| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hear a lot of people complaining that guns just don't belong in a fantasy setting, and frankly this has always annoyed me. So, I'd like to share my views on it, and hear some of your thoughts as well.
Be warned; this post will be neither structured nor focused. I'm writing this as I think about it, so it's not a structured essay.
A common argument I hear is that guns are "imbalancing." This is the idea that, somehow, being shot through the heart with a crossbow bolt and being shot through the head with a bullet somehow differ in ways aside from how much of a mess it's going to make. Regardless of your position, I think we can all agree that the end result is typically the same: death. A bullet graze really isn't that different from being grazed with an arrow, and a punctured organ is a punctured organ regardless of cause. Also, some people point out that it's imbalancing to have a weapon that anyone can just pick up and shoot someone with. To this, I answer that that is precisely why crossbows were popular weapons in real life and why they are covered under simple weapon proficiency in-game; anyone can pick a crossbow up and shoot someone with it. So, I fail to understand why anyone would call a gun imbalancing.
I find that, for naval vessels, catapults and ballistae fail to excite. They don't evoke the same "coolness" of a galleon bristling with cannons, and well, a catapult on a ship which relies on complex rigging is just begging for something to go horribly wrong and makes no sense whatsoever from an engineering standpoint. What this has to do with my main point is simple: Where there are cannons, there are small arms. I've heard the argument of "Well, they just never made guns strong enough to not explode when fired." To this, I must also call shenanigans, because the setting includes magic. It you can't make the metal strong enough, it will most certainly be strong enough once the wizard gets through with it. Also, adamantine.
At this point, some may concede and say that alright, flintlock weapons are allowed. My counter to this is that flintlocks cannot be used as a primary weapon. This is because flintlocks need to be reloaded after every shot. You might say that well, you can always carry multiple of them. My counter to that is to ask just how many attacks one makes in the average fight. With the amount of time it takes to reload a flintlock (down to a move action at best, even with rapid reload), you simply cannot put out enough damage per shot to justify not being an archer and using the Manyshot feat, especially since no matter what, a character armed with flintlocks can only make one attack per flintlock before needing to reload. A flintlock user will be out-damaged by an archer every time, as the archer gets their full amount of attacks per round, plus those granted by feats. As a backup weapon, they're barely justifiable due to the cost of ammunition and the fact that there's always the possibility of it exploding. A flintlock weapon is essentially a bad crossbow with a hand grenade taped to it.
I've put a lot of thought into this. You may have noticed.
My opinion (and I stress, this is my opinion, and I am not trying to force anything) is that, in a fantasy setting, certain old-west-style firearms fit in perfectly. First off, the single-action revolver. Six-shot, closed frame, single-action weapons like the 1861 Navy and the legendary Colt Single-Action Army. As each bullet has to be loaded individually and each spent shell ejected individually (revolvers with a swing-open cylinder are ridiculously advanced for a fantasy setting, but most people think ALL revolvers are swing-open), reloading the full six shots on such a revolver takes two move actions, each reloading three bullets. Rapid Reload would reduce this to one standard action. Second, on the matter of shotguns... Double-barrel break-actions mostly, but if you want to get fancy, something like the Winchester 1887 lever-action rifle would fit quite nicely; for a -4 to hit, you could wield it one-handed (this is the shotgun used by the T800 in Terminator 2). Now, I should make special mention of shotgun damage. The only place I've seen it done well is in SpyCraft. To represent a shotgun's close-range firepower, shotguns deal multiple dice in damage (in this system, a 12-gauge buckshot shell deads 5d4; the buckshot part is important because this is what we're assuming the ammunition used is), but the shotgun has a relatively short range increment, and loses one dice of damage per range increment. Another point is that, as anyone who has has actually used shotguns will tell you, the spread is actually much too narrow (on non-ridiculously sawed-off shotguns) to hit more than one target. This is something everyone gets wrong, save for the people over at Crafty Games who are actually very good about these sorts of details. The lever-action rifle should reload similarly to the revolver, I think. Moving on to rifles, I propose five-shot bolt-action weapons just as the well-known Mauser Kar98k. I chose bolt-action pretty much exclusively because I like the style of working the bolt. I think it's cool.
With this said, I am looking forward to the Ultimate Combat with mixed anticipation and dread. I was woefully underwhelmed by the gimmicky gunslinger class and the disappointing firearms rules (see "bad crossbow w/ hand grenade" comment above), but at the very least we'll have airships and vehicle combat rules.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that, for naval vessels, catapults and ballistae fail to excite. They don't evoke the same "coolness" of a galleon bristling with cannons...
