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

[TwinBahamut]

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

Err... why not cannons, (primitive) grenades, rockets, and the like? How exactly is this "slippery slope" supposed to be a problem? Sure, if you include firearms of any sort, then you basically need to include cannons and such. I don't see how that is inherently a drawback. In fact, it may be a plus, since it makes ship-to-ship warfare into something a bit more familiar, if nothing else.

I don't see the steam engine connection, though. How are guns supposed to lead into steam engines? They are totally different technologies that are built on entirely different principles, and in the real world they were invented centuries apart on opposite ends of Eurasia.

 

[Jhaelen]

With that I will certainly agree. Kitchen knives are made for chopping vegetables. Swords are made for killing people. Stands to reason that the latter is more likely to kill you than the former.

Certainly.

A sword blow can break your skull with the blunt impact alone; not easy to do that with a knife.

Actually, I've read that that's about all viking era spatha did: They weren't much more than glorified metal clubs.

Regarding stabby implements: Didn't the most dangerous ones have a cross-shaped profile to result in wounds that would be difficult to heal/patch up?

I'm not sure if a roman gladius worked that much better than one of today's chef's knives, though.

 

[SKyOdin]

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.
...
Were those games wrong because they included inappropriate technologies?

I am not going to tell anyone that their fun is bad or wrong. That wasn't really my point. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I am a fan of the WildARMs series of videogames, which has rocket launchers crafted from the fossils of biomechanical dragons alongside princess-sorceresses. I wouldn't mind playing in a D&D campaign like that, either.

In the post you quoted, I was responding to rustypaladin's assertion that guns necessarily would change a D&D world, when the principle examples of guns that he used were highly anachronistic 19th century firearms. Of course you would have to change the setting if you were introducing technology that is centuries more advanced than the typical D&D baseline. My central point in this thread is that there are a lot more options for firearms than that.

If you want to have guns be commonplace, but still want to keep your fantasy more or less Late Medieval in tone (like most standard fantasy settings), then 15th/16h century matchlock guns work. If you want to embrace a different tone, than by all means, do as you like.

I am not even saying that modeling guns on historic guns is the one true way. I for one am actually rather fond of how guns are handled in the Suikoden series of videogames, where they are the product of specialized knowledge similar to magic and are only in the hands of a handful of people, but are more or less semi-automatic rifles. My brother and I have even been talking about having clock-work self-loading guns alongside old-fashioned matchlocks in order to give the PCs a gun that can be used as a main weapon.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

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.


4. Religious or Political edict. If something is outlawed, it will, at the very least, be rare.

Actually, the church banned several weapons during the middle ages with less than spectacular success. (Crossbows have been mentioned.) One might suggest that the reason for this is that they were better at killing one's enemies, and the landed lords never knew when they might find themselves at odds with the church.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

cIf they do, thats OK too AS LONG as they understand the implications & possible complications.

I think the point that I and so many others are staring at, though, is the question of "Why does there have to be implications and possible complications?"

A single wizard can destroy entire armies, and the setting naturally includes flying beasts. Why do these have no effects, but firearms do?

It goes back to the realism question. Melee weapons break realism all the time. Bows break realism. Slings break realism, but in the opposite direction (Really D&D? We're making them slingshots?). But as soon as a crossbow or gun steps up, suddenly everyone demands every bit of realism that could be detrimental to the weapon.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, the church banned several weapons during the middle ages with less than spectacular success. (Crossbows have been mentioned.) One might suggest that the reason for this is that they were better at killing one's enemies, and the landed lords never knew when they might find themselves at odds with the church.

Its actually a bit of a misconception that the Church "banned" certain weapons.

While they did issue edicts decrying their use, they were merely condemnations that depended upon one's own moral sense of right and wrong. There were no teeth in them- while a given priest might refuse to feed or distribute alms to him, a Catholic who used a crossbow could not be denied the Eucharist, confession, marriage in the Church, last rites/burial on holy ground or any other sacrament.

 

[rustypaladin]

I am not going to tell anyone that their fun is bad or wrong. That wasn't really my point. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I am a fan of the WildARMs series of videogames, which has rocket launchers crafted from the fossils of biomechanical dragons alongside princess-sorceresses. I wouldn't mind playing in a D&D campaign like that, either.

In the post you quoted, I was responding to rustypaladin's assertion that guns necessarily would change a D&D world, when the principle examples of guns that he used were highly anachronistic 19th century firearms. Of course you would have to change the setting if you were introducing technology that is centuries more advanced than the typical D&D baseline. My central point in this thread is that there are a lot more options for firearms than that.

If you want to have guns be commonplace, but still want to keep your fantasy more or less Late Medieval in tone (like most standard fantasy settings), then 15th/16h century matchlock guns work. If you want to embrace a different tone, than by all means, do as you like.

I am not even saying that modeling guns on historic guns is the one true way. I for one am actually rather fond of how guns are handled in the Suikoden series of videogames, where they are the product of specialized knowledge similar to magic and are only in the hands of a handful of people, but are more or less semi-automatic rifles. My brother and I have even been talking about having clock-work self-loading guns alongside old-fashioned matchlocks in order to give the PCs a gun that can be used as a main weapon.

Well....what a worm's pit! First of all, I NEVER absolutely said that guns absolutely will destroy a campaign, I was 'merely' stating that IF a DM started using tech-weaps of a certain description/tech level indiscriminately there COULD BE possible ramifications. There have been several excellent examples of tech-weaps being used in campaigns in this thread that wouldn't jeopardize game balance. IF SOMEONE (DM/Players) want to use them, that's cool. I am MERELY pointing out that it's POSSIBLE for game balance to get out of hand IF someone introduces them WITHOUT thinking about the ramifications involved. IMHO, It's not about how many HPs someone has or whether or not that's realistic, it's about the quantity of attacks available to anyone using them IF they became widely available without ANY restrictions. IF YOU DON'T have a problem using tech-weaps & you've made them available like magic items as far as availability & that works for you, cool! Just don't throw EFFECTIVE tech-weaps into a campaign WITHOUT thinking about it first, it's that simple.