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

[rustypaladin]

guns can be quite lethal in Dnd IF they are TOO common

I have been reading the gun post for some time & I just thought I would add my two cents worth. As a DM in some 32+ years of experience, I have come to realize that adding guns to a DnD campaign can be fun BUT! The but being you ABSOLUTELY have to do some thinking about what era of tech you are going to allow as well as general availability. If guns are common, it doesn't take a marksman to become a serious threat to anyone in power. After all, IF guns are common, that also means that they would be more reliable, more accurate & deadlier as well. If you are an adventurer or even the purchasing agent for a king, you want the most 'bang' for your buck, so to speak. Let's face it, reality IS going to take a back seat here because if it doesn't, then NPCs AND PCs would start dropping like flies. Is the king unpopular? Shoot him from a distance with a buffalo gun! Sick & tired of that mage making you, the warrior (or maybe the rogue...) feel like your just a meatshield? Shoot 'em. The important things to consider is tech level & availability. OBVIOUSLY, modern guns wouldn't be available UNLESS you are willing to deal with the consequences. If the PCs have some really nasty new weapons that completely invalidate the Emperor's Blackbows or magical protections the emperor may just hire an assassin or rogue to steal them since they are so danged valuable. Once you allow firearms into a campaign, just decide how common they are & WHO controls them. A point was made quite some time ago (? sorry I forgot the post) about gunpowder only being made by the dwarves deep within the bowels of the earth. EXCELLENT IDEA!! Of course, it could just as easily be created by a secret order of assassins or who or whatever you decide. The poinit is that guns are GREAT equalizers if they are reliable enough to be used by others. If they don't work very well AND aren't very accurate as well as being quite expensive, then who's going to want them other than the occaisional PC? Whether it's 100% historically accurate or not, firearms DID change the face of warfare. As long as you the DM, keep the above considerations in mind, adding guns CAN BE a fun addition. I like the idea myself of the swashbuckling era use of them although 6-shooters & some rifles are as good as it gets. Otherwise, what are the OTHER races going to think if say humans or orcs start mass producing them? The elves would be smart enough to recognize the threat. Of course, certain religions MAY have a problem with them as well. I'm sorry if it seems like I have wandered all over the map here. This subject has come and gone numerous times in my various campaigns & I only hope some of what I have babbled on (and on & on...) about helps. Some great ideas btw! rustypaladin

 

[SKyOdin]

...
rustypaladin

And, someone once again brings up buffalo guns, six-shooters, and rifles (all stuff from the 19th century) as examples of firearms in a D&D game. *sigh*

What will it take to change D&D's audience's perceptions of what it means to be an appropriate firearm for a D&D setting? I mean, there is nothing wrong with having six-shooters in your D&D game if that is the feel you are going for, but there are a lot more options than that, particularly if you want to have guns but don't want to modify the setting away from more standard Late Medieval fare.

After all, IF guns are common, that also means that they would be more reliable, more accurate & deadlier as well.

Actually, there is no necessary connection there. Guns became commonplace even before they became reliable or accurate.

 

[NewJeffCT]

And, someone once again brings up buffalo guns, six-shooters, and rifles (all stuff from the 19th century) as examples of firearms in a D&D game. *sigh*

What will it take to change D&D's audience's perceptions of what it means to be an appropriate firearm for a D&D setting? I mean, there is nothing wrong with having six-shooters in your D&D game if that is the feel you are going for, but there are a lot more options than that, particularly if you want to have guns but don't want to modify the setting away from more standard Late Medieval fare.

Actually, there is no necessary connection there. Guns became commonplace even before they became reliable or accurate.

That has been my point a few times in this thread - it seems like people use guns from the 18th or 19th century while D&D is generally medieval era tech where early firearms from the 1300s had 2-3 minute reload times and were horribly inaccurate beyond point blank range.

And, you're correct on guns being common before they became good. The way they were used for the first few centuries of use, though, was in a massed firing group of soldiers, though, not as individual weapons.

