|
I have just finished reading the gunslinger, and I must say my gut reaction is YUCK.
I have just as visceral reaction to finding guns in my “quasi- medieval fantasy game” as many others have to having Psionics in their “quasi- medieval fantasy game”.
Now I initially didn’t like the Alchemist because I thematically didn’t like the bombs. But after playing one, I have come around and I enjoy the class.
Perhaps it will be the same for the gunslinger.
Now I am sure there are plenty of people who know far more then I do about history. But I seem to remember, it was guns that ushered out heavy Armor, (by-by mounted mail clad knight) and it was the cannon I believe that made Swiss cheese out of Castle walls.
Now if I had my choice, I would much prefer to keep my mail clad knights and castles. (I know one puff of a dragon’s breath, and the knight would end up like a cooked can of spam, and the castle would catch fire and probably burn down, but at least it’s a fantasy menace).
I guess I will have to “play test” it to see if it is either as bad as I fear, or not much to worry about.
So my initial reaction to the gunslinger is YUCK.
I was wondering, have the designers decided to include the guns because of the popularity of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies? (I do like those movies) or is it because there are readily available guns in the World of War craft game?
I know guns have been around in Golaron, and they are prevalent in the “manna wastes”. But I am happy to leave the guns there.
Perhaps after another reading of the gunslinger and some play testing, i will be able to offer something more constructive then a resounding YUCK.
Onto the Ninja and Samurai.
Now I am sure there are plenty of people who know far more then I do about history. But I seem to remember, it was guns that ushered out heavy Armor, (by-by mounted mail clad knight) and it was the cannon I believe that made Swiss cheese out of Castle walls.
You remember incorrectly.
Now if I had my choice, I would much prefer to keep my mail clad knights and castles. (I know one puff of a dragon’s breath, and the knight would end up like a cooked can of spam, and the castle would catch fire and probably burn down, but at least it’s a fantasy menace).
See, this doesn't jive with me.
I feel that if we can completely ignore realism for the same of castles and dragons being together, we can have castles and guns - especially since those were together.
And honestly, nobody is holding your face down on the book and making you use this alternative class. It's an option for people who like a little gun action in their fantasy. For me, all three alternative classes are a huge bonus because in my personal homebrew world, I have a major Japan-style area and an area where guns are the primary weapon, it just hasn't moved onto the mainland in any large number.
I am with the good Professor on this, it's not such a big stretch to add guns in an apparent time period when guns existed on our own world. The only real problem with this class is it's damage output, which honestly is the point of the entire fighter class.
Now I am sure there are plenty of people who know far more then I do about history. But I seem to remember, it was guns that ushered out heavy Armor, (by-by mounted mail clad knight) and it was the cannon I believe that made Swiss cheese out of Castle walls.You remember incorrectly.
Really? I reckon Elyas's brief summary of the decline of armor and castles is pretty accurate.
Really? I reckon Elyas's brief summary of the decline of armor and castles is pretty accurate.Now I am sure there are plenty of people who know far more then I do about history. But I seem to remember, it was guns that ushered out heavy Armor, (by-by mounted mail clad knight) and it was the cannon I believe that made Swiss cheese out of Castle walls.You remember incorrectly.
It was the trebuchet that ended the castle walls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? I reckon Elyas's brief summary of the decline of armor and castles is pretty accurate.Now I am sure there are plenty of people who know far more then I do about history. But I seem to remember, it was guns that ushered out heavy Armor, (by-by mounted mail clad knight) and it was the cannon I believe that made Swiss cheese out of Castle walls.You remember incorrectly.
Except armor lasted far, far beyond the birth of guns. The Spanish wore armor into the Americas.
As for castle walls, it's not like people threw up their hands and went "WELP THAT'S IT FOR CASTLES THEN!" They did what humans beings always do - they adapted. As cannons changed war, castles changed to suit cannon fire. The large scale military fortification didn't "die" until the birth of the bunker and trench warfare - and the biggest reason was because of air-bound threats.
