The Englanderish
Schrödinger's Kuudere Kitty Caliph(a)
- Location
- Califat de Chats
Let me rephrase that. Early firearms are still by and large extremely boring to me.
Cliches you can't stand
- Thread starter Mithras
- Start date
blast flame
How far will we go if it means lighting the way?
- Location
- Perth, Australia
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Well most swords and other variations of "hit them with a, potentially sharp, object" are boring to me. 
Morphic Tide
Crazy Brainstormer, Munchkin and Wannabe Min-Maxer
- Location
- MI, USA
Fun early-ish (1700s) repeating firearm: Cookson repeaters has a rotating breach mechanism and a storage for powder and shot in the stock, with the size of the breach chamber and location of shot making a single smooth turning of a lever reload the weapon. In about 5 seconds.
The end result of all this is that you have a flintlock weapon that is a lever-action repeater that's technically breach loading, and has no finicky timing or anything. At most, you have to manually set up the firing mechanism.
The end result of all this is that you have a flintlock weapon that is a lever-action repeater that's technically breach loading, and has no finicky timing or anything. At most, you have to manually set up the firing mechanism.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
I mean, other than all of the downsides that explain why it wasn't adopted as the firearm of choice for everyone.
Morphic Tide
Crazy Brainstormer, Munchkin and Wannabe Min-Maxer
- Location
- MI, USA
Pain in the ass to make, the powder used is a nightmare for the needed tight fitting (a loose fitting would frequently ignite the stock storage) due to solid byproducts, the explosion caused the rather limited structural components to be failure prone and generally the thing falls well into Awesome, but Impractical.I mean, other than all of the downsides that explain why it wasn't adopted as the firearm of choice for everyone.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I mean, other than all of the downsides that explain why it wasn't adopted as the firearm of choice for everyone.
I want to believe.
willyvereb
Migratory Thinker
Cookson's repeater is actually a pretty late model, mostly copying the Italian Lorenzoni's design. Decades before that an unknown person in Denmark invented what is later be sold as the Kalthoff Repeater.
And again in the early 1500s somebody already invented a revolver musket. Further more if we include salvo guns then Chinese were using multi-barrel gunsticks centuries before.
So yeah, you have a fine choice of multi-shot weapons.
Keep in mind though that not only most of these weapons were expensive, they also had various trades for this capability. Salvo guns are inaccurate, more complex and considerably heavier. Revolvers needed you to manually pre-load each chamber which took quite a while (so you couldn't do that in combat). Repeaters were quite complex and required intense maintenance. Revolvers and repeaters were also intolerant to humidity and could catastrophically malfunction if the powder got wet. Lastly multi-shot weapons were often making the sacrifice in terms of power to make the weapon more compact and reliable. Musketballs could get as heavy as 120 grams a piece (1850+ grains) and 75-gram/1150+ grain bullets were the norm for these in order to reliably defeat armor. Carlson repeaters on the other hand fired 17-gram/ 260+ grain balls which are effective for hunting or self-defense but would had performance on par with pistols when it came to defeating armor.
Their finicky, expensive and maintenance heavy nature kept these weapons mostly away from mainstream military use. It can make sense that a decently equipped adventurer may have these but in case they do as a GM I'd watch for how much they care for it. If they are negligent then they could expect the weapon to fail them pretty soon.
Spartakrod
Judeo-Spartacist Bolshevik-Kabbalist
- Location
- Sanctum Arcanorum
- Pronouns
- Fae/Faer/Faers/Faerself
I mean, you can always rapid fire blackpowder pistols the Saltzpyre way.
Just carry a hundred of them and throw them away as you fire them because reloading is for cowards.
And there are the Empire's Repeater guns which are both goofy (gatling muskets!) and amazing.
Honestly, firearms in general are kind of boring to me. You need to go Farsign XR-20 levels of ridiculous before I'll take notice of a gun.
Add to that the inevitable emergence of gun wanking every time you portray guns (I am on some levels really regretting making my current RP campaign basically be XCOM: Fairy Unknown, because it's apparently impossible to have modern firearms in a thing without otherwise perfectly fine people going "actually" and failing to understand that I genuinely do not give a fuck about the differences between an RPG and a rocket launcher) and honestly I'm at the point where "it has guns" is, while not a dealbreaker at all, definitely a thing to put in the "con" column about a setting.
Spartakrod
Judeo-Spartacist Bolshevik-Kabbalist
- Location
- Sanctum Arcanorum
- Pronouns
- Fae/Faer/Faers/Faerself
I love tanks, mechas, and all kinds of shooty man implements.
But I genuinely don't really care about realism. I'm entirely fine with Warhammer 40,000's intermixing of melee combat, fairly grounded military weapons, and space fantasy goofiness like guns that work by physically tearing the target apart through "??????".
