Guns (long)

[Gary V. Foss]

Jim Cooper wrote:

> Someone who shall remain anonymous wrote:

IT WAS ME!!! :-)

> >This is the crux of the matter to me. I don't think people would investigate technology the way they did in Earth history.
> > Why? Because magic exists. The earth "wizards" who did the research into technological advancement are actual wizards in AD&D.
> Now this I must speak up on - I would say this statement relies on the
> supposition that magic would be available to all Cerilians, where in
> fact it is not (at least IMO).

Actually, I don't base it on the supposition taht magic would be available to all Cerilians. I base it, however, upon the supposition
that it is available to those who would actually be doing the research. That is, domain rulers. Technological research of the kind that
I see people talking about here (not just building a better mousetrap or finding a new way to bring in a harvest, but actually paying
people to experiment with chemistry to develop gunpowder) would most likely be paid for by domain rulers. Guilds maybe, though big
corporate R&D expenditures is really a product of the last 150 years rather than the medieval period. The point is that people who fund
research would have access to magic, and therefore, would find that a much more logical

> In fact, I would argue that magic is
> even rarer than bloodlines - less than 1% of the population of Cerilia
> has access to magic and therefore, why *wouldn't* Cerilians find other
> means to improve their lives. IMHLO, technology is a much more
> pertinent factor in BR - moreso than it has been in any other AD&D
> knockoff - and magic is relegated back to where it belongs: a thing of
> wonder and superstitious fear (along with elves).

I've argued in a previous post that I think the existence of magic is enough to negate technology as something that people would spend a
lot of time researching. What I really mean by that is that researching magic would become the technological research in such a world.
Magic dominates technology in a magical world by definition. Alchemy is more powerful than chemistry, metaphysics more accurate than
physics, and astrology truer than astronomy. That's just the way it is. It's the basis of the setting.

That doesn't mean that guns can't exist. It just means that a gun would be a magical thing in a magical world, powered not by the
physical force of rapidly expanding gases ignited by an exploding primer, but by the magical force of a controlled explosion in a
carefully constructed and enchanted device. Throwing gunpowder into the mix just doesn't make sense, as there is a simpler and easier
way to accomplish the same thing using magic.

> Heck, wasn't there an
> huge arguement a few months back on this list about this very thing -
> that only about 150 true wizards existed in ALL of Cerilia? Cripes,
> that's less than ~0.00004% of the population of Anuire, much less of all
> of Cerilia ... !

Argh! Ack! Gah! It hurts ussss! It hurtsss usssss!!! Stabbed again by that one freaking line in the Rulebook! I am cut to the
quick, my friends! Please, hear these, my dying words:

The line from the rulebook goes like this: In all of Cerilia, there are no more than six or seven score true mages; less than half that
number are regents capable of wielding realm magic.

First of all, it's a vague statement. Six or seven score? What is that? There may be 120, there may be 140. It's not a real number,
folks. It was just thrown in there as an off the cuff statement to show how magic is more rare in Cerilia than in other campaign worlds.

I just did a quick scan through the RoE, CoS, TotHW and RH books (I can't find my copy of the Brecht stuff right now....) and I counted
the following numbers of regent wizards:

Anuire: 25
Rjurik: 7
Khinasi: 26
Vos: 13
For a subtotal of: 71

Now, I'm suspecting there is at least 20 in Brecht lands, which makes for 90 mages. This is only from a cursory scan of those books, so
I'm quite sure I missed several. I did count the magic using awnsheghlien, but I don't think that would lessen the number as I did NOT
count a few of the collaborative mages like the Three Brothers, or the five court mages of Min Dhousai. It also does not include the
blooded mages like the Wizard or the Chamberlain of the Imperial City who don't control sources. Nor does it include the ten wizards who
are the "deans" of the College of Sorcery, or any of the non-source controlling wizards in the Book of Magecraft. Just as an impression
here, I'm going to have to say we've got more than 140 mages in these books, and then there are the many mages running around in the
various BR adventures, and acting as lieutenants in the published materials or those in the sourcebooks who are mysterious figures,
background characters, court mages or just wandering mages.

The short version of this is that there are more than 140 wizards in Cerilia! There are more than that in the published materials, man!

Sorry about that.... End of rant.

