Cliches you can't stand

[Reveen]

The problem is that there's that unreasonable revulsion to firearms to begin with.

Click to shrink...

You picked a baaaaad time to call revulsion towards firearms unreasonable.

 

[Spartakrod]

My issue with medieval firearms is... they're just boring to me most the time. There's a long list of reasons I don't like the Empire or Dwarfs very much in Warhammer, but the gunpowder is certainly a major one of them.

Click to shrink...

If you're dissing my Rats with Gatling guns I will have to fight you.

 

[Arawn_Emrys]

You just summed up all my problems with opponents of firearms in a setting. Let's list them in order:

A.) But-but Lord of the Rings didn't have any guns in it!
Yes, and most of these closely resemble that of the early middle ages. If you're such diehard puritan that you don't wish to have anything which defiles such a setting then say goodbye to suits of plate, fancy 17th century clothes, rapiers, longswords and baroque arts you love to add to the setting. If your argument is about that portraying the fruits of progress is antithetical to your setting then be consistent about it. You aren't necessarily need to be sticking to complete historical accuracy but when your actual argument revolves around X being out of place you must remember how messed up that claim really is. Of course the above line about sticking to LotR has a lot of other issues with it, I get to that later.

B.) Guns are boring
And curiously enough other ranged weapons aren't. You can have the same degree of creativity with guns as with a crossbow and actually more. The options for various loadouts alone can keep things interesting. In the end making a weapon's use exciting depends on the writer, not the weapon itself. It's a tool. If you believe guns would ruin the experience then it's your creativity that is lacking, not the fault of the weapon.

C.) Guns make things too easy
Excuse me but when your mage can reduce entire groups of people into charred remains this argument burns along with it. Oh but it's fine because only a limited number of people do it? That only makes it worse, only ensures the story even more revolves around that overpowered ability. Of course this misconception also stems from the poor understanding of firearms or the difference between historical and modern variants of it. You can't just "cap" somebody with a gun any better than you could perform that with other ranged weapons (or less so, matchlocks or even flintlocks aren't so responsive). As history proves dueling and melee combat remained an important aspect of warfare even in the 19th century. Your Smaug example is of course awful, there's no sense to it regardless how hard I'd try. So let me rephrase it. Does it really matter if Smaug was felled by a bow or a musket?

D.) Guns ruin that vanilla fantasy feel
Okay, news flash, Lord of the Rings actually featured gunpowder. Saruman used gunpowder to make a hole in Helm's Deep and Mordor's forces fired gunpowder incendiaries with catapults to burn down cities. I think you might have also heard about Morgoth's tanks or Numeorean ICBMs... although both were only found on scattered notes by Tolkien. Even without this revelation though there's a much more important message to deliver, be darned creative! If you wish to ape works of long-dead writers then that's your business, just don't expect to be applauded for it. Your entire concern of guns is based on misconceptions and an awful tradition. You have no logical reason to avoid firearms in a setting so it really just boils down to lack of creativity. And that's why I hate this behavior the most. If your only retort is that "but I don't wanna" then we're long past having a discussion about this.


Also let me clarify, while I hate this behavior with almost a passion it doesn't mean you must insert guns in every fantasy setting. If you run a campaign with a group then as the GM you have the right to determine what's allowed and what isn't. The problem is that there's that unreasonable revulsion to firearms to begin with. Lots of fake beliefs, bad traditions and often a lack of seeing the bigger picture. I am not forcing you to include guns in your campaign just because I want to. I am asking you to be open minded and realize the missed potential, the glaring double standards and the unreasonable fear concerning their inclusion to a setting. Also I am asking you to be a more consistent storyteller/writer/author or whatever. Lack of guns can be explained away if you do a good worldbuilding but guns themselves aren't the only thing you need excuses for. For example why your people have newspapers yet your environment resembles a town from the middle ages? Again, I encourage people to be creative.

Click to shrink...

I'll note that the "it's fine because it's only a select group who can do it" is the thought process in FR, not by the writers, but by the mages who go around murdering anyone trying to popularize guns. Of course their line of thinking is "that select group of course being us". So guns exist but won't become widespread because they make you a target.

 

[Susano]

If you're such diehard puritan that you don't wish to have anything which defiles such a setting then say goodbye to suits of plate, fancy 17th century clothes, rapiers, longswords and baroque arts you love to add to the setting.

