Despite the fact that nothing requires you to have cannons in a world with guns.
Cannons existed before handheld firearms iirc.
hmm Actually now that I think about it, banning gunslingers because you've decided there isn't enough bat guano in the world to support a few dozen guys with guns is like banning Ninja because you decided there aren't enough Gi suppliers in your world.
I think it was, no supplier has barrel-loads of the stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hmm Actually now that I think about it, banning gunslingers because you've decided there isn't enough bat guano in the world to support a few dozen guys with guns is like banning Ninja because you decided there aren't enough Gi suppliers in your world.
You are assuming his world has bats to begin with.
|
Sounds to me like the real answer behind this is the fact that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want nothing banned and they want the option of just re-skinning their character to go with the class that has the best mechanics.
If you want to play a ninja in my game and I don't allow ninja's then you play a rogue. I don't care if you want the ninja's mechanics, you either abide by my restrictions or you don't play the game.
DM's have just as much right to ban things in their games as a player has of playing a specific class.
One reason I could see for banning something for reasons of flavor would be if you are setting up a campaign that is centered around a race or class based war, and most of your players are creating characters who would fit better on the opposite side from the one you had the campaign oriented for. But you should make such special circumstances clear from the beginning, for the benefit of players who actually want to play characters who fit well into your campaign.
|
One reason I could see for banning something for reasons of flavor would be if you are setting up a campaign that is centered around a race or class based war, and most of your players are creating characters who would fit better on the opposite side from the one you had the campaign oriented for.
I think that such a situation should call for the campaign plan being flipped so that the party is working for the other side instead of the one originally planned for. It would be pretty easy to handle since you could run the same encounters, with the PCs accomplishing the opposite goals instead.
Cannons existed before handheld firearms iirc.
Despite the fact that nothing requires you to have cannons in a world with guns.
In the real world.
A fantasy world does not have to follow the real world.
Well yes and no.
Verisimilitude still needs to be maintained slightly at the least. Whether you start with a cannon and scale down or start with a gun and scale up the results are the same.
You could act as if the gun is some sort of novelty weapon. But this would make the gun pretty damn rare and it's likely true that he won't be finding the necessary materials or even the time to be constantly crafting bullets and different firearms. So it won't be fun for that player and in a way he becomes dead weight for the other characters who are dragging a guy along who is never as well armed and can use his abilities very sparingly.
You see the problem to me is that the game would suddenly no longer be about the characters or whatever plot I know they're going to ignore. It starts becomign about the guns. Where do we get the amterials, where do we find the time, how do we stop the mercenaries from copying them, the assassins from killing us for them, and the thieves from stealing our secrets?
This might be fun for the gunslinger but probably not as fun for the GM who spent the time writing a campaign only to have it overtaken not by a character but a complex piece of wood metal and bat poo. Nor may it be fun for the other players who wrote their characters to stick to the GM's theme only to have it upturned by the GM's compromise of concept.
In this case it veers away from wraithstrike's original question as it's not about concept or the reskinning of a concept but introducing a potentially table flipping element into the game through the mechanics.
So banning Spotlight-Stealing?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could act as if the gun is some sort of novelty weapon. But this would make the gun pretty damn rare and it's likely true that he won't be finding the necessary materials or even the time to be constantly crafting bullets and different firearms. So it won't be fun for that player and in a way he becomes dead weight for the other characters who are dragging a guy along who is never as well armed and can use his abilities very sparingly.
Or you could just handwave it and let him spend gold offscreen to replenish his ammo.
Cannons, fireworks, and rockets are simple. Any kind of gun is a lot more complicated, and if you're getting into fancy handguns it's much worse. It makes no sense for the world to have guns without cannons.
'In this world this guy made a gun, but there are no cannons.'
Bam, that simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is, you can't just add one gunslinger into a campaign world that doesn't have guns without either causing that player huge headaches, or changing the campaign world dramatically. If they can buy guns and ammo and stuff on a regular basis and find magical guns in treasure chests and all that, and that logically means that guns are now suddenly very common in your world. If you don't, then you're giving the player a huge headache in being able to play his character in any kind of practical way.
If you just don't want guns in your campaign just say it and don't have them. Don't go nitpicking for some superficial technical reason. Unless you plan to carry that for all your classes.
