I did not change my mind, still don't like guns in PF/DnD. Definately not anything you said came close to persuading me. LOL
Its not exactly changing your mind so much as nudging it slightly to the side. Kind of like the whole asteroid headed towards earth thing. You dont have to turn it around going the other way. Just deflect it enough to avoid impending disaster (you not buying a book you'll probably enjoy because it includes guns).
The problem is, over the years, how the game has developed into a "it says here in the rule book I can do/have this" whiney pants arguement.
In the old days only a DM had a DMG and usually he only had all the rule books. These days, everyone has the rule books, everyone has become a rules lawyer and if you don't stick to everything in the book exactly as it is written, it's YOUR homebrew and I dont like it!! Wa Wa Wa all the way home.
Like I've seen many paizo people post, Page 9, Core Rule book (which IS RAW) the Most Important Rule.
People, grow some hair on your chest and don't allow people to argue with you about rules at your table.
It is a problem tho, and people who see a rulebook come out with stuff they don't want have nightmares about their gamer comming to their table with a new set of outrageous things to give them headaches.
I've never had this problem. If a player has a request or idea related to his PC, I'm always happy to hear it. If what the player wants won't work well in the game, I will let him know him why. This approach has always worked well for me. I've never had any negative feedback over such calls as DM.
If I were to have a player who made a huge stink over not being able to play class X or use feat Y, I'd explain to him that this sort of thing is bad form. If he continued to be rude, disruptive, whiny,etc. I'd ask him to leave the game. One guy shouldn't kill the fun for everybody by throwing a hissy fit. You've got to allow for a guy having a bad day, though. A little grousing is one thing, a pattern of disruptiveness is quite another.
I game with my friends. They play in my games because they like me, each other, and the mutual gaming experience. I suggest that the problem you describe arises from a problem player or a poor social dynamic, and not from player ownership of the rulebooks or the increased diversity of character-related options.
I can't stand the thought of having guns with Sword and magic, I think it ruins the game.
I don't know if I can go with "ruins the game", and I really don't want to tackle anything with "guns" and "bad" in the same sentence, because that takes us into a realm that seems awfully political. Let's just leave it at "I'm no fan of the NRA."
For what it is worth, I'd not allow a gunslinger class in a game I ran ... and strangely, I'd enjoy seeing one in action in a game I participated in. Reading the playtesting, the class seems to need quite a bit of work to bring it up to the level of the other classes -- and really, that's my primary concern.
I do completely understand the knee-jerk dislike of guns period, or in a fantasy-type setting, and I probably share it to a degree ... but the people pointing out that it's historically accurate have a point.
It's not even that.
Do you people always run the same kind of campaign? Mine is quite wide in style currently, but next time I could run a low low low magic world in which Paladins and Rangers are the top of the magic classes existing... another time another world in which the thing most similar to a warrior is a Magus.
Should I complain because core rulebook has Fighters and Wizards? I suppose I should not.
Gunslinger (and Samurai, and Inquisitor, and Paladin) are there for the time you will need them.
This is one of the reasons I play this game - because of its diversity.
I'm not a huge fan of firearms in a fantasy game so by and large, I don't use them. Two exceptions - I do like siege warfare elements in fantasy games so things like cannons fit that mould fairly well and I use them on occasion, and if there's a definite swashbuckler element to a setting then that also works for me. Pirates and one shot throw away pistols for the win :)
I agree with the general concensus on this thread though. If you don't like firearms or they don't fit your game, don't use them. If the setting has a specific faction or country that would have such things available, set the campaign so that said faction/country are not close enough to have been encountered (the world is a big place after all) or better yet, do what I do and create your own setting. Gives you more freedom to include the elements you want then.
|
I am fine with guns in the rule books. If the GM does not want to have them in his campaign, he can leave them out. I see them as completely optional, and they may not fit in every campaign. I do see them as part of the larger fantasy genre.
I put steampunk in the same category as guns. Its definitely fantasy, but not for every campaign. I would like to see rules for this type of stuff. Variety keeps the game interesting.
I can't stand the thought of having guns with Sword and magic, I think it ruins the game. I know they are very early stages of guns but imagining someone not in heavy armor getting shot a few times and still fighting takes whatever realism there is in fantasy away. I know if I don't want to use it I don't have to, I just think something like this should stay out of one of the core books. Why not put out a book called 'Firearms' or something, the people that want it will buy it. I know I can't be alone, everyone in my group doesn't want anything to do with it. I hope they reconsider.
