Why do firearms in fantasy games almost always get nerfed to shit? There's balance, and then there's making something so bad that no one will ever take it. Why can't we have decent guns along with dwarves and elves and orcs?
>>46714450
well depending on era firearms were shit irl. then past a certain point they are too dam good. i think having the guns is just kinda a no win scenario
>>46714513
A lot of shitty things in the medieval era get glossed over in fantasy settings though. Why would firearms be the exception?
>>46714450
>Fantasy games
Look, if all you have experience with is D&D, just say so instead of making sweeping, untrue generalizations.
In superheroes with swords type games (like D&D), guns tend to be shitty because they're the most boring weapons, they don't make for cool videogamey swordfights where you're "tanking" a giant or whatever, and they're not sexy like an elf with a bow, so they don't get any love.
Plus, effective guns means that most fantasy settings have to look WAY different or admit to being retarded, so it's easier to just go "ohyeah there's guns, but they're shit".
A lot of the people you play with would have a bitchfit if they got shot in the head with a gun and just died, like guns are somehow lethal, they don't want good guns, they want paper Diablo 3.
>>46714450
Because guns tend to make fighters, monks and barbarians look like little bitches.
>>46714635
>implying fighters can't use guns
>inb4 some retarded gun specialist class
>>46714635
Well you have this, but guns and swords coexisted for centuries - even when guns become good and the primary weapons, you still see people (often the cavalry) completely fucking their shit up with swords and lances
>>46714592
Maybe you should take your own advice and not making generalizations about people's experience with RPGs. No one brought D&D up until you did. I don't care if you've got a hate boner for the system, but please stroke it elsewhere.
>>46714635
you're not monking hard enough
Because if they weren't "nerfed to shit", 90% of the game would be redundant.
>>46714853
Explain.
>>46714592
>D&D
But guns aren't bad in all editions of D&D. In 5e a Musket does as much damage as a Lance or Greataxe (the melee weapons with the largest damage dice) and modern and futuristic guns leave melee in the dust, with the antimatter rifle doing 6d8 Necrotic (meaning it wouldn't even have to be magical to hurt something with resistances to non-magical weapons.)
Even in earlier editions guns were good. In AD&D 2e the Arquebus also shares the same damage die as the highest damage melee weapons and balances it's chance to backfire by doing damage as a magic weapon and having the damage die explode.
They represent a symbolic break from "heroic" combat to something more like modern combat, where war and fighting is an impersonal, industrial affair.
Whether that has any factual basis is irrelevant, it's what bears out in.
They're pretty cool in LotFP. They're a big, loud way to open combat, that tends to scare off weak, disorganized opponents. But because they're slow to reload (and impossible to reload while in the midst of pitched meelee) most tougher fights are still decided in hand to hand combat.
>>46714754
Pfft nothin personnel kid
>>46714513
What if they're strong but situational?
>>46714450
Because most game designers are idiots who can't handle Age of Sail type of deal, with bows, crossbows, muskets and cannons going "hand-to-hand", but apparently a fucking fireball is ok.
>>46714450
For the same reason crossbows see relatively little use among PCs. The main advantage of both was ease of use, and it's generally assumed that PCs are going to be skilled with their weapons. A competent longbowman could beat the shit out of a soldier with a handgonne or even an arquebus if the fight was one on one. It's just that mastering a bow took months, if not years, while you could get the hang of a handgonne in an afternoon. The idea that they were all wildly inaccurate isn't really true at the distance most fights in RPGs take place, but at that range the gunner is incredibly vulnerable after the first volley. The only way to make firearms viable weapons without just being reskinned crossbows is having them do a massively unrealistic amount of damage, which seems to be the route most systems take.
>>46714927
Which edition of D&D do guns suck in? The only firearms I can remember being in official splats in 3.5 were cannons in Stormwracked, which were extremely powerful but really, really expensive.
>>46715776
>Which edition of D&D do guns suck in?
Obviously there must be some edition in which they suck, or these anons wouldn't think the things they do, but I didn't play whichever edition it was.
>>46714450
Go play SoS. Guns are great, not just in damage but also in how easily they hit close targets, but it's obvious why they haven't replaced everything else.
>Oh shit bad guys
>Better light my arquebus's matchcord
>Fuck
>Fucking light
>Shit
>Okay, it's been three rounds, time to kill a nigger
>BLAM
>Fuck yeah. Oh shit, better reload
>Fuck
>Fucking--God damn reload roll
>GOD DAMN I-oh, okay, there we go.
>BLAM
Whoo! That's two!
Meanwhile, the guy with the halberd kills like two guys per round, every round, because he made Guts the Landsknecht. You can invest to get stuff like revolvers or breech-loaders (which actually did exist in the 15th century, some prince had one) but those are really expensive end-game stuff.
>>46714450
What setting are you thinking of? Because every setting where I've seen firearms in has made them a viable alternative to bows.
>>46715860
>SoS meming
There are dozens of better games with better mechanics that handle firearms better.
>>46715860
>Shilling for SoS
>Missing own point
>Using terms like "end-game stuff" in context of tabletop RPG
>>46714927
Hmm... I remember 5e guns as being shit. If I recall you couldn't dual shoot them every turn like as hand crossbows and magic would not generally apply as nost ranged combat buffs regard specifically arrows.
>>46715977
What is SoS? Google does not throw immediate results.
>>46715911
And I'm sure you will recommend them to our beleaguered OP in answer to his concerns.
>>46716081
>you couldn't dual shoot them every turn like as hand crossbows
You can only do that with the feat that negates the loading feature, and even with the feat the d12 from a musket is only slightly less damage than the hand crossbow's 2d6. If you're building the 5 light crossbow attack fighter then the musket isn't worth it, but it's still very much a worthwhile option for a rogue or other class who only has one attack and wants to throw his ASIs at other things.
>>46716183
Song of Swords. It's on /tg/ somewhere. Basically dead game, supposed to be a retroclone of Riddle of Steel.
>>46715911
>>46715977
It seems like most of /tg/ has only played 3.PF and precisely 1 other system. They latch onto 1 thing the system does better than 3.PF and never shut up about how this makes it the greatest thing ever. 4e? Muh balance. SoS? Muh realistic combat. And I swear I could do a better job arguing in favor of GURPS, a system I can't fucking stand, than most of it's players on /tg/ given how many of them struggle to defend without comparing it to 3.5.
>>46716241
>light crossbow
Oops, I meant hand crossbow.
>>46715022
There is a period from around 1300-1600 where guns are still very personal weapons though.
>>46714450
>nerfed to shit
I beg to differ
http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Fomalhaut
and
http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Barret_Wallace
a fucking huge ass niggah with a gun arm.
If you want to do guns right, balanced and all, make them only depend on their damage stat, and not scale with any strength or agility shit with the character, but give it insane piercing ability, like ignoring enemy armor.
>>46716193
GURPS TL4 is pretty much ALL about this?
Wild Fields, especially 2nd edition?
Fucking Deadlands?
>>46716286
Dunno, never played other D&D than 0 and ADD. But I know for sure that SoS is a meme game that is stroking special kind of autist the right way, so they just won't shut up about this clusterfuck of convoluted rules.
>>46715860
Shouldn't you be in some SoS general thread? Or did /tg/ finally stopped having those?
>>46715662
In an era where the metallurgy tech makes chain the most common armor and plate be the rare and distance goal, then guns have to effectively be crossbows that can get rusty. Anything else is immersion breaking.
>>46715911
>>46715977
What is SOS?
>>46716183
>Google does not throw immediate results.
Good. Very fucking good.
It's one of the most autistic projects that went through /tg/, fortunately dead before being even half-baked.
A 400-something page long wank about melee combat written by people who decided it's a fun thing to roll for half a day a single turn of combat for "muh realism", describing hundreds of very specific situations in the process and making separate mechanics for them.
>>46716529
Song of Swords. Favourite game of the most autistic fa/tg/uys, completely despised by pretty much everyone else. At this point - a meme game, since it was never finished.
Why are so many people under the delusion that the moment gunpowder is introduced to a setting firearms will reach a WWI tech level in under a week? Even Terry Pratchett did this for fucks sake.
>>46716318
Guns weren't any more impersonal or industrial until Eli Whitney introduced interchangeable parts at the turn of the 19th century, shortly before all manufactured goods went in that direction.
>>46716430
Congrats on being the first person I've ever seen who's actually responded to that. What's Wild Fields? I've never heard of it.
>>46716529
Save Our Souls, which is used as an international distress signal. SoS however is a Riddle of Steel "successor" called Song of Swords. There's a thread up right now, check the catalogue
>>46715860
>Go play SoS
>>46716595
>Save Our Souls, which is used as an international distress signal.
Nope, doesn't stand for anything. SOS was used because it's easy to remember in morse code: ... --- ...
>>46716529
http://www.mediafire.com/download/12xqm1p2q69m392/Song_of_Swords.rar
See for yourself.
>>46714450
The d20 historical adventures from Avalanche Press had some great firearm rules.
>>46716594
A Polish tabletop RPG, set in 17th century steppes of Ukraine (hence the title). Got absolutely golden fencing rules - making SoS stand out as shit even more - with some pretty decent early firearms rules and then some other ranged combat for bows. It's also technically a (very) low fantasy.
Depending who you ask, it's either 1st or 2nd edition ruleset, with absolutely no middle ground. I personally prefer the 1st one, as the 2nd is too gimmicky in details for my taste.
>>46716594
It's a game that takes realistic approach to quality and accuracy of 17th century firearms. Meaning they are neither instant killing machines, piercing all possible armour nor dog-shit awful weapons that will more likely explode in your own face than hit the broad-side of a barn.
>>46716707
That sounds awesome. Thanks!
>>46716640
Huh. Though apparently phrases such as "Save Our Ship" or "Save Our Souls" or "Send Out Succour" have become associated with the distress signal. Thanks for correcting me.