I can see having a loaded firearm and firing that once before charging into melee. Otherwise, it's not very useful for an adventurer if you want to stick with late medieval or early Renaissance tech.

 

[rustypaladin]

re: guns can be quite lethal in Dnd IF they are TOO common

The ONLY real point I was making is that IF a DM wants to have firearms in DnD, most PCs aren't going to really care about them if they aren't really viable. Lets face it, if you have a warrior who can buy enchanted arrows (+2 with flaming burst enchantments) to use with their +3 Bows that also gives them their strength bonus of say, +3, why in the heck would ANYONE really bother with firearms that would give them 1 shot every 5-10 rounds which MAY do as much as 3-18 IF they even hit? That's not to mention the fact that non-enchanted arrows are dirt cheap whereas bullets & powder (IF it stays dry and/or isn't ruined by whatever) has to be replaced at a far higher cost with considerable time and effort involved. I know if it was me, I sure wouldn't invest my money in the dubios benefits of "kaboom-ite" over a good enchanted weapon. It's merely offering the DM and/or players an interesting alternative that SHOULDN'T (with a little careful thought) unbalance a campaign. Options & flavor, that's all I'm offering.

 

[Mark Chance]

What will it take to change D&D's audience's perceptions of what it means to be an appropriate firearm for a D&D setting?

I was unaware that there were inappropriate firearms for a D&D setting. I figure either all firearms are out, or else the door is open to pretty much anything a DM and players feel like implementing. I played a 1E three-year campaign while stationed at Fort Bragg that included a range of firearms from matchlocks to tommy guns. I still have my character's sheet from that game that includes equipment listings for percussion caps.

I also remember a little something about an expedition to the Barrier Peaks that included lasers, needlers, and nuclear-powered armor. In a friend's game, his party's wizard created a custom spell called assimilate that enabled him to tap into the downed spaceship's computers in order to master all of the alien technology. They finished the campaign by repairing the ship and traveling the stars.

Were those games wrong because they included inappropriate technologies?

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Title says it all. I've heard scores of arguments FOR guns in D&D... now I'd like to hear from the other side of the fence. What is it about guns that just screams "NO!" in your campaign worlds?

Off the top of my head:

- Same reason (though different target) as to why some people dislike Psionics, Kender, Tinker Gnomes, Tieflings or Dragonborn or Warforged; It just does not fit the expected themes / flavor of their game.

- Guns do not necessarily fit well with game systems using HP. You can argue that your mighty warrior PC can survive being stabbed with a Dagger (absurd as the arguement may be). It is harder to argue against someone surviving a gunshot unless your players are very willing to accept the notion that a 'Hit' in D&D is not the same as taking a wound in real life.

- Game Balance vs Simulation: In real life, the use of guns stopped the use of plate armour, and they were pretty easy to use. How to have this interact with AC values in the game is tough to work out. You could have it as Dex vs Reflex for 4th Edition game. For 3rd Edition games, ignore the Armour and Shield bonus for pc's, but what about monsters with high AC?

- It opens a slippery slope. If guns, then why not cannons? Gunpowder bombs? Steam Engines?

END COMMUNICATION

 

[rustypaladin]

Off the top of my head:

- Same reason (though different target) as to why some people dislike Psionics, Kender, Tinker Gnomes, Tieflings or Dragonborn or Warforged; It just does not fit the expected themes / flavor of their game.

- Guns do not necessarily fit well with game systems using HP. You can argue that your mighty warrior PC can survive being stabbed with a Dagger (absurd as the arguement may be). It is harder to argue against someone surviving a gunshot unless your players are very willing to accept the notion that a 'Hit' in D&D is not the same as taking a wound in real life.

- Game Balance vs Simulation: In real life, the use of guns stopped the use of plate armour, and they were pretty easy to use. How to have this interact with AC values in the game is tough to work out. You could have it as Dex vs Reflex for 4th Edition game. For 3rd Edition games, ignore the Armour and Shield bonus for pc's, but what about monsters with high AC?