This x 1000.
It actually really bugs me when people try to have 17th and 18th century style pirates (like Pirates of the Caribbean pirates) without gunpowder.
Because if you get rid of the gunpowder, you get rid of the cannons. And if you get rid of the cannons, you get rid of the galleons. Because what makes the galleon an effective ship of war is the fraking cannons!!! No cannons, no galleons! No galleons, NO PIRATES.
Oh sure, they're will still be pirates. But just not Pirates. I mean, a bunch of Somalians with RPGs (rocket propelled grenades, not role-playing games) on a boat that hijack your boat are technically pirates, but the people clamoring for a pirate based AP don't want Somalian pirates. They want Blackbeard, Anne Bonny and Mary Read, Calico Jack Rackham, Long John Silver, Captain Jack Sparrow, etc. And that requires galleons, and that requires guns.
But seriously, there's a reason no ship like a galleon existed before the cannon. Ship to ship weapons before the cannon sucked (seriously, it was ballista and rams. RAMS!), and it made far more sense to build ships with as low a profile as possible, and as much under the waterline as you can do, so that you're harder to see from a distance.
The high profile of the galleon is all about presenting a wall of cannons to anything off your sides. Its a design that just doesn't make sense if you're not carrying cannons.
...a bunch of Somalians with RPGs...
Aaaaaaaaand now I'm picturing a bunch of Somalian pirates, having found an unprotected tanker, are now rolling for initiative...
|
Just remember Nemo was both a Pirate and an Eco Warrior. So if anything it is quite possible for Druids to be Pirates with Steam Cannons (requiring heat metal to fire) and an Ironclad Submersible for raiding.
Steam Cannon(Range: 1 mile, Damage 20d6, Weight 5 Ton, Shot Weight: 1 Ton; Requires Druid with Heat Metal to fire).
Further, you can't invoke the realism argument to claim that given cannon you need to have handguns and then switch to a playability argument that the firearms contemporary to pirate cannon are too weak...
My point there was not that they are weak-powered, but that their reload requirements makes them unable to be used as a primary weapon, as is the entire point of the gunslinger class.
I don't care to have guns for a primary weapon in my fantasy games.
I respect that, and that's perfectly reasonable. Though, this is written from the standpoint of someone who is looking at the game with Gunslinger as a core class, who is pointed at the rules for said class and its companion weapons and saying, "I disagree with this, and here's why."
If you meant those as completely separate arguments, then fine. Both work separately. But they don't read that way. They read as a progression.
That's definitely my scew-up there, but I did warn that my arguments (I may as well use the word generously) were unstructured and unfocused.
You're a bit innaccurate on several counts. There were Ship to ship weapons that existed before gunpowder. Ballistae and "Greek Fire".
He did include ballistae in there, and to be fair Greek Fire was only ranged weapon in the sense that it had longer reach than a ram.
Though I could argue that while wizards could strengthen metal to make guns or use rare, costly metals like adamantine to do so, why would they?
Because they're being paid to. Also, it doesn't actually need to be a wizard; you just need someone with the master craftsman feat, who is likely going to be even less scrupulous about it because his effort isn't going to include re-organizing reality to suit his will.
If you're going to say no to this on a flavor basis. that's fine, and I can respect that. As I said a little further up, this was written as someone who is looking at Gunslinger and its accompanying rules as being used as core.
My opinion is this: guns and fantasy just don't mix. It is no longer fantasy to me. Fantasy is swords amd sorcery, the age old unending battle between good and evil, not cannons and catapults, and moral ambiguity. This is just my opinion and by no means indicative of anyone else.
I wasn't talking about scruples, but about scarce and/or expensive resources: mage time or exotic metals. Is there enough advantage to using those to make firearms over traditional magic weapons and armor? Or, in an RPG context, if all firearms are either adamantine or magical how does a low-level character buy one? You can handwave it like they did with the gunslinger, but it doesn't really follow.
Good point. I don't really have an answer to that one, and I admit it a noteworthy flaw in my argument.
My opinion is this: guns and fantasy just don't mix. It is no longer fantasy to me. Fantasy is swords amd sorcery, the age old unending battle between good and evil, not cannons and catapults, and moral ambiguity. This is just my opinion and by no means indicative of anyone else.
I respect that, and that's perfectly reasonable. Though, this is written from the standpoint of someone who is looking at the game with Gunslinger as a core class, who is pointed at the rules for said class and its companion weapons and saying, "I disagree with this, and here's why."
|
|
Ship to ship weapons before the cannon sucked (seriously, it was ballista and rams. RAMS!)You're a bit innaccurate on several counts. There were Ship to ship weapons that existed before gunpowder. Ballistae and "Greek Fire".