Click to shrink...

Why?

No seriously, the rest of the post can be forgotten. You make a totally unsupported claim here and yet treat it as the end of all be of arguments in this debate.

So. Why exactly does the presence of rapiers require the presence of guns? Where is the causal connection?

 

[Spartakrod]

I'll note that the "it's fine because it's only a select group who can do it" is the thought process in FR, not by the writers, but by the mages who go around murdering anyone trying to popularize guns. Of course their line of thinking is "that select group of course being us"

Click to shrink...

There are reasons why people repeatedly dunk on the FR's worldbuilding.

...That and bizarre "this is clearly someone's fetish" things like incest being commonplace and half of every female magic user being stunningly gorgeous and hating clothing.

 

[willyvereb]

I'll note that the "it's fine because it's only a select group who can do it" is the thought process in FR, not by the writers, but by the mages who go around murdering anyone trying to popularize guns. Of course their line of thinking is "that select group of course being us"

Click to shrink...

I can see that, albeit what I can't see that firearms making mages particularly afraid.
I mean a gun is more powerful than a crossbow and deadlier. But is it stronger than a dude who can chop tree hunks in half or various magically enchanted arrows used by higher level adventurers? I think not.
Although they might fear escalation and might be just plain opposed to change. That could make more sense than the mages in particular being afraid of guns and gunpowder based weaponry.

EDIT:

Why?

No seriously, the rest of the post can be forgotten. You make a totally unsupported claim here and yet treat it as the end of all be of arguments in this debate.
So. Why exactly does the presence of rapiers require the presence of guns? Where is the causal connection?

Click to shrink...

The connection is between the level of metallurgy used to make them and the widespread use of metals of such quality. Which does require an advanced civilization, not to mention a particular need for these. Anyways, you somewhat took my response out of its context. DezoPenguin's claim was that since LotR doesn't have any guns in it thus there shouldn't be in fantasy. Well, neither are there any rapiers and in general the books portray an early medieval society in it.

Of course you can make up a setting where metallurgy is at this level, there's a civil demand and at the same time they don't know gunpowder. It's possible but that topic was beside the question. Also I ask again, you'd run through all these hoops and twists just so you wouldn't have guns. For what gain? If it's to deny writing opportunities and story potential while imitating old works without understanding them then those people can be my quests. I won't deny that to them.

 

[Tekomandor]

You picked a baaaaad time to call revulsion towards firearms unreasonable.

Click to shrink...

stop You know that's taking his post absurdly out of context to snipe at him, Reveen. Accordingly, you will receive a 25 point infraction for violations of rules three and four; as well as a one week threadban.

 

[Susano]

It's possible but that topic was beside the question.

Click to shrink...

No it really isn't. That IS the topic: People don't want gunpowder, because they don't want that aesthetic. They want, as Dezo said, the Arthurian paladin or the LotR ranger. And yes, sometimes this comes together with 16th century rapiers. But so what? It's not like we talk about RL history here.

And I mean, you can totally write your own story with gunpowder. As has been noted, fantasy settings with gunpowder totally exist, and I have nothing at all against that. It is you who wants to impose something.

 

[Pidl]

Your entire concern of guns is based on misconceptions and an awful tradition. You have no logical reason to avoid firearms in a setting so it really just boils down to lack of creativity. And that's why I hate this behavior the most. If your only retort is that "but I don't wanna" then we're long past having a discussion about this.

Click to shrink...

Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas...

 

[willyvereb]

No it really isn't. That IS the topic: People don't want gunpowder, because they don't want that aesthetic. They want, as Dezo said, the Arthurian paladin or the LotR ranger. And yes, sometimes this comes together with 16th century rapiers. But so what? It's not like we talk about RL history here.

And I mean, you can totally write your own story with gunpowder. As has been noted, fantasy settings with gunpowder totally exist, and I have nothing at all against that. It is you who wants to impose something.

Click to shrink...

You can't have Arthurian feel right in the middle of the early modern ages. Also the same setting which nonchalantly makes a historical stew combining a thousand years tend to feature magic which dwarf guns in both power and importance.

So in conclusion, there's no aesthetic direction, just somebody randomly grabbing things off history they like while daring to title that medieval. There's nothing to break which magic haven't already broken before.