Gary

[Jim Cooper]

Gary V. Foss wrote:
> Actually, I don't base it on the supposition taht magic would be available to all Cerilians. I base it, however, upon the supposition
that it is available to those who would actually be doing the research.
That is, domain rulers. Technological research of the kind that I see
people talking about here (not just building a better mousetrap or
finding a new way to bring in a harvest, but actually paying people to
experiment with chemistry to develop gunpowder) would most likely be
paid for by domain rulers. Guilds maybe, though big
corporate R&D expenditures is really a product of the last 150 years
rather than the medieval period. The point is that people who fund
research would have access to magic, and therefore, would find that a
much more logical. Magic dominates technology in a magical world by definition. Alchemy is more powerful than chemistry, metaphysics more accurate than
> physics, and astrology truer than astronomy. That's just the way it is. It's the basis of the setting.<

That is true - but it is also a world where the *clear majority* of the
people don't understand *how* it works - and from my experience, when
people don't understand something, they shun it, put it down and fear it
... not except that which they cannot grasp. Why would fantasy magic be
an excepted part of everyday life? What would it be like for someone to
live in a world where magic exists, but its so rare that it is a thing
of wonder, and not a ho-hum FR style gaming aspect?

Actually, if I may say so, I believe a part of the basis of the BR
setting is to explore this very question. This question hasn't been
fully explored in any other TSR world; I don't think that BR should be
played with the idea that I've got magic in my blood, so that means I'm
special and therefore I can rule the world.

> That doesn't mean that guns can't exist. It just means that a gun would be a magical thing in a magical world, powered not by the
> physical force of rapidly expanding gases ignited by an exploding primer, but by the magical force of a controlled explosion in a
> carefully constructed and enchanted device. Throwing gunpowder into the mix just doesn't make sense, as there is a simpler and easier
> way to accomplish the same thing using magic.

[Tim Nutting]

>>That doesn't mean that guns can't exist. It just means that a gun would
be a magical thing in a magical world, powered not by the physical force
of rapidly expanding gases ignited by an exploding primer, but by the
magical force of a controlled explosion in a carefully constructed and
enchanted device. Throwing gunpowder into the mix just doesn't make
sense, as there is a simpler and easier way to accomplish the same thing
using magic.

[Gary V. Foss]

Tim Nutting wrote:

> >>That doesn't mean that guns can't exist. It just means that a gun would
> be a magical thing in a magical world, powered not by the physical force
> of rapidly expanding gases ignited by an exploding primer, but by the
> magical force of a controlled explosion in a carefully constructed and
> enchanted device. Throwing gunpowder into the mix just doesn't make
> sense, as there is a simpler and easier way to accomplish the same thing
> using magic.
> You propose Smoke Powder?
>
> Why doesn't it make sense to have gunpowder? I should like to see (within
> the rules of AD&D) this "simpler and easier way to accomplish the same
> thing..." so that the common man can use it.
>
> This may seem like I'm recanting earlier arguments, but again, I don't
> oppose guns, I only say that they have some nasty weaknesses in Cerilia.

I'm afraid I don't know anything about Smoke Powder, except for what I've read
about it for the hippo-guys in the Monster Manual. My impression is that it is
just gunpowder that is supposed to be magically (alchemically) created, isn't
it? I suppose that is OK, as far as it goes, though I don't see why magic
should mimic technology as closely as that.

I don't think commoners would be able to use guns, magical or otherwise, at any
time within the next several centuries in Cerilia. Sorry. They just don't get
them whether you use technology or magic as the basis of the campaign. I think
the across the board categorization of certain Cerilian cultures as early
Renaissance is a little overstated. Ever play MegaTravellor? They had this
really cool way of rating the technological advancements of the worlds by
breaking them up into medicine, shipbuilding, fusion technology, etc. Worlds
were often noted with the highest rating in their Universal Planet Profiles. I
think the Brechts are like that. Early Renaissance in shipbuilding. Late
Medieval in weapon manufacture. (That's just an impression. I'm spitballing
here.) Unfortunately, people have read that Brechts are at the early
Renaissance level of technology and assumed that since guns existed in the
early Renaissance, the Brechts must have guns!

The only way I see the magical equivalent of firearms being developed in an
AD&D universe is in combination with magic. That is someone hits upon the idea
of putting a delayed blast fireball in a bell-shaped hunk of metal and pressing
it up against a castle wall during a siege in order to breech it. After a few
years somebody else would recognize the concussive effects and the number of
people killed among the besiegers by the bell hurtling off the wall, and turn
the thing around and launch the bell shaped metal thingie at the wall. After a
bit, somebody would figure out that you could put a cup at the base of a spear,
put that in a tube and fire it at opponents. Somebody else might come up with
specifically "explosive" spells that could have a special duration that would
fire upon command. Magic "guns" start getting smaller and easier to use. Over
the centuries these spells could be perfected so that they would be the
equivalent of a 140 grains of gunpowder. This lesser spell could be 1st or 2nd
level and within the reach of non-blooded spell casters.