That's why I harp on having flying wizards and castles. An actual defensive fortification in D&D wouldn't be a castle; it'd be a bunker.
But we keep castles because we think castles are cool.
I just find it irritating that we shrug away all manner of "unrealistic" or "disbelief" but once guns are introduced they and they alone must follow the laws and history of Earth - which is often quoted incorrectly, at that!
|
I'd also like to point out that firearms didn't become prolific because of their armor piercing capabilities. Longbows were just as good at punching through a hunk of metal. Firearms, however, didn't require months of training. You could teach a man to reload and fire a musket much more quickly than you could train a soldier to pull and accurately fire a 150-200 lb. pull longbow.
And I'm pretty sure that World of Warcraft and Pathfinder have guns for a similar reason: steampunk is f***-awesome ;P And if you're not into that, then you can ignore it. Just like I find psionics to be "meh," so they don't really have their place in my games. Simple as that.
And plate armor saw use as recently as World War I (although by that time firearms were advanced to the point that the armor provided no protection against them). For hundreds of years, plate armor was used to negate firearms, fairly successfully. Early firearms provided no more threat to the armored warrior than the crossbow. The decline of armor had more to do with weight than uselessness.It was the trebuchet that ended the castle walls.Really? I reckon Elyas's brief summary of the decline of armor and castles is pretty accurate.Now I am sure there are plenty of people who know far more then I do about history. But I seem to remember, it was guns that ushered out heavy Armor, (by-by mounted mail clad knight) and it was the cannon I believe that made Swiss cheese out of Castle walls.You remember incorrectly.
The plate used in world war one was used by tank crews to stop the shrapnel pinging around inside the tanks from ripping them up.
Cheyenne Mountain would be the modern equivalent of a castle.
[
Except armor lasted far, far beyond the birth of guns. The Spanish wore armor into the Americas.
As for castle walls, it's not like people threw up their hands and went "WELP THAT'S IT FOR CASTLES THEN!" They did what humans beings always do - they adapted. As cannons changed war, castles changed to suit cannon fire. The large scale military fortification didn't "die" until the birth of the bunker and trench warfare - and the biggest reason was because of air-bound threats.
That's why I harp on having flying wizards and castles. An actual defensive fortification in D&D wouldn't be a castle; it'd be a bunker.
But we keep castles because we think castles are cool.
I just find it irritating that we shrug away all manner of "unrealistic" or "disbelief" but once guns are introduced they and they alone must follow the laws and history of Earth - which is often quoted incorrectly, at that!
Not that the Incas and Aztecs had firearms......;-)
Though the point about adaption is spot on.
And without wanting to derail the thread further, trebuchets had an impact on castle design but I suspect not as much as cannons did.
But back back on topic......
I have nothing against guns in Pathfinder. Though I think the name "gunslinger" has too much of a US "western" flavour - as does the use of the term "grit". In my imagining of guns in Pathfinder, my thoughts go more towards the "musketeer" or "pirate" - a flintlock pistol in one hand and a rapier/cutlass in the other, not a cowboy.
|
As a side note, look at how for a looong time the battle field was dominated by the pike in its many and varied forms...again, not a class often seen in most fantasy games :P
Where is my "Pike wielding expert" prestige class, anyway? :P
Well, the pike was a devastating weapon on the battlefield. However, this isn't a wargame, it's a game about a small group of adventurers. The pike is much less effective for an adventuring group than for a regiment of pikemen.
Except Pathfinfer doesn't think they are easier to learn as they made it exotic. Should have made it martial or exotic.
Heck, plate armor still hasn't gone away. The modern body armor worn by today's military uses metal plates over kevlar.
I'm not the greatest fan of guns in my fantasy games but, on the other hand, pirates and highwaymen without pistols definitely don't work for me.
And plate armor saw use as recently as World War I (although by that time firearms were advanced to the point that the armor provided no protection against them). For hundreds of years, plate armor was used to negate firearms, fairly successfully. Early firearms provided no more threat to the armored warrior than the crossbow. The decline of armor had more to do with weight than uselessness.
