Your fantasy setting has guns, right Veeky Forums? Wouldn't want to look like you don't know anything about history

They aren't something you intuitively think of when it comes to sword and sorcery, and if improperly implemented they can actively detract from it by taking iconic things like armoured knights and heroic swordfights and reducing their importance. The bow is a much more iconic fantasy weapon than the gun, regardless of realism, and in terms of those classical fantasy aesthetics, tropes and themes it fits much more easily overall.

Not to say you can't do guns in fantasy, but it has to be applied with thought and care. Just adding them in thoughtlessly can do far more harm than good.

>iconic things like armoured knights and heroic swordfights

But you never play as armoured knights.

I wish janitors started purging these threads.

Okay, I'll admit, I don't know THAT much about history. Did they actually have guns in the bronze age?

Is this thread some kind of attempt at reverse-psychology?

...What planet do you live on? The plate armoured warrior hero is one of the most played character archetypes out there.

You do when you're new to D&D and don't know that playing a caster is the only way to be relevant.

My setting doesn't have China, so why should it necessarily have guns?

>guns reduced the knights' importance
Wanna know how I know you've never picked up a history book?

These will be posted on Veeky Forums daily until people learn not to post in them.

Reminds me of when I regularly posted about potatoes and how ridiculous it was that people got mad at fantasy worlds that were definitely not Earth and definitely did not follow Earth's cultural spread having widespread potatoes

Except I'm not talking in terms of realism, I'm talking in terms of aesthetics. I'm well aware they coexisted, and that's entirely irrelevant to my point.

The iconic nature of the knight is the ultimate war machine, the embodiment of martial prowess and authority who rides into battle upon a thoroughbred, armed and armoured with the best they can get, with associations of honour, nobility and chivalry.

And all of that gets overwritten when you introduce a man with a gun. Because the man with a gun is the modern icon of warfare, even though by now that's out of date. The firearm has a huge quantity of cultural connotations, not the least of which being the weapon that literally killed the era most fantasy tropes come from. Yes, there was along transition period and a lot of coexistence, but most people don't know or care about that, and it's still irrelevant when talking about how things are commonly understood.

That man with a gun was probably a knight himself. Really, the best full plate armors belong to the pike&shot era.

And that is, again, entirely irrelevant to my actual point.

>potatoes are bad skub, carrots are good skub
people getting mad about fantasy on the internet is some funny shit

>It doesn't fit my misconception of what a knight is so I don't want it.

...It doesn't fit the common, iconic fantasy conception of what a Knight is. That is my core point. How things are perceived and how the fantasy aesthetic has developed and grown beyond its roots in history is important to acknowledge.

nah, you just have shit tier a e s t h e t i c s

I'm not even talking about my own preferences, I'm talking about the common perception of fantasy and why most people are averse to sticking guns in it. And if that's their choice and preference, there's nothing wrong with it.

Personally I love fantasy firearms, but I'm also aware it takes work to integrate them into a setting without taking away from other elements of it, especially if you've got a gunsperg in your group.

This is the problem. You're stating a subjective matter as fact.

I'm stating the common consensus. If you ask most people about Knights, their answer will resemble my description, as will most media depictions of them. The same applies to most fantasy things, and it all loops around to my main point- The common consensus picture of what a fantasy setting is or should be doesn't have guns.

Wait, people got mad that potatoes *were* included? Were they also mad about horses?

But they're ultimately wrong

>The firearm has a huge quantity of cultural connotations, not the least of which being the weapon that literally killed the era most fantasy tropes come from.
Pretty sure you're thinking of rising literacy rates and secular thinking there, fampai.

Do you base your game fantasy world off of common consensus? Fuck that. Play with people who've read a book, or are interested in learning more.

And fantasy isn't some shitty rendention of medievel europe that mindlessly rehashes tropes made by tolkien but I assume you'll sit here and tell me that this is the common and accepted idea.

And that's irrelevant, because fantasy isn't seeking to emulate reality. Authenticity is not inherently valuable, it only matters if you decide it should matter.

Again, I'm not talking about realism, I'm talking about cultural perception. The gun being what killed the age of the sword is a very common theme in a lot of media and something a lot of people understand intuitively, regardless of its connection to reality.

I, personally, do not. But the vast majority of fantasy worlds are, because these tropes are widespread and popular for a reason, and it's basically the key reason why guns in fantasy aren't more common.

Reminder that it's only hippie communists and the more autistic portions of Veeky Forums that don't like guns.

Because it is the common and accepted idea. I personally love weird and wonderful fantasy settings. But most people and most fantasy things still draw on those generic ideas because they're familiar and they sell well.

>The gun being what killed the age of the sword is a very common theme in a lot of media and something a lot of people understand intuitively, regardless of its connection to reality.
Pretty sure you're thinking of cartridged ammunition.

And that was only made possible by the rise of industrialization that was made possible by the fall of feudalism.

Again, I'm not talking about reality, I'm talking about perception. I'm not talking about the kind of nerds on Veeky Forums who read into this stuff and know the details, I'm talking about what the random person in the street who says they like fantasy because they saw the Lord of the Rings movies and Thor thinks.