>>46716430
Deadlands is a goddamn Wild West game. It's a bit weird to be comparing something that's supposed to be 16th century firearms with 19th century firearms. You should be comparing Call of the Void, which is the radically simplified version of SoS made for modern combat (and much better, to the point that huge sections of the original are being chopped out and replaced).
>>46716835
>Still meming for SoS
There are still smooth-bore muskets in Deadlands and rules for them. Now, would I put the title of any game if there was no real reason to post it?
So shut the fuck up about your meme game. It's dead.
And that's great
>>46716780
Don't worry about it. It's a really, really common myth.
>>46716888
I'm sorry you feel that way, anon.
>>46716430
>GURPS
Next.
>Wild Fields
Has that even been translated into English?
>Deadlands
That brings me back.
>>46715860
>2016
>Still thinking SoS will be ever published or even finished
>>46714739
>implying it wasn't 100% accurate.
>>46716976
>Next
You don't even need to play GURPS, you can simply read rules for early firearms for reference.
>Translated?
Pretty solid fan-translations in English, French and Swedish exist
>>46717014
Do you have those translations? I've seen it mentioned a number of times over in the SoS threads, and I'd like to read it for myself.
>>46714927
>In 5e a Musket does as much damage as a Lance or Greataxe
Right, and you get the same number of hits in during a given number of rounds do you?
And you can build around guns as easily as around greataxes right?
>>46714450
A sharp sword to the vitals does 1d8, why shouldn't a gunshot do the same?
>>46716979
We'll see. Never got where the bitterness about the game comes from. There's one super assfractured Polish guy who keeps coming back to it.
Who pissed in your borscht, Stanislaw?
>>46717045
Nope, sorry, Polish is my superpower, so I don't need translations.
But for a while RPG Codex was wanking about the game, so I wouldn't be surprised if they had a translated copy saved somewhere.
>>46717077
It's barszcz. Russians are eating borscht
>>46717077
I love the game myself, but let's be honest. The book is really badly done. You basically need someone to teach you the game. The way it's laid out and the difficulty in parsing most of the information means that a deceptively simple opposed dice pool game gets drawn out over hundreds of pages and has to include a bunch of edge rules because people were abusing illogical things. Proper formatting would drop the complexity and page count a huge amount, and the devs learning to tell GMs to adjudicate weird situations would help too. Of course, the long hiatus is because the book is being formatted, so some of these issues may improve.
>>46717077
>Side-shaves
>>46717146
>barszcz
Your language is more haunted than my boots.
>>46717189
>Of course, the long hiatus is because the book is being formatted, so some of these issues may improve.
>It's totally going to be finished guys!
>R-really!
At this point all my interest with the game has burned out because of this constant "we are going to publish it this time for real!" going for over two years.
>>46717226
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlOoSsfU6cM
It never gets old
>>46715662
This works for stuff like the early arquebuses or late handgonnes. Powerful, possibly capable of penetrating plate armor with much greater range than a crossbow, but you only can get one shot off if charged.
>>46717286
It's been really rough for me too. I've been playing it for a year, and I've just stopped telling my group that an update is coming soon, because it's inevitably pushed back.
>>46716270
>>46716430
>>46716530
>>46716551
I honestly never realised we inspired this much animosity, it's very strange to me as I thought we were quite insular.
>>46717381
It's not as much the game itself (which is still a clusterfuck) as its fanbase, which is the main issue.
>>46717454
Is it the evangelizing?
Hand-to-hand combat is more exciting and "personal" to imagine than a gunfight, It is easier to picture a skilled swordsman than a skilled marksman, and easier to balance since if you're doing it realistically even ancient guns would either go right through or majorly damage all but the best armor. There's the obvious response of "why not use magical armor", but if you're going that way then you have to answer why you can't use a magical gun/ammo
>>46714739
This anon's right, I agree with this anon.
Looks like fa/tg/uys are not "extra-nice" with each other on saturday.
>>46717610
Anon, it's 6th armchair military thread today. And 2nd dealing with firearms. It gets kind of annoying
>>46717776
It especially pisses me off how many times the exact same information gets reposted in the same thread no matter how many times other people explain, often in great detail, why it's wrong. They don't even argue against the people correcting them most of the time. It's like the idea that they could be wrong about something is so foreign that their minds refuse to register it as being there. See:
>>46714635
>>46714853
>>46716484
>>46714554
Probably because of gun autists. Make guns shit and they complain that they aren't good enough. Make guns good and they start tacticooling it up and/or demanding that certain firearm innovations *have* to exist in the setting at that very moment.
Give an inch and they take a sulfur smelling mile.
>>46718242
Oh, and a certain subset of gunfags also try to singlehandedly jump firearm tech by hundreds of years without actually going through hundreds of years of trial-and-error research and development.
>>46716594
Yeah but after 1600 you started having everyone having guns.
>>46715776
Pretty much. An early gun really isn't much stronger than a longbow or a crossbow in the hands of a good marksman on any count: they were fairly inaccurate, they were useless if they got wet, and they took quite a while to reload. All the way up to the 1800s, the primary battlefield strategy with gun-wielding soldiers was to get as many of them as possible together, then have them fire at the enemy in these great big walls of weapons on the basis that one of them would hit.
What made guns unique was that they were very easy to use. A bow can take years to master - an old adage was "if you want a master archer, start with his grandfather." Crossbows are a lot easier, but they were expensive to make, hence why it was widely seen as a mercenary's weapon. But guns? Once you know how to load a gun, it's pretty much point-and-shoot. This was what gave guns their edge; you could train a bunch of peasants in firing drills in a month, then send them off to battle, and suddenly your enemy's hundred master archers is facing off against ten thousand people with arquebuses.
This, in itself, means that guns aren't really a weapon that lend themselves to heroics. Early guns take too long to reload to get in a good action scene. By the time we had reliable guns that could fire off multiple rounds, it was far, far too late for most medieval fantasy.
>>46718334
They also all had swords and other pointy things.
What's wrong with having, say, a pistol that you use in the first round of combat, then switch to your sword?
>>46718557
>This, in itself, means that guns aren't really a weapon that lend themselves to heroics
So you can't think of any heroic situations or scenarios after 1500? Any imagined situation where someone with a pistol or a musket could be heroic? Never seen anything about Pirates, or read Sharpe or fucking any of that? Ignoring the fact that guns have been on the medieval battlefield for almost 200 years by 1500?
>>46714635
>Muh casters
Mage armor aint gonna do shit against guns son.
>>46718711
>By the time we had reliable guns that could fire off multiple rounds, it was far, far too late for most medieval fantasy.
Did you even read his post?
>>46714754
what is dis?
>>46718828
the prequel to batman v superman
>>46718557
I agree with your points, but read how Defoe uses guns in Robinson Crusoe. That's basically a world where guns give you an advantage, but have drawbacks and aren't overpowered (even though a native starts worshiping a gun).
>>46718238
You would think after certain point this place could simply saturate itself with enough facts going to avoid havind your daily "bows vs guns" or "early firearms are shit" or "women can't into army because I have no clue about modern combat" or "the most advanced tactics I'm aware of are from Napoleonic Era, so why This Obvious Behaviour is even a thing in military!"
I'm sick and tired about the sole repetitivness of "between 1300 and 1600 having alongside guns, crossbows and bows wasn't uncommon at all" being a massive revelation for shitload of poeple... only go get to the very same point the next day in another thread.
Why?
What have I done to be punished like this?
>>46718242
>How to spot pathetic GM: The Post
>>46718574
This also applies to crossbows. Shoot the first guy, come see if the rest are still so eager to go for you. If so - cut them.
>>46714450
The guns in DnD 5e do it alright, I think. 1d12 damage, so one of the best ranged weapons for damage. but you need to get a unique feat with it to get your proficiency bonus with it, plus a minor action to reload. No overcomplicated misfire table, just "on a 1, you miss, like everything else." Basically just a refluffed greatbow.
>>46719066
>He hasn't seen multiple gun autists in completely unrelated groups, all act in remarkably similar, entitled ways
Good for you, I guess.
>>46714450
1.) Because if firearms were decent, then everyone would use firearms. The designers didn't want urban fantasy, they wanted medieval fantasy, and so they needed to ensure that the sword dominated.
2.) Because medieval firearms were shockingly terrible, frequently to the point where reloading took so long that it was pointless and most weapons didn't fire at all (or fired but didn't launch the projectile). Most of the power in ancient firearms was the shock value and people "mysteriously" getting knocked down and sprouting bleeding wounds from the weapons. That's a lot less of a significant thing in a setting with magic.
>>46719184
Where does this idea that people thought firearms were mysterious things come from? Does it exist in any sources?
>>46714450
Because fat neckbeards bitch and moan like babies if there's guns in their games, so to appease everyone else without causing massive anal devastation, they nerf the guns so the neckbeards don't have as much to complain about.
>>46719184
>firearms didn't make warfare urban-dominated in the early modern period
>swords were never the dominant weapon
>?
>>46719232
The tone of this post and the content of it indicate mutually exclusive levels of butthurt.
>>46719260
Fantasy, not historically realistic military simulation.
>>46714754
I'm pretty hard, now.
>>46719110
Of course I have. And they've learned the meaning of word "no".
Why you even GM if you can't handle basic situations like that?
>>46719184
>This entire post
>>46719326
When did I indicate that I couldn't handle it? Saying "no" before they even start is better for me than saying "no" every single time they get a little bit of in-game downtime where they could theoretically R&D more guns.
>>46717516
But have you seen the realistic sepsis rules?
>>46719364
But anon, I've already called you a shitty GM twice, I'm really suppose to repeat myself for 3rd time? Fine...
You are an awful GM. Only awful GM can't handle situations like this or make idiotic "because I say so" before the game.
Next thing you gonna say is how you don't allow magic in modern setings, because you can't handle the mix of magic and high-tech nor balance things out NOR simply denying players from that in tactful way.
In short - the Bad GM Detector went all ringdingdingdingding
>>46719215
>Where does this idea that people thought firearms were mysterious things come from?
