Why so few guns in fantasy RPGs?

[JamesDixon]

It's more about the exact process you went about it that makes it confusing. It's titled "Why so few guns in fantasy RPG's" instead of "Why I don't think guns work in fantasy RPG's" and you acknowledge that reason.

You're the only one who's confused though.
>Location: Texas
Checks out lol

I'm confused why this thread was made. He expected a negative reaction to the bait title, then tried to argue with someone who didn't show up yet, and then everyone came to just disprove most of what he said immediately?

You see, RPG Codex is something that's called a forum. In a forum people are encouraged to have discussions on certain topics and - get ready for this one - agree or even DISAGREE with each other. Crazy right? Hope this helps.

It's more about the exact process you went about it that makes it confusing. It's titled "Why so few guns in fantasy RPG's" instead of "Why I don't think guns work in fantasy RPG's" and you acknowledge that reason.

Now you see why I have him blocked. He argues in bad faith then proceeds to never concede. Hence my reply to this thread. He did it to me plenty of times in other threads.

He can't keep getting away with this.

Only when people pay attention to him.

 

[Darth Canoli]

The first handgonnes for which we have definite evidence appeared in the 1320s, so we can say that the gunpowder age's earliest days begin in 1300.

To put in in perspective, the Byzantine Empire was to continue existing for 150 more years at that point, America would not be discovered until 200 years later, Lithuania was still a Pagan country in mostly-Christian Europe, the era of the Crusades had barely come to an and (and there were still some minor crusading movements in the 1300s), the Mongol horde still existed and was a threat in some parts of the world, etc etc.

If you want the peak late medieval knight in full plate armor wielding a massive two-handed sword and riding a mighty warhorse bred for battle... you also need early handguns.

If this guy exists:

then gunpowder exists too.

If gunpowder does not exist, then your knights should look like this:

The first second one is called a tournament armor, and no, it doesn't stop bullets, it doesn't even stop arbalest bolts.
Nobles were pissed first time arbalest were used because it meant a peasant could take down a noble.

Also, no, guns didn't exist during middle ages, first time it appeared in Europe was during Azincourt's siege by the english.
100 years and they finally ran away with their tails between their legs.

To get back to the point, they probably get guns first because of their presence in China, so it make sense.

Still, it was already close to the end of the middle ages (the latest 10 - 15% of it) and it didn't spread fast, i think France got its first gunners company under Henri the fourth at the end of the 16th century and some other countries might had a few earlier but it was still extremely expensive to equip and maintain them so it was mostly a question of prestige back then, until the musketeers in France (early 17th century) which were elite troops armed with muskets (guns and rifles) but also swords, halberds, well, they more or less used any weapon, they were the early commando troops.

So, guns during middle ages, yes and no, but mostly no, because even if they were a few at the end of the middles ages, it was scarce and mostly elite guard troops.
And 80/90% of the middle ages didn't have any.

This guy holds it quite fine imo.

Wow, impressive, i'm fairly certain i can do better with little training, shooting with a bow on horse back at point blank range, why not using a sabre or a lance which would be way more effective?

 

[Tygrende]

A few problems with muzzle-loading firearms in RPGs I don't see discussed often are tightly related to other extremaly common problems in RPGs in general - HP bloat and lack of incapacitation mechanics.

As someone else said, long reload times mean that these firearms will have the most impact at the very beginning of the fight in the form of high burst damage and then have overall low sustained damage for the rest of the fight. Which works great in real life, because people/animals can't really take that many shots and continue fighting - if you're hit in vital areas such as the heart, lungs, brain, central nervous system or major arteries, you're either dead or dying and generally incapable of continuing to fight. Even if you're hit in non-vital areas, in most cases, most people also give up due to a combination of pain, fear and blood loss despite being alive and physically capable of fighting. Even unharmed people would often give up the fight out of fear when they saw their friend get shot. Period-appropriate armors didn't offer reliable protection, either.