I didn't say there weren't ship to ship weapons, I said what ship to ship weapons there were sucked.
Also you can have gunpowder without guns.
I never said otherwise, so I don't get how this is an example of an inaccuracy.
Why put the effort into developing them when you have something that fills that niche: the caster.
Because you can't counterspell a cannonball.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though I could argue that while wizards could strengthen metal to make guns or use rare, costly metals like adamantine to do so, why would they?Because they're being paid to. Also, it doesn't actually need to be a wizard; you just need someone with the master craftsman feat, who is likely going to be even less scrupulous about it because his effort isn't going to include re-organizing reality to suit his will.
I don't really think that argument is plausible. Here's why:
While a wizard (or master craftsmen) could certainly make an pistol in this context, and could be motivated by a paying customer, there's still the problem of how did he come up with the design?
In order to get to the flintlock you have to pass through a long chain of developments in weapon technology. Before you can have the flint hammer of the flintlock, you have to have the matchlock's lever trigger. Before you can have the matchlock's trigger, you have to have the hand-held fuse (or punk). Each of these developments was necessitated by previous developments.
Anyways, it wasn't until you had a lot of these developments that the pistol became a worthwhile weapon for the lone fighter. It wasn't until the flintlock that you had a pistol you could carry as a sidearm in case of ambush - everything that came before the matchlock (and including the matchlock) had to be prepared for battle. You charged into battle with your match already lit, and you got to fire that pistol once in the fight. And you had to be within 15 feet of the guy you were shooting to have a better than break even chance of hitting him.
But long before gunsmiths were sophisticated enough to produce pistols, they were producing cannones. And cannones make pistols look terrifyingly accurate. A cannone is just about useless except in one very specific context: when you can field 200 of them, each carried by a minimally trained soldier, and capable of delivering a massive, super powerful volley of shot. The sheer destructive power of massed cannone fire made guns an instant hit on the battlefield, and pushed the development of gun technology, both upwards (towards canons and field artillery) and downwards (towards muskets, rifles, pistols, etc.).
Which is where the whole "A wizard did it" problem hits a snag. A wizard using magic to build you a weapon is going to want a lot of gold. Realistically, its going to be at least a thousand gold (the minimum cost of magic weapons) per gun.
No king is ever going to discover the glory of massed cannone fire if he has to hire a wizard and pay him the wages of a thousand peasants for a year to equip one soldier with a unknown and untested weapon. Cannones were given a chance mostly because they were so much cheaper than the (at the time) far more accurate crossbow. Cannones could be cast in molds and churned out by the hundreds by relatively unskilled workers in a foundry, while crossbows require much more intricate and sophisticated craftsmanship.
So I don't think a wizard could make a flintlock because I don't think he could just imagine a flintlock without going through the whole development history of the firearm, and I don't think that development would attract funding when a lone cannone is a pretty useless weapon. I think wizards would just give up on the potential of firearms long before reaching that point, especially when they could instead focus on developing the already existing body of magical weapon lore.
In other words, why would you develop firearms to the point of the wheellock when its a much shorter route (and far cheaper) to develop +1 explosive crossbow bolts or +1 acidic arrows?
|
|
Why put the effort into developing them when you have something that fills that niche: the caster.
Because wizards are smart. Much smarter than the average guy. Possibly smarter than you. And smart people have agendas. They have plans. Plans they may not share with you.
Say you're the King. You've got some levels in Expert and Fighter. Who do you want to trust all of your military power to?
Do you want to trust it to the wizard, who wants to use your tax collections to fund all kinds of weird schemes to identify those amongst your subjects with magical potential, training them in the dark arts (which you don't understand?), and making an army of them? An army of smart guys with powers you can't fully comprehend?
Or how about this: How about we develop a technology that allows some dumb but strong peasant (who is easily manipulated into steadfast loyalty with some gold coin and the privilege to bully commoners) to stand toe to toe with a wizard and fight him on equal terms. And those soldiers will be under your command, through a network of generals and lieutenants who see the world in the same terms you do, people you can identify with. Maybe not the smartest guys in the room, but guys you can trust. Does that sound like a better plan?
Some kings decide to trust the wizards. This is how magocracies are born. Because one day the wizard goes "Oh hey, you know how the backbone of your army is wizards? Wait, did I say your army? I meant my army of loyal apprentices. Suck it, fighty-boy!"