There's a way to create that "Arthurian" feel and I respect that. But what you are defending isn't it. You are defending an abomination which thinks it can mix everything into the setting so long it doesn't touch on firearms. If you want a LotR style "pure" medieval setting you need to be concerned about way more things than just firearms.

 

[Vyslanté]

There's a way to create that "Arthurian" feel and I respect that. But what you are defending isn't it. You are defending an abomination which thinks it can mix everything into the setting so long it doesn't touch on firearms. If you want a LotR style "pure" medieval setting you need to be concerned about way more things than just firearms.

Click to shrink...

Yes, they want just a certain kind of aesthetics. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[DestinyPlayer]

You can't have Arthurian feel right in the middle of the early modern ages. Also the same setting which nonchalantly makes a historical stew combining a thousand years tend to feature magic which dwarf guns in both power and importance.

So in conclusion, there's no aesthetic direction, just somebody randomly grabbing things off history they like while daring to title that medieval. There's nothing to break which magic haven't already broken before.

There's a way to create that "Arthurian" feel and I respect that. But what you are defending isn't it. You are defending an abomination which thinks it can mix everything into the setting so long it doesn't touch on firearms. If you want a LotR style "pure" medieval setting you need to be concerned about way more things than just firearms.

Click to shrink...

People like this abomination though? Some specifically of its abomination state.

 

[The Laurent]

You can't have Arthurian feel right in the middle of the early modern ages. Also the same setting which nonchalantly makes a historical stew combining a thousand years tend to feature magic which dwarf guns in both power and importance.

So in conclusion, there's no aesthetic direction, just somebody randomly grabbing things off history they like while daring to title that medieval. There's nothing to break which magic haven't already broken before.

There's a way to create that "Arthurian" feel and I respect that. But what you are defending isn't it. You are defending an abomination which thinks it can mix everything into the setting so long it doesn't touch on firearms. If you want a LotR style "pure" medieval setting you need to be concerned about way more things than just firearms.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, as someone who knows history, eh?

The average reader, even the average intelligent reader, really has no idea what goes where and when. That's not a knock on them, they're just not--most of them--historians.

The aesthetic direction is about how something feels. There are a huge number of things that actually existed historically that if you added it to historical fiction, people (like you) would call out as being ahistorical.

So it's about what fits the expectations of the audience, more than anything like some sort of timeline reality.

 

[Arawn_Emrys]

One problem I have is that as soon as you bring in guns you also have the military fanboys demanding that game balance be tossed aside to make guns the objectively better choice for all players. Including making it as good or better than magic.

 

[mesonoxian]

I can see that, albeit what I can't see that firearms making mages particularly afraid.
I mean a gun is more powerful than a crossbow and deadlier. But is it stronger than a dude who can chop tree hunks in half or various magically enchanted arrows used by higher level adventurers? I think not.
Although they might fear escalation and might be just plain opposed to change. That could make more sense than the mages in particular being afraid of guns and gunpowder based weaponry.

EDIT:
The connection is between the level of metallurgy used to make them and the widespread use of metals of such quality. Which does require an advanced civilization, not to mention a particular need for these. Anyways, you somewhat took my response out of its context. DezoPenguin's claim was that since LotR doesn't have any guns in it thus there shouldn't be in fantasy. Well, neither are there any rapiers and in general the books portray an early medieval society in it.

Of course you can make up a setting where metallurgy is at this level, there's a civil demand and at the same time they don't know gunpowder. It's possible but that topic was beside the question. Also I ask again, you'd run through all these hoops and twists just so you wouldn't have guns. For what gain? If it's to deny writing opportunities and story potential while imitating old works without understanding them then those people can be my quests. I won't deny that to them.

Click to shrink...

Consistent aesthetics trump consistent world building every time. If guns feel off to someone, but 17th century dress armor doesn't, there is no point in telling them they shouldn't feel that way. The technological reality doesn't in any way compel the writer or the reader. Complaining about guns ruining knightly romances goes back to Ariosto. I say this as someone who likes matchlocks and will bend time and technological progress to include guns where they don't necessarily make a lot of sense. But that's my preference, not the "right" way to do it.

 

[Alane1]

Also when speaking of Arthurian feel that feel can very a lot, the Arthurian feel of medieval versions like Gregory of Mammoth's history of the kings of Britain, Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Gawain, and the Green Knight, various Briton, English and welsh traditions much less the continental traditions tend to differ from each other and often can't agree who the foremost knight of Arthur's Court was.