Sure you can. The greeks were perfectly capable of making steam powered toys, and did on a regular basis in their temples and theaters. Doesn't mean that trains and an industrial revolution followed. Just because something exists as an amusing side project in someone's lab doesn't mean that the whole of society is going to automatically adopt it. Prevailing political, economic, and social forces would all have to align perfectly for the new technology to get the level of acceptance that would change the world. Even in the real world, gunpowder and primitive firearms existed well before they were particularly effective enough to be widespread. In this particular scenario, the character happens to be able to find others interested in similar hobbies that can provide the materials and training required to sustain his own. It's still not as easy as other weapons would be, but it's not nearly as difficult as you say it would have to be to keep guns limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds to me like the real answer behind this is the fact that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want nothing banned and they want the option of just re-skinning their character to go with the class that has the best mechanics.
If you want to play a ninja in my game and I don't allow ninja's then you play a rogue. I don't care if you want the ninja's mechanics, you either abide by my restrictions or you don't play the game.
DM's have just as much right to ban things in their games as a player has of playing a specific class.
And I would be more than happy to leave such a game. I really don't feel like dealing with an antagonistic and uncompromising DM in what is supposed to be a fun game.
|
So to be fair. The basic opinion is it should/shouldn't be allowed because, as GM/Player feels entitled to it. When it should be will my players and I be able to have a good time as a group if x class is aloud? (Even if said class probably not be in the campaign, perhaps there the first of there kind revolutionizing and adding new adventurers to the roster and the need for supplies why not make a group quest out of it?)
A fantasy would should have some kind of internal logic.
Cannons, fireworks, and rockets are simple. Any kind of gun is a lot more complicated, and if you're getting into fancy handguns it's much worse. It makes no sense for the world to have guns without cannons.
AM MAKE NO SENSE ME BREAK SQUARE-CUBE LAW.
The point is, you can't just add one gunslinger into a campaign world that doesn't have guns without either causing that player huge headaches, or changing the campaign world dramatically. If they can buy guns and ammo and stuff on a regular basis and find magical guns in treasure chests and all that, and that logically means that guns are now suddenly very common in your world. If you don't, then you're giving the player a huge headache in being able to play his character in any kind of practical way.Sure you can. The greeks were perfectly capable of making steam powered toys, and did on a regular basis in their temples and theaters. Doesn't mean that trains and an industrial revolution followed. Just because something exists as an amusing side project in someone's lab doesn't mean that the whole of society is going to automatically adopt it. Prevailing political, economic, and social forces would all have to align perfectly for the new technology to get the level of acceptance that would change the world. Even in the real world, gunpowder and primitive firearms existed well before they were particularly effective enough to be widespread. In this particular scenario, the character happens to be able to find others interested in similar hobbies that can provide the materials and training required to sustain his own. It's still not as easy as other weapons would be, but it's not nearly as difficult as you say it would have to be to keep guns limited.
By that train of thoughts, his/her guns should be so unreliable nobody want them, including him/her, or reliable enough that warmongers will want them to get an advantage against their enemies... hell, guns reputation could be overexagerated to the point people want them more than they should.
|
And I would be more than happy to leave such a game. I really don't feel like dealing with an antagonistic and uncompromising DM in what is supposed to be a fun game.Sounds to me like the real answer behind this is the fact that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want nothing banned and they want the option of just re-skinning their character to go with the class that has the best mechanics.
If you want to play a ninja in my game and I don't allow ninja's then you play a rogue. I don't care if you want the ninja's mechanics, you either abide by my restrictions or you don't play the game.
DM's have just as much right to ban things in their games as a player has of playing a specific class.
And i would jump to take your place if this guy is busting his hump to make a fleshed out world and good story. Just because you cannot have one thing does not make him antagonistic nor uncompromising, just that this time you don't get your way on one detail.
|
|
Ah so in your world you sat down and figured out exactly how much of this material component was around, then by happen stance it was to little for firearms to work? Of course not, the only reason there isn't 'enough' is because you have up and decided there isn't enough.This isn't an issue of "A few guns can't fit in this world." this is an issue of "I don't want guns in this world." two very different things.
No, it's not. The issue is that I understand that you really can't have fancy old west handguns in a world without an entire industrial base to support them, and conversely you can't have guns that advanced in a world without them fundamentally changing the way wars are fought. Both of those points should be fairly obvious if you have any understanding of the history of warfare. I guess you could fudge your way around it with "a wizard did it" type of explanations, but not without a lot of twisting your neck.
It's not that "I don't want guns in this world", it's just that I want a world to make sense, not to have giant plot holes you could drive a truck through.
Read Guardians of the Flame. Farther into the series this happens.
...and generally be a prick toward the DM's NPCs simply because they can.Oh, the fun to be had when they piss off the wrong NPC...Yet more reasons for players to be respectful.
p.s.-As a player, I have made this mistake. My Duskblade still hasn't recovered from what happened in that jail cell after the cops nearly beat him half to death for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer...