I hate the fact that a Ninja and Samurai class are in the new book, they are totally useless to me in my home brewed campaign, and I can't say as I will EVER play either of the classes.
Why not but out a book called "Orients" or something, the people that want it will buy it.
ANYWAY, I will buy the new book and snuggle with it every night until the next Pathfinder book comes out.
I do completely understand the knee-jerk dislike of guns period, or in a fantasy-type setting, and I probably share it to a degree ... but the people pointing out that it's historically accurate have a point.It's a habituation thing, I'd say: it's left out of standard fantasy so often that then when it appears people can have the usual fearful reaction. Those who have read fantasy with guns in them are more exposed and so do not necessarily have that reaction.
Again with 'standard fantasy.' What is that? I've never heard ot it. Can someone please define it for us?
Lord of the Rings has gunpowder. Gandalf is an expert with fireworks, and the orcs of Saruman use 'fire of Orthanc' to blast at the wall of the Hornburg.
Conan's Hyborian Age does not gave gunpowder, IIRC.
Many fantasies set on Earth in a fictionalized past do include gunpowder. So do quite a number of invented worlds, as other posters have noted.
I can't stand the thought of having guns with Sword and magic, I think it ruins the game. I know they are very early stages of guns but imagining someone not in heavy armor getting shot a few times and still fighting takes whatever realism there is in fantasy away. I know if I don't want to use it I don't have to, I just think something like this should stay out of one of the core books. Why not put out a book called 'Firearms' or something, the people that want it will buy it. I know I can't be alone, everyone in my group doesn't want anything to do with it. I hope they reconsider.
Which is why it's an OPTION. Also are you really upset that a dozen or so pages in a full book will have material you don't want to use? Gimmee a break. Don't use it if you don't like it. I don't see why my options should be limited just because you don't like the flavor or it doesn't mesh with your vision of what fantasy is supposed to be.
Paizo provides OPTIONS, you build the world as you want out of those options.
I'm not a huge fan of guns in fantasy either, but I thank Paizo for giving me the option to include them if I want and for putting them in a core book so I don't have to spend extra cash if I want to include them.(Or deide to create a more steampunk setting)
I have run fantasy games where guns were intrinsic to the setting; I have run others where they didn't exist at all. Both have their charms.
Guns in a fantasy setting or game can be great. See Howard's setting for Solomon Kane for starters. Or any Elizabethan/Napoleonic/Victorian/steampunk fantasy. If I was going to do something with pirates, guns would be an absolute requirement ... whereas paladins would be right out.
It all depends on the campaign!
-The Gneech
I can't stand the thought of having guns with Sword and magic, I think it ruins the game. I know they are very early stages of guns but imagining someone not in heavy armor getting shot a few times and still fighting takes whatever realism there is in fantasy away. I know if I don't want to use it I don't have to, I just think something like this should stay out of one of the core books. Why not put out a book called 'Firearms' or something, the people that want it will buy it. I know I can't be alone, everyone in my group doesn't want anything to do with it. I hope they reconsider.
Lacking a better rebuttal I would disagree.
I do completely understand the knee-jerk dislike of guns period, or in a fantasy-type setting, and I probably share it to a degree ... but the people pointing out that it's historically accurate have a point.It's a habituation thing, I'd say: it's left out of standard fantasy so often that then when it appears people can have the usual fearful reaction. Those who have read fantasy with guns in them are more exposed and so do not necessarily have that reaction.Again with 'standard fantasy.' What is that? I've never heard ot it. Can someone please define it for us?
Originally DnD was based off of J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, in the smallest manor legally able to get away with. J. R. R. Tolkien's book set what is the standard of fantasy. This has been both a blessing and a curse.
Originally DnD was based off of J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, in the smallest manor legally able to get away with. J. R. R. Tolkien's book set what is the standard of fantasy. This has been both a blessing and a curse.I do completely understand the knee-jerk dislike of guns period, or in a fantasy-type setting, and I probably share it to a degree ... but the people pointing out that it's historically accurate have a point.It's a habituation thing, I'd say: it's left out of standard fantasy so often that then when it appears people can have the usual fearful reaction. Those who have read fantasy with guns in them are more exposed and so do not necessarily have that reaction.Again with 'standard fantasy.' What is that? I've never heard ot it. Can someone please define it for us?
Weel gygax didnt base it entirely on LoTR, There is a heavy Does of Micahel Moorcock and others as well. Moorcock's world is where alignments come from (orginally chaos, law and balance (neutrality))
For me, hand weapons and magic is what makes fantasy roleplaying interesting. Bringing guns into it is making it more modern - less "magical".