While I admit my research is a bit casual in this regard, Vlad Tepes was an early user of firearms against invading Ottomans. They were notoriously unreliable, but the Ottomans were generally frightened by the weapons. While "mysterious things" might've been stretching it a bit, they were considered frightening by at least several people who they were used on, and certainly that fear factor was a lot more reliable than their terrible accuracy.
Of course, this is Vlad the Impaler we're talking about, so there were plenty of other reasons for the Ottomans to be afraid of him. But if they thought that guns were just a fancy arrow rather than a frightening weapon, then they would've just treated such weapons as fancy crossbows rather than retreating when they fought them.
>>46719531
But anon, all I'm hearing is that your reading comprehension is shit.
Quote where I said I couldn't handle it. This is the second time I've asked you to.
>>46717048
>number of hits
See >>46716241
The 5e muskets are for pike & shot era.
>>46719566
>Give an inch and they take a sulfur smelling mile.
>autists in completely unrelated groups, all act in remarkably similar, entitled ways
>Saying "no" before they even start is better for me than saying "no" every single time
Right about here. That's all shitty GMing and you know it. Shitty and lazy.
>>46719839
You must be incredibly passive aggressive if telling them flat out no is your idea of shitty GMing.
>>46719839
None of those things resemble not being able to handle gun autists.
>>46719184
>if firearms were decent, then everyone would use firearms
I feel like this only happens because most times when people run medieval fantasy campaigns, guns of any kind are absent. So when guns do finally show up, they're a typically unseen thing that your players wanna make use of.
Imagine if most people ran medieval campaigns with no or very little fantasy elements, but then suddenly you tell your players the next campaign will have very common magic. Chances are most of your players would want to play some kind of caster because it's new and interesting and they might not be able to have a chance to once the next campaign rolls around.
>>46719885
Yes, it's passive aggressive to first listen to the demands and arguments of people you GM for and then see if you can work out a solution that is suitable for both sides. Because we all know best the game is by and for GM, not the players
Seriously, how about you shut the fuck up and start thinking about your "brilliant" ideas for handling player demands without even listening to them.
>>46719944
Allowing them to run roughshod over you and completely change the tone of the game through mad science gunsmithing is not fun for players who aren't interested in gunwank.
Letting one or two players dictate a massive shift in the game is not good GMing. Repeatedly telling them no because they can't take the hint is just annoying.
>>46719944
>Of course I have. And they've learned the meaning of word "no".
>Why you even GM if you can't handle basic situations like that?
>Yes, it's passive aggressive to first listen to the demands and arguments of people you GM for and then see if you can work out a solution that is suitable for both sides.
Ah, so you're just being contrarian for fun then. That's okay, anon. Arguing can be fun sometimes.
>>46719991
>Allowing them to run roughshod over you and completely change the tone of the game through mad science gunsmithing
Did anyone said anything about it?
No.
So why the fuck you are going straight for your imaginary worst case scenario? That's why the fuck you should talk it over with your players, you stupid cunt. Meaning you listen to their arguments and points, then evaluate them.
Jesus, the sole inability to realise how bad this is on your side to openly say players "fuck you" without even giving them a chance to speak up is alone enough for That GM.
>>46720069
You're right there with me buddy. Unless your players haven't actually learned 'the meaning of word "no"' of course. Then I guess you're just being a douche for no reason.
>>46720055
>Cherry picking lines that were already out of context
Brilliant.
If I say "no" to my players, that's after listening to their fucking points, instea of going "no, fuck off" the moment they even open their mouths. But go on, entertain us by twisting it around.
>>46719991
You're literally retarded.
How about talk to your goddamn players and see what they want? If someone wants something different, try to work something out with them instead of
>AHHH
>NOOO
>I AM AUTISTIC
>SAFE SPACE SAFE SPACE
>>46720084
My reason is very simple
I hate cunts that smugly declare they are better than the players they've GM for.
And that's what instantly triggered me with your bullshit.
>>46720092
When did I say that I didn't listen to their points? Saying no before they start gunsperging isn't the same as saying no before they say anything at all.
>>46719991
>is just annoying.
Oh, right, because it's better to be a lazy asshole saying "no" just to save yourself time and effort and dictate everything to your players instead.
You seriously wonder why the other anon is picking at you for bad GMing?
>>46720100
How about you stop making assumptions and then arguing against them as if they were fact?
>>46720122
Wow, good post! Never mind the fact that it depends on the system more than the setting.
>>46720117
>When did I say that I didn't listen to their points?
>Saying no before they start gunsperging isn't the same as saying no before they say anything at all.
You've literally just did, you fucking moron
>>46720141
Oh, so it's fine and dandy when you make assumptions ahead, but everyone else is not allowed to do that?
People like you are the cancer that throws away new players with their shitty, arbitrary judgment as DM
>>46720150
No actually, I didn't. You've claimed to have met these people. You've also claimed to have shut them down in the same way you are now calling me bad for.
Arguing is fun, isn't it?
>>46719260
>swords were never the dominant weapon
>not posted with my gladius
I'm sure you could find a system that encouraged the use of pikes and spears if you looked at all.
>>46720177
>You've also claimed to have shut them down
Where
Where the fuck did you read that part you stupid cunt?
Jesus, there are retards, then there are Americans, and then there are spergs like you.
>>46720176
What assumptions have I made? People who push for guns where they shouldn't be and push for gun technology advancement where it shouldn't be are told no and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
You've assumed that I'm shutting them down for arbitrary reasons and that I do it for all other aspects of the game.
>>46720197
Right here. >>46719326
>Of course I have. And they've learned the meaning of word "no".
If this sentence doesn't mean "I shut them down by saying no", then what the fuck does it mean?
>>46720197
Oh, so that's why you don't understand what your sentence meant when you said that your gun loving players learned the meaning of the word no.
You're just ESL is all. That's okay buddy, you're making progress.
>>46720220
It means that I've said them no if they went too far?
Seriously, you've added what you wanted to add ther and just run with it, like every sperg does.
>>46720257
I didn't add anything at all.
I also didn't make the assumption that you haven't listened to them at all, unlike you. You're calling me out for doing literally what you are now admitting to doing. Now I want to know if you've bought into your own strawman or are just a simple hypocrite.
>>46714635
When a mortal has 4-10HP, and only the most trained well breed as 10HP?
Firearms don't really do well.
At all.
>>46714450
guns in fantasy campaigns are usually flintlock or percussion, and by that point guns had pretty much eclipsed everything else as the primary weapon of warfare. They have to make them weak for the game, or else everyone would only use flintlock weapons, bayonets, or a sidearm such as a side sword, rapier, bowie knife, or kukri.
if guns in fantasy settings were instead based on matchlock rifles of the late 1400s, they would be a rare but very situational weapon. A matchlock rifle couldn't be used in rain or strong wind, and the glow from the match gave away your position at night. Furthermore, early firearms miss fired a bunch and there are many accounts of them being not as deadly as desired.
>>46720198
That is an arbitrary reason, you inbred cocksucker.
Are you like this every day? Jesus Christ, your simple existence is a blight upon the day of every person in this thread; I hate to think of what the people who can't simply hide your posts must be going through. If I ever see them in a bar (and I will surely know them by the furious but resigned expression on their face), I'll be sure to buy them a drink and share stories of you.
>>46720359
>guns in fantasy campaigns are usually flintlock or percussion, and by that point guns had pretty much eclipsed everything else as the primary weapon of warfare. They have to make them weak for the game, or else everyone would only use flintlock weapons, bayonets, or a sidearm such as a side sword, rapier, bowie knife, or kukri.
Those guns still take a fucking geological epoch to reload, so it's perfectly reasonable to use blades as a primary weapon for a small group of adventurers. Especially if they're in a town, where they can't really knock about with muskets strapped to their asses without being asked some pointed questions.
>>46720620
Rapid gun technology advancement being a paradigm shift that doesn't fit the game we're playing is arbitrary now? Is this your ESL showing again? Should I start using smaller words? Or maybe I need to get on your level and start flinging personal insults. Well, I'm not going to do that, so I guess you'll just have to get better at reading in English.
>>46720682
No, it doesn't, especially not in the context of small bands of independent adventurers.
Hell, plenty of people in just that sort of context kept using bows because they were quicker to shoot and lighter than guns such as in the Border Marches where they were used up until the 18th century and the Border was essentially removed.
>>46720620
>Those guns still take a fucking geological epoch to reload, so it's perfectly reasonable to use blades as a primary weapon for a small group of adventurers. Especially if they're in a town, where they can't really knock about with muskets strapped to their asses without being asked some pointed questions.
A trained musket wielder could fire four shots a minute. That is still a long time in the context of battle, but I wouldn't call 15 seconds "a geological epoch"
>>46720710
And we're talking about a period that last about 300 years (1500 to about 1800).
>>46720710
Yes it does, especially in the context of small bands of independent adventurers who are either operating on a completely different, completely better level than the rest of the setting or have become merchants of death with an empire made of firearms.
And before you start saying something about me making player characters completely mundane and boring, there's a big difference between being exceptional within a setting and being entirely beyond the rest of it.
Letting them make their advances has consequences that don't fit the tone of the game, one way or another. Or it doesn't have any consequences because you constantly nullify it through in-game circumstances, which is passive aggressive and completely misleading for everyone involved. Better to nip it in the bud than let them waste everyone's time or ruin things for the other players.
>>46720682
>Rapid gun technology advancement being a paradigm shift that doesn't fit the game we're playing is arbitrary now?
Yes. Because, and hold on here because I'm about to blow your fucking mind, it's a fucking fantasy game you're playing for fun! At least I hope you are. For all I know, being a pugnacious cumstain on the art of GMing and TTRPGs as a whole is the only way you can get a stiffy, and the players are all your kidnap victims.
If your players are like-minded folks, well that's just fucking ducky! You can all sit around the table and wank each other over your perfect fantasy setting.
If one of your players wants guns, or to advance technology, do you just blow your sperg opinions all over their face? How about if a majority of the group wanted to do it, or at least didn't care? Would you acquiescence?