 

[Spartakrod]

One problem I have is that as soon as you bring in guns you also have the military fanboys demanding that game balance be tossed aside to make guns the objectively better choice for all players. Including making it as good or better than magic.

Click to shrink...

Never has been a real problem in Warhammer fantasy at least.

 

[willyvereb]

Honestly, as someone who knows history, eh?

The average reader, even the average intelligent reader, really has no idea what goes where and when. That's not a knock on them, they're just not--most of them--historians.

The aesthetic direction is about how something feels. There are a huge number of things that actually existed historically that if you added it to historical fiction, people (like you) would call out as being ahistorical.

So it's about what fits the expectations of the audience, more than anything like some sort of timeline reality.

Click to shrink...

Okay, I probably went too far about historical accuracy. I only wanted to use this to illustrate the abnormality how a good portion of fantasy shies away from guns. And I do it because most of the time people list "reasons" why they don't want guns in a setting and as my borderline rants about the subject displayed, these are wrong. So in the end it comes down to emotional reasons and creative problems. Again, I am not forcing people to include guns in every fantasy. I do wish there would be more of it, though. Thankfully my wishes slowly but surely granted as "fantasy gun control" gets less prevalent nowadays.

One problem I have is that as soon as you bring in guns you also have the military fanboys demanding that game balance be tossed aside to make guns the objectively better choice for all players.

Click to shrink...

If we talk about games then that could be a concern. But then again since we talk about a game here that means mechanics need to be adjusted for balance.

As for a text based roleplay (because when we talk about books of course you have absolute creative control) then it boils down to the GM's ability to reign over such problems and have a more comprehensive view on the balance of power. It's a historical fact that bows and to a lesser extend crossbows were used in warfare alongside guns. It's true that firearms obsoleted muscle powered weapons later (unless you count airguns with pumps) but that didn't end the era of armor and melee combat. If anything I'd argue that mass armies did more harm to the concept of armored warfare than guns. Even if less effective, armors still offered some protection against guns. But armoring up so many people would've been a logistical nightmare. Okay, back to my point, if you think enough on it you can easily make both guns and muscle-powered ranged weapons viable in your setting. If that's what you want, at least. I mean if you go for the 17th century then maybe the only people who still use bows would be hunters and ill equipped forces.

I can see guns introducing problems when powerplayers are involved but they're mostly an issue regardless of what you do. As a GM it's your best interest to reign over them without being oppressive. Unless they are going too far, in which case you always have the freedom of association (AKA "kick them").

Consistent aesthetics trump consistent world building every time. If guns feel off to someone, but 17th century dress armor doesn't, there is no point in telling them they shouldn't feel that way. The technological reality doesn't in any way compel the writer or the reader. Complaining about guns ruining knightly romances goes back to Ariosto. I say this as someone who likes matchlocks and will bend time and technological progress to include guns where they don't necessarily make a lot of sense. But that's my preference, not the "right" way to do it.

Click to shrink...

I am guilty of making a race of 3rd century BC nomads with primitive guns instead of bows for a certain nationgame so I wholly understand you. :lol

 

[DezoPenguin]

Also when speaking of Arthurian feel that feel can very a lot, the Arthurian feel of medieval versions like Gregory of Mammoth's history of the kings of Britain, Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Gawain, and the Green Knight, various Briton, English and welsh traditions much less the continental traditions tend to differ from each other and often can't agree who the foremost knight of Arthur's Court was.

Click to shrink...

That's because basically King Arthur stories might as well be English literature's ur-example of fanfiction. Every new author not only retells the stories, but updates the arms and armor and social mores to their present-day version, introduces new characters to serve their purposes, and otherwise pretty much runs with it wildly.

Okay, I probably went too far about historical accuracy. I only wanted to use this to illustrate the abnormality how a good portion of fantasy shies away from guns. And I do it because most of the time people list "reasons" why they don't want guns in a setting and as my borderline rants about the subject displayed, these are wrong. So in the end it comes down to emotional reasons and creative problems. Again, I am not forcing people to include guns in every fantasy. I do wish there would be more of it, though. Thankfully my wishes slowly but surely granted as "fantasy gun control" gets less prevalent nowadays.

Click to shrink...