Consider also, that that the coat of plates style armor is making a comeback in the form of modern body armor (using plates made from carbon fiber).
Given the existance of alchemically treated walls, rare metals, and magical enhancements, I have no problem seeing a level playing field with firearms in a fantasy setting.
|
|
I have nothing against guns in Pathfinder. Though I think the name "gunslinger" has too much of a US "western" flavour - as does the use of the term "grit". In my imagining of guns in Pathfinder, my thoughts go more towards the "musketeer" or "pirate" - a flintlock pistol in one hand and a rapier/cutlass in the other, not a cowboy.
I don't think there can be any question about the Western flare on this class... the capstone ability is called "true grit" for god's sake. As previously mentioned though, Alkenstar definitely has a Western flavor to it. If you wanted to apply the class to pirates or something else, I'm sure a quick name change would suffice. E.g., "panache" or "wile" or something like that...
I'm not the greatest fan of guns in my fantasy games but, on the other hand, pirates and highwaymen without pistols definitely don't work for me.
+1 to this. Pirates with out flint locks just don't work for me.
|
|
Professor Ciro, I do not believe that I have remembered incorrectly.
If you do have some examples and sources I can look up, I welcome the chance to look at new evidence.
I pointed out the introduction of fire-arms let to a decline in armor use. Technology does change but it does not happen instantly, it happens over a stretch of time.
And yes there was probably a point in time when cannon and castles existed, but one technology led to the decline of the effectiveness of the castle wall (yes I know Trebuchets were pretty effective as well). As technology gradually evolves, the forts that were built in later times were constructed with the cannon in mind.
And Professor Ciro, in terms of the un-realism of castles and dragons, if you want to add guns and cannon, please enjoy. This is as much a matter of personal taste as much as anything else.
Talynonyx, you are right no body is holding me down and making me buy the book.
This was merely my initial visceral reaction to guns and gunslingers.
That is fine if people want guns in their fantasy, I probably won’t be one of them.
Cyrano, I got to your other post later on down the line. You mentioned the Spanish using guns and breastplates in the Americas. Yes that was probably a Transitional period.
This brings me to corn and potatoes. Once they were imported to the “Old world” from the “New World” these crops were successfully planted and harvested by people all over the world. The potato is ubiquitous. But in the 1100 to 1300s people most likely didn’t have access to this crop. So it grates on me when I see Sam wise Gamgee going through cornfields in Middle earth. But I can live with that.
“An actual defensive fortification in D&D wouldn’t be a castle; it would be a bunker” because of the arieal threats. That is a good point, and I’m sure lots of dwarves find that idea very appealing.
Xn0o0cl3 I find it very interesting that you bring psionics up. As a matter of taste, there are many people who don’t like psionics, and that they feel it is too “sci fi” so it has no place in their fantasy games. Well I feel similarly about guns in my fantasy games.
So at the end of this thread, I guess it comes down to a matter of taste.
However all that being said, I do plan to try to do a play test of these new classes to see how they work. Maybe that will change my mind, maybe it wont.
common misconception that castles ended with cannon.
the french maginot line was a stone fortification that was reported to be "unbreachable" and it was in fact. so much the hitlers tanks just drove AROUND it to conquer paris.
The mobility of tanks (and airplanes ability fly over it) defeated it.
"bunkers" are castles.
the middle east is littered with them, they are just underground.
another thing that stopped people from living in castles was disease, as it was discovered the castles were a prime source.
(long explanation) and their relative cost once serfs/slaves were no longer a social/political option to their construction.
Pirates fought against castles through out their era in the carribean, and abroad (where the european countries could still get away with slaves)
and may pirate era castles were constructed in the Colonial Americas.
The last recorded attack be a seaborne vessel against a castle was on the california coast by a Japaneese submarine with its deck gun at night.
In case of nuclear war, the US President can retreat to his "castle" we just call them bunkers but if you knew about the lay out of that maybe it isnt just a room, its a castle.
I will accept the gunslinger class begrudgingly but I HATE Grit!!!