>>46720799
And a man with a knife can, from a standing start, close 21 feet before you can draw a gun and get a shot off. For a small group of adventurers, I can absolutely see them firing an opening volley then closing to melee.
>>46720896
I'm glad I'm not at your table, where "fantasy" means "anything goes".
Sure, Gonk the averagely intelligent fighter with no background in anything resembling gunsmithing can research 700 years worth of advancement and go from handgonnes to rifles! It's fantasy!
>>46720838
That's like playing a campaign set in a victorian style setting and saying that you refuse to do so because the players might become president and create nuclear bombs early. It's stupid. And if they do, just say "You wouldn't be able to think of that". Because it's a game and you're playing it to have fun in a certain setting.
Hell, we can take this even further. What about crossbows? Why wouldn't a PC use mechanical self-loading crossbows? Why wouldn't they set about creating workshops churning out these crossbows and killing everything by hiring a hundred men and using those crossbows? Why don't your PCs say 'I'm going to invent blast forging and new alloys and make invincible armour!'? Better ban swords and breastplates! Don't want them getting ideas. In fact, everyone just gets rocks. Except now rocks are banned because your players might decide to make hand axes and spears using the rocks!
Do you see how stupid you sound?
>>46720896
>For a small group of adventurers, I can absolutely see them firing an opening volley then closing to melee.
and in history that's often how they were used
historical accounts exist of people carrying multiple pistols, as well as pistols with multiple barrels, to allow for more shots
I would think most adventurers in the flintlock era would opt for a pistol and sword.
In the matchlock era good pistols were very rare, and guns in were often pretty crappy for all the reasons above, so adventurers would prefer a sword and buckler (carrying a full shield around really sucks, something most RPGs don't even consider)
>>46720983
No, it's like playing in a Victorian setting and telling them they can't become president and invent nukes because then you'd have some kind of world domination or cold war situation instead of Victorian adventures.
"You wouldn't be able to think of that" is one way of telling them "no". Which is what I've consistently done.
You're pretty stupid when you're agreeing with me in one sentence and calling me stupid for it in the next.
>>46721017
You completely missed my point.
>>46721017
No, it's like being in a Victorian setting and telling them they can't have guns because then nobody will want to play a lancer.
>So many people will be denied having adventures in setting resembling 1400 to 1900 because of turbo autists like this: >>46721017
How sad.
>>46720974
At my table, we do whatever we like and have fun. We're there to break the monotony of life, not to spend our free time pretending we're in Game of Thrones or whatever.
Also, answer my goddamn question. Assume the premise of "the players want it". What do you fucking do?
>>46721124
If the players want to play in a setting where there's firearms, then that's fine.
If the players all of a sudden want to start cranking out flintlock muskets in a Conan style setting, no they can't unless they really want to shift the setting and have an absolutely excellent in game reason why. And even then, I'd recommend we go play a setting where there are firearms rather than butcher that one.
That's fair enough.
>>46721068
You don't have a point because you're arguing against literally nothing
If they try to advance technology (And it's always gun technology, because gun autists are common) hundreds of years ahead, I say no. You also say no, according to your post. If the technology is already at a certain point, of course the players can have it. But that's not what I'm talking about.
>>46721094
>>46721105
Could you not samefag when you've clearly not read the post.
>>46721124
"The players want it" means they've specifically asked for a setting where that's a thing. Which means it's a setting where advanced guns are not out of place. Which means they're fine. But that's literally not what I'm talking about in general here. But you don't care because you're too busy frothing at the mouth like a retard against a strawman of your own creation.
>>46721202
You're saying that you will never let guns be in a fantasy game because you think that the PCs are going to start cranking out machineguns.
>>46721202
Also get fucked.
>>46721216
No, I'm not. I'm saying that I won't allow PCs to crank out machineguns in a fantasy setting with significantly pre-machinegun technology, which apparently means I'm the worst GM of all time because I have a spine and tell them no when they try.
>>46721202
>implying samefaggotry
Ok, dood. Victorian England sits comfortably within the time period most of the thread has been about and you've been arguing against guns the whole time.
>>46721242
That's not what people have been arguing at all. I've been saying that guns and swords have worked alongside each other and not been superior for a huge amount of time, so there's no problem having them in fantasy. You're saying that you won't have them in fantasy at all because the PCs will try and advance the technology despite the fact that they could advance ANY of the technology in a pre-firearms setting.
>>46721233
Nice edit, I like it. Here's mine.
>>46721278
If the fantasy setting doesn't have guns, the players don't get guns. If we're running a setting that does have guns, they get the guns that are in the setting. Period.
That's all I've ever said.
>>46721191
That's a fucking outstanding argument and I agree with everything you said. Good on you, my man.
>>46721202
>"The players want it" means they've specifically asked for a setting where that's a thing. Which means it's a setting where advanced guns are not out of place. Which means they're fine. But that's literally not what I'm talking about in general here.
Where have you specified that you only veto players changing the current setting? Every fucking sperg-out post of yours I've read indicates in the extreme that you will burst a blood vessel if someone so much as thinks about getting a gun near your fantasy.
>>46721246
I've been arguing against insane advances in guns this whole time.
If you want assault rifle toting redcoats, that's cool. I don't. I also don't want assault rifle toting sword and sorcery characters.
>>46721202
>more than one person disagrees with me
>must be one person samefagging - no way could more than one person disagree with me on one of the biggest forums on the internet
This mentality needs to fucking die.
>>46721303
>He legitimately thinks people are editing screen-caps because he's the kind of autistic fucker who actually would do that than accept that multiple people could disagree with him.
>>46721342
>Where have you specified that you only veto players changing the current setting?
>Make guns good and they start tacticooling it up and/or demanding that certain firearm innovations *have* to exist in the setting at that very moment.
>Saying "no" before they even start is better for me than saying "no" every single time they get a little bit of in-game downtime where they could theoretically R&D more guns.
>Allowing them to run roughshod over you and completely change the tone of the game through mad science gunsmithing is not fun for players who aren't interested in gunwank.
>Letting one or two players dictate a massive shift in the game is not good GMing.
>eople who push for guns where they shouldn't be and push for gun technology advancement where it shouldn't be are told no and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
>Rapid gun technology advancement being a paradigm shift that doesn't fit the game we're playing is arbitrary now?
And so on, and so forth.
>>46721348
You've been arguing against any gunpowder weapons at all. People have been tooling around with gunpowder since the 800s, Stop pretending like nothing happened between the fall of Rome and WWII.
>>46721393
Call em as I see em. Two people making very similar posts almost exactly a minute apart is very suspicious. Editing HTML is so easy that most browsers now can do it without even having to save the page.
>>46721422
No, that's the strawman that you've been arguing against this whole time. I haven't said "No guns at all ever". I've said "No guns where they shouldn't be and no gun advances when they shouldn't be".
>>46721450
Unless your setting is equatable to before the 800s, then it sounds to me like there should be, albeit rare, early gunpowder rockets, grenades, flamethrowers, and cannons.
>>46721326
No, you didn't say that. Point to me where you said that in this thread. I'll point to where people, who might be you, have said exactly the opposite.
>>46718331
>>46720838
>>46720682
>>46718242
>Probably because of gun autists. Make guns shit and they complain that they aren't good enough. Make guns good and they start tacticooling it up and/or demanding that certain firearm innovations *have* to exist in the setting at that very moment.
>Give an inch and they take a sulfur smelling mile.
That's the attitude I'm arguing against and the attitude you've been promoting in your posts.
>>46721432
Okay, first you're claiming I edited the image. Now you're claiming I'm messing around with HTML settings to apparently post closely together. Because multiple people responding on a thread in a short time space who disagree with you is impossible.
Why can we never have a good discussion about firearms and fantasy without turboautists coming out and whining about how you can't have guns because players will churn out modern firearms (ignoring all the other industrial developments that would be required for this to happen' or whining about how the presence of ANY firearms means an end of their idealised fantasy world that must always be stagnant for millennia to preserve chivalry?
What is it about a player character, in a fantasy setting, having a one shot pistol or musket they can probably only shoot once per combat so hard for people to accept?
>>46721481
Fantasy is rarely historically accurate.
>>46721488
The "attitude" you're against is saying that people who want guns to be amazingly beyond how they are in the setting (Which may or may not be nonexistent) for no reason other than "guns should be awesome" should be told no.
>>46721488
One minute is the post timer. Editing HTML to remove or add (You) literally only takes a right click and then highlight->type (You), then take a screenshot.
>>46721488
I already did point to that here >>46721405
None of these things are "No guns ever in any setting!"
But you're already invested in the idea that I completely shut down all forms of firearms, so go ahead and throw some more personal insults or whatever.
>>46719045
You post to /tg/, filthy pleb.
>>46721549
But that's not what's happening.
One guy explicitly doesn't allow players to do that, and at least one other guy decided that it meant that the first guy is a turboautist who disallows all forms of gun out of fear of players doing the thing that the first guy said he won't allow them to do. Then a lot of insults got thrown around someone started arguing against themselves for no reason, the goalposts shifted at least twice, and here we are.
>>46721568
No, that's not what I've been saying at all. How you could even get that from what I've been posting is fucking amazing. I've been arguing completely in the opposite direction of that aside from the fact that if the players want to play in a setting with firearms and that's what the group as a whole wants, then there's no problem.
You on the other hand never indicated that you accepted firearms at all. Your post had: >Give an inch and they take a sulfur smelling mile.
And that was the attitude you took throughout the whole discussion.
>>46721568
I didn't do that and I swear on my immortal soul that I didn't do that. You'll never accept that I didn't but quite frankly I find it very interesting that you actually know how to do that because I've never even heard of that before. But believe it or not, two people disagreed with you and if multiple people are getting the wrong end of the stick, you may want to consider how you're conveying information.
>>46721549
Because:
1. /tg/ is a bunch autistic neckbeards with no empathy and loves arguing for arguments' sake.
2. Because people who want guns in their medieval fantasy settings are completely missing the point for playing medieval fantasy settings in the firat place.
