's setting period - from 1600 to 1700. Which meant there would have to be guns - flintlock rifles, pistols, and both ship and ground cannons. There's lots of Witch hunts, real witches, native American magic, spirits, plenty of undead, and since it was at the end of the Elizabethan period, fey as well. Its something I've thought about.

But like I said, I develop commercial settings, create pro maps for publishers, run a daytime business and have a family - I'm limited on time. My main interest is with both early medieval Japan and pre Roman Britain at this time, and it may take a couple years to work my way through all the intended publications.

While the New World setting is interesting, I have more pressing projects that are closer to my interests.

I don't hate guns in D&D. I just don't need at this time, nor even prefer them. I like older time period settings the most. Write what you know - "they" say.

 

[N0Man]

It's not so much that I'm anti-gun, but more that I'm pro-knife.

 

[David Howery]

In my younger days, I was a black powder enthusiast; I still own a couple of muzzle loader replicas. So, when guns made their first appearance in the Realms back in 2E days, I included them. However, I also added several home rules for the problems that I knew the earliest firearms had: high chances of misfires, absurdly long and complex loading process (especially for matchlocks), intensive cleaning requirements, and extremely inaccurate beyond 50 yards. Not to mention, the problems of such things as 'no glass, no steel' (they carry static electricity, make black powder go boom unexpectedly), the joys of having your powder flask fail it's save against a fireball, the rather extensive list of accessories they needed to have, and things like that. The only real advantage of firearms was the open ended damage rule... thus, the only reason the PCs bothered with them (they mainly stuck to pistols, to keep the weight at a minimum). Early firearms were useful only in mass quantity... have a big bunch of men shoot lots of bullets to do a middling amount of damage. The PCs lacked the numbers to do all that much with their pistols (especially with the high misfire modifiers I gleefully applied). Basically, pistols were a one shot item they used and then put away as the dragon closed in...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why do people go "I'd really like a gun?" Because it's cool.

Word.

Final Fantasy Zero has guns. No crossbows, really, though you could change bows or guns or anything else into crossbows if you really thought they were cool (and sometimes, they are; had me a 3e dwarf who used an entire bandoleer of heavy automatic crossbows as his ranged weapons. Like a fantasy tommy-gun it was!). In FFZ, it's very genre-appropriate, since FF tends to be a mishmash of fantasy and sci fi tropes from the get-go ("Hey, here's your classic sword-and-sorcery adventure, and then there's TIME TRAVEL!").

It's cool that not everyone wants guns, different strokes and all that. I am totally okay cramming together my fictions and makin' a little game sandwich out of 'em. I don't always HAVE to (I appreciate a more historical "dark ages" approach on occasion, too), but y'know, I'm flexible.

And I don't mind guns being handled unrealistically. I don't need that level of realism. I don't even WANT that level of realism. Too much detail, not enough dakka.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

My question about guns is always What do they add?.

We've got a dozen different races with nifty special abilities, a slew of existing ranged weapons, and more ranged offensive spells than you can shake a wand at. Guns don't really add anything other than a bit of color or a way of saying "Look at me! I'm not standard D&D!" I tend to think there's too much stuff in D&D already, so my campaign creation generally starts with stripping stuff out. I could add guns, but I'd have to add a whole bunch of other stuff. There's feats and prestige classes and powers and such already to make bows really freakin' nifty. If I were to add guns, I'd have to add stuff to make guns really freakin' nifty. It's work I don't particularly want to do since, as someone mentioned above, if I'm going with early renaissance guns, I've got to disabuse players of some of their ideas about how guns work, and if I go with 18th-19th century guns, I'm... wait, why are you still wearing armor and carrying a crossbow?

Rational? Not necessarily, but I just don't feel they add anything.

Sure they do - they add things what go *BOOM!*

Really, that is one of the things I like - cannon, and mortars, and things what go *BOOM!*

I like batteries of cannon, I like the downfall of the castle. (Unlike armor, the age of the castle did begin to end with the coming of the gun.)

I like the heavy rotten egg stench of blackpowder smoke caught in the fog.

I like highwaymen who cry stand and deliver! over the barrel of a gun.

I like Guy Fawkes and his gunpowder treason, I like pirates and rebels, and letting God speak from the muzzles of cannon.

I like things what go *BOOM!*

The Auld Grump

 

[Herobizkit]

It's cool that not everyone wants guns, different strokes and all that. I am totally okay cramming together my fictions and makin' a little game sandwich out of 'em.

I love game sammiches. I have a feeling that FFZ will be the answer to many of my gaming questions.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Really, I don't hate guns in D&D, they have their place in the RIGHT SETTING. I create really deep and detailed settings, but I only have so much time. I certainly like a more ancient setting, older than most, that's why guns don't work for me. Its not because I hate the concept.

I have even considered looking to build a fantasy New World setting, roughly overlapping Auld Grump's setting period - from 1600 to 1700. Which meant there would have to be guns - flintlock rifles, pistols, and both ship and ground cannons. There's lots of Witch hunts, real witches, native American magic, spirits, plenty of undead, and since it was at the end of the Elizabethan period, fey as well. Its something I've thought about.

But like I said, I develop commercial settings, create pro maps for publishers, run a daytime business and have a family - I'm limited on time. My main interest is with both early medieval Japan and pre Roman Britain at this time, and it may take a couple years to work my way through all the intended publications.

While the New World setting is interesting, I have more pressing projects that are closer to my interests.

I don't hate guns in D&D. I just don't need at this time, nor even prefer them. I like older time period settings the most. Write what you know - "they" say.

The Elizabethian campaign sounds good to me! As I said, I have vague plans for an espionage game under Dr. John Dee. (As it happens, Dr. John Dee really was Elizabeth's spymaster, and was designated 007.... How could I ignore something like that?! ) Antagonists include France and Russia.

I have been concentrating on the Old World - the New World is out there, home of the dark elves and the orcs, but given my focus on the Wars of Religion the New World is not my primary sandbox - I am pretty much sticking with the equivalent of the Germanies (all hundred some odd of them), since that is the area hardest hit.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Long post, 90% of which I agree with.

I'd say you gave voice to my personal disliking of guns in the fantasy genre.

Well put.