On the other hand, as Rj points out: you can't counterspell a cannonball. In that case it becomes "Yeah, wizard? I see your fireball and raise you a grapeshot. Army of apprentices? More like army of fine red mist!"
And second, ranged ship to ship battles are boring to play out. Broadsides of cannon don't really give a lot for the party to do. Maybe the casters and/or range specialists. Grappling hooks and boarding parties on the other hand! Now everyone gets to play a part.
I agree completely. I was just saying it annoys the heck out of me when I see galleons and pirates presented in D&D when there is no gunpowder and cannons. The D&D Gaz series did it really noticeably with the Minrothad Guilds book, but there are plenty of examples. These ships, usually seen at a distance in profile or silhouette, that are clearly massive galleons of war with multiple levels of gun decks...and no freaking guns!
When I've run ship to ship battles in D&D - which happened a lot in my Freeport campaign (which does feature gunpowder) - I always started the battles with the boarding action, because everything up to that point is boring and better to just describe. You just declare the results of the cannon battle according to the needs of the story and skip to the fun part - fighting in the rigging!
Gailbraithe, I like you. You point out the flaws in EVERYONE'S arguments.
This is one of the things (the few things) I really like about GURPS. When you start the game, as GM, you set the technology level of your world. Everything past that tech. level becomes exotic and hard or impossible to come by. Things from a lower tech. level become cheaper for characters to acquire. Now if only the GURPS combat system wasn't terrible...
|
I respect that, and that's perfectly reasonable. Though, this is written from the standpoint of someone who is looking at the game with Gunslinger as a core class, who is pointed at the rules for said class and its companion weapons and saying, "I disagree with this, and here's why."
Most people will not use the gunslinger in their games. Just because something is there, does not mean it should be used.
In my campaign we have been using firearms for awhile. W have some simple rules and go with it. We thought of trying to explain it but it would be like trying to explain magic in detail; yuck! It has been a lot of fun and we made our world into a three musketeer world with swashbucklers the norm and not heavily armor people. I look forward to the gunslinger in our campaign. I do have to say our group is about fun, casual gaming, its about the journey and not the individual steps, but I know how we play would bother other players. Found that out dming in afghanistan.
I respect that, and that's perfectly reasonable. Though, this is written from the standpoint of someone who is looking at the game with Gunslinger as a core class, who is pointed at the rules for said class and its companion weapons and saying, "I disagree with this, and here's why."Most people will not use the gunslinger in their games. Just because something is there, does not mean it should be used.
Ultimate Magic, I think, has an oracle mystery for Time. Future tech? Yes please. I'll just have the time oracle reach into the space-time continuum and pull that out.
How many people heard about this Interplanetary Teleport and immediately thought of science fiction? The very word "planet" carries a more scientific connotation than "world" even though in-game, characters will refer to various planes of existence and the stars and cosmos and the dark things that lurk beyond... None of that is off-limits, though.
I find it hypocritical for people to say that guns don't belong in a fantasy game because of the science that has to occur for them to come into play. Where the freak do you think MAGIC and ALCHEMY came from? Do you allow alchemists fire? It takes an alchemist to make those, and they have to perform a series of reactions with various reagents to create those things. You could say "Well, wizards just make it." but... really?
If I want dwarves to discover electricity by accident with lodestone and copper coils, then it makes just as much sense for guns to evolve from a different process than what they did in the real world. The logic that says without flintlocks and fuses (or whatever the technical lingo is) that you can't have hammers or percussion caps is a fallacy because that is the only series of events leading up to modern fire arms that we can imagine. If it had been done another way we'd think THAT was the only way.
I'm not a genius, and I can't tell you HOW it's possible, I'm just saying that it is. I'm excited for the gunslinger, and I am especially excited for shipboard combat rules (PIRATES!), assuming there are any in Ult. Combat.
Where do campaigns based on the 3 musketeers fall? I always considered it fantasy, but based on the comments here, it seems not too many people think along the same lines. Are there any steam punk campaigns out there?
|
|
The logic that says without flintlocks and fuses (or whatever the technical lingo is) that you can't have hammers or percussion caps is a fallacy because that is the only series of events leading up to modern fire arms that we can imagine. If it had been done another way we'd think THAT was the only way.
Unless you've got some evidence that it could have happened another way, then you can't really claim the argument is a "fallacy."
More importantly, even if you assume multiple different evolutionary tracks are possible for any advanced technology, you can't find any examples in the real world of complex technology that doesn't have a history of antecedent technology.