In my PbP I just happened to have the party "bump into" a woman known as the Dragon General of Olympia (that being the kingdom the story's set in). And described in pretty exact detail how she's a war hero, what they know of her combat skill on the battlefield, and of her more unusual abilities and nature that have made her near-legendary. I don't suspect to have trouble with this party crossing the crown, but should they I've given them ample warning as to what kind of hell they'd be bringing down on themselves.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds to me like the real answer behind this is the fact that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want nothing banned and they want the option of just re-skinning their character to go with the class that has the best mechanics.
And some of us are wondering why this is considered a "bad thing".
And i would jump to take your place if this guy is busting his hump to make a fleshed out world and good story. Just because you cannot have one thing does not make him antagonistic nor uncompromising, just that this time you don't get your way on one detail.And I would be more than happy to leave such a game. I really don't feel like dealing with an antagonistic and uncompromising DM in what is supposed to be a fun game.Sounds to me like the real answer behind this is the fact that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want nothing banned and they want the option of just re-skinning their character to go with the class that has the best mechanics.
If you want to play a ninja in my game and I don't allow ninja's then you play a rogue. I don't care if you want the ninja's mechanics, you either abide by my restrictions or you don't play the game.
DM's have just as much right to ban things in their games as a player has of playing a specific class.
And I would gladly give it too you. Honestly, if he is working that hard on it he should be willing to give more control over to his players and save himself some time. Especially, if I as a player am willing to work with him and still get shut down over a name. If you want to deal with that kind of precedent then go right ahead. I have better things to do.
Cannons existed before handheld firearms iirc.
Despite the fact that nothing requires you to have cannons in a world with guns.
In the real world.
A fantasy world does not have to follow the real world.
I don't see why the path of research development would have to follow the same as it did in this world. There are plenty of reasons folks would perfect guns before cannons. Politics, economics, individual needs, all of these shape the role of how things develop. If you're a rebellion trying to perfect a new weapon, cannons aren't going to help you all that much in the early stages; likewise, if you're a king surrounded by many enemies all bigger and tougher than you, trying to perfect a cannon without being able to protect it may not be your best option. Too hard to hide, they require a lot, and it is a lot, of iron to make, and more gunpowder to boot. In short, they may not take as long to perfect, but the attention they bring and the amount of resources required to produce enough to make it worth your time can be problematic. Guns on the other hand, while they need a bit more refinement, also need less material, and if you are taking your time, you could figure out how to make both the guns themselves and the bullets work with whatever supplies happen to be the most available, even if you're not always producing top grade stuff. If they do get noticed in development, they are likely to be ignored, or at least not treated as a top priority, giving you the time you need to refine them.
In the end, it's entirely possible to come up with a perfectly plausible reason for guns, but not cannons. Now, I can understand why many DMs wouldn't want to do the work, or may be nervous in letting their players touch the development of their privately nursed homebrew world, but if that's the problem, they need to say so. Don't give excuses that guns can't work in a fantasy world; they can, even if it does take some extra work to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're making a rather large leap there. 'If guns, then cannons.' Then, 'if cannons, then no castles'.Despite the fact that nothing requires you to have cannons in a world with guns.
And that we still have castles despite flight being a common ability and mid-level spells being the equal and superior of cannon.
Hate to mention this TOZ, but cannons and hand cannons (the earliest hand guns) preceeded more complex guns. It's a technology sequence. It's easier to build a large efficient cannon (say out of bronze) than to make a small efficient hand gun (bronze doesn't cut it for this without being massively thick / heavy and hence, not a hand gun). If you have reasonably advanced hand weapons you already have cannon which will remake siege warfare. Constantinople fell to the Turks when it did (1453) not because the Turks had more men or a different strategy than the last half dozen times they tried, but because they had siege cannons...
*edit* sunshadow21 this posts for you too :)
Again. Fantasy history =/= Real World history. Different paths of development and all. Sunshadow did a pretty good job explaining why and a potential how.
|
|
And I would gladly give it too you. Honestly, if he is working that hard on it he should be willing to give more control over to his players and save himself some time. Especially, if I as a player am willing to work with him and still get shut down over a name. If you want to deal with that kind of precedent then go right ahead. I have better things to do.And i would jump to take your place if this guy is busting his hump to make a fleshed out world and good story. Just because you cannot have one thing does not make him antagonistic nor uncompromising, just that this time you don't get your way on one detail.And I would be more than happy to leave such a game. I really don't feel like dealing with an antagonistic and uncompromising DM in what is supposed to be a fun game.Sounds to me like the real answer behind this is the fact that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want nothing banned and they want the option of just re-skinning their character to go with the class that has the best mechanics.