>>46721653
>>46721568
>One minute is the post timer.
>posts are less than one minute apart
Nigger, you are too stupid for words.
>>46721648
Read that first post again. And read the first part of that first post again. The part where guns that are too weak get complained about and guns that are mechanically good get tacticool'd.
Does that sound like something that someone who literally never has guns? Because it doesn't sound like it to me. It is my post, so I'm biased, but considering that there are two different metatypes of "gun" in that sentence, and how certain players react to those types of guns, I'd say that it doesn't.
I've always liked the solution that the Recluce series came up with - guns exist and people use them, but they're not foolproof. On top of the other drawbacks, even a minor Chaos wizard can ignite gunpowder from a long range, making using a gun kind of a crapshoot. Especially in groups.
They figure out a way around this eventually, but it isn't for a long, long time.
>>46721549
One PC having a gun is not the problem for me.
Maybe its because I like my Fantasy really high power, but I want there to be threats that the PCs have to handle because Its to big for an army to handle. I start having problems with Gunpowder weapons when there is no problem that the PC could handle that a couple big cannon and a bunch of people with matchlocks can't do faster and more reliably.
>>46721653
>2. Because people who want guns in their medieval fantasy settings are completely missing the point for playing medieval fantasy settings in the firat place.
I'm not sure I understand. You can't do big lawless areas with forgotten wonders and rocky feudalism in Pike and Shot eras?
>>46721773
I also don't understand. No fantasy can draw elements from the world after 1350?
Guns that actually function as guns take away PC exceptionalism. You're not badass because you're a badass. You're badass because you weren't a complete drooling retard and learned basic gun handling. You didn't kill that dragon because you're fucking awesome. You killed it because you remembered which end of the gun to point at it and pulled a trigger.
Any fool can use a gun effectively. It takes special people to use more primitive weapons in small unit combat and win consistently.
>>46721884
>Guns that actually function as guns take away PC exceptionalism
Have you never seen a western?
>>46721884
I forgot that one part where no superhero ever uses normal guns.
>>46721668
>Telling PCs they have to lug around a one ton bombard and its associated supplies and maintenance gear as a firearm.
>>46721884
So have guns not kill dragons in one shot? Seems like you just suck at DMing.
Serious question here - if magic is allowed to exist and let players destroy just about everything by snapping their fingers, why aren't guns? They're much weaker by comparison.
>>46721920
A western is one guy and maybe a sidekick or two. It's not a party of 5+ who have to share the spotlight.
Also, many westerns have the protagonist do their best using ingenuity, with the gun as a tool to mess with the environment. The gun doesn't actually need to be a gun in many scenes. It could be anything else, as long as the guy in the cool hat can make a chandelier drop or a cliff face to spew boulders or whatever.
>>46721967
>the gun has nothing to do with the cool of Dirty Harry
>>46721955
The last game I ran didn't have snap your fingers and destroy stuff magic. It also didn't have guns and the game ran just fine.
Not having guns seems to be equated to being a bad GM an awful lot in this setting. Can you become a good GM by offhandedly saying that there are guns in the setting?
>>46721992
Dirty Harry didn't share the spotlight with 4 other Harrys.
>>46721967
Motherfucker, have you never seen The Magnificent 7?
>>46722035
It's another take on the Seven Samurai, which did almost the same story, but with more primitive firearms. And it was just as badass, despite having objectively weaker guns. So clearly the guns aren't the source of badassness, or the Mexican version would be more badass because it has better guns.
>>46714450
Because guns are powerful, low skill weapons, and most fantasy tries to portray them as rare, but early guns were based around being used enmass.
The combined 'rarity' and simple to use, does not function together, and the high damage simple to use also do not mesh well. Most settings try to balance guns based around well if you are using them they should be all over or soon will be all over because it is brand new.
Also most games ignore the shock and awe a firearm unleashes on the battlefield. If guns are brand new they should be terrifying to people not used to them one of the biggest things that guns do is give a deep psychological impact and frankly scare the shit out of people on the receiving end.
>>46722102
But swords aren't an intrinsic source of badassery either, unless they're special in some way, which you can do just as easily with guns.
So what I'm getting from this thread is that as long as you claim to have guns in your setting, you can do no wrong as a GM.
But if you don't have guns, even if you have a reason, such as the technology level not being there, or thematic concerns, you are Hitler in GM form and are oppressing your players like a horrible gun-grabbing gestapo.
>>46721967
I'm speaking specifically to a gunfighter utterly outclassing other guys with guns.
I'll use the movie Unforgiven as an example. In it, first English Bob humiliated the guy on the train. Then Little Bill humiliated English Bob; Bob wouldn't even try to fight him and his posse. Then William Munny kills Little Bill and his entire posse by himself in the saloon.
The PCs are William Munny. Sure there are 5 of them, but if a posse bears down on them they can all have plenty of spotlight in killing fools.
If you want to give them a dragon to fight, make it tough so they have to plan for it. Have the only vulnerable spot be the gap in his scales on his belly, and they have to thread the proverbial needle to kill him.
I've played in pseudo-western games, and it never felt like we weren't exceptional. We killed tons of mooks at once, and OHKO'd random encounters and bosses.
>>46722180
Swords aren't a source of badassery, but you have to have a certain amount of badassery to use one.
>>46722191
>this is what americans actually believe
>>46722191
What I'm getting is that if you have guns, YOU FUCKING SCUMBAG WHY ARE YOU RUINING FANTASY I'M LITERALLY CRYING WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS.
If you don't have guns, YOU IDIOT DO YOU KNOW NOTHING OF HISTORY HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BE THIS STUPID
>>46722191
Oh, hush.
What we're saying is, if your players want to get away from typical medieval-fantasy and either advance the setting or play something more advanced, work with them instead of just screaming "NO!" like a petulant child.
Guns in my game are essentially the same as crossbows, with slightly more range and damage at the cost of immediately letting the enemy know where you are and obscuring your vision after a few shots because black powder smoke
>>46722229
But you're only saying it to yourself because nobody is on the other side of that particular argument.
>>46722191
I know you're memeing because you're buttmad, but being flexible with your players' desires is good, and saying "You've never heard of (and are unlikely to ever hear of) guns, but you've heard of explosive powders not unlike what you as a player would know to be gunpowder being used for various applications far far away." is even better because you've given choice back to your players in the form of a dank a f plot hook.
>>46722300
Nah, that makes you a shit GM because you aren't giving them what they want immediately.
But if they do get it, you better let them do whatever they want with it, or you're a double shit GM with a side of shit.
>>46721773
>>46721819
Because PCs who clamour for guns don't want the IRL shit-tier 1350s hand cannons that requires a formation to be effective. They want the flintlocks of the 1600s where they can have multiple flintlocks and shoot like a pirate.
Insert guns as is in their development cycle in medieval settings and PCs would whine how why aren't they doing as much as the wizard in terms of damage and yet spend twice as much if not more in buying gunpowder and shot. Make guns their fantasy stereotypes and it brings up questions as to why bother spending years training as a melee martial when any pleb with a gun does as much damage as you and don't have to risk life and limb to do so.
>>46722325
What if we want flamethrowers the like of which debuted in the early 900s?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wujing_Zongyao#Double-acting_piston_flamethrower
>>46722362
That's why we brought the fucking wizard you faggot.
>>46722296
That one faggot was.
>>46722392
Obviously it's the wizard who wants to make it. What the fuck else is he going to do with all that Int?
>>46722325
You seem to be arguing about these mental images you've constructed in your head rather than any actual experience.
Let's take a PC with, say, six pistols. He's got to keep all these pistols loaded and ready to fire at any time he wants to use them. He's got to keep them dry and away from humidity. He's done this, now he's in combat. He pulls out a pistol and shoots. Misses. Pulls out another pistol. Shoots and hits but wounds. The person is now on him with a sword and he's at a disadvantage, especially if you make it an action to cock a pistol. The PC gets cut up until he can draw a sword or a friend deals with the enemy.
People in the 1600s carried swords and halberds and pikes and used them repeatedly.
>>46722417
Which one faggot?
I see one guy arguing against ridiculous technology advancements and a couple guys arguing against non-represented nogun policies.
>Okay so I'm going to go to the blacksmith and the local merchant's guild and I'm going to make an INT check to create modern steel furnaces! Then I'm going to make armor that's more protective, lighter and stronger than anything else!
>Nope! I'm not having armor in my game anymore! Fucking armorfags! I either have to have crappy armor that's really expensive and not very protective and heavy or I have to deal with assholes like this who want to advance armor technology.
Seriously though, I've never played with people who do this sort of thing. Does this really happen or is it just a bogeyman?
>>46722508
Some people try, but doing >>46722300 rather than giving a flat out no works better 100% of the time.
>>46722437
>Be wizard
>Has spell that functions as a flamethrower without the insignificant drawback of blowing yourself up
>Decides to use vast years of intellect and knowledge to build an unstable device that does the same thing as a flamethrower except in extremely limiting conditions and have a nagging tendency to blow up.
>>46722508
It happens with gun tech often enough that it's a stereotype.
Doesn't really happen with other things because people don't see the direct connection between a modern version of a personal use device and an old historical one.
>>46722544
>can be used by anyone
>make lots of money
>>46722530
But what do you do when a player, who now has gunpowder after following that hook, wants to make a gun that they can use in play?
And then they want to make a better gun (Which took about 150 years of trial and error to reach in real life)?
And then an even better one (Another 50 years or so)?
And then an even better one (Another 20 years and significant advances in metallurgy and machinery)?
And they want to be able to play with all of them and have them be as effective as they were in real life.
>>46722595
>wants to make a gun that they can use in play?
You wouldn't know where to start to make a gun, but you could probably make some cool explosives.
>>46722508
No, that's just the strawman some people in this thread made up.
>>46722617
So you'd tell them no and give them something completely different as a consolation prize.
I approve.
>>46722461
That's what I'm trying to say. Firearms in medieval age were fucking terrible personal weapons to maintain and useless except in formations or ambush. Make firearms their fantasy equivalents and you've got explain both crunch and fluff wise why firearms haven't overtaken the world yet.