A wizard could in theory use magic to create a modern automobile. But it's not plausible to suggest that a wizard could invent a modern car that functions exactly as real modern cars do, with all of the trimmings of a modern car, by extrapolating from knowledge of the wheel or cart.
Flintlocks are very advanced guns. Not as advanced as a modern sig sauer or M-16 rifle, for sure, but a huge advancement over the first guns. And it's just not plausible to suggest that a wizard could invent the first gun and have that gun be the flintlock. That would require the wizard know all of the design problems that the flintlock solves without having ever experienced them. And if the wizard can do that, why would he only invent a flintlock? If he can make quantum leaps forward in design, then why not just start with a man-portable microlaser pistol? Or at least a Colt .45?
Of course, this whole argument is just a tangent, since the "A wizard did it!" is just a rebuttal of the "guns don't work because physics are different in some inexplicable way that only prevent guns from working" argument, which is itself just a massive handwave to deny the possibility of guns.
You want flintlocks in your game, then just say centuries ago someone developed the cannone and now, years later, we have the wonder of the flintlock. Some day someone will invent the cartridge and we'll have bullets, and then melee weapons will be made useless, but right now at this point in the campaign setting's tech development, people still use pistols as a secondary weapon and rely on melee weapons as their primary defense.
You don't want flintlocks? Then nobody ever invented the cannone. It's easy enough.
I don't have a problem with firearms in fantasy settings. I have a problem with firearms being a mainstay weapon in fantasy settings.
Even in the 1700s, a trained archer was much, much better than a musketeer. Even in pirate movies, pistols are used in an opening barrage, then they switch to swords.
If you want firearms, cool, no problem. If you want to have a muzzle loading musket you can shoot 3 times in 6 seconds, problem.
I have firearms house rules that reflect that firearms are more of a opening strike weapon that people use before switching to a different weapon.
|
Ship to ship weapons before the cannon sucked (seriously, it was ballista and rams. RAMS!)You're a bit innaccurate on several counts. There were Ship to ship weapons that existed before gunpowder. Ballistae and "Greek Fire".I didn't say there weren't ship to ship weapons, I said what ship to ship weapons there were sucked.
Also you can have gunpowder without guns.I never said otherwise, so I don't get how this is an example of an inaccuracy.
Historically it can hardly be said that Greek fire "sucked". I know it is just your opinion but the Greek fire flamethrowers ofbthe Byzanines allowed them to hold various Islamic navies at bay for 700+ years and dominate the eastern Mediterranean. An amazingly advanced weapon system that allowed them to literally set the sea on fire. Probably the closest thing to real magic the ancient/medieval world actually had!
Don't forget, if your playing in the Golorion sandbox, there's an entire magic dead country that has NO wizards, and they are the creators of guns and that kind of technology. Makes guns rare, but not non-existant and explains why they developed parallell to the real world. When you don't have magic, your forced to rely on ingenuity.
Unless you've got some evidence that it could have happened another way, then you can't really claim the argument is a "fallacy."
More importantly, even if you assume multiple different evolutionary tracks are possible for any advanced technology, you can't find any examples in the real world of complex technology that doesn't have a history of antecedent technology.
A wizard could in theory use magic to create a modern automobile. But it's not plausible to suggest that a wizard could invent a modern car that functions exactly as real modern cars do, with all of the trimmings of a modern car, by extrapolating from knowledge of the wheel or cart.
Flintlocks are very advanced guns. Not as advanced as a modern sig sauer or M-16 rifle, for sure, but a huge advancement over the first guns. And it's just not plausible to suggest that a wizard could invent the first gun and have that gun be the flintlock. That would require the wizard know all of the design problems that the flintlock solves without having ever experienced them. And if the wizard can do that, why would he only invent a flintlock? If he can make quantum leaps forward in design, then why not just start with a man-portable microlaser pistol? Or at least a Colt .45?
Of course, this whole argument is just a tangent, since the "A wizard did it!" is just a rebuttal of the "guns don't work because physics are different in some inexplicable way that only prevent guns from working" argument, which is itself just a massive handwave to deny the possibility of guns.
EDIT: I use the term "you" to loosely refer to anyone reading this, despite the implications of replying to the quote above.
No, I can't prove that it could be done otherwise, but you can't disprove that it couldn't either, and that was my point. We can't know what other things could have been done to affect the development of those inventions. Saying that you are absolutely certain that guns could not have developed any other way is pretentious, because we CAN'T know.
