I'm curious what peoples opinions are about the inclusion of firearms into a fantasy setting. In the fantasy world I am developing right now I have limited firearm ability in the form of simple flintlocks. I'm wondering if anyone has tried this before and to what effect? the guns themselves would relatively rare and expensive.

Sylus

I can't offer play experience so much as precedent. Firearms have been present in the Warhammer Fantasy RPG, and in the cool D20 setting of Privateer Press, in which (I believe) gunpowder is partly alchemically-based.

Dave

Hey,

This has been done many times, actually, dating all the way back to Tunnels & Trolls in the late 70s, and including games like Lace & Steel. The most recent example is Arrowflight, from Deep 7, which is a high-fantasy setting with flintlocks and other early-modern firearms.

Best,
Ron

Sylus, I've always wondered what the big "issue" was with this question. I've seen it pop up way too many times in the past, and I never understood what the concern was in incorporating firearms into fantasy.

Is it a concern about losing the fantasy feel, player's going John Woo on the manticore, or creating a scenario where swords and melee become obsolete? It seems to be a major concern for a lot of folks, but I can't really see what the big ooh-ahh is.

Chris

Sylus, I've always wondered what the big "issue" was with this question. I've seen it pop up way too many times in the past, and I never understood what the concern was in incorporating firearms into fantasy.

Is it a concern about losing the fantasy feel, player's going John Woo on the manticore, or creating a scenario where swords and melee become obsolete? It seems to be a major concern for a lot of folks, but I can't really see what the big ooh-ahh is.

Chris

Plus personally, I think Joel Rosenberg combined the two the best in the Guardians of the Flame series. Of course that may be the greatest fanatsy setting of all time too IMnotsoHO.

Sylus

Sylus, I've always wondered what the big "issue" was with this question. I've seen it pop up way too many times in the past, and I never understood what the concern was in incorporating firearms into fantasy.

Barbara Hambly's books also often include primitive firearms alongside magic, swords and other fantasy fare. They're quite good, too (at least I recall liking them quite a bit).

b_bankhead wrote: By the way how does anybody make D&D work with firearms? Armor classes are based on performance against primitive melee weapons. The reason that they stopped wearing armor was that it wasnt any good against firearms.

It's fantasy. Dragons can't really exist, either, nor would armor be particularly effective against them (not to mention dragons actually flying).

This is, perhaps, why fantasy-anime is so popular. No need to worry about the "realism" of those big, cartoony swords because it is easier to swallow and forget about in a cartoon.

I've found (from 7th Seas which was fantasy+firearms) the increased damage of a flintlock is compensated for the poor accuracy of them.

Gwen wrote: I've found (from 7th Seas which was fantasy+firearms) the increased damage of a flintlock is compensated for the poor accuracy of them.

I've found (from 7th Seas which was fantasy+firearms) the increased damage of a flintlock is compensated for the poor accuracy of them.

This is a pretty interesting topic for debate. What defines something as fantasy? For me it would be anything or setting that went beyond or acted beyond what we know to be true.

What does everyone else think?

Just so you know, flintlocks are highly accurate, it was their predecessers that were iffy on their accuracy. Mostly due to the way they fired and the type of projectile and barrel used.

I've found (from 7th Seas which was fantasy+firearms) the increased damage of a flintlock is compensated for the poor accuracy of them.

I didn't say flintlocks are inaccurate. I said that's how 7th seas kept it balanced.

Personally I agree completely. That is in fact my definition. But for most of the RPG crowd 'fantasy' means its minor subgenre 'sword and sorcery', to the point that it has become essentially a synonym for that. It seems like a kind of imprinting sets in and they can't pushe their minds much beyond that imagery. I think this is one of the things holding RPGs back from general exceptance,the field's overwhelming saturation of one genre.
(Its certainly kept me out of the local gaming scene for some time...) Despite the success of Lord of the Rings (the best of the best of the best of the genre....) sword and sorcery is marginal as far as the public is concerned.

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!

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Sylus Thane wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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! :)

...what about the crossbow?

This is why certain elements tried to have crossbows banned from the field of battle. It makes commoners able to kill knights, and that just will not do. Crossbows are equivalent to guns for most practical purposes of these discussions. Yes, if allowed, they can make a PCs very dangerous that first shot. Which can subsequently make the action less personal as it becomes all about pointing crossbows at each other. Ends up more like an action flick (I'm imagining a "Mexican standoff" with crossbows).

Mike

nipfipgip...dip wrote:

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.

To clear up a few things about black powder firearms.