If you want to play a ninja in my game and I don't allow ninja's then you play a rogue. I don't care if you want the ninja's mechanics, you either abide by my restrictions or you don't play the game.
DM's have just as much right to ban things in their games as a player has of playing a specific class.
Maybe it is more than a name? If you want him to bend for your concepts why not bend a bit for him, especially if he is putting in some serious work. I kinda wanted to play a gunslinger in Carrion Crown. my DM (and most other players) said they did not want guns in fantasy. i made something else and am having a blast, just finished the latest session as a matter of fact.
Sounds to me like the real answer behind this is the fact that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want nothing banned and they want the option of just re-skinning their character to go with the class that has the best mechanics.And some of us are wondering why this is considered a "bad thing".
I am wondering. :)
If the GM is new and or not mechanically inclined then I can understand not allowing certain options, but in that case the ban is on mechanics, and not a name. The ban on a name which is what the opening post is about is what I don't understand, not that banning a concept makes sense either unless it does not fit the GM's world without breaking it on some level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't we really just all agree to disagree and quit it? this topic turned into another vicious circle of "I'm right, you are wrong".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would just drive me nuts. How could anyone be able to build something as complicated as a handgun, but not be able to take that same gunpowder and think "Hey, I could put this in a big iron tube, put a big iron ball at the end, light the fuse, and level that castle over there"?
The same reason why we aren't all driving electric cars and powering our homes with solar and wind energy.
For that matter, if you allowed this into your game, what would you do if your players started building cannons and started just leveling dungeons instead of exploring them?
Adapt.
|
|
It would just drive me nuts. How could anyone be able to build something as complicated as a handgun, but not be able to take that same gunpowder and think "Hey, I could put this in a big iron tube, put a big iron ball at the end, light the fuse, and level that castle over there"? For that matter, if you allowed this into your game, what would you do if your players started building cannons and started just leveling dungeons instead of exploring them?There are some things I'm willing to suspend disbelief on, and other things that just bug me and throw me out of the story.Yep, just like the rest of us. The only difference being what things.
Resources. it might just be cheaper to hire magic. or armies.
You could act as if the gun is some sort of novelty weapon. But this would make the gun pretty damn rare and it's likely true that he won't be finding the necessary materials or even the time to be constantly crafting bullets and different firearms. So it won't be fun for that player and in a way he becomes dead weight for the other characters who are dragging a guy along who is never as well armed and can use his abilities very sparingly.Or you could just handwave it and let him spend gold offscreen to replenish his ammo.
And there you've made another compromise. And a terrible precedent to set.
For example are you going to handwave the bargaining that a sorcerer must make for planar binding or just let him pay the gold? What if he wants to build an iron golem? Or if the druid wants to make ten thousand Leshy's for the hell of it (he has the gold).
Handwaving restrictions like that is dangerous in a game where such limits exist to keep things from flying out of control.
And this kind of monty hall game play is just not my favorite. I like seeing my player's struggle, and fight, and scrape and then come out on top the bloodied and glorious victors. I rarely outright ban things but I do make it clear to the player trying to be the outlier that his choices will come back to haunt him with in-game consequences. Yes, being an Aasimar in cheliax is dangerous. Yes, being the only one on the pirate boat without at least one rank of swim can be bad for your health. Yes, choosing to be the exotic and sneaky shadow ninja with exotic powers in a land of fog and vampires where the locals distrust any foreigners and burn innocent people for witchcraft may be ill advised.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want him to bend for your concepts why not bend a bit for him, especially if he is putting in some serious work.The problem arises when one side never bends.
My Dm has worked around everything but guns, im not going to tantrum out of a game over that like some here would.
I've run a variety of "sandboxes" some on a whim, others with a theme, sometimes I'm just wanting to try certain rule-sets. It usually starts with me having an idea. I'll then pose the question to my player's "If I run a game with (fill in the blank) would you be interested? If there is enough interest then I run the game. I never "force" my players to play a specific class, or to play in my world. I run games for those that are interested in having fun sharing the game world I envision.
For example:
When new books come out, I might decide to run a game with "non-core" classes only. Just to see how the classes function. Or, I might decide to run a "monster" game with "non-core" races only.
I've run a game with the theme of "Ninja's Vs. Pirates". While the assumption was that the player's would be pirates I did allow one of them to play a Ninja because he gave me a fun reason to allow it. (Role-play wise) P.S. - The pirate game started on talk like a pirate day and yes there was rum involved.
My latest sandbox was under "Magic was forgotten" and "Alchemy replaced Magic" themes and I only allowed classes that did not prepare or cast spells at the beginning of the game. (Alchemists being the exception with their infusions) The idea being that the players would eventually have a chance to rediscover magic.