Does a gun have to be operated through gunpowder? Do they have to fire cartridges or even balls of lead? Forget the whole "A wizard did it!" excuse, how about just some guy who happened to decide that, if you can propel a stick with a sharp end really fast with a string pulled tight on some wooden planks, what could you do with an arrow propelled by something explosive? Alchemists have BOMBS. Shrapnel could have been the inspiration for a bullet (or shotgun shell). "What if I could GUIDE those bits of metal to hit a target by using a metal tube?"
I do not find these to be "leaps of logic" beyond reason, especially for a fantasy setting. They don't even have to be entirely realistic. You're waving your hands around and saying gibberish, expecting your enemies to be incinerated, but this tinkerer can't decide that a small chunk of metal propelled at high velocity might do some damage?
I'm not trying to convince everyone to accept guns in their fantasy game. That's your game, do whatever. I'm just telling those of you that don't like them and don't want them in the game that it's not unreasonable at all, and you shouldn't be trying to convince other people that it is unreasonable and badwrongfun.
The campaign setting has been out longer than the PF Core Rulebook, by my understanding, and firearms have been part of Golarion since then, so if you are worried about them creeping into PFS, get over it. They've been here longer than you probably care to remember, and some of us want them.
I don't have a problem with firearms in fantasy settings. I have a problem with firearms being a mainstay weapon in fantasy settings.
Even in the 1700s, a trained archer was much, much better than a musketeer. Even in pirate movies, pistols are used in an opening barrage, then they switch to swords.
If you want firearms, cool, no problem. If you want to have a muzzle loading musket you can shoot 3 times in 6 seconds, problem.
I have firearms house rules that reflect that firearms are more of a opening strike weapon that people use before switching to a different weapon.
This is pretty much how I feel. Firearms, for a long period of their history, were used as a 'first strike' weapon if the combatants expected to be in hand to hand quickly. With riles (and rifling of barrels) firearms gained greater range and accuracy (I was shocked to discover just how inaccurate smoothbore weapons really were - makes you wonder why anyone would use them beyond 20 feet or so). In fantasy campaigns that have had firearms (Warhammer FRP 1E mostly) the players would fire any guns they had in the first or second round (some lucky players actually own 2 guns!) then close for melee. Reload times were about 1 barrel/bullet a minute (some firearms in WFRP had multiple barrels). Not too fast but combat round were, iirc, 15 seconds each (4 rounds/minute) so even the simplest pistol would be going off once every 5 rounds.
In 4E D&D I would consider firearms an 'Encounter' power - use once an encounter - short rest to reload/clean. I certainly give them a nice damage marker though (say 3d12+Dex with high crit or brutal 1).
|
|
No, I can't prove that it could be done otherwise, but you can't disprove that it couldn't either, and that was my point. We can't know what other things could have been done to affect the development of those inventions. Saying that you are absolutely certain that guns could not have developed any other way is pretentious, because we CAN'T know.
We can be reasonably certain though.
Does a gun have to be operated through gunpowder? Do they have to fire cartridges or even balls of lead?
A flintlock is a gun that uses gunpowder and fires balls of lead, so discussing the creation of a flintlock implies the use of gunpowder and lead bullets (but not cartridges, which are a later invention). It also implies the development of the firing pan, the trigger, and the manually cocked hammer and flint striker. Those are all elements of a gun that would define a gun as a flintlock. Without those it's not a flintlock.
A "gun" is a much more broad term, and there are all kinds of theoretical lines of development to something that could be called a "gun." But to create a flintlock, you would pretty much need to follow the same line of development.
Forget the whole "A wizard did it!" excuse, how about just some guy who happened to decide that, if you can propel a stick with a sharp end really fast with a string pulled tight on some wooden planks, what could you do with an arrow propelled by something explosive? Alchemists have BOMBS. Shrapnel could have been the inspiration for a bullet (or shotgun shell). "What if I could GUIDE those bits of metal to hit a target by using a metal tube?"
And...? I don't see what your point is.
I do not find these to be "leaps of logic" beyond reason, especially for a fantasy setting. They don't even have to be entirely realistic. You're waving your hands around and saying gibberish, expecting your enemies to be incinerated, but this tinkerer can't decide that a small chunk of metal propelled at high velocity might do some damage?
That's not what I said. Of course a tinkerer can do that, but that's not going to be a flintlock pistol. Or at least the chances are improbably high that the tinkerer is going to recognize the need for a triggering mechanism more complex that a spark hole until after he's done significant experimentation with a spark hoke.
What you're describing is someone inventing gun, but not a flintlock. It's not a leap of logic to suggest that are many ways that someone might have invented the gun -- we don't know who specifically invented the first guns, just the general time period and part of the world they were invented in, so we have to leave the circumstances of its invention to our imagination.
