Tim Nutting
08-24-1998, 06:00 AM
I have never liked the "well - guns just don't work in this setting...
because they don't" excuse.
Sorry.
There really is no reason why something that works in real life should be
barred from a game, just because. If the players and DM are happy not
having firearms in their game, fine... more power to them. Same for a
group that likes guns.
Guns don't need to have the DM god come down and say no, likewise they
should not need semi-magical "smoke powder" to make them workable, the
elements are common enough, or should be. However, guns have some glaring
weaknesses.
A new technology. First off, the "gunpowder" material should already be
around in any fantasy world that claims to have a culture equivalent to the
Renaissance. Whether or not an actual gun has been developed is another
story. Now, because it's new - there better be a really damn good reason
why the PC's nation came up with it, and if ANY PC comes up with the words
"it's simple"... waste 'em. Ideally, at least to me, the weapon should be
introduced by the DM through a lone inventor or in the hands of the enemy.
In BR, the Brecht are the race most likely to develop the weapon, and I can
see many Brechtish guilds just happy jolly to feed the Anuirean warlords
this new toy. The weapons should also be exceedingly primitive. Matchlock
at the best, and the first issues should be at least twice as likely to
fail as the standard book issue. These weapons need lots of work to be any
good at all, and it will take a long time, far longer than the life of most
campaigns I daresay. Here the DM must decide if guns are new, or if they
have existed for a time.
It's an idiot's weapon. The gun was made so that any peasant could aim his
weapon downrange and blow a hole through his enemy. It is highly
unchivalrous, as it lends an "unfair" advantage on the first shot, thus any
lord who uses such a peasant's tool should be highly ridiculed at best, and
laughed out of power at worst. Until a marksman class evolves in his or
her culture - the gun will remain a fool's weapon. (At least in Anuire)
It is inherently inferior to the bow. This statement hinges on the concept
that this is a new tech to some degree, but consider this as an idea posted
some time ago to the list. What happens to the line of musketeers on the
battlefield when a fireball goes off in their midst? How about this...
give an enterprising wizard a few months, and he comes up with a spell
specifically designed to destroy gunpowder in a given region...
explosively. A battle spell like this used once or twice to eradicate an
entire unit of soldier will have any lord thinking twice about introducing
such soldiers with such expensive weapons, even though they be for
peasants. Now - one wizard with this spell would keep it a secret as a
matter of realm security, but how long before others duplicate his
discoveries and mimic his spell? Imagine that on a grander scale with a
wizard casting a horizontal lightning bolt through the artillerist unit
equipped with bombards. *Boom* Soon the musket becomes more of a target
than some fortifications, and just as vulnerable. Now we get to some other
inferiorities, the most glaring of which is the rate of fire. I learned
today that the standard for royal archers in the 1200s in England was thus:
12 hits with 12 arrows in 1 minute on a single man-sized target at 200
paces. Archers are DEADLY. Conversely, if you are very good with a musket
you can reload it in just about one minute. The chances of doing it right
though in battle are even more scarce and make the average time jump up a
bit.
Cost effectiveness. How much money to equip and train 100 men (or 200 if
you are a die hard member of the "every unit is exactly 200 men" camp)
with matchlock muskets and have them battle ready? Now, how much money to
hire a wizard to accompany the general's unit? And would you even need to
hire the wizard if he was family? It may sound silly, but I was just
playing the new Warhammer computer game: Dark Omen. In one battle
scenario against the orcs I had but one wizard as a full, lone unit, and
his power was absolutely immense. Just the way the enemy would scatter
when a well placed ball of fire lashed their ranks... beautiful. By
contrast, my artillerists were a pain in the butt. Granted, the AI had
something to do with it, but it was difficult to time their bombardment
with raking attacks by cavalry.
Well... with that...
Good Night.
Tim Nutting
because they don't" excuse.
Sorry.
There really is no reason why something that works in real life should be
barred from a game, just because. If the players and DM are happy not
having firearms in their game, fine... more power to them. Same for a
group that likes guns.
Guns don't need to have the DM god come down and say no, likewise they
should not need semi-magical "smoke powder" to make them workable, the
elements are common enough, or should be. However, guns have some glaring
weaknesses.
A new technology. First off, the "gunpowder" material should already be
around in any fantasy world that claims to have a culture equivalent to the
Renaissance. Whether or not an actual gun has been developed is another
story. Now, because it's new - there better be a really damn good reason
why the PC's nation came up with it, and if ANY PC comes up with the words
"it's simple"... waste 'em. Ideally, at least to me, the weapon should be
introduced by the DM through a lone inventor or in the hands of the enemy.
In BR, the Brecht are the race most likely to develop the weapon, and I can
see many Brechtish guilds just happy jolly to feed the Anuirean warlords
this new toy. The weapons should also be exceedingly primitive. Matchlock
at the best, and the first issues should be at least twice as likely to
fail as the standard book issue. These weapons need lots of work to be any
good at all, and it will take a long time, far longer than the life of most
campaigns I daresay. Here the DM must decide if guns are new, or if they
have existed for a time.
It's an idiot's weapon. The gun was made so that any peasant could aim his
weapon downrange and blow a hole through his enemy. It is highly
unchivalrous, as it lends an "unfair" advantage on the first shot, thus any
lord who uses such a peasant's tool should be highly ridiculed at best, and
laughed out of power at worst. Until a marksman class evolves in his or
her culture - the gun will remain a fool's weapon. (At least in Anuire)
It is inherently inferior to the bow. This statement hinges on the concept
that this is a new tech to some degree, but consider this as an idea posted
some time ago to the list. What happens to the line of musketeers on the
battlefield when a fireball goes off in their midst? How about this...
give an enterprising wizard a few months, and he comes up with a spell
specifically designed to destroy gunpowder in a given region...
explosively. A battle spell like this used once or twice to eradicate an
entire unit of soldier will have any lord thinking twice about introducing
such soldiers with such expensive weapons, even though they be for
peasants. Now - one wizard with this spell would keep it a secret as a
matter of realm security, but how long before others duplicate his
discoveries and mimic his spell? Imagine that on a grander scale with a
wizard casting a horizontal lightning bolt through the artillerist unit
equipped with bombards. *Boom* Soon the musket becomes more of a target
than some fortifications, and just as vulnerable. Now we get to some other
inferiorities, the most glaring of which is the rate of fire. I learned
today that the standard for royal archers in the 1200s in England was thus:
12 hits with 12 arrows in 1 minute on a single man-sized target at 200
paces. Archers are DEADLY. Conversely, if you are very good with a musket
you can reload it in just about one minute. The chances of doing it right
though in battle are even more scarce and make the average time jump up a
bit.
Cost effectiveness. How much money to equip and train 100 men (or 200 if
you are a die hard member of the "every unit is exactly 200 men" camp)
with matchlock muskets and have them battle ready? Now, how much money to
hire a wizard to accompany the general's unit? And would you even need to
hire the wizard if he was family? It may sound silly, but I was just
playing the new Warhammer computer game: Dark Omen. In one battle
scenario against the orcs I had but one wizard as a full, lone unit, and
his power was absolutely immense. Just the way the enemy would scatter
when a well placed ball of fire lashed their ranks... beautiful. By
contrast, my artillerists were a pain in the butt. Granted, the AI had
something to do with it, but it was difficult to time their bombardment
with raking attacks by cavalry.
Well... with that...
Good Night.
Tim Nutting