I find it harder to suspend disbelief because my players and I know how guns and blackpowder worked in the real world. And what their inclusion would entail - centralisation, increased taxation ,death of the knight, peoples armies etc. For me that is boring and the opposite of fantasy.
Dragons should be defeated with mighty magicks and sharp swords, not blown out of the sky by gatlings and AA:)
YMMW
Oops, that would be Anti- Air, not the support group:)
I'm a latecomer to this thread, but I thought I'd just offer you these three links.
Link 1: 1st edition AD&D DMG, written by E. Gary Gygax
Link 3: picture of Boot Hill conversion rules (continued) on page 113 of the 1st edition AD&D DMG.
I'm a latecomer to this thread, but I thought I'd just offer you these three links.
Link 1: 1st edition AD&D DMG, written by E. Gary Gygax
Link 3: picture of Boot Hill conversion rules (continued) on page 113 of the 1st edition AD&D DMG.
Wow, I remember boot hill, or at least it get mentioned alot, but i never never never saw a set of rules for it.
There was a TSR Space game however...Star frontier (i cant remember exactly) It had space monkeys and bug people you could play. I had a set of those rules. I had all but forgotten about boot hill!
On the other hand, the argument that D&D derives from LotR has an underlying problem for the anti-gun crowd.
What did Saruman use to breach the walls of Helm's Deep? Basically a ginormous Grenade 1.0.
Once you've got powder-based explosives, the step from there to guns is a matter of a generation, assuming you've got somebody clever and of the right mindset. All it boils down to is "pointing an explosion AT somebody."
If the ents hadn't trashed Isengard, you can bet there would have been orcs with matchlocks by the end of the War of the Ring.
-The Gneech
On the other hand, the argument that D&D derives from LotR has an underlying problem for the anti-gun crowd.
What did Saruman use to breach the walls of Helm's Deep? Basically a ginormous Grenade 1.0.
Once you've got powder-based explosives, the step from there to guns is a matter of a generation, assuming you've got somebody clever and of the right mindset. All it boils down to is "pointing an explosion AT somebody."
If the ents hadn't trashed Isengard, you can bet there would have been orcs with matchlocks by the end of the War of the Ring.
-The Gneech
Yup, totally. LotR was heavily shaped by Tolkein's experiences in WW1 and by his reaction to the rapid industrialization of Britain. Mordor and Isengard are the Middle-Earth analogues of those two concepts, respectively. Saruman was all about technology and machines; he even bred super-orcs, remember. Anyone trying to sell a fantasy game based off LotR that doesn't include encroaching industrialization and mechanized warfare doesn't know enough about the basis for his game.
Come on now, thats good stuff from the originator 'Gary Gygax'
Why did you place Gary Gygax's name in quotes?
Gary supported creativity, imagination, and the ability of each DM to do his own thing.
If you are fixated on copying what you percieve to be some kind of 'pure' Gygaxian AD&D, why in the heck are you playing Pathfinder? Do you reflexively hate and reject everything done by TSR after Gygax's unfortunate departure from the company?
I'm old school. I love to read a good paragraph of High Gygaxian. I play OOP versions of D&D pretty frequently. I think that 'Col. Playdoh' was a great man, and I'm sorry that I never got to meet him in person. I do what I wish to do with the game, which is just what Gary encouraged us all to do.
-Ewan
I'm a latecomer to this thread, but I thought I'd just offer you these three links.
Link 1: 1st edition AD&D DMG, written by E. Gary Gygax
Link 3: picture of Boot Hill conversion rules (continued) on page 113 of the 1st edition AD&D DMG.
Thanks for the links, Mr. Reynolds.
I had referenced that very same appendix earlier.
You guys at Paizo are doing a fine job of continuing the good old traditions of the game while at the same time creating new and varied material.
Wow, I remember boot hill, or at least it get mentioned alot, but i never never never saw a set of rules for it.
There was a TSR Space game however...Star frontier (i cant remember exactly) It had space monkeys and bug people you could play. I had a set of those rules. I had all but forgotten about boot hill!
I play Boot Hill, 2nd ed. My wife is a big fan of the game.
I use plastic cowboys and indians as minis, and run the game with or without a battlemat. String and rulers= joy!