>>46722595
Well, even that 220 years of development will likely give them something that still needs you to carry a sword or a polearm or something to convert that gun into a polearm because it wasn't until about 500 years after firearms first started to be regularly used on the battlefield that we got reliable multi-shot firearms that could be mass produced. And even they had issues that still meant you needed a sword.
But anyway, tell them that precisely. Tell them that the greatest mechncial minded people of history took centuries to make these developments and that was when they were concentrating on them, with time and money.
>>46722656
That's shitty GMing.
>>46722640
What, like say a D10 damage weapon that can only be used once per combat, has a range of say six squares effective and can be rendered useless by water? Something that's useful enough to carry to give you an initial edge but can't be used as a main weapon? Like that?
>>46722681
How is that shitty DMing? That's like saying that the PCs turn up to a harbor and want to make a steamship, and you say 'You can't because your characters can't push forward centuries of naval development on their own on their existing knowledge and tech bases'.
>>46722568
>Just hire a wizard
>They have an academy pumping them out like candy.
>>46722711
Because an entire gaggle of anons said so and I'm just going with the flow. Restricting guns in the setting makes you a shitty neckbeard autist with no right to GM anything.
>>46714450
I'd say firearms are entirely viable in WFRP - at least in my experience of 2e. The reload can be a pain, but the damage and Impact quality make up for it, I'd say
>>46722741
That's not what people said at all. People were saying not letting guns in ever is shitty gming.
>>46722711
>But...but Bruh
>Crappy armor really, really expensive bruh.
>Making armor more lighter, stronger, and protective takes centuries of R&D in blacksmithing bruh.
>>46722768
No, they were saying that the guy who restricts gun technology is a shitty GM because he doesn't allow PCs to advance tech.
And that's what you're doing, and who am I to say my peers are wrong?...It almost sounds like I'm that guy, but I just think it's funny that there are people that bad at reading and/or arguing their points.
>>46722727
>necromancing up a bunch of expendable minions to build them night and day for you
>1000 hours in MS paint
>>46722776
'Are you an adventurer or a blacksmith? If you want to play a blacksmith campaign where you try and create new armour and deal with the matters of supply, guild politics, distribution, politics in general, etc, I'm down for that. Let's just finish this campaign first.'
>>46722799
No, everyone was replying to a post that called people who want guns 'autists' because they would try and advance the technology and telling him that you can have guns in a setting easily.
>>46714592
>A lot of the people you play with would have a bitchfit if they got shot in the head with a gun and just died, like guns are somehow lethal
Yeah, because having an axe lodged in your head wouldn't kill you at all.
>>46722695
Make it 1d10, atk roll always disadvantaged, and piercing. Which of course begs the question why aren't you using a hand crossbow.
>>46722826
But the post they were responding to specifically was talking about what happens when you have guns and what the guy does about it. It didn't say that he removed guns. It said he didn't let them advance gun tech at all and someone else ran with it.
>>46722833
There's a general expectation that your character can avoid getting an axe lodged in their head by dodging or parrying or whatever. Can't really do that with bullets.
>>46722833
You'd at least need to be at most 5 feet away to effectively lodge an axe into someone's skull. On contingent that you're strong enough to lift that axe and fast enough to actually dodge his sword impaling you.
>>46722802
So, MBEG? Could work.
I just want to play as a musketeer who shoots guys then stabs/beats them in hand to hand combat. An empty musket is essentially a club, throw a bayonet on there and you get a spear. Blackpowder is super neat imo, and shouldny be that much different from the guy throwing fireballs or asking his God to smite people.
I guess depending on the setting your could just refluff wands into guns/castors like that one anime.
I'm dm for a ryuutama game and I allow my players to have fire arms. But they better carry the shot for the fire arm and that shit is heavy
>>46718744
Yes and it was found wanting.
Magic guns with magic bullets
There's not reason technology and magic should evolve separately from each other, the average setting isn't Arcanum
>>46715776
>Which edition of D&D do guns suck in?
Pathfinder comes to mind as being the worst that I can think of, because while they can target toiuch AC at close range they have really low damage, suffer the same way crossbows do from the iterative BAB, are stupidly expensive and are exotic weapons instead of simple, and you have to take a specific class or class archetype to gain any kind of advantages with them. They're just handled retardedly, and thus most GMs I've seen don't allow them at all because they're not worth dealing with.
>>46723918
They suck way harder in other editions, since Pathfinder at least lets them target touch AC (depending on range) and there are ways of becoming good at using them (as in, taking levels in Gunslinger).
iirc 3.5 had gun rules and they weren't that great, but weren't super terrible. They were a tiny paragraph and chart hidden somewhere in the DMG, though, and definitely optional.
>>46719101
>DnD
>feat
into the trash it goes.
>>46720799
>A trained musket wielder could fire four shots a minute
So?
There are what? 4 of you? 5? That means after first volley, there are 15 seconds where you are doing NOTHING but reloading. You know what happens in that time?
Murder.
I mean you are acting like you never heard about ship boarding in your entire miserable life. You take a pistol, MAYBE two, discarge them and then go melee, because there are no chances you will reload them.
>>46721202
Mate, don't want to break it, but I want to sleep around >>46720257
You were arguing half of the night with some other people and then stated they are samefagging
>>46721642
>But that's not what's happening.
Anon, half of this thread is sharp confrontation of your personal assumptions against what actually is happening while playing with people.
And guess what - you are full of shit.
>>46722029
>He never saw the rest of films with Harry Callahan
>>46722392
Ever occured to you not all parties have wizards in them?
Or not all settings, even the fantasy ones, having magic?
I guess not
>>46722508
It never happens. It's just single sperg being butt-mad about players wanting to have their share in the setting and instantly assuming they will start dropping nukes the very next scenario.
In short - an insecure GM without any real ability to accomodate is screaming at the top of his lungs something in line of "STOP DOING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!", never mind that's exactly what his players would like to have.
>>46722891
>There's a general expectation that your character can avoid getting an axe lodged in their head by dodging or parrying or whatever
What is RNG
The same one that governs if the headshot made or made not contact
Seriously, go play GURPS with TL4 setting, then tell me how impossible it is to have melee, adventures, guns and bows going around like nothing.
I never understand why people are so ass-mad about guns in their settings. How the fuck are you even going to have Age of Discovery/Sail style of scenarios, if you are openly disregarding what was going around for almost three centuries.
>>46726695
>Not having a brace of pistols
>Not just firing and dropping up to eight pistols, one after the other
>Not using your last draw motion to draw a cutlass and dirk
>>46726848
That's an awful lot of actions to have,
>>46726848
>Eight pistols
>On single person
Are you at least semi-aware this is beyond what can even pass as "cinematic"? Four would be for cinematic rules.
Anything above and you can pretty much pick up a revolver or a fucking uzi, because that's how much sense it makes at this point.
>>46726848
Yes, because in tight crowd the thing you gonna do is going for another pistol.
You've got marines on the mast-tops shooting people from above, no need to do it yourself while letting yourself open to shitload of stabs and slashes.
>>46726861
Just make a pistol brace piece of equipment with a rule saying drawing a pistol from it does not count as your free object interaction.
That's what I did, anyway, for a pirate game.
>>46726919
Even if drawing the pistols costs you nothing you're still doing an awful lot of aiming and firing them.
>>46722891
Not with that attitude.
>>46726886
2 more than Blackbeard, compleatly unthinkcable.
>>46719260
Swords were the dominant weapon for travellers, people in towns and people who are fighting in confined areas unsuitable for spears and halberds.
Which happens to describe many if not most adventuring situations.
>>46726952
And you think he used all of them in one go? Or indeed that most of them were any more than being scary and dangerous looking? The famous pirates weren't stupid, they knew that a reputation and first impressions were worth more than all the gold on every galleon.
>>46726977
That's not true. Swords were for persons of station only. A traveller would be infinitely more likely to have a large knife, staff, or hunting bow.
>>46726919
>>46726952
So let me get this straight - you are an idiot, aren't you?
If your game is anything but cinematic, this shit would be HIGHLY inpractical. Just the sole bulk of those guns would be a problem by itself.
And unlike what movies taught you - you don't throw your gun away.
Want to actually have useful weapon?
Bring grenades
>>46726993
>Swords were for persons of station only
In what period, you fucking sperg?
In what nation, you stupid cunt?
It never cease to amaze me how average fa/tg/uy has absolutely NO CLUE about the lovely period known as Late Medieval, lasting roughtly from 1300 to 1500...
... while most fantasy medieval settings are set in this very period.
>>46726952
Wow, we've got a single guy who carried 6 guns around, half of them for intimidation, since his job was pretty much reputation-based!
This totally makes for an argument!
>>46727017
>What is... the entire reason messers exist at all?
>>46727030
Messer is sword in anything but name, so go figure. Nearby Poland? No limitation about carrying weapon. Bohemia in the south? Who needs swords, when you have tabor wagons loaded with guns and crossbows. Entire Scandinavia? Well, if you can afford it, you can have it. English levies with swords going all over the French countryside were also a thing
And so on and forth. Pass the 1350 mark sword wasn't a status weapon at all.
>>46727048
>sword wasn't a status weapon at all
>which is why there were laws about what was and wasn't a sword
>because nobody cared
>at all
>I promise
Just admit that you're a faggot.
>>46727076
>were laws about what was and wasn't a sword
IN GERMANY
Jesus fucking Christ, a SINGLE country had this law and you are making entire argument about it. And said law was set around 1050, three centuries before messer became a thing. Meanwhile, nobody else in Europe gave a fuck.
So I'm not sure who should admit what.
>>46727076
>Not knowing what Late Medieval is
>Not understanding the profound effect Black Death had over entire Europe
>Still voicing himself about the related issues
Shame to be you
>>46727076
There was also a law forbidding use of crossbows, so? And it was valid roughtly for 600 years, since 11th century up until crossbows went out of use.