The people who try to inject realism into such settings by taking away the big stompy walkers and the prevalence of melee combat or outlandishly impractical firearms (anti-tank weapons that you have to be well within flamethrower range to use effectively) though are killjoys to the highest degree.
Was Obi-Wan and Durge having a literal speeder bike joust with actual lances on Muunilist in the Tartarovsky clone wars cartoon utterly and completely ridiculous? Yes, yes it was.
Was it unbelievably and amazingly awesome?
Hell yeah.
Last edited:
willyvereb
Migratory Thinker
You can get the same crowd with almost every other weapon. Do you wish me to ramble about swords? Because I can fill pages upon pages about that, too. They aren't any less nuanced. Talking about them is perhaps even more complex.
I suppose the difference is that there's a much larger contemporary culture of guns than that of ancient weaponry.
Although blaming the readers/audience/playerbase is not an universal solution. Given the rocket launcher/RPG comparison it seems to me you don't like getting too tangled up in the technicalities in general. If that's so like MO said you have to communicate to the people that your idea of fun doesn't include in-depth analysis and detailed explanations for the matter.
Although I think XCOM is likely not a good example, you do need to get at least moderately into the depths of weapon knowledge for that.
willyvereb
Migratory Thinker
At times story is built on realism so when it gets in the way that just means you didn't write it well enough. Such stories are a rarity of course, although many works implement elements into their writing style. A good story doesn't need to be realistic. Although realism and its nuances is a good framework which can assist you in your aims to build something exciting. Case in point compare Newtonian space travel physics with "oceans in space" and "space aeroplanes" portrayals. You suddenly have way more tools to use for writing a combat scene than just "hard to port" or "do a barrel roll".
Of course like with everything, forcibly inserting a concept like "realism" can ruin the story if you don't build around it. Also you of course have to remember that the idea of realism is subjective. For one person the fact you use authentic names for WW2 weapons that have close to real sound and notable kick while aiming down sights is realism. Another keeps complaining that his friend murdered him again by shooting off his pinky. Similarly, you can call For Honor or Kingdom Come: Deliverance as "realistic" medieval age games with "realistic" melee combat. But tell that to any intermediate level HEMA practitioner and they'd either say no or laugh into your face. Does it mean they would hate these games? Not necessarily. People can enjoy something even if they understand it isn't realistic. If not then I suppose Dragonball Z only would have the fanbase of say twelve delusional children.
You'd think so, but the thing is that this only happens regularly specifically with guns. Historians and hema fans can generally shrug off if there's a dude with a big wooden club beating a dude in plate armor (I game with several!), but if you have a person who likes guns, you better prepare a whole set of carefully thought out reasons for why the guns aren't easily killing all the enemies, complete with knowing the rough amounts of kinetic force involved. Like, again, in this campaign the people I play with are friends, they are not generally nitpickers, and when we play, like, Legends of the Wulin they have no problem with stuff. But in this campaign I have had to think up all sorts of reasonings for why you can't just hit a Fae with a rocket and kill them immediately but still be killable by the PCs in general. And this is not a singular occurence. For some reason when guns come into play suddenly granularity is always important and for the fucking life of me I cannot understand why.
- Location
- Somewhere
Could do what Slayers did with harming Mazoku. Since they are Astral beings, it's actually your will that's harming them, channelled through the weapon. You can't do that if you aren't touching it when it hits them. And that setting not only has guns and cannon, but magic powered tanks and steampunk ICBMs.
Last edited:
willyvereb
Migratory Thinker
I see. Then I mistook your issue a bit. Your problem is less on aversion to technicalities and more that your players can't hold up their suspension of disbelief. Funny thing is, the most fitting solution to it is inserting even more realism. There are many different solutions to this:
1.) Forcefields with a minimum "gate energy" to resist attacks, thus multiple small impacts separated by a bit of time lapse are more efficient than a single powerful hit. So basically you go a bit technobabble.
2.) Using RPGs on each and every target is an outright waste. Not to mention your people carrying those would be encumbered with a lot. If you wish to use missiles for every target then you probably need 4-5 times as many troops just to retain the same effectiveness. And of course you can forget about infiltration and subtlety. So you might have a specialist with maybe another carrying spare missiles for emergiencies like a "big mean monster" showing up but anything more is counterintuitive.