But that's different than saying someone made the leap from thinking about explosive driven projectiles and metal tubes to inventing a flintlock. It took real human beings from several continent hundreds of years to go from the discovery of gunpowder to the development of the flintlock.
To have one individual recapitulate that entire history of development by themselves is discussing a superhuman act. That's strictly Reed Richards, Super Scientist territory. So not plausible without a fantastic explanation.
I'm not trying to convince everyone to accept guns in their fantasy game. That's your game, do whatever. I'm just telling those of you that don't like them and don't want them in the game that it's not unreasonable at all, and you shouldn't be trying to convince other people that it is unreasonable and badwrongfun.
I don't think anyone is doing that. I'm certainly not doing that! I'm all for flintlocks. Just because I don't think its plausible to suggest that a tinkerer or wizard who lived in a world without guns would sit down and invent the flintlock in one go doesn't mean I'm against guns in PFRPG in any sense.
The campaign setting has been out longer than the PF Core Rulebook, by my understanding, and firearms have been part of Golarion since then, so if you are worried about them creeping into PFS, get over it. They've been here longer than you probably care to remember, and some of us want them.
Seriously man, who is it you're talking to? Because addressing this comment to me is really weird.
You "can be reasonably certain" about something that took place hundreds of years ago, a little bit at a time? I don't think you can, but in the spirit of good-natured debate, I won't dwell on this point because I think that my opinion on it is strong enough to turn this discussion very sour.
I never used the term "flintlock" specifically because I don't know anything about them. I don't have to know for a fantasy game, because I can tell my players that to fire a gun they have to cram a rare specie of mushroom into the back of the barrel (boomshrooms, something from 3.5 might work here). I said "gun" because I don't think it's important how you flavor it. My whole rant about alternative discoveries was aimed in that direction. I feel that your decision to focus directly on THAT point makes for a very weak counter. I don't give one whit about flintlocks. I believe it's been noted in this thread that it's unrealistic to the point of silliness to think to use one as a primary weapon on par with a longbow.
And I would like to know how my example of the alchemist is a superhuman feat of engineering. Are you saying that it would take a superhuman genius to be inspired to guide bomb shrapnel down a tube? I'd say that the guy who made the bomb already did most of the thinking, the guy who put the tube in just innovated by using lateral thinking. Hardly superhuman.
I continue rereading your last post as I type so that I don't forget to respond to any counter-points you might have made, but they all bring up flintlocks. [shrug] I don't care about flintlocks. I don't think guns are worth using without having more than a one round capacity. Personally, I like revolvers. Anachronistic? Maybe, but so are heat rays. There's at least one example in history though of an army trying to use solar mirrors to set fire to a city from the sea. Shame I can't remember the name to direct you...
Also, I added an edit to my last post addressing the fact that DESPITE quoting your post, I wasn't addressing you personally throughout my reply, because my rant carried on beyond that. Especially the last comment. The first of your posts I simply used as a springboard for mine. I apologize if it sounded hostile.
|
I believe it's been noted in this thread that it's unrealistic to the point of silliness to think to use one as a primary weapon on par with a longbow.
You do know that it was the matchlock (an even earlier firearm than the flintlock) that replaced the bow because it was deemed a superior weapon right?
And yes, it was used as a primary weapon...
as a side note I am curious if other ranged weapons are scrutinized to the level of detail guns get for other weapons? such as bows, crossbows, swords and everything else.
To those who have guns as unfantasy as a arguement thats fine from a flavor context however gunpowder can easily be seen in the lord of the rings (no guns however but how long till sauruman would have them if he hadn't been beaten). Fantasy is in how things are portryed if you make guns more lethal than standard weapons it can kill the feel but if guns are simply more effective in X situation whereas the crossbow/bow is better in Y then i see no reason why it should kill your fantasy.
|
|
You "can be reasonably certain" about something that took place hundreds of years ago, a little bit at a time?
Yeah...the history of the development of firearms is pretty well documented.
I never used the term "flintlock" specifically because I don't know anything about them. I don't have to know for a fantasy game, because I can tell my players that to fire a gun they have to cram a rare specie of mushroom into the back of the barrel (boomshrooms, something from 3.5 might work here). I said "gun" because I don't think it's important how you flavor it.
Then you responded in a really hostile and aggressive manner to an argument you clearly didn't understand. I was talking about flintlocks, because flintlocks are 1) the gun most associated with pirates and 2) flintlocks are one of the two types of guns being introduced in Ultimate Combat.