- It opens a slippery slope. If guns, then why not cannons? Gunpowder bombs? Steam Engines?

END COMMUNICATION

Hey Lord Zardoz, (Great name btw) I agree whole-heartedly with you! I was merely tossing out some ideas & opinions for those considering it.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Off the top of my head:

- Same reason (though different target) as to why some people dislike Psionics, Kender, Tinker Gnomes, Tieflings or Dragonborn or Warforged; It just does not fit the expected themes / flavor of their game.

Highlighting this as the correct answer ;p

- Guns do not necessarily fit well with game systems using HP. You can argue that your mighty warrior PC can survive being stabbed with a Dagger (absurd as the arguement may be). It is harder to argue against someone surviving a gunshot unless your players are very willing to accept the notion that a 'Hit' in D&D is not the same as taking a wound in real life.

I can survive a dragon breathing fire on me, reaching down and biting me, and then throwing me away to smack against the cavern wall. But a gunshot? Immersion broken!

- Game Balance vs Simulation: In real life, the use of guns stopped the use of plate armour, and they were pretty easy to use. How to have this interact with AC values in the game is tough to work out. You could have it as Dex vs Reflex for 4th Edition game. For 3rd Edition games, ignore the Armour and Shield bonus for pc's, but what about monsters with high AC?

As has already been shown, the former is patiently untrue, and the latter is something D&D has never given a damn about (See: compound bows, a very specialized weapon, being treated as a martial weapon).

- It opens a slippery slope. If guns, then why not cannons? Gunpowder bombs? Steam Engines?

I'm really glad you labeled that a slippery slope for me, but I'm confused as to why you did that, as the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. You uh...you kinda labeled your own argument as being false there.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm really glad you labeled that a slippery slope for me, but I'm confused as to why you did that, as the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. You uh...you kinda labeled your own argument as being false there.

This slope is less slippery than most.

If you have gunpowder weapons of any kind, its logical to ask why not other weapons using the same principles- rockets, bombs, cannons, etc.

There are, of course, many reasons:

1. Lack of a particular visionary. Gunpowder was around for a long time before becoming weaponized. Just because someone figures out the gun doesn't mean someone will figure out the rocket, or vice versa. However, when the difference is only one of scale- gun vs cannon- this answer is less likely
2. Scarcity of materials. While they both use gunpowder, early rockets and early firearms did have some differences in the materials they needed for their manufacture.
3. Technological limitations. Perhaps those who invented the firearm can't smelt enough metal of the requisite quality to make cannons. Or maybe they lack enough skilled metalworkers.
4. Religious or Political edict. If something is outlawed, it will, at the very least, be rare.

So, if you have guns, cannons are fairly likely. Bombs & rockets are slightly less so.

The steam engine, though- despite its principles being discovered by the ancient Greeks- doesn't have a direct lineal connection to the tech of firearms that would make its appearance an inevitable consequence.

 

[rustypaladin]

Highlighting this as the correct answer ;p



I can survive a dragon breathing fire on me, reaching down and biting me, and then throwing me away to smack against the cavern wall. But a gunshot? Immersion broken!



As has already been shown, the former is patiently untrue, and the latter is something D&D has never given a damn about (See: compound bows, a very specialized weapon, being treated as a martial weapon).



I'm really glad you labeled that a slippery slope for me, but I'm confused as to why you did that, as the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. You uh...you kinda labeled your own argument as being false there.

choices, choices, choices. That's what it's all about isn't it? IF someone doesn't want to incorporate "tech weaps" in their campaign, cool. If they do, thats OK too AS LONG as they understand the implications & possible complications. My comments are (mostly) for the relatively new gamers/DMs who are considering it. I find that it amusing & thought provoking how many different takes this post has added to. Thanks for the input!