This isn't modelled well in a lot of popular RPGs. If we look at D&D, outside of level 1, everyone has enough HP to survive at least one critical hit from most weapons most of the time. Worse, surviving said hit typically has little to no effect on their ability to continue fighting and no one gets scared when their friend gets hit. There's too much emphasis on sustained damage over burst damage. Another problem is that the ability to keep your weapon loaded and ready to shoot at any moment is a huge advantage in real life, but hard to model in turn-based systems without simultaneous actions. There's also the fact that real life doesn't cap hit chance at 95%, but that's a whole different can of worms.

 

[JarlFrank]

The first second one is called a tournament armor, and no, it doesn't stop bullets, it doesn't even stop arbalest bolts.
Nobles were pissed first time arbalest were used because it meant a peasant could take down a noble.

Where did I say it stopped bullets? I just said that in the line of technological development, full plate armor came after gunpowder. It wasn't developed in response to gunpowder, that would be 17th century bulletproof cuirasses, but they just coincided in the timeline with early gunpowder weapons.

Also, no, guns didn't exist during middle ages, first time it appeared in Europe was during Azincourt's siege by the english.

Yeah that's still middle ages. They only end around 1500.
And a lot of high fantasy uses the late middle ages as its inspiration (full plate armor, huge variety of different swords, polearms, maces etc that were all invented during that era) so gunpowder fits right in.
Ok better said, most high fantasy uses the entire middle ages and mixes and matches elements from each era willy nilly, from viking era to high chivalric to late medieval... but the one thing they leave out from the late middle ages is gunpowder.

 

[Darth Canoli]

I just said that in the line of technological development, full plate armor came after gunpowder.

Nope, early full plate armors were developed in the 13th century, more or less 2 centuries earlier in Europe.

And the technology was well known because the greeks used plate armors and the romans used Greek's technology as well (and everyone else's )

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

I think it's because so much fantasy, which feeds into RPGs, is based on swordfighting. Because a person can imagine two skilled swordfighters hacking and slashing at one another, but having too much skill for either to land a hit for a long time. So you can have epic swordfights where the better fighter slowly wears down the other fighter, or what have you.

It's tough to imagine two legendary gunfighters just shooting at and missing each other for any amount of time. Either they're not really that skilled, or it's not much of a fight.

And yeah, if you want swords and guns in your game you have a big problem regarding expectations. Because in the real world, gun beats sword. That's why armies have guns now, not swords. Once you change that, they're not really guns anymore.

Bushido Blade (Don't remember if it was 1 or 2) had a number of katana vs gun fights. It was as unfair as it sounds. Also as unfun as it sounds.

 

[deuxhero]

I just said that in the line of technological development, full plate armor came after gunpowder.

Nope, early full plate armors were developed in the 13th century, more or less 2 centuries earlier in Europe.

An analysis of funeral effigies shows even just chest pieces of plate are very rare at 1300 and supplemental pieces of plate are still largely mail till the mid 1300s.

 

[JarlFrank]

I just said that in the line of technological development, full plate armor came after gunpowder.

Nope, early full plate armors were developed in the 13th century, more or less 2 centuries earlier in Europe.

An analysis of funeral effigies shows even just chest pieces of plate are very rare at 1300 and supplemental pieces of plate are still largely mail till the mid 1300s.

13th century is the 1200s, plate only started picking up in the 1300s (and that's also when gunpowder - incidentally - picks up). The 1200s still saw chainmail as the most common suit of armor, but of course there were regional differences and pieces of plate were added to the armor for extra protection.

No full plate armors though. Full plate is a 1400s and 1500s thing: those beautiful suits of armor where you're coated in plate from head to toe, each piece connected with flexible moving joints. That stuff didn't exist in the 13th century.

The types of plate we get around that time are:
- arm pieces
- leg pieces
(both of which were common in ancient times already btw, already in the bronze age bracers and greaves made from plate pieces were common)
- helmets
- gorgets and shoulder pieces
- gauntlets

Around 1300, a knight was likely to wear a layer of chainmail with a nice brigandine above it, a closed plate helm, and maybe some plate or lamellar pieces on arms and legs (lamellar was especially popular further east).
Full plate armor? Didn't exist yet.