For the most part I don't limit either class or race but do request a "GOOD" reason why a PC turned out the way they did regardless of what world, campaign, sandbox, or system I might be running in. The one thing I do ban would be evil alignments, as I generally prefer a "heroic good" kind of game.
You're making a rather large leap there. 'If guns, then cannons.' Then, 'if cannons, then no castles'.Despite the fact that nothing requires you to have cannons in a world with guns.
And that we still have castles despite flight being a common ability and mid-level spells being the equal and superior of cannon.
Hate to mention this TOZ, but cannons and hand cannons (the earliest hand guns) preceeded more complex guns. It's a technology sequence. It's easier to build a large efficient cannon (say out of bronze) than to make a small efficient hand gun (bronze doesn't cut it for this without being massively thick / heavy and hence, not a hand gun). If you have reasonably advanced hand weapons you already have cannon which will remake siege warfare. Constantinople fell to the Turks when it did (1453) not because the Turks had more men or a different strategy than the last half dozen times they tried, but because they had siege cannons...
*edit* sunshadow21 this posts for you too :)
Why would people develop cannon when siege warfare is already shaped by magic? Cannon made a difference in this world because it's only opponents were wood and stone. Magic, in all of it's indirect and direct forms, already make fantasy siege warfare a completely different beast than what it was historically in ours. In such a world, guns could easily be the priority over cannons. The role of cannons is too easily replaced by magic.
Yes, they probably have the tech for cannons first, but that doesn't mean they do have to anything with it aside from using it as a base for further development.
Or, guns could come about as folks try to build a better bow. Bullets would be an evolution of arrows, and the gun, an evolution of the bow that would deliver the bullets. In this scenario, cannons would not even be considered even if the player would see tech that they would recognize as being cannons; unless someone had a reason to make that connection in the game world, what we see as players and DMs doesn't matter.
Can't we really just all agree to disagree and quit it? this topic turned into another vicious circle of "I'm right, you are wrong".
Nope. A little exercise in creative thinking is good. :)
If poster A says option Y can not plausibly fit into scenario/world ____ and poster B says ______ then poster A knows things are not as difficult as they seem. That does not mean he has to allow option Y, but at least he now knows more things are possible than he first thought. I see nothing bad about that. :)
My job here is to remind people of the opening post's original intent. I have come to the conclusion that nobody has a good reason for banning a name since I would have heard it by now. The similar conversations are not out of hand, well at least not yet, so the discussion can continue.
Ah so in your world you sat down and figured out exactly how much of this material component was around, then by happen stance it was to little for firearms to work? Of course not, the only reason there isn't 'enough' is because you have up and decided there isn't enough.This isn't an issue of "A few guns can't fit in this world." this is an issue of "I don't want guns in this world." two very different things.
No, it's not. The issue is that I understand that you really can't have fancy old west handguns in a world without an entire industrial base to support them, and conversely you can't have guns that advanced in a world without them fundamentally changing the way wars are fought. Both of those points should be fairly obvious if you have any understanding of the history of warfare. I guess you could fudge your way around it with "a wizard did it" type of explanations, but not without a lot of twisting your neck.
It's not that "I don't want guns in this world", it's just that I want a world to make sense, not to have giant plot holes you could drive a truck through.
Yep I have no concept of warfare or how it was changed with the invention of firearms. Thats clearly why I am saying the terrible things I am saying.
- Technology Levels, etc???
- Needs.
- Material Resources.
- "Human" Resources.
- Spellcasters can do better for less GP?
- Spotlight-Stealing.
- In and out game/group flame-wars?
- ...
Because it's more expensive then burning coal at the moment?No, because there are powerful groups of people invested in preventing it.
Both, actually, and more reasons besides. Coal being more efficient and cheaper already gives it an advantage, much the way that magic would have an advantage over any fledging industry trying to work with gunpowder. The political and social forces that come to bear against the "new" tech simply enhances the advantages of the old tech/magic. Add onto that, the inherent fear of change and the unknown, and any new tech is going to have an uphill battle. It takes a fair bit of social upheaval to really get the level of change that people seem to think that guns would automatically bring; something on the level of the events that shook up the late medieval period. Simply allowing guns would not by itself do much outside of maybe a small locality (like Alkenstar) that had favorable local conditions.
All I'm saying is that you can't just "add a few" modern guns to a world of medieval technology and expect them to make no difference. I'm not opposed to using guns in your world, just if you do, understand what that means.
Straight up medieval tech, I agree.
Medieval tech with wizards, not so much.