But commoners making these weapons? I think that's pretty unlikely. Very few
people in our world load their own ammunition, for instance. Big corporate
entities do that, in large factories. Eventually, there could be some wizardly
equivalent of Edison in a magical world who had a whole group of mages
researching spells and magical items. Perhaps a "factory" a la the late 19th
century would not be too far behind. But that's about a thousand years down
the line in the setting.

I have heard people equate wizards in AD&D to computer programmers on this
message board. This is a bit of projection, if you ask me, since most of the
people around here are computer users, so programmers are the most likely
choice in that small little section of life. I see wizards, however, as being
much more like engineers. Mechanical, biological, aeronautical, etc. They are
interested in influencing the outside world directly, and manipulating it to
serve their purposes. It would, therefore, make more sense for them to be the
guys that would control "technological" advancement.

The way I really see technology advancing, however, is in the spells
themselves. Here's the long-winded argument.

Part of the problem is that the ways spells exist in levels does not lend
itself much to research and "technological" improvement. As written, they seem
very static and unchangeable. Eventually, however, wouldn't they become easier
to cast, more powerful and longer lasting? Surely, that is the kind of
research and technical improvement that would take place. So the way I REALLY
see "technology" improving is in the power and speed of magic. In fifty years,
maybe a guy will come up with a version of Magic Missile that has a faster
casting time. A century after that somebody invents a version of that does
1d6+1 damage per missile. Another fifty years down the line a guy figures out
how to do it with only somatic components. After another hundred years another
guy improves that spell so that its creates 1 missile/level of the caster.

By the AD&D equivalent of the 20th century a mage can cast it upon a prepared
wand and hand it off to a police officer who can use it the same way RL ones
have handguns. Of course, gang members would have AK-Fireball rifles and
MAC-10 Lightning Bolt Pistols, woefully outgunning our men in blue, but that's
a social issue. Remember: Wands don't kill people. People kill people.

Gary

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Gary V. Foss


>I don't think commoners would be able to use guns, magical or otherwise, at
any
>time within the next several centuries in Cerilia. Sorry. They just don't
get
>them whether you use technology or magic as the basis of the campaign. I
think
>the across the board categorization of certain Cerilian cultures as early
>Renaissance is a little overstated. Ever play MegaTravellor? They had
this
>really cool way of rating the technological advancements of the worlds by
>breaking them up into medicine, shipbuilding, fusion technology, etc.
Worlds
>were often noted with the highest rating in their Universal Planet
Profiles. I
>think the Brechts are like that. Early Renaissance in shipbuilding. Late
>Medieval in weapon manufacture. (That's just an impression. I'm
spitballing
>here.) Unfortunately, people have read that Brechts are at the early
>Renaissance level of technology and assumed that since guns existed in the
>early Renaissance, the Brechts must have guns!
>
Actually, there are other clues. You can read that the Brechts are the
early Renaissance level of technology. And that they favor light armor.
And they have well developed styles of fancy fencing, and favor rapiers and
light blades. All of which track with the development of firearms, which
came about around the early Renaissance, caused heavy armor to be obsolete,
and lead to the development of fancy fencing styles. There has to be some
explanation for why the Brechts do these things, because their fencing
styles, while neat, just don't match up with a big Anuirean knight with a
heavy bashing sword charging at them, and thus wouldn't have been developed
because something demonstrably better still exists.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Gary V. Foss]

Daniel McSorley wrote:

> Actually, there are other clues. You can read that the Brechts are the
> early Renaissance level of technology. And that they favor light armor.
> And they have well developed styles of fancy fencing, and favor rapiers and
> light blades. All of which track with the development of firearms, which
> came about around the early Renaissance, caused heavy armor to be obsolete,
> and lead to the development of fancy fencing styles. There has to be some
> explanation for why the Brechts do these things, because their fencing
> styles, while neat, just don't match up with a big Anuirean knight with a
> heavy bashing sword charging at them, and thus wouldn't have been developed
> because something demonstrably better still exists.
>
> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

That's true. Though I think most of those things can also be explained just by
the seamanship culture of the Brechts. That alone implies lighter or no armor,
as one might have to jump into the water or climb about in the rigging. Lighter
armor all by itself makes Brechts more apt to develop the fencing styles. Put
the big Anuirean knight on a boat and have him try to compete with the lightly
encumbered Brechts and he'd be as out of place as the Brechts would be in the
middle of a battlefield.