3.) Missiles and explosives are never guaranteed to hit and given their cumbersomeness and sparse ammo the chances of a direct hit could be actually rather low. Keep in mind that missiles often travel at fraction of the speed of gunshots, so maybe a superhuman Fay can evade them. I don't know if you use a game system or it's based entirely on narrative. If it's the former then "hit" can be even a near-miss and the explosion doing some damage. If you go based on pure narrative then don't let every well-executed missile attack score a direct hit,especially not on infantry. And when indirect effects are concerned the Fay's body might be more durable against shocks but not puncturing. It also might have armor but it wouldn't cover it everywhere. Even if it's a direct hit that missile might've impacted against the Fay's armor. Furthermore shaped charges are way too focused to guarantee a kill against such a creature. It does leave a hole bigger than what most guns would cause but depending on how bizarre their anatomy is or if they have healing factor such impacts can be shrugged off to a degree.
Your primary defense against geeks is to hit them with the hammer of reality. If their idea of "efficient" involves kill squads armed with RPGs then show them how badly they'd fail.
Spartakrod
Judeo-Spartacist Bolshevik-Kabbalist
- Location
- Sanctum Arcanorum
- Pronouns
- Fae/Faer/Faers/Faerself
Even stories built on a "realistic aesthetic" like historical fiction, dramas, and non sci-fi/fantasy action movies very, very, very frequently play fast and loose with all sorts of facets of reality and its rules for the sake of drama, comedy, or coolness. Sure most cars if struck will not blow up in a pyrotechnic fireball if hit in the engine or gas tank, but it looks and sounds cool and is an audovisual cue that the vehicle is destroyed so who cares? And sure, the law does not work the way that it does in fiction more than half the time it is of any relevance but this is fiction; not a hypothetical legal exercise in a bar exam.
willyvereb
Migratory Thinker
I don't see anything in your argument which contradicts with my previous response. Why did you quote me?
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Plus, what people think history is, and what history actually is, well.
Where are the rabid dogs? Where, in the 1800s historical fiction, is the guy who cut off his own dick in a fit of Delirium Tremens and then died and a doctor actually wrote up an account of it for a medical journal?
Where's fifty thousand different things that are part of history.
(Note, I'm not complaining about their lack per se. What I'm saying is that chasing realism doesn't work, and in many cases makes the work worse.
For instance, obvious one: you have to downplay the racism and sexism of certain eras at least a little, because few people will want to read works sunk *deep* into the bedrock of past beliefs.
And if you do show such beliefs, you usually have to separate your protagonist from them, make him or her more enlightened than their time, for obvious reasons, since reading the rantings of a white supremacist, for instance, isn't particularly likely to make you sympathize with them.)
Last edited:
Spartakrod
Judeo-Spartacist Bolshevik-Kabbalist
- Location
- Sanctum Arcanorum
- Pronouns
- Fae/Faer/Faers/Faerself
I was mentioning that even stories with a realistic aesthetic will more often than not play fast and loose with reality for the sake of a joke, dramatic tension, or just sheer style factor. I don't think there's any fictional tale where absolutely no aspect of reality save for the presence of fictional characters and events is bent.
I think more than the protagonist being separate, you should not just neutrally show or inadvertently support these now outmoded value judgements. In something set in the Roman Empire or a fantasy equivalent, while you can if you feel brave enough for it; have a protagonist who largely passively accepts the existence of slave society or an economy built largely on conquering foreign lands, looting them, and then divying up their territory between those who participated in its conquest and "imperialization". However if your protagonist does not oppose these things, they should still be shown in a frank light; that this wealth and splendour is literally built on mass oppression that must constantly grow to avoid stagnation. Don't apologise for it or hide behind "that's just how things worked back then".
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Yes, but I was also talking about the way most of the audience will treat it. It makes it hard for the audience to sympathize, for good reason. Passive acceptance is easier to write than active participation, of course.
But as far as it goes, not that you'd say it[1], but for those going, "PC culture strikes again", the Victorians imposed their morality on their 'historical fiction' and I'm pretty sure a similar imposition of medieval Christian morality on, say, King Arthur myths happened. Cultures write historical fiction, or history-based-fantasy, in reference to their own time. How can they not?
[1] This is for anyone else here.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
But but but... you don't understand. There has to be rules to magic space lasers or my nerd world falls apart.
Hykal94
Orange Estus Kitteh
- Location
- Firelink Shrine
Me: "How can swords cut through plate? Why is no one carrying a shield? Where are the spears? Why are the commanders not wearing helmets? You're suppose to yell "loose" not "fire" because guns aren't around yet! Ugh, this is straining my suspension of disbelief."
Also me: MY MONK GRAPPLES THE CHARGING KNIGHT'S WARHORSE AND BODYSLAMS THEM BOTH TO THE GROUND. *rolls die*
Also me: MY MONK GRAPPLES THE CHARGING KNIGHT'S WARHORSE AND BODYSLAMS THEM BOTH TO THE GROUND. *rolls die*
I always got the idea that it was about internal consistency before people caught the ultra simulationist games disease.
Basically, dear Author, don't pull things from your ass.