>>46721549
A better question is why people like you assume its inherently a bad thing to not want guns in a setting.
Also what is it with the entitled bastards who don't think a GM is allowed to exercise any control over his setting and game?
You people should be fucking ashamed of yourself for implying not wanting guns in your setting or shutting down metagamers makes you a bad GM.
>>46727120
>Players are entitled bastards
You've lost my attention instantly.
Besides this
>A better question is why people like you assume its inherently a bad thing to not want guns in a setting.
Is not a point in the discussion. The point is about the GMs who can't handle their players in any other way than "No, because I say so", guns being just a vibrant example of this practice.
So the point is more about why "let's discuss why something should or should not be allowed in the setting and to what extent" is not a thing, but insted either players getting over GM and being assholes or GM being an asshole by cutting them out without any discussion.
Stawman more
>>46726993
That is objectively false.
By the 1250's in England every free man who was not poor was legally required to own a sword.
And by the 1300's you could get a second hand sword for literally pennies, every single soldier would have one as a backup plus a knife and whatever he had for a main weapon.
Messers only exist because sword making guilds had a monopoly on sword production but anybody could make a big knife. Cities that banned swords but not knives usually did a length test.
>>46727076
The German "anti-sword" law was about carrying weapons within city limits, you fucking idiot. Swords are weapons. Knives are tools. It's a classic loophole abuse, because you are carrying a knife, not a sword, right?
>>46727132
No I did not say 'players are entitled bastards' you trolling shit.
The point is that if a GM does not want guns in his fantasy setting and the players agree to play that game then he is well within his rights to forbid them being invented. Anybody who tries to shove them in an after that is just being an asshole.
This thread happens all the time, people like you lambast GM's who actually have a backbone and don't let players shoehorn in more advanced technology into a setting just because they want to be a metagaming inventor. That is the point at hand, pretending otherwise is dishonest.
The discussion has already happened before the game started when they agreed they wanted to play in that setting.
>>46727171
>No I did not say 'players are entitled bastards' you trolling shit.
>Also what is it with the entitled bastards who don't think a GM is allowed to exercise any control over his setting and game?
Yeah, keep on going, you sad sack.
And nice to know I'm lambastering GM, while my entire point in this thread is about discussion, you cunt.
>The discussion has already happened before the game started when they agreed they wanted to play in that setting.
Did it?
Or cunts like you assume there is no point to discuss at all, because "they know what they are taking"?
Hell, most of the time when issues like this happen it's some 3-4 months after the group plays their first game and some of the players read through all the related material, so now he or she has questions about possibilities.
Dunno, how green to GMing are you?
Besides, stop clinging obsessively to guns. Because if you do, the discussion is pointless, as it makes guns the only issue, not just any kind of non-standard or "advanced" gear.
Last time I've ever had such issues was a guy playing as a roaming semi-senile ascetic and at certain point he asked me if he cound arm himself with weighted chain.
Sperg like you would instantly go "FUCK NO, USE SWORD LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!". I've instead had a talk with him, he described to me how it should works (and I've explained which parts of it won't) and in the end he "armed" himself with a cow chain with horse shoe at one end. Nobody treated him as armed, while he was suffering heavy penalties for using it in actual combat and the "weapon" remains pretty useless against armoured targets, but hey, he wanted it, I've put the limitations and he got more or less what he asked for. Both parties are happy.
But better sperg how it makes no sense, because players are entitled bastards if they ask for anything non-standard, ever.
>>46727076
You're missing the point really, really badly.
1: the whole "messers were created as a loophole" thing is kind of a myth.
2: The myth is not even that they were created as a way to get around some kind of restriction on who could CARRY a sword, the myth was that it was created as a way for cutler's (people who make knives) to break the rules about who could MAKE a sword.
Monopolies were a big thing back then, it was how business worked, and who made what was not a matter of skill as much as a matter of what guild you belonged to and what the guilds agreed on.
So the myth is basically that oh, fine, I can't make a sword, I'll just make a 3 foot knife, watch me.
>>46727170
Not that guy but in places where there were restrictions on knives, they used to have a fucking knife hanging on a chain, and you couldn't bring anything larger than that into the city, so you're completely wrong. The whole messer loophole myth was about who could MAKE a sword, not about who could carry one or where you could carry one.
>>46727334
>So the myth is basically that oh, fine, I can't make a sword, I'll just make a 3 foot knife, watch me.
Similar thing is about the creation of machete, the "original" one, before it got modified into actual long knife.
You could pay a sword-maker for making you a broad sword able to cut foliage pretty well. Hell, you could use your own sword if you didn't mind getting it dulled in the process. And of course the sword-maker would charge you "properly" for such sword
Or you could pay few pennies to your blacksmith to make you a long, sharp blade and call it machete instead of espada
>>46727291
>Sperg like you would instantly go "FUCK NO, USE SWORD LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!"
What the hell gave you this idiotic idea?
Wanting to use a chain is not the same as wanting to use something that does not exist in the setting or is hundreds of years beyond its technology. I am not 'clinging' to guns either because that is what the discussion is mostly about, guns are also just the most common example of people trying to get things the setting does not support and then whining when the GM does his job and says no.
And again, I never said 'players' as a group are entitled. People who think the GM is not allowed to exercise control over his game are entitled. He is not a slave who should bend over backwards for whatever a player wants to do.
>>46727334
No, the myth is that its about sword carrying. The monopolies thing is the actual reason.
>>46727400
They're both myths, and none of them support the argument made by the guys who mentioned them, so you know. Thanks for your contribution.
>>46727400
>No, the myth is that its about sword carrying. The monopolies thing is the actual reason.
Reading comprehension is not for everyone, I get it...
>>46727400
>Wanting to use a chain is not the same as wanting to use something that does not exist in the setting or is hundreds of years beyond its technology.
What setting are we discussing right now?
No, honestly, what setting are we talking about? Because unless we define one, you just CAN'T make such argument or even assumption
>>46727334
Reminder that the Bavarian Reinheitsgebot was actually a royal monpoly on wheat beer.
>>46727400
>And again, I never said 'players' as a group are entitled. People who think the GM is not allowed to exercise control over his game are entitled. He is not a slave who should bend over backwards for whatever a player wants to do.
And again, for the n-th time I will repeat myself - I'm advocating here for mutual discussion and understandment between GM and players, not one side besting the other just because, being it on players' or GM's side.
>>46727451
Shame they got sidetracked and worked up about other kinds of purity, they should have stuck to the beer.
>>46727485
At least they didn't decide to circumise all of their newborns on top of the genocide.
I'm just moving around it by saying gunpowder doesn't exist in this world.
This also prevents player from doing shit like stockpiling gunpowder and making stupidly strong bombs and blowing shit up, or being edgy and using bombs to blow up buildings and stuff.
The most advanced weapon is the repeating crossbow.
>>46727651
>Gun shooting once in 20-30 seconds with effective range of 70 meters is haram
>Crossbow sending 10 bolts within 5-7 seconds at the same range is ok
>>46727651
Fair enough, but please don't fall to common trap and leave out airguns if your culture is post-reneissance.
>>46727742
>Daily reminder it was capable of outperforming any gun of its time without even tryin
>Daily reminder it was military-issued gun
>Daily reminder Lewis and Clark intimidated with one of those entire tribes
>>46727809
Yup, air guns are awesome. I own few myself and like them as much as I like powder burners. Pumping them can be a bitch though, but it's also a good workout.
>>46727736
This.
Seriously, even if we go past the repeating crossbow, the entire "early guns are instant kill, they can't be used, but crossbows are fine" is just plain retarded. Stopping power-wise, they are the same. And the argument "but guns instantly headshot" can be applied to crossbows too.
So why crossbows are fine, but guns are not?
Especially in high fantasy, where a fucking wizard throws a literal lighting at you. If there is some kind of logic behind this, it is missing me.
>>46726757
>not all settings
>fantasy ones
>not having magic
Did I miss the memo it's the International Autistic Day today?
>>46727736
>>46727860
It actually has nothing to do with guns. I even like black powder weapons and the potential balancing/drawbacks to using them.
The problem is I don't want to spend time trying to justify why people don't use bombs, why the firearms aren't fielded commonly, etc.
My original idea actually involved using cowboy-style guns, as in single shot rifles/shotguns and revolvers as weapons in a fantasy setting, with the main restriction being laws and cost (each gun basically needs its own ammo producer since they are all hand made, no industry in the setting), but for aesthetic reasons I decided against it. My game has more of a classical/mythological vibe going for it then the traditional medieval era anyway.
>>46727889
I will give you probably the best example
LOTR
Fantasy? Hell yeah
Wizards using magic of any sorts? Um... not really
Magic being common? Nope, just something in the background, rare as fuck
So go on, tell me once again how all fantasy is like D&D
>>46714592
>Plus, effective guns means that most fantasy settings have to look WAY different or admit to being retarded, so it's easier to just go "ohyeah there's guns, but they're shit".
If by way different you mean different from the distilled kitchen sink D&D setting already have to admit being retarded.
>>46727860
/tg/ don't want shit-tier IRL firearms. They want muskets that fire even in the most humids of setting, be equal to the fireball throwing wizard, or anything they can think off to be Daniel Day-Lewis in Last of the Mohicans.
Shit, blackpowder firearms shouldn't exist in any setting where a wizard can toss a fireball at persons and ignite all the blackpowder on their persons.
>>46727898
Two words for you, answring all your qestions and issues:
Late Medieval
Here, done. You've got guns and powder, but uncommon. You have firearms, but as suplementry at best.
Why do people assume that if firearms are present, they are at least Napoleonic-tier?
There is such American wank time travelling series... "1630"? Or something like that. Anyway, the basic concept was to send entire town of Burgers into start of Thirty Years War. They provide their allies with...
... Napoleonic weapons. Because they are still absurdly more efficient than the Gustavian matchlocks and heavy muskets of the early 17th century. And note that both of those mean smooth-bore, muzzle-loaded firearms, used by more or less line formation of troops.