Gary

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Gary V. Foss

>That's true. Though I think most of those things can also be explained
just by
>the seamanship culture of the Brechts. That alone implies lighter or no
armor,
>as one might have to jump into the water or climb about in the rigging.
Lighter
>armor all by itself makes Brechts more apt to develop the fencing styles.
Put
>the big Anuirean knight on a boat and have him try to compete with the
lightly
>encumbered Brechts and he'd be as out of place as the Brechts would be in
the
>middle of a battlefield.
>
But then, why wouldn't they use the heavier stuff when on land? But they
don't. I think it is a big pointer towards guns, myself.
There is another option. The crossbows of BR are made more damaging, the
rulebook says it is because they are more powerful than those in other
worlds, I think the designers just finally got a clue. Bows don't hold a
candle in terms of firepower compared to crossbows. Their rate of fire is
drastically better, but they don't have nearly the penetration that
crossbows have.
Now, in real life, neither bows or crossbows could penetrate good plate,
like that used in armors (The History channel had a good show on about this
kind of thing recently, they had demonstrations too). Plus, the armor was
designed to deflect, so even a weaker plate could still stop the bolts from
a rather massive crossbow. You would feel the impact, but it wouldn't
puncture. However, they showed that even an early model gun would blow
clean through this plate they were using, which had stopped longbow and
windlass-driven crossbow shots (and in fact, broken most of the arrows shot
at it).
Now, if you don't want guns, it would be easy to say that in BR, the
crossbows are even more penetrating, and can penetrate plate. There would
then exist a super-heavy class of crossbows, probably used by pairs of men,
that would ignore armor and non-magical protection, dexterity and magic
would still apply I guess. The reason we never reached this stage
historically is because guns came around, if they hadn't, these crossbows
would probably have existed before too long. So, this could be a nice
middle ground that is already partially hinted at in the printed stuff.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[James Ray]

I *THINK* (im STILL not an expert...) that firearms didnt develop until
Marco Polo had travelled to China, and returned with "gunpowder".
Incidentally, I cant remember WHEN Mr Polo did that :) My question is
fairly simple - by bringing all this "gun" stuff up, are you trying to
convince the powers that be at TSR to "officially" introduce firearms to
BR, or are you just swapping ideas with others who feel they shoud be
introduced? My impression has always been that the "something better" you
mention (towards the end of your post, which I have thoughtfully included
and edited :) was TRADE. Their experience with imperialism (against the
Vos - OUCH) taught them that warfare is just not their thing. They see
themselves as "gentlemen" (others probly view them as "dandies" :), and
fighting as an art. For the Brecht, trade IS war. If they fight, its
personal, and hence the fencing. No street fights or tavern brawls for the
civilized Brecht. (actually, tavern brawls are probly a different matter
entirely :) They cross rapiers in arranged duels and such, with all the
trappings one might expect from a Renaissance-era type. Why, the "winner"
may not even get bragging rights outta the deal, if his "style" wasnt good
enough to impress the onlookers. OUCH, im going off too long with this,
and this only applies to MY Brechts, anyway :) The BIGGEST problem with
introducing firearms to BR is in mass land warfare. The CURRENT rules
revolve around the one week War Move. I dont think it (the one week War
Move) lends itself very well to using artillery. As mentioned earlier, one
5th level Mage can cast 7 Fireballs in that space of time. The higher the
level of the Court Mage, the less effective the bombardiers become (as the
length of their battlefield life expectancy grows shorter and shorter :)
For my part, the reason firearms dont normally develop in fantasy worlds,
is because there are usually wizards. Its a lot easier and cheaper to have
the Court Mage throw a fireball at the enemy, than to outfit ONE member of
your military with a firearm, let alone an entire unit. I mean, come on -
a little sulfur and some bat guano versus worked metal and gunpowder?
ESPECIALLY when you are ALREADY paying for the Court Mage. I think thats
why they have the "battle spell" rules, too, to provide the Mage with an
alternative to casting individual spells at military units for a whole
week, but I have misgivings about THEM, anyway, so I wont go THERE :) .
All that said, however, there IS a compelling argument for the inclusion of
firearms in the AD&D game. The problem is that there are too many systems
out there to use. AD&D doesnt have one single, unified system that it has
given precedence to above all others. Coupled with BR's rather vague rules
about castles and fortifications (what are the differences between the maps
of a Castle (2) and a Castle (3), for instance?), and you see the weakness
inherent in our (BR's, rather) warfare system. Now im going off AGAIN, so
Im gonna sign this one off, LOL. If you've read to this point, though,
then this is probably a problem we should REALLY get down to brass tacks
on, and work out a solution to. Hmm...who wants the job of reading all
that mail, though, I wonder...

