Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 5088325" data-attributes="member: 2732">Well, once again, for myself the gun is not how the combat engine of the game system handles things, but rather how the rise of gunpowder warfare changed things.People have mentioned anachronisms in the core D&D world.  That's fine.  EGG wrote once that the "classic" fantasy setting including higher technologies like sailing ships and foot travel, magic artisans spent a lot of time improving the upper classes (so they had some conviencies that even seemed modern, such as "witch lights" (magic lights akin to modern outdoor street or neon lighting), and that he even saw experiments in steam, the introduction of movable type (printing press), plumbing and clocks, and other things as plausible.But the introduction of Gunpowder changed things so much not having them influence a D&D society would be a little too much to accept.  Siege Warfare, fortifications, even forms of government would change (and did change in history).  An introduction of higher tech would also make it easier for a dominant race or culture to wipe out the more primitive.  (If humans have guns and orcs don't, so long to the orcs after some wars).  Certain inventions change societies immensely.  I can accept a "steampunk" setting but things have to change with it.  If you have steam and machines, wouldn't that lead to mass production and the Industrial Revolution.  And once that happened, what happens to magic?  If magic does not go through a similar revolution, it might become a lot less valuable in the long run.  I think--and mind you, like the subject says, this is why I don't like it--guns and other inventions such as electrical machines changes the dynamic so much it no longer has the classic feel.  That's fine if you want a different setting, but if you're playing in an idealized quasi-European (or general historical) setting we've come to know and love, some of these things stand out.  If the gun removes the knight and the classic castle, is it easier to change the setting, or remove the gun?  There's a certain level of logic I demand from my entertainment.  I'm not saying everything has to be modeled on historical reality or real-world physics, and I accept "suspension of belief" to some extent, but I also demand that such settings don't insult the intelligence either.  For instance, while Peter Jackson's LoTR adaptations were mostly good, I kept getting mad every time I saw human settlements surrounded by moor and no farms.  (Sorry, but humans do not import stuff from the hobbits).  It's also why some SF settings (be they games or tv shows/books/movies) get dated after time passes and new theories and inventions take hold.  It's why I never liked illogical weapons in 3e such as the "double-sword".  Granted, we each have our own tolerance and lack of tolerance points.  A biologist might dislike D&D a bit more because of biomechanics and the square-cube law, at least where things like giants and dragons come into play.  (And this isn't just with Fantasy, a Lawyer or Doctor will pretty much hate the things typical Hollywood screenwriters portray of their professions.) However, there are some thing that can be waved away with "it's magic", like giants (I remember articles on Dragons saying they fly through supernatural means since the wings would never support their weight), but the general nature of the game involves some belief of real-world physics and civilization, so I can't just wave away the influence of the gun on culture nor can I accept a double-sword which would be incredibly hard to fight with (outside of a wuxia like campaign).  So, at least, that is why I dislike guns.  If we have guns, lets make sure the effect on society is handled as accurately and as plausible as possible.</blockquote>

Verification