My whole rant about alternative discoveries was aimed in that direction. I feel that your decision to focus directly on THAT point makes for a very weak counter. I don't give one whit about flintlocks.
Yeah, I get it. You ranted at me about something I don't disagree with you on and that had nothing to do with the argument you were responding to, and apparently you expected me to understand that when you were calling me wrong you weren't actually saying the argument I was making (which you care nothing about) was wrong, but that some other argument that nobody made is wrong.
Which is great, but next time you unload randomly on someone, pick someone who isn't me. KTHNX.
And I would like to know how my example of the alchemist is a superhuman feat of engineering. Are you saying that it would take a superhuman genius to be inspired to guide bomb shrapnel down a tube?
Oh, I get it. You don't read very well. I said nothing of the sort.
I said it would be a superhuman feat to invent a flintlock having never even heard of a gun. A bombard, which is what you are describing, is one of the first types of firearms invented. That's not the same thing. Let's see if you can understand this:
There's a tinkerer in 1870. There are no cars. One day he sees a steam engine at a factory driving a wheel which turns a belt. He's think about this steam engine as he rides his horse-drawn carriage home. He thinks "What if I used a steam engine to power a carriage?"
That guy might very well go home and invent something very much like the La Mancelle, one of the first steam powered cars.
If he went home and invented a barracuda, then that would seem a bit surprising. That would seem positively superhuman.
Do you see the difference? That's the argument I was making, that a wizard, inventor, whatever isn't going to start from zero (no cars) and immediately invent a Ferrari.
I continue rereading your last post as I type so that I don't forget to respond to any counter-points you might have made, but they all bring up flintlocks.
Yeah, that because if you had bother to pay any attention, you would have noticed the whole conversation was about flintlocks.
[shrug] I don't care about flintlocks. I don't think guns are worth using without having more than a one round capacity. Personally, I like revolvers. Anachronistic? Maybe, but so are heat rays. There's at least one example in history though of an army trying to use solar mirrors to set fire to a city from the sea. Shame I can't remember the name to direct you...
You're thinking of Archimedes Burning Mirror. And you've got it backwards. The city used mirrors to set fire to an invading navy.
I had a really long reply written up, but after reading it, I realized that you are really not worth trying to converse with. What's worse is that you'll see this post as a cop-out, or a sign of intellectual weakness. I will concede that you know more about the history of guns than I ever will, because I don't care and I never did care about flintlocks or the historical evolution of firearms. Such has been my point all along, but whatever.
You want to flaunt your superiority over people on an internet forum and feel pretentious enough to think that someone would single you out to attack for no reason (which I didn't do, and I am sorry if you saw that as such).
Have your thread back. I'm going to go plan out uses for the gunslinger and epic-awesome firearms in my game.
Ooh, and ancient laser weapon mirrors. Those are gonna be fun, because they can work in a fantasy world.
There is a thin line between 'fantasy' and 'science fiction'. this border can be easily breeched and the primary difference is the exact wording used.
I believe it's been noted in this thread that it's unrealistic to the point of silliness to think to use one as a primary weapon on par with a longbow.You do know that it was the matchlock (an even earlier firearm than the flintlock) that replaced the bow because it was deemed a superior weapon right?
And yes, it was used as a primary weapon...
To be fair, you're talking about something used as a primary weapon in massed combats. In a skirmish (like Pathfinder combat), it would be pretty impractical to use a matchlock without expecting to have to resort to another weapon after having fired. That other weapon could of course be a bayonet.
as a side note I am curious if other ranged weapons are scrutinized to the level of detail guns get for other weapons? such as bows, crossbows, swords and everything else.
Well, crossbows and katana seem to draw a lot of discussion, at least... :P
|
|
There is a thin line between 'fantasy' and 'science fiction'. this border can be easily breeched and the primary difference is the exact wording used.
As an example, L.E. Modesitt's "Corean Chronicles" and "Saga of Recluse". His writing is why I'm perfectly fine with guns in my fantasy, and why I don't mind sci-fi and fantasy being lumped together. 'Science fantasy' if you will.
There is a thin line between 'fantasy' and 'science fiction'. this border can be easily breeched and the primary difference is the exact wording used.As an example, L.E. Modesitt's "Corean Chronicles" and "Saga of Recluse". His writing is why I'm perfectly fine with guns in my fantasy, and why I don't mind sci-fi and fantasy being lumped together. 'Science fantasy' if you will.
I have to agree pretty hard, here. I saw no use for the fine line between science fiction and fantasy, so I've done away with it.
Wonder how all the sci-fi is to fantasy is as oil is to water people feel about Numeria if they use Golarion.