So there is literally nothing wrong with having arquebuses in your medievalesque setting, because hey - that was the actual thing. But because of production means, guns didn't became widespread till early 18th century
>>46727919
You want to play with guns and flamethrowers in a LOTR setting? Be my fucking guest. Just don't blame anyone when LOTRfags toss your ugly mug out.
>>46727968
I literally just said I don't like them for aesthetic reasons.
Fuck. Off.
>>46727860
For same strange reason there exists meme that guns can't into fantasy. Sometimes people advocating that use shitty explanations like you mentioned or more plausible explanation like "guns kill chivalry and knights", but real reason seems to be always that guns are just bad because they are guns. I know today's fantasy breaks that convention a lot and guns are becoming increasingly common in fantasy settings, but it used to be a huge taboo.
I for one would love to know source of that meme though. When and who started that shit?
>>46727968
Go play Warhammer Fantasy RPG then. Oh, wait...
>>46728002
No, guns can into fantasy. Just not medieval fantasy.
Injecting guns into medieval fantasy is a fucking passive-aggressive move because some faggot couldn't find a group to play urban fantasy or Warhammer Fantasy.
>>46727961
I know for sure that I never met players that would want to jump the technological gap beyond what would be possible. And I'm GMing for 13 years, part of it as the runner of tabletop section in local youth centre. Not even teens without any tabletop experience are this stupid to have such demands.
So why this is constant issue on /tg/ how players will instantly go for machine guns?
Besides, any game that handles firearms in competent way usually has a very, very simple mean to prevent shit going out of hand.
Price.
Sure, you will eventually get this breach-loading rifle with proper sights and reinforced barrel, but it will cost you dearly and it will take some time to make.
GURPS Low Tech comes to mind, where the breach-loader (the most basic one, without any further add-ons) costs for TL4 (so the Age of Discoveries/Sail era) roughtly 4 times as much and takes a professional gunsmith to make. Then with all the fancy add-ons the final price is about 10-12 times bigger than for normal, smooth-bore pea-shooter. If the gunsmith will start to bargain - up to 16 times.
Still affordable, don't get me wrong, but definitely out of reach as starting gear or something easy to get.
>>46727980
>Not understanding what example is
>>46728015
>This entire post
Oh, right - it's already daytime in the colonies
>>46728015
But guns can into medieval fantasy perfectly well and they aren't even that uncommon to see. I mean you have things like WoW. Often they aren't very believable compared to real medieval guns though and seem to be too advanced for that time period.
>>46728015
GURPS Low Tech and all that sprawls from it would like to talk with you, you moron.
And honestly, we are going back to the idiotic "early guns are absolutely and completely evil, but crossbows are fine"
>>46728002
They worked fine in the Windrose Chronicles. They actually had revolvers.
What you didn't do, under any circumstances, is try to use one against a mage. But there is even an exception to that - there is a magic inert metal called naar, which could be used to make a gun, and there is a sigil that is essentially antimagic that can be placed on or against things. In both cases the gun would work just fine against a mage, with the exception of the most powerful ones (sum total thereof: 3 in the entire world).
>>46728002
>I for one would love to know source of that meme though. When and who started that shit?
Don't know, but for me it's just stupid hollywood assumption of "instant death" after being hit by a bullet.
As if getting battle axe in your cranium or crossbow bolt in your face weren't as efficient as lead-ball headshot.
This is just a classic case of badly thought (or not thought at all) double standard, where for some stupid reason weapons that can easily kill you on spot are perfectly fine, because "they fit the setting", but firearms are absolute taboo, as certain idiots consider them "too powerful".
This totally explain why between 1300 and 1600 we had armies using bows, crossbows and muzzle-loaders at the same time.
Again, a crossbow can do the same thing as every single non-rifled gun and heavy crossbow is pretty much rifled early gun in stopping power. This anon nicely summed it up: >>46727736
>>46728055
Yeah, that guy seems to be prime example of people I mentioned in my post. Not surprised to see one on place like this, but I'm still baffled by whole existence of this "no guns allowed" meme.
I want to understand why people hate guns in their medieval fantasy (even if they be period accurate early guns) while things like crossbows are perfectly okay. It makes no sense.
>>46727980
>Daily reminder the biggest source of sorcery in entire LOTR was shitload of gunpowder used to breach walls
I mean by the end of the assault, half of the Hornburg is literally blown into pieces. It was the film that toned it down to single explosion.
>>46727968
>But because of production means, guns didn't became widespread till early 18th century
A gun would generally be cheaper than a crossbow in the 15th century. A barrel can either be forge welded by basically any smith around (forge welding being a very basic skill), or cast (mass production loves casting, but the bronze will probably make this more expensive regardless). Towards the end of the century or so we start seeing matchlocks, but these are also extremely simple things, you can see the inner working of one in the lower left here. Screw the trigger arm in and you basically have two moving parts, that's it. (Well, three if we count the pan cover.)
Saltpetre, and with that gunpowder, was quite expensive in the 14th century, as the main source of it where mines in India. As nitrating beds started being used, the prices dropped massively from the latter bits of the 14th century and for some decades of the 15th.
See Hall, "Weapons and Warfare of Renaissance Europe".
>>46728095
I think there must be something more to it since I have also seen "no guns" people hating medieval fantasy settings that include guns and make them work out without breaking balance.
>>46728103
In short: Game-balancing and D&D
Now to explain
In theory, arrows and bolts can be parried with a shield. Or even dodged in some games. Or cut in the air in more outlandish ones.
The same games that allow that AND include firearms usually don't include those rules for guns, for different reasons (usually shitload of stupid assumptions done by game-makers)
Then comes the prevailing Hollywood imaginery where guns are those scary, instant-kill weapons, but arrows and bolts are mostly harmless and you can survive multiple hits by them. Never mind it doesn't matter what penetrates your cranium/lungs/liver/heart, for whatever reasons non-bullets are treated as non-issue, the same way the shoulder/leg wounds done by guns in films set in modern settings are also treated as non-issues.
Then comes D&D, that simply SUCKS at ranged combat, because either you go melee, or you go for spells, since ranged weapons suck balls. So it can't properly handle ranged combat and now firearms are thrown into the equation. Remember that crossbow by default is very, very weak weapon in D&D and bows are outperforming it in pretty much every way, while both still sucks.
And then - what's the most popular fantasy RPG in States? That's right, D&D.
The meme more or less sprawls from ignorance and bad game design.
Would guns really be that big of a deal in a world with magic and shit anyway. I mean the reason guns became the primary tool of warfare is because they were easy to produce, pierced armour and most importantly were easy to use so any dumb peasant could be give one and fire it in formation with very little training.
But really, what's a gun toting peasant got on a wizard who can summon the wrath of nature on you from half a mile away?
>>46728123
It's still cheaper to give your infantry pikes, which was my main (unstated) point and supplement said pikes with firearms. Then the guns really got cheap and bayonets came into equation, so it was just easier to equip everyone with guns
But other than that - I'm at full agree with you here.
>>46728162
I've got a better one for you.
All what you've listed (aside maybe production price) can be said about crossbows. Now crossbows are perfectly fine in medieval fantasy, but guns are haram.
Ironic, isn't it?
>>46728162
Of course not. But for whatever reason people that never played systems specially designed to deal with early firearms and Renaissance-like settings instantly jump to idiotic conclusions how you can't have both guns and any other weapons, BECAUSE.
No, really, "because" is their main, second and third reason here.
God, I really wish Wild Fields was published in English back in the day...
>>46728109
>Daily reminder that the baddies used gunpowder, Hans.
>>46727736
>Gun shooting once in 20-30 seconds with effective range of 70 meters is haram
Yes, yes. Guns are pretty haram, which is why you get slaves to wield them.
Being wounded or killed by guns or explosives also means that you'll enter heaven missing whatever was ripped off.
>>46727860
>Stopping power-wise, they are the same.
yeah, it's why writers from the 1400s suggested replacing crossbows with gonnes in military units that depended 100% on the crossbow's insane hitting power at short distances and that's why tests pretty consistently showed that even early guns shat all over all other hand-held missile weapons within a certain range band.
>>46728015
>No, guns can into fantasy. Just not medieval fantasy.
Apparently the first use of blackpowder was in arrow launchers and incendary loads.
>>46714450
You see, I don't get why people have trouble with flintlock/muzzleloader/arquebus combat. It's simple as all hell.
>musket does high damage at short to medium range
>pistol does high damage at short range
>both require 1d4 rounds to reload
Now this is the part where people say "Okay, so why would I get the high-damage med-range weapon that maybe kills one mook every 1d4 +1 rounds when I could just use a halberd to fuck up 2 mooks every 4 rounds consistently?"
Just take a damn leaf outta history's book and carry multiple rifles/pistols. It was an incredibly common practice at the time to have an extra rifle or a brace of pistols in addition to your primary firearm specifically to circumvent the loading time issue. Load up between skirmishes and go in with 2-4 shots prepped. Then club/bayonet it out with the demoralized remainder.
Any quasi-intelligent player should be able to circumvent nerfed reload times, given his DM isn't a controlling manlet.
>>46719045
>women can't into army because I have no clue about modern combat
found one
>>46715977
>>Using terms like "end-game stuff" in context of tabletop RPG
I don't understand this implication. Hasn't D&D always had extremely powerful magic items that characters would likely only gain access to at high levels?
>>46726977
>>46727027
>half for intimidation
Explain to me exactly why an infamous pirate/privateer in a legitimately dangerous profession would carry false weapons 'for show'?
If you're carrying 6 pistols you'd bet that all 6 of them are going to be functioning firearms, even if they were placed for dramatic effect, it can't hurt to have 3 more guns than the next guy.
>>46727961
>Shit, blackpowder firearms shouldn't exist in any setting where a wizard can toss a fireball at persons and ignite all the blackpowder on their persons.
More like they shouldn't exist in any setting where a wizard can fucking set people on fire with their mind.
![[Triggering intensifies].gif](https://i.imgur.com/R2VkUGL.gif "[Triggering intensifies]")