If anyone wants to argue "there are no guns in my fantasy setting because my fantasy setting is based on Historical Period X before guns were a thing IRL" then I do agree with you, they have an implicit obligation to get the details of X correct. It's just...I don't think the dislike for guns in fantasy has anything to do with a desire for historical authenticity. It's about the emotional appeal to an aesthetic. If you, the writer or GM, don't like that aesthetic and prefer to have guns (either for historical reasons or just because your own aesthetic includes firearms), great! But your initial "borderline rants," as you put it, really seemed to be saying "if you don't like guns in fantasy, your opinions are badwrong."

(Thread tax: my own "my personal aesthetic is rubbed the wrong way by this fantasy-world element" is the inclusion of 17th-18th-century European ships, Golden Age of Piracy pirate cultures, and so on, without consideration of the economies involved or the type of weapons used in naval combat--ironically, yes, including guns.)

 

[The Englanderish]

If you're dissing my Rats with Gatling guns I will have to fight you.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, I like the Skaven approach. Mostly because it runs off of magic chaos rocks and green lightning and is completely absurd-cackling-fun.

I think, on analysis, my main issue with standard medieval guns is... they're just so fucking slow. You fire and something dies and then it's like a minute or more before it can happen again. But that's more of an attempt at working out the reason, so it might not actually be that.

 

[Voikirium]

If writers could like, learn to make siblings that are actually siblings instead of running back to about the same three styles every time that would be lovely.

 

[mesonoxian]

I get annoyed by unrealistic forensics, especially profiling. The best real life profiling provides better than chance guesses. The Criminal Minds version where they can determine race, age, wealth level, and specific traumatic incidents in the perpetrator's past is annoying.

Also the conceit that all murderers are either geniuses who want to test themselves against the protagonists or psychologically traumatised people with highly specific rituals based on their trauma.

 

[willyvereb]

I think, on analysis, my main issue with standard medieval guns is... they're just so fucking slow. You fire and something dies and then it's like a minute or more before it can happen again. But that's more of an attempt at working out the reason, so it might not actually be that.

Click to shrink...

Depends on operator and a lot of nuanced details, actually.
Also large crossbows load in almost a minute and for that you need plenty of physical exertion while for guns you only go through the notions.

Anyways, a lot of loading black powder guns depends on technique and the "ergonomics" of the gun. For the latter we really talk about basic things like those giant 16th century muskets are awkward to load while pistols can be even done on horseback. Or the differences between matchlocks, flintlocks and wheellocks. As for technique drills are important and so is preparing ball and gunpowder in advance. Powder horns can help, paper cartridges are even better as they can be portioned exactly to the amount you need. This makes training easier and just the matter of spilling the powder into the barrel. Another factor is the fit, loose fitting barrels take less effort to force the ball and powder to the bottom and builds up less residue.
Long story short loading a muzzle loader smoothbore guns can range from 2 minutes to less than 15 seconds.
Your fantasy setting's gun-wielding equivalent of a Legolas might even do it in a few seconds. Especially if he ditches the cleaning steps of the procedure.
Loading a black powder gun fast is all about dexterity and tools/designs to assist you in this purpose.
Then you also have the option for repeater firearms. Revolver muskets were discovered in Germany, originating from around the early 16th century. If you go further in the timeline you can also have the Kalthoff Repeater.
There are a lot of options to make your heroic gun user more "interesting" and I haven't even gotten to the magic yet.

Of course you can also go the other direction and enforce the "slow but powerful" style for the guns in order to keep other ranged weapons competitive. If your cutoff for tech is late middle ages your only option is matchlocks at best. Basically think of a long rope rolled around the gun with a slowly burning end point. You fire by putting that flame to the chamber opening on the top portion of your weapon. Oh and before battle you need to find a source of fire. You obviously don't keep a slow match burning unless you expect combat so you have to ignite the rope somehow before combat. That could add an interesting story mechanic to your adventures.

 

[The Englanderish]

I'm sure there's stuff in there that's nteresting to you, but my eyes kinda just glazed over. Sorry.

 

[willyvereb]

I'm sure there's stuff in there that's nteresting to you, but my eyes kinda just glazed over. Sorry.

Click to shrink...

The short answer is that you can have a lot of variables with old guns, your hero might even reload them within seconds. Or you can make the awkwardness of guns a feature and a trade for their power. Ultimately it only depends on the GM/author.
You have a lot of options.