Originally DnD was based off of J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, in the smallest manor legally able to get away with. J. R. R. Tolkien's book set what is the standard of fantasy. This has been both a blessing and a curse.I do completely understand the knee-jerk dislike of guns period, or in a fantasy-type setting, and I probably share it to a degree ... but the people pointing out that it's historically accurate have a point.It's a habituation thing, I'd say: it's left out of standard fantasy so often that then when it appears people can have the usual fearful reaction. Those who have read fantasy with guns in them are more exposed and so do not necessarily have that reaction.Again with 'standard fantasy.' What is that? I've never heard ot it. Can someone please define it for us?
As I've already pointed out, LotR does have gunpowder technology. So, since Lord of the Rings is ruled out, could you give a valid example of this supposed 'standard fantasy'? :)
If you read up on the creation of the game, you'll find that Tolkien was listed by Gygax as an influence- but so were Jack Vance, Robert E Howard, H P Lovecraft, etc. The memorization system comes from Vance's Dying Earth stories, and Gygax was explicit about that. D&D took hobbits and orcs from Middle Eatyh, there's no doubt about that. It borrowed some other things, too. It's a mish mash of medieval wargaming, pulp fantasy, Tolkien, some pulp sci fi, dinosaurs, kung fu movies, etc.
I don't mind guns so long as they are not mass produced by some kind of industry. At that point you start to have a break down in the logic of the world unless you really work the setting in some way.
In a world of spells and such a gun is not a trump card of any kind, just a good armor piercing ranged weapon which takes limited skill to use.
I actually find it hard to run certain kinds of scenarios without cannons and such. They serve as an alternative to any given town or ship needing a mage to have any hope of defending themselves. Guns, especially artillery are just a way for a community to fight back against super powerful individual threats of wizards and dragons etc...
When you get to be in your forties, and you've played for thirty years, and you've played just about every form of fantasy there is, and you've done space, and you've done modern, horror, Victorian Sci-Fi, and even Steampunk, you get to where stuff that adds flavor is a plus.
As my own distant cousins might say, "Guns iz good!"
Adds something new to the mix.
I don't mind guns so long as they are not mass produced by some kind of industry. At that point you start to have a break down in the logic of the world unless you really work the setting in some way.
In a world of spells and such a gun is not a trump card of any kind, just a good armor piercing ranged weapon which takes limited skill to use.
I actually find it hard to run certain kinds of scenarios without cannons and such. They serve as an alternative to any given town or ship needing a mage to have any hope of defending themselves. Guns, especially artillery are just a way for a community to fight back against super powerful individual threats of wizards and dragons etc...
Right, there's an easy fix for this. Just set the tech level at such a point that you don't have mass produced guns. That's the case for most of the early history of cannon and firearms, of course.
As the DM, you decide all this stuff.I'm thinking of making a homebrew setting with gunpowder tech somewhere along the lines of the Hundred Years War.
My experience with guns in campaigns has shown me they are far from game breaking and fun editions.
One of the first games in 3.0 I played in the DM decided to use Spelljammers and guns. We flew around in the ether to different glass sphere and in the end it was a collection of one use magic items, wands with a couple of charges left, and my halfling rogue's (who spent feats to use firearms) Use Magic Device skill that ruined the Mind Flayer's day.
I had a few campaign worlds where Dwarves and Gnomes had developed guns and there for it was availible, though rare, in the campaign settings. I had no problems running with players having them. As a side not I also had a game that had Dwarven culture that heavily was heavily influenced by samurai when I made it, even though it wasn't an "Oriental" setting.
Eberron handled firearms well and seemed natural additions. Of course you also had airships, lightning rails, Warforged, and magic effecting every element of life.
Then there was the Iron Kingdoms and all I have to say is Gun Mage.
All these games have been fun for me to play and run.
No disrespect to him if thats what you were thinking, the links were there to say there were guns in 1st edition, I was just showing what he actually said about it.
Personally I'm still wondering how you reconcile the guns that are explicitly in the Forgotten Realms with that being your preferred setting.
No disrespect to him if thats what you were thinking, the links were there to say there were guns in 1st edition, I was just showing what he actually said about it.Personally I'm still wondering how you reconcile the guns that are explicitly in the Forgotten Realms with that being your preferred setting.
This was exactly what I was wondering...
I mean I don't like to consider myself an expert on the realms but just from quickly breezing over the 3e campaign setting book it's already acknowledged that guns exist, as well as various machines and higher-end technology in general.The AD&D books only pushing this line further with mentions of tech that seems like it comes out of a sci-fi setting rather than a fantasy one.
But then again, what really separates sci-fi from fantasy in the first place?
And since now I'm just rambling I'll just hit submit before I go too far off topic.