Dont like the mechanic, dont like the feel at all for D&D/Pathfinder!!!!
Grit would be a nice system in a Shoot'em Up action game (Shadowrun for example) or a modern warfare or spy setting or even a Wild West based role playing game but the mechanic and feal just doesnt have a place in D&D/Pathfinder.
I also dont like that the Grit Pool system sneaks out of the class by becoming a line of feats.
My only issue with the Gunslinger Class is do we really need an alternate class specifically for a weapon type?
I mean do we need a Stab-poker so that Spear wielding can have a special feel to it.
Do we need an intire class just to reflect the use of Sword and Shield?
We going to make a Flailswinger or a Spearthruster class?
The gunslinger should be an archetype requiring less than a page just like other Archetypes. Ditch grit, use some of the abilities as Alternate class features for the fighter and the rest as feats. An entire class just for one weapon class/fighting style is a bad road to start down.
I think you are actually missing the point of the class. Grit is a key part of it. Its not just about being a firearms fighter. That could have been done with feats. The idea is to represent the flavor of a gunslinger (primarily the western flavor for characters like roland from the dark tower). That is where grit comes in. A mechanic like that that represents the flavor of the rugged western gunslinger is as important if not more so then the fact that the class uses firearms.
|
To the OP, I am not a big fan of the name (gunslinger). I would have preferred more of a swashbuckler type who was good with gun and rapier. I am a fan of the Pirates movies and think that a fantasy archetype based on that would be more fitting as well. Also, the character would be broader in scope.
The current class performs little damage compared to a well built fighter archer atm and has less backup fighting ability as well.
I think you are actually missing the point of the class. Grit is a key part of it. Its not just about being a firearms fighter. That could have been done with feats. The idea is to represent the flavor of a gunslinger (primarily the western flavor for characters like roland from the dark tower). That is where grit comes in. A mechanic like that that represents the flavor of the rugged western gunslinger is as important if not more so then the fact that the class uses firearms.I'm not missing the point. You made my point. "represents the flavor of the RUGGED WESTERN GUNSLINGER is as important...."
I dont like the Flavor of it not for D&D. Perfectly happy with it if it was set in a Wild West game or, a Sci-fi fantasy setting like Shadowrun, or Final Fantasy etc...
Does it really have the feel of D&D?
Depends on what you like. I dont draw the hard distinction between fantasy and wild west, and science fiction some others do. I loved the dark tower series, and Jack Vance's Dying Earth. Those definately blur the lines between Genres, and I enjoy that. I have included science fiction and wild west elements in my dnd games all the time, so yes it does have the feel of dnd for me since the game itself is setting neutral. What makes sense or doesnt in a specific game world is an entirely different matter.
I probably won't have them in standard game as the they would not fit the time period. However, this opens the door to campaigns set during Renaissance, Revolutionary War, and Pirates of the Caribbean.
And possibly, the Wild West.
I would argue that D&D/Pathfinder are not setting neutral.I have never found a reference to Firearms or Trains in the Core Rulebook.
GM guide, page 160.
GM guide, page 160.
I would argue that D&D/Pathfinder are not setting neutral.I have never found a reference to Firearms or Trains in the Core Rulebook.
That would be the GM Guide, and not the Core Rulebook. : )
Just to me in my near 20 years of playing D&D guns have always been a very minor add on. There was never a class built around them. And this class just has way to much of a Wild West feel to it. I love watching Lord of the Rings more than I do old Clint Eastwood films. Just like I love playing D&D more than say a Wild West Roleplaying game.
You said dnd not pathfinder, the DM guide IS a core rulebook. So while I certainly get that this is not your style, guns have always been a part of the game in a limited fashion. There is no reason not to expand on them a bit, especially since they are part of the implied setting of pathfinder (Alkenstar). So if you want to argue that pathfinder isn't setting neutral, then guns are in the setting, a whole country focuses on using them, its only natural for a class to exist around it. If you want to go back to dnd, well its right there in the core book of the dm guide. So where is it that guns are not a part of dnd? A smallish part most of the time? Sure, but dnd isnt lord of the rings, it's roots lie more in the Jack Vance then Tolkien.
