Fantasy and Firearms

[Matt Snyder]

At risk of overstepping my bounds an onto Ron and/or Clinton's toes ...

How the heck is this discussion Indie Game Design? I mean, no offense to anyone here, but this whole discussion is just giving me the wrong vibe. This is the kind of discussion that might work better on RPG.net, for example. Nothing wrong with it, it's just not the focused, useful discussion I'd like to see here. I'm far more interested here in the Indie Game Design forum in reading about, you know, game design!

[b_bankhead]

I'm far more interested here in the Indie Game Design forum in reading about, you know, game design!

 Personally I think gameworld content and style is an important part of game design too, not just dice mechanics.

[Shreyas Sampat]

I think Matt's point was that this thread isn't about designing a game at all, it's about the interaction of two features - fantasy and firearms - as they apply to games in general.  So, rather than this post being here, it belongs in RPG Theory.

That said, I agree that the widely held mindset restricts fantasy to sword-and-sorcery; guns are not a part of this, any more than are Eastern martial arts or complex interactions of fantasy ecologies and magical economics.  "Fantasy" is a lot wider and wilder than that.

[Jonathan Walton]

I agree with Matt & Shreyas.  This is a Theory thread.

As the stickies at the top of this board clarify, Game Design is only for asking specific questions about game material that you are actually designing at the moment.  More general stuff can be posted other places.

Personally, I'm hoping D20 Modern will kill the general assumption that "fantasy = sword & sorcery," but who really knows?  It's pretty deeply embedded in the standard gamer psyche.

Later.
Jonathan

[Sylus Thane]

Well it initially started as a design thread asking if anyone had ever run into problems combining firearms into a sword and sorcery setting. However I do agree that it has kinda transcended into a theory topic. If anyone wants to move it to it's appropriate place I won't complain. I'm really interested in hearing peoples theories on the subject we've inadvertantly brought up.

Sylus

[greyorm]

B (Brian?),

To clarify, the point of my post was specifically about the perception of fantasy, how that perception is altered by the inclusion of firearms, and to point out the odd perception is that "realism" is necessary in fantasy (utilizing your statement about 'armor being non-useful against guns anyways' as a catalyst).

To me, the "usefulness" argument is non-sequitur. Discussing the realism issue misses the point, for the reason given in my above post (about fantasy being just that), and because this isn't a thread or discussion about the realism of the use of firearms in gaming, so how CoC or Spycraft or etc. systems handle the use firearms isn't even at issue.

(If you find that topic it of interest, I suggest a seperate thread be started for it. Otherwise, this seems simply arguing to argue/replying to reply, and drifts heavily away from the main point at hand.)

In regards to my statement about art and anime, I don't really see what who-said-what-about-what has to do with either the topic or my specific statement.

Yes, an unknown percentage of D&D gamers did complain about the imagery being too "cartoony" or too "video-gamey"...but what I'd stated was that anime was a popular choice for fantasy games (frex: Exalted, Ironclaw et al.) and fantasy film, likely due the already unrealistic nature of the medium (allowing more freedom and suspension of expectations).

This further notes the relationship of realism to the issue, for if you'll note my mention of big cartoony swords that no one has a problem with in such games, I brought this to attention because that non-adverse reaction is likely due the viewer's ability to be more accepting of unrealistic situations or items due the medium.

What "some gamers think of D&D's artstyle" is tangential to the issue, except as a prime illustration of perceptions at work -- that there were complaints doesn't invalidate the point that unrealistic items may be easier to deal with in an anime framework, it only showcases what some gamers expect specifically from D&D -- that is, psuedo-medieval realism.

To wit, had D&D originally been anime, I doubt there would have been eyes batted at the artwork.  The complaints stemmed more from a change from the expected, rather than a problem with the imagery of anime or cRPGs specifically.

As a cartoon is already "not real" including something else "not real," such as firearms and big cartoony swords, doesn't break suspension as much as it does if the game or film is non-anime and expectations of realism and world behavior are firmly, subconciously in place.

At its heart, the art/anime issue deals with the perceptions gamers have and how such could be handled in order to insert firearms in a fantasy game without causing usual problems and cries of "unrealism."

Thus to the issue: perception and expectation.

Can firearms and fantasy work together?
Yes, if you can disuade or bypass the reader's notions of what fantasy "inherently" is, and a number of their expectations of the way the world works.

[Mike Holmes]

Accuracy is a realtive term. Flitlocks were grotesquely inaccurate compared to modern firearms. But, of course you could hit something with them once in a while, else why use them at all? A favorite statistic of mine is that an English longbow is more lethal than a musket in battle. So why go to guns? Because only 1in 100 men or something like that could be trained to use a longbow effectively. Any fool can be trained to be realtively lethal with a firearm.

And that's more the point. The neat thing with medieval weaponry is that one gets the sense of the characters as trained badasses. Give everybody flintlocks, and everybody and their brother will be out hunting dragons. That's why 7th Sea does what it does. By making them harder to use, it makes only the well-trained lethal again, and, therefore potentially  heroic.

Anyhow, just follow the 7th sea model, and all will be fine.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Whoops, off to Theory it is.

Matt, in the future, bring up such observations to me personally, through private message. And please refrain from making even veiled comparisons with RPG.net; they are carefully read and catalogued by people who love to "find" contempt for the site here.