EDIT:
average 14th century knight

 

[deuxhero]

13th century is the 1200s, plate only started picking up in the 1300s (and that's also when gunpowder - incidentally - picks up). The 1200s still saw chainmail as the most common suit of armor, but of course there were regional differences and pieces of plate were added to the armor for extra protection.

I know. If it only barely shows up in 1300, its going to be non-existent in the 1200s.

 

[JarlFrank]

13th century is the 1200s, plate only started picking up in the 1300s (and that's also when gunpowder - incidentally - picks up). The 1200s still saw chainmail as the most common suit of armor, but of course there were regional differences and pieces of plate were added to the armor for extra protection.

I know. If it only barely shows up in 1300, its going to be non-existent in the 1200s.

Yeah I was replying to Darth Canoli with that who claimed "developed in 13th century"

 

[JarlFrank]

A few problems with muzzle-loading firearms in RPGs I don't see discussed often are tightly related to other extremaly common problems in RPGs in general - HP bloat and lack of incapacitation mechanics.

This is a good point. Early Firearms would not work in RPGs if the usual HP Bloat mechanics are in full effect.

Now I bet you could easily fit early guns into say, Age of Decadence, with its hardcore turn-based combat with no HP bloat.

If we're honest, HP bloat never works well. It's shit by its very nature.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

unless you're making a game like KCD please stop trying to be historically accurate
it's a fantasy world, make it fantastical. I want unrealistic things, I want reality bending magic, space wizards, holidays where the nature of reality changes, water raining upwards, laws of physics changing depending on what day of the week it is

 

[Harthwain]

If this guy exists:

Spoiler

then gunpowder exists too.

Assuming we are going along the historical lines. But what if action takes place in a world where gunpowder wasn't discovered? I mean, in a fantasy RPG it is possible.

 

[Humbaba]

It's more about the exact process you went about it that makes it confusing. It's titled "Why so few guns in fantasy RPG's" instead of "Why I don't think guns work in fantasy RPG's" and you acknowledge that reason.

You're the only one who's confused though.
>Location: Texas
Checks out lol

I'm confused why this thread was made. He expected a negative reaction to the bait title, then tried to argue with someone who didn't show up yet, and then everyone came to just disprove most of what he said immediately?

You see, RPG Codex is something that's called a forum. In a forum people are encouraged to have discussions on certain topics and - get ready for this one - agree or even DISAGREE with each other. Crazy right? Hope this helps.

It's more about the exact process you went about it that makes it confusing. It's titled "Why so few guns in fantasy RPG's" instead of "Why I don't think guns work in fantasy RPG's" and you acknowledge that reason.

Now you see why I have him blocked. He argues in bad faith then proceeds to never concede. Hence my reply to this thread. He did it to me plenty of times in other threads.

He can't keep getting away with this.

Only when people pay attention to him.

said the autist after being literally the very first person to reply to the thread. Reported for obvious trolling.

 

[Lurker47]

Bushido Blade (Don't remember if it was 1 or 2) had a number of katana vs gun fights. It was as unfair as it sounds. Also as unfun as it sounds.

Meh, I think it was interesting how it was done and probably more fair than some would think. Sword users had a lot more mobility, obviously.

 

[Lurker47]

A few problems with muzzle-loading firearms in RPGs I don't see discussed often are tightly related to other extremaly common problems in RPGs in general - HP bloat and lack of incapacitation mechanics.

This is a good point. Early Firearms would not work in RPGs if the usual HP Bloat mechanics are in full effect.

Now I bet you could easily fit early guns into say, Age of Decadence, with its hardcore turn-based combat with no HP bloat.

A few problems with muzzle-loading firearms in RPGs I don't see discussed often are tightly related to other extremaly common problems in RPGs in general - HP bloat and lack of incapacitation mechanics.

This is a good point. Early Firearms would not work in RPGs if the usual HP Bloat mechanics are in full effect.