Again it is perfectly fine to say this is not what makes sense for your game. But to say guns dont have a place in dnd/pathfinder is ignoring quite a bit of the history and material in the game.
A Wild West Gunfighter? What happened to the D&D I knew and loved.
Obviously the "D&D you knew and loved" was never 1st edition, in which Gygax included a "Sixguns and Sorcery" appendix in the DMG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Wild West Gunfighter? What happened to the D&D I knew and loved.
Is this the same D&D where one Greyhawk god is literally a cowboy?
Because the D&D you knew and love never changed. You did. You grew increasingly more conservative in your tastes and increasingly unwilling or unable to define your view of fantasy in a broad spectrum.
The earliest edition of D&D had monsters made from children's toys. It had a magic system mashed together from a sci-fi "spells and lasers" setting. There were greek gods and lovecraftian monsters rubbing elbows. Conan and Elric were far more of an influence then Lord of the Rings was. Heck, most of the major "NPCs," your Bigby and your Melf, were the original players - and they weren't the most creative fellows at times, as Melf was "Male Elf" and most the other major NPCs were little more then anagrams of their real names.
D&D has always - always - been a mashup of nerd culture references shoved and stuck together. It's always been a very broad game. Medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping greek pantheons and following a modern pastiche of morality fight against squid-headed space invaders from the future.
I posted something about the "Sixguns and Sorcery" appendix in the 1st edition DMG... it seems to have vanished, just like many people's memories of it.
A Wild West Gunfighter? What happened to the D&D I knew and loved.Is this the same D&D where one Greyhawk god is literally a cowboy?
Because the D&D you knew and love never changed. You did. You grew increasingly more conservative in your tastes and increasingly unwilling or unable to define your view of fantasy in a broad spectrum.
The earliest edition of D&D had monsters made from children's toys. It had a magic system mashed together from a sci-fi "spells and lasers" setting. There were greek gods and lovecraftian monsters rubbing elbows. Conan and Elric were far more of an influence then Lord of the Rings was. Heck, most of the major "NPCs," your Bigby and your Melf, were the original players - and they weren't the most creative fellows at times, as Melf was "Male Elf" and most the other major NPCs were little more then anagrams of their real names.
D&D has always - always - been a mashup of nerd culture references shoved and stuck together. It's always been a very broad game. Medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping greek pantheons and following a modern pastiche of morality fight against squid-headed space invaders from the future.
Murlynd, thou art the coolest of all possible gods for a paladin to serve.
Sixguns and Sorcery, baby! Straight outta Gygax-land!
Greyhawk 4 life.
Oh, and I've always figured that many dungeons were the 'bunkers' we'd expect to see in a world with flying attackers and certain types of magic.
I run a Realms game, and even though guns are rare, they exist. Especially in abundance on the isles of Lantan. Another reason I haven't fully introduced gun-using characters in my games is because of the lack of real fun, and balanced, gun rules with a host of guns to use. Dragon Magazine issue #321 had plenty of new guns, but a lack of mechanics to make using guns feel fun and not always a hindrance.
Also, Paizo needs to finalize gun rules anyway, so they can put Akenstar in full detail, plus that sci-fi nation place
I posted something about the "Sixguns and Sorcery" appendix in the 1st edition DMG... it seems to have vanished. :(
LOL, I just noted that. We were thinking on the same wavelength.
|
|
A Wild West Gunfighter? What happened to the D&D I knew and loved.Is this the same D&D where one Greyhawk god is literally a cowboy?
Because the D&D you knew and love never changed. You did. You grew increasingly more conservative in your tastes and increasingly unwilling or unable to define your view of fantasy in a broad spectrum.