1) the reason armor disappeared was emphatically NOT because they were not effective against firearms. Most breast plates and helmets showed dents where they were proofed (i.e. tested by the craftsman) to demonstrate how WELL they protected against firearms. The actual penetration ability of a slow moving large ball of soft lead was notably inferior to that of cross bows and long bows.

2) the statement that "flintlocks were accurate" is somewhat incorrect but very misleading. The term flintlock refers to the method of discharging the weapon and had less to do with the accuracy of the weapon than did the length of barrel or presence of rifling in the barrel. Flintlocks were marginally more accurate than matchlocks because there was usually less delay between trigger pull and discharge.

3) black powder weapons varied dramatically in degree of accuracy. Short barrel smooth bore weapons (such as mass produced and issued to most armies) were so inaccurate they couldn't be relied upon to hit a stationary target at 50 meters more than one shot in 3 (or perhaps 1 in 5 I can't recall precisely). The kind of weapon used by frontiersmen to fill the cook pot were generally a) very long barreled some almost absurdly so, b) rifled, and c) carefully crafted by master craftsman usually by hand to obtain a higher degree of precision than early mass produced models.

4) The idea of "accuracy" especially in these old weapons are largely a function of an individual's expertise with a specific rifle. The degree of windage (gap between shot and barrel) had great impact on accuracy and differed substantially between pieces. Familiarity with a specific weapons quirks and features could lead to an experienced rifleman making accurate shots, but this is more a feature of the skill and practice of the individual, than any inherent accuracy of the weapon. In truth, how careful you were in loading the weapon (getting the wadding right, getting the shot firmly seated with ramming, having the right amount of primer) would make a dramatic difference in the accuracy of the shot...so no the weapons themselves were not very accurate beyond a fraction of their total potential range (that fraction being higher for rifled barrels than smooth bore).

Anyway, just the pedantic repressed simulationist in me :-)

I normally don't do this, and just try to steer things back on course with topical discussion, but as the posts about the history and real-world application of firearms pile up with no end in sight, I must make note: folks, you have hi-jacked this thread.

Bad. Very.
Stop it.

Mike Holmes wrote: This is why certain elements tried to have crossbows banned from the field of battle. It makes commoners able to kill knights, and that just will not do. Crossbows are equivalent to guns for most practical purposes of these discussions.

I think the sword-and-pistol model can work very well, it adds an extra option which can be fun in its own right. And as we have discussed, the musket is not of too much use for the typical RPG character, so I would not be too worried about having black powder weapons.

OTOH, where players show the tendency to be over-armed, gunpwder gives them a lot of opportunity in the form of explosives. I think that part of the problem is the anticipation that our mindset would lean toward that easily and perhaps implausibly (like the frequency with which explosives show up in Robin Hood movies). So I think there has been a hesitancy to set up that sort of situation, but I don't think its a very serious problem, in that a number of games have incorporated black powder weapons.

Thor Olavsrud wrote:
That explanation is a long-winded way of saying that muskets wouldn't really be much use in the traditional RPG "squad." Pistols would be, though they were really for close up work and not too useful at a distance. After that, it's time to rely on your sword.

Interestingly, in Warhammer 40K, most pistols are considered "close combat weapons" as soon as you get into hand-to-hand range. You may not be able to shoot worth a damn from far away (especially with Orks), but once you get close enough, a pistol acts just like a sword. You can hack someone's arm off or you can just blow it off.

Ah, the things I learned from hanging around during my brother's miniature games... :)

Later.
Jonathan

Since no-one else has mentioned it...

One issue of Dragon (the Steampunk Cover; issue # unknown) did look at adding firearms to D&D 3rd Ed. The rules had these weapons reduce the effectiveness of most armour types; magic bonuses still applied to armour.

In regards to firearms versus magic and their use in fighting, why would you use them? What advantages do they bring to the battle? Is there a cultural reason why one would dominate?

If magic is more efficient, why use guns? If firearms are more effective, why use magic on the battlefield? Traditionally magic is very powerful and relies on a high level of training and is widely destructive. Guns may be the common soldiers' ranged weapon. Maybe firearms (by virtue of gunpowder's properties) are immune to magic. Maybe races that don't have magic have developed firearms to attempt to balance their capacity on the battlefield. A lot of maybes, but then it is up to you to make a decision about it.

In the original post, guns were stated to be rare and expensive. So what advantages do they have to balance that? If the only thing they profer is status, the players will stick to their arrows. But if a bullet is capable of dropping any mage in the land because their magic won't work against it, then it becomes useful.