Now I bet you could easily fit early guns into say, Age of Decadence, with its hardcore turn-based combat with no HP bloat.

If we're honest, HP bloat never works well. It's shit by its very nature.

A few problems with muzzle-loading firearms in RPGs I don't see discussed often are tightly related to other extremaly common problems in RPGs in general - HP bloat and lack of incapacitation mechanics.

This is a good point. Early Firearms would not work in RPGs if the usual HP Bloat mechanics are in full effect.

Now I bet you could easily fit early guns into say, Age of Decadence, with its hardcore turn-based combat with no HP bloat.

If we're honest, HP bloat never works well. It's shit by its very nature.

Yeah but those massive homos keep putting that HP bloat crap in RPGs since forever, and don't seem interested in stopping it at any time.

Like, people eventually got the hint and realized that TB/RT mixed systems never will work, but when will people realize that HP Bloat is bad?

What was the definition of HP bloat here, to be clear?

 

[Humbaba]

So, guns during middle ages, yes and no, but mostly no, because even if they were a few at the end of the middles ages, it was scarce and mostly elite guard troops.
And 80/90% of the middle ages didn't have any.

Bro, existence is not on a spectrum, either it exists or it doesn't. Also who says that my fantasy adventurer couldn't be part of some elite guard troop?

Wow, impressive, i'm fairly certain i can do better with little training, shooting with a bow on horse back at point blank range, why not using a sabre or a lance which would be way more effective?

Mongols literally created the single largest continuous land empire in history using the horse archer strat, what are you on about

 

[Darth Canoli]

13th century is the 1200s, plate only started picking up in the 1300s (and that's also when gunpowder - incidentally - picks up). The 1200s still saw chainmail as the most common suit of armor, but of course there were regional differences and pieces of plate were added to the armor for extra protection.

Let it be my last entry on the topic, i stand by the early plates during the 13th century, probably not the legs but full torso + paulds.

Wait, there is some plated knee protections from the 13th century...

As for the guns, they make their first apparition in Europe during the battle of Azincourt in 1415 (150 years later) and they're scarce until the 17th century.

So stop putting chinese pre-guns in Europe, you're trying to rewrite history.

 

[Humbaba]

As for the guns, they make their first apparition in Europe during the battle of Azincourt in 1415 (150 years later)

The Ottomans used guns earlier than that

 

[Darth Canoli]

Mongols literally created the single largest continuous land empire in history using the horse archer strat, what are you on about

Mongols were not shoting arrows at point blank range like on that video.
And Archers on horseback comes from middle-east, also, egyptians and greeks had archers on charriots (with a driver and an archer) or were using javelins (for the greeks).

Just so you know, when they came to Europe, they made alliances with many other tribes way outside of Mongolia because they were far too few, there were 30% or less Mongolians in Genghis Khan's horde.

And they never had an empire because they were nomads with no permanent city, they didn't even know what to do with the ones they "conquered".

 

[Humbaba]

Mongols were not shoting arrows at point blank range like on that video.

If you're aware of that, what was your original point then? That this obvious exhibition wasn't realistic enough?

And Archers on horseback comes from middle-east, also, egyptians and greeks had archers on charriots (with a driver and an archer) or were using javelins (for the greeks).

How is that relevant?

Just so you know, when they came to Europe, they made alliances with many other tribes way outside of Mongolia because they were far too few, there were 30% or less Mongolians in Genghis Khan's horde.

Empires conduct diplomacy that's normal.

And they never had an empire because they were nomads with no permanent city, they didn't even know what to do with the ones they "conquered".

Source?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

and they're scarce until the 17th century.

bro what
arquebus were in widespread usage by the mid-15th century

 

[Darth Canoli]

Source?

There's some Arte documentaries if you can understand German or French, i'm not searching for a link and it's probably easy enough to get a good source to confirm they were nomads and never held a city for long.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

and if you want a specific example, go look up what the black army of hungary is

 

[Poseidon00]

Because swordsman beat all the people with guns. Katanas can cut bullets, you know.