The earliest edition of D&D had monsters made from children's toys. It had a magic system mashed together from a sci-fi "spells and lasers" setting. There were greek gods and lovecraftian monsters rubbing elbows. Conan and Elric were far more of an influence then Lord of the Rings was. Heck, most of the major "NPCs," your Bigby and your Melf, were the original players - and they weren't the most creative fellows at times, as Melf was "Male Elf" and most the other major NPCs were little more then anagrams of their real names.
D&D has always - always - been a mashup of nerd culture references shoved and stuck together. It's always been a very broad game. Medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping greek pantheons and following a modern pastiche of morality fight against squid-headed space invaders from the future.
You know Cirno, there are days when your Beowulf Mancrush Nostalgia Rants drive me up the wall, and then there are posts like the above.
+1!
Guns havent always existed in DnD...Basic Box set had no guns :P
And as to gunslinger yuck, is that when they spit tobacco out on the someone's shoe? "gunslinger....yuck!"
Medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping greek pantheons and following a modern pastiche of morality fight against squid-headed space invaders from the future.
You, sir, have coined what is possibly the best description of D&D ever to be written.
Also, if you want to see a movie about a Medieval-Louis XIV gunslinger (Conan meet the three musketeers meet the man with no name): Blanche.
If you liked Vidocq or Brotherhood of the Wolf, you could like this one - lighthearted and not really serious, but a fun watch.
I dont draw the hard distinction between fantasy and wild west, and science fiction some others do. I loved the dark tower series
I can't keep myself from making allusions to it ever since I read the word "gunslinger" in the playtest announcement.
It may not be everyone's idea of fantasy, but hardly anything is. And the game, and I will repeat that until everyone has accepted it, is inclusive, not exclusive. It will not exclude something just because not everyone likes it. It will rather include everything people want. Paizo will do the work for us.
It's easier to discard what I don't want in my game - and if I'm having problems telling my players so, I might want to think about if it isn't their game, too, and let them have a say in what goes, too, or alternately stop running games if I cannot assert myself against my players.
And by "I", I mean each and every one of you.
To be precise, if you don't like guns, then ok. That's your call. Seriously, I can't speak out against it - it's your personal tastes, and I have no issue with that.
It's when people start talking about things not being fantasy or not being D&D that I get weary. Guns and fantasy don't go side by side? Dude, the very existence of the western flies in the face of this. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - maybe one of the best films ever made - ain't exactly based on realism after all.
It's somewhat interesting to me because the western is American fantasy. That's ours, it's what we have an incredibly unique claim to.
Like, maybe I don't want a protagonist with a terrible British accent :p
It's also something that we already see in fantasy. At times, D&D has all the trappings of a western but the guns, funny enough. They're also pretty dang popular. Go through splats or homebrew forums and check out how many PrCs are based on playing cards or gambling. We might not have guns, but we certainly have characters famed for their quick draw. Duels in D&D seem to all happen at noon. I gurantee if any mook dies and they're remotely near the edge of something, they're going to smash through a railing and fall. The way our fantasy games handle indigenous people are almost always based less on a medieval viewpoint of "they aren't human and we should enslave and subjegate them" but rather on the Western view of vaguely spiritual people with a different set of customs and cultures. Even the way we handle bows borrows less from the warfare inaccurate volley and far more from the single grizzled marksman (except replace grizzled with pointy eared).
How many medieval knights, paladins, and heroes got their quests from taverns?
Now how many lone stars did?
I guess what I'm saying is, Westerns are really cool, and they have really cool tropes that we borrow and put into our fantasy games - and rightfully so, because they're cool. Who doesn't love a good railing kill? The only thing the Gunslinger adds is a new weapon to go with them.
Got A Dream, Boy? Got a Song? Paint your Wagon and Come along!
-Lee Marvin is Awesome.
Heck, in Pale Rider (and the other man with no name spaghetti westerns) Clint Eastwood plays an undead gunfighter (former preacher before his death) who avenges himself and others against those who wronged him, can anyone say Revenant?
To be precise, if you don't like guns, then ok. That's your call. Seriously, I can't speak out against it - it's your personal tastes, and I have no issue with that.