Best,
Ron

[Sylus Thane]

Accuracy is a realtive term. Flitlocks were grotesquely inaccurate compared to modern firearms. But, of course you could hit something with them once in a while, else why use them at all? A favorite statistic of mine is that an English longbow is more lethal than a musket in battle. So why go to guns? Because only 1in 100 men or something like that could be trained to use a longbow effectively. Any fool can be trained to be realtively lethal with a firearm.

After considerable experience both of new and old firearms and melee weapons I would have to disagree with statement. Part of it would deal with the evolution of firearms and the other part would deal in training. I'd say that the relative statement would be that any fool can be lethal with any weapon. It takes time to achieve mastery with any weapon be it a sword or a gun.

And that's more the point. The neat thing with medieval weaponry is that one gets the sense of the characters as trained badasses. Give everybody flintlocks, and everybody and their brother will be out hunting dragons. That's why 7th Sea does what it does. By making them harder to use, it makes only the well-trained lethal again, and, therefore potentially heroic.

This is easy enough to seperate the two. In making firearms rare and hard to makes them the non-dominating weapons in mass use. Training in weapons is hard enough as it is, there is no reason to say it is easier to learn to use a gun than a sword or vice versa. Availability should be the key as well as what the players wish to be prevelant within their game.

Sylus

[Mike Holmes]

After considerable experience both of new and old firearms and melee weapons I would have to disagree with statement. Part of it would deal with the evolution of firearms and the other part would deal in training. I'd say that the relative statement would be that any fool can be lethal with any weapon. It takes time to achieve mastery with any weapon be it a sword or a gun.

I'm not just making this up; the statement is the result of a study done on relative weapon lethalities and kill rates in battle, and often quoted in books on the subject. I can look up the reference if you'd like.

This is easy enough to seperate the two. In making firearms rare and hard to makes them the non-dominating weapons in mass use. Training in weapons is hard enough as it is, there is no reason to say it is easier to learn to use a gun than a sword or vice versa. Availability should be the key as well as what the players wish to be prevelant within their game.

Sure. That works. Makes firearms like magic items. Which is fine. I remember them being treated much that way in TFT.

One saving grace of only including weapons like flintlocks is that they are, for purposes of fantasy combat, one-shot weapons. Nobody has time to reload in a melee. This is why the Three Muskeeteers is comparable adventure drama. Guns are fired once, and then it's a sword battle, anyhow.

Mike

[Sylus Thane]

I'm not just making this up; the statement is the result of a study done on relative weapon lethalities and kill rates in battle, and often quoted in books on the subject. I can look up the reference if you'd like.

I totally understand, you will find similarly comparable descrepancies between flintlocks and earlier forms of muzzle loaders. You can find that a lot of the fatalities written about can be attributed to amount of bullets they were able to fire as firearms evolved. I was mainly referring to the fact that of people saying it is so much easier to learn how to use guns verses other weapons. All are easy to learn the basics of but it is the mastery of a any particular weapon that takes quite awhile. But this is probably a discussion better meant for another thread or time. As much fun as I'm having with it. :)

One saving grace of only including weapons like flintlocks is that they are, for purposes of fantasy combat, one-shot weapons. Nobody has time to reload in a melee. This is why the Three Muskeeteers is comparable adventure drama. Guns are fired once, and then it's a sword battle, anyhow.

This is quite true. Plus it can turn many battles into a thinking mans game beyond just a shoot em up or a hack and slash.

Sylus

[Jeremy Cole]

A favorite statistic of mine is that an English longbow is more lethal than a musket in battle. So why go to guns? Because only 1in 100 men or something like that could be trained to use a longbow effectively. Any fool can be trained to be realtively lethal with a firearm.

Would a workable rule be to limit the skill someone could aquire in muskets?

If the game is skill based, you could cap the firearms bonus to +3 or whatever a small amount would be in the given system.  On the other hand, the longbow skill would not be capped, you could increase its effectiveness to a far higher level.

With this, the longbow would require a large investment in training time (read character creation currency) to be as lethal as a firearm, but has the potential of developing into a much more lethal option.

Jeremy

[contracycle]

It takes time to achieve mastery with any weapon be it a sword or a gun.

Sure.  You can invest lots of time mastering the use of any tool; this does not in any way imply that all tools are equally easy to pick up, or to master.  Mikes argument about firearms above is IMO very well established and supported and would take a number of quite radical claims to challenge.

[Christoffer Lernö]

If the flintlock pistol gets a bonus for aiming what about the crossbow? The usual (unrealistic) way to handle the crossbow is to crank up the damage given and increase loading-time. Before the rifle there was the crossbow. Just like the rifle it was just aim and fire, no great skill required.

Poor old crossbow, you cool but forgotten weapon! :)

[Jeremy Cole]

...what about the crossbow?

Yeah, I also thought of the crossbow when I was posted the skill cap I suggested above.  The crossbow is basically the same thing isn't it?  It could be used reasonably untrained, but heavy training didn't make a used that much more effective.  Make the first level of use cheap, but cap it at a low number.

In your standard party set-up, any 'casual archers', a melee fighter looking for a quick shot before violence, would carry a light crossbow, while the serious marksman would carry a longbow.

Jeremy