- ----------
> From: Daniel McSorley
> >
> Actually, there are other clues. You can read that the Brechts are
the early Renaissance level of technology. And that they favor light
armor. And they have well developed styles of fancy fencing, and favor
rapiers and light blades. All of which track with the development of
firearms, which came about around the early Renaissance, caused heavy armor
to be obsolete,
> and lead to the development of fancy fencing styles. There has to be
some explanation for why the Brechts do these things, because their fencing
styles, while neat, just don't match up with a big Anuirean knight with a
heavy bashing sword charging at them, and thus wouldn't have been developed
because something demonstrably better still exists.
>
> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu
.

[James Ray]

- ----------
> From: Daniel McSorley
There is another option. The crossbows of BR are made more
damaging, the rulebook says it is because they are more powerful than those
in other worlds, I think the designers just finally got a clue. Bows don't
hold a candle in terms of firepower compared to crossbows. Their rate of
fire is
> drastically better, but they don't have nearly the penetration that
crossbows have.>

Not at a distance, man. Crossbows are "direct fire" weapons, and bows are
"indirect fire" weapons. Arrows on the battle field were fired at an area,
not necessarily at individuals. Everybody in that targetted area was
extremely likely to get "hit". Crossbows were designed to be fired at
individuals. They used the same basic "lever" principle as bows, but a
mechanical crank was used to pull the string back, rather than raw muscle
power. Since a bows arrows followed an arc to their target, they generally
struck with the same amount of force that they left the bow with. Crossbow
bolts did not strike with the same additonal impact force provided by the
acceleration of gravity. They followed a fairly straight (line of sight,
almost) trajectory, and dipped earthward at about 10 meters a second per
second, so you really HAD to be close to your intended target to hit it.


> Now, in real life, neither bows or crossbows could penetrate good
plate, like that used in armors (The History channel had a good show on
about this kind of thing recently, they had demonstrations too). Plus, the
armor was designed to deflect, so even a weaker plate could still stop the
bolts from a rather massive crossbow.

Again, this is partially due to the projectile's trajectory. The shape of
the individual piece of armor would also have helped serve to deflect the
blow. The BEST way to pierce plate armore with an arrow would be to strike
at as close to a 90 degree angle as the armor's shope would allow.

You would feel the impact, but it wouldn't puncture. However, they showed
that even an early model gun would blow clean through this plate they were
using, which had stopped longbow and windlass-driven crossbow shots (and in
fact, broken most of the arrows shot at it).

Thats due, mostly to the explosive force of gunpowder :) BOOM

> Now, if you don't want guns, it would be easy to say that in BR, the
crossbows are even more penetrating, and can penetrate plate. There would
then exist a super-heavy class of crossbows, probably used by pairs of men,
that would ignore armor and non-magical protection, dexterity and magic
would still apply I guess.

Actually, such weapons DID exist at one time, in the AD&D game (im not an
expert, and cant say whether they existed in the Real World :), and they
were called "ballista". Ballistae (mangonels, scorpions) fired heavy spear
like projectiles. Their hits did 2d6 damage to S/M sized opponents, and
3d6 to L-sized opponents. With a crew of 4 men, they fired 1 shot every
other round, and a crew of 2 men allowed one shot every fourth round.
Chapter 8 of Comabt & Tactics changes this dramatically, however.

James

The reason we never reached this stage historically is because guns came
around, if they hadn't, these crossbows would probably have existed before
too long. So, this could be a nice
> middle ground that is already partially hinted at in the printed stuff.>

> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu
>
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

[TheMotive@aol.co]

In a message dated 8/30/98 3:58:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
mcsorley.1@osu.edu writes:

>

The official TSR explanation was always that since the Brechts make their
lives on the water, they need light weaponry. I mean, if you fall overboard,
you can't have that bastard sword weighing you down...

But I don't like that answer. =)

- - The Motive