No disrespect to him if thats what you were thinking, the links were there to say there were guns in 1st edition, I was just showing what he actually said about it.Personally I'm still wondering how you reconcile the guns that are explicitly in the Forgotten Realms with that being your preferred setting.
I would imagine that she does what any DM would do- just rewrites the setting or rules to suit her preferences.
It seems odd to me that she's dead-set against the idea of guns in the UC, but was presumably fine with buying FR stuff, even though guns are part of the canon for that setting.
Alright so you made me do a little research (15 minutes).
Forgotten Realms 3e Campaign Setting
Page 94 under Craft and Engineering, first sentence;
With a few exceptions, Faerun is a land WITHOUT heavy industry, steam power, or FIREARMS.
Page 97 under Mundane Weapons;
Firearms exist in Faerun, but use smokepowder instead of gunpowder...
Smokepowder is a magical alchemical substance, and therefore does not work in an antimagic field or dead magic area.
Come on now, quit guessing.
The Iron Kingdoms setting makes extensive use of guns. The powder they use can only be made if you took a Magic Item Creation Feat. AFAIK DnD settings with guns have always used Smokeless Powder, at least since Spelljammers. How does this not make them firearms by being magical powder rather then gun powder?
If people are worried about players going wild with gun powder, some times you have to remind the players that what they know isn't what their character knows. I know how to make things like Mustard Gas but I've never had a character use that knowledge.
Edit: Paizo might not have put in "Gun Powder = Magic" in their rules for the playtest but it could very well be in UC.
I was getting sick of seeing the ' Oh my god, he doesn't like guns in a campaign, how can FR be a perferred setting'. Go through the books and tell me where all the guns are at.(not you)
Sorry, I thought you were posting those to as a way of saying that FR didn't have guns. I have no problem with you not using guns in your game if you have no problem with me not using FR.
What are we arguing about now?
The internet.
On the other hand, the argument that D&D derives from LotR has an underlying problem for the anti-gun crowd.
What did Saruman use to breach the walls of Helm's Deep? Basically a ginormous Grenade 1.0.
Once you've got powder-based explosives, the step from there to guns is a matter of a generation, assuming you've got somebody clever and of the right mindset. All it boils down to is "pointing an explosion AT somebody."
If the ents hadn't trashed Isengard, you can bet there would have been orcs with matchlocks by the end of the War of the Ring.
-The Gneech
Guns actually have been in the game since I have been playing it, 2nd ed. Add in the fact that this is a completely different world, just using a similar game mechanics to the last, and I see no reason. There was no reason in 3.X a fighter couldn't focus on ranged gun combat, as there was rules for guns in the game.
I can't stand the thought of having guns with Sword and magic, I think it ruins the game. I know they are very early stages of guns but imagining someone not in heavy armor getting shot a few times and still fighting takes whatever realism there is in fantasy away. I know if I don't want to use it I don't have to, I just think something like this should stay out of one of the core books. Why not put out a book called 'Firearms' or something, the people that want it will buy it. I know I can't be alone, everyone in my group doesn't want anything to do with it. I hope they reconsider.
If you get hit by an old gun like they have presented its not going to do more damage than an arrow head by a trained bowsman, the only difference was that your average joe can pull a trigger. Though that doesnt mean they can reload it easily. I suppose if you want to get into lead poisoning you could work with that as an over time disease but yeah, bullets didn't have that much more power if not were weaker. Heck as they have the gun now I would allow clips as well so they could at least do a full round action and since dwarves are good at crafting, casings were invented to be pre-filled correctly. Just make them not mass produced and only available in certain areas.... like a monk SHOULD be.(bias against monk class)
I would rather argue that every bow user should be taking a -3 to ranged attacks until they got a feat at bab +8 considering how hard a good bowsman was to find and how many positive points bow has compared to the crossbow and gun cousins. (there's like 5-6 bow only feats? and maybe 1-2 for crossbow plus the bow can be composite and doesnt need reloading)
Hey though, I enjoy guns and I doubt that it will every be a problem in a campaign that I run or run in. Just don't look at the 4 pages it consumes and pretend they made 4 pages of houserules preventing inventors from trying anything new in the game world.
I wouldn't be having Gunslingers, Ninjas, or Samurai in any game I forsee myself running. I don't like em as they don't fit my campaign 'style'.
That being said, I could see myself one day running Pathfinder Steampunk, and the GS would fit nicely.
An Oriental Adventures game would also be great!
However I take the rock solid advice from Ghostbusters: "DONT CROSS THE STREAMS!"