It's when people start talking about things not being fantasy or not being D&D that I get weary. Guns and fantasy don't go side by side? Dude, the very existence of the western flies in the face of this. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - maybe one of the best films ever made - ain't exactly based on realism after all.
It's somewhat interesting to me because the western is American fantasy. That's ours, it's what we have an incredibly unique claim to.
Like, maybe I don't want a protagonist with a terrible British accent :p
It's also something that we already see in fantasy. At times, D&D has all the trappings of a western but the guns, funny enough. They're also pretty dang popular. Go through splats or homebrew forums and check out how many PrCs are based on playing cards or gambling. We might not have guns, but we certainly have characters famed for their quick draw. Duels in D&D seem to all happen at noon. I gurantee if any mook dies and they're remotely near the edge of something, they're going to smash through a railing and fall. The way our fantasy games handle indigenous people are almost always based less on a medieval viewpoint of "they aren't human and we should enslave and subjegate them" but rather on the Western view of vaguely spiritual people with a different set of customs and cultures. Even the way we handle bows borrows less from the warfare inaccurate volley and far more from the single grizzled marksman (except replace grizzled with pointy eared).
How many medieval knights, paladins, and heroes got their quests from taverns?
Now how many lone stars did?
I guess what I'm saying is, Westerns are really cool, and they have really cool tropes that we borrow and put into our fantasy games - and rightfully so, because they're cool. Who doesn't love a good...
Aaaaand I'm going to have my buddy read that post because you've summed it up very profoundly.
He seems to have this issue of something not being "sword&sorcery" fantasy if you introduce guns. If you're introducing AK-47s and rocket launchers, yes, it ruins that line. But a light element of renaissance gunfare doesn't make it any less fantasy. He reasoned that he plays to escape the real world, and introducing guns takes away that distinction. Highly faulty logic, I know, but he insists a game is no longer fantasy if guns are introduced in the slightest. Well, I reasoned a spaceship crashing on the planet and you find your fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard equipping themselves with laser guns and bioarmor is still fantasy, that stuff doesn't exist "in reality" either. How is it still not fantasy? And so on the debate went.
Maybe I've been sucked into the sci-fi/fantasy element of the Final Fantasy games and Japanese anime, but I enjoy the swords/sorcery/archaic gunsmanship mix with relative ease. If the gunsmanship is a rare or very uncommon thing, sure. It's no different than the psionic nonsense of "it's too sci-fi for a fantasy game". Just because psionics has been prevalent in sci-fi themes does not make it solely a sci-fi thing. Personally, I'd be peeved if someone creates a "gatling crossbow" or uses magical crystals to craft together a primitive/magical "laser gun" and still have the nerve to say "it's still sword&sorcery fantasy".
But even in D&D, look at the repeating crossbow. If that doesn't scream a "medieval six-shooter" then I don't know what will. Replace pointy sticks with round pieces of metal that go boom and it's not that much of a stretch.
I don't get the gripe, really. I don't think I ever will.
I think the basic rule that people need to remember is that nothing changes the setting unless you let it.
I mean, we have magic and dragons and yet neither of those have lead to widespread revolution in most settings. If magic isn't a world-changer, guns won't be ;p.
and even though Psionics is prevelant in Sci Fi, the same idea had existed in the orient for a whole lot longer. i cannot give an exact date. but it's a fairly ancient concept.
Heck, in Pale Rider (and the other man with no name spaghetti westerns) Clint Eastwood plays an undead gunfighter (former preacher before his death) who avenges himself and others against those who wronged him, can anyone say Revenant?
/nitpick
Pale Rider isn't a spaghetti Western (it was filmed in CIdaho, not Italy; the reason the spaghetti Westerns were called such). Also, the character in Pale Rider isn't the same character. (It's possible it could be, I suppose, but the two characters seem different enough IMO that they probably aren't.) Likewise, the Stranger in High Plains Drifter is a similar character- who might or might not be an undead revenant- but it is a different character than the Preacher.
Still a cool idea to run with, though. Also of similar note, David Gallher's High Moon webcomic features a werewolf gunslinger.