Because all you've ever been exposed to is tolkien and Song of Ice and fire which only goes to show how limited you and others like you are.

Did you even read my fucking post? Weird, unique fantasy settings are my fucking jam. But that doesn't blind me or make me unable to also be aware that a common consensus picture of fantasy does exist and that it has a significant amount of influence.

Why would anyone care about what they think?

Because it is the fundamental explanation of the state of affairs discussed in OP. You don't see guns in fantasy settings, and people are often resistant to them, because they aren't a part of the default aesthetic, which is a thing a lot of people enjoy. Jaded nerds like us might be tired of generic elves and dwarves and dragons and want something different, but for so many more people those things still inspire wonder and magic in them, and they've yet to tire of them. And that honestly isn't a bad thing. The classics are classics for a reason and if they want to enjoy that sort of default fantasy schlock, let them. Who knows, if they're allowed to have their fun and keep doing so, maybe eventually they'll start looking for something different and be interested in your pet napoleonic fantasy setting or whatever. But attempting to tell them that not having guns in fantasy is doing it wrong just makes you kind of an arse.

Eh, certain people are more fun to see mad than others

I am convinced this is one user talking to himself.

Because guns are for faggots that can't pull their own in melee and can't draw a bow.

>le epic manly macho man XDDDDDDDDDDDdd

Well sure but what does that have to do with whether or not guns ended the age of feudalism and armored knights?

Because we're not talking about reality, we're talking about perception.

I dunno, it was undeniably one of the many factors but no one was talking about that so you tell us.

Oh look, it's this bait again...

>I have no self worth
>give me the weapon designed specifically to even the playing field between the capable and the incapable

>I, personally, do not.
So you feel the need to legitimate other people's poorly thought out choices? That you don't even do? To strangers on the internet?

Alternatively: the Virgin Gunman vs the Chad Swordsman

Funny how so many nerds hate gunpowder weapons in their fantasy but have no problem with crossbows. Crossbows caused the same sort of problems for knights as guns did, ie required little training and able to easily pierce armor. For a long time they were faster to load, more accurate, and had more range than guns. Stat wise Crossbow and guns would be on par for most things (Pathfinder got this right) but no one ever talks about banning crossbows from their games even though they pose the same damn problems to a coldsteel based warrior class as guns did and are basically as powerful as guns. Its just pointless nitpicking by a bunch by nerds more interested in cosplay than interesting settings.

I think it's important to point out that authenticity is not inherently valuable and that prioritising aesthetic over it is a perfectly valid choice. Anything else is just badwrongfun bullshit.

Again, it's because perception does not line up with reality. Crossbows are something we see in fantasy settings a lot, so we're familiar with them. Crossbows also lack a lot of the cultural associations guns do, meaning people object to them less.

>nerds more interested in cosplay than interesting settings.
There is nothing inherently interesting about gunpowder or inherently did interesting about a setting without it. Stop claiming the objectivity of your taste.

yo tru

There's no reason for gunpowder to exist in a sufficiently high magic setting. When any jackass can wiggle their fingers and speak a weird syllable to shoot an unerring bullet out of their eyes to kill the neighbors cat or shoot fire from their hands the incentive for gunpowder weapons development goes down

But whether people think they ended the era or not is irrelevant to whether they think it belongs in the setting.

So vague curses and asking Satan to smite people for you?

>When any jackass can wiggle their fingers and speak a weird syllable to shoot an unerring bullet out of their eyes
Unlike operating a gun, not just any jackass can do that

Precisely

It all forms part of the common consensus perception of it. Medieval fantasy stuff is perceived as the time before guns changed the face of warfare, which is why so many people believe that introducing a gun to a classic fantasy setting inherently undermines it. It doesn't if you properly extrapolate from it, and it can even work well, but in terms of how the general themes line up it's something that some people perfectly understandably want to avoid.

Is this a community service thing? Like, you imagine you're helping the gaming world or something like that?

We can go down the talking about inherent value thing if you really want. At which point we're into constructed meaning through social and cultural conventions intersecting with biochemicals, hyper structure, etc. There isn't really even anything to validate at that point. If it works for your group do it, its just human activity, going to happen one way or another regardless of your opinions about badwrong fun.

>common consensus perception of i
see, you're appealing to the existence of a common consensus of what imagination is, with no data, and trying to say that all methods are equally valid. So its moot to have a common consensus at that point.

...I'm just confused about what point you're trying to make with this post.

You've got to take into account how most systems have an action economy at the 6 second scale because of D20, and thus you either have early guns that take forever to use, to the point that they are pointless in an RPG or are advanced enough to be too fast and using anything but a gun in combat is silly.

pic related:

in AD&D's 1 round/1 minute system, a musket works about perfectly, 1 shot per round for early levels or non proficient users, one extra shot for every proficiency point in muskets.
But with a semi-auto weapon you're looking at 45 attacks per round, ridiculous!

Move onward to the 6 second/1 round action economy, now it takes 10 rounds to fire a single shot with a musket, but you get just over one shot per round with a semi auto, more with additional proficiencies.

I just don't really see what you're getting at other than 'some people do it x,y,z, so this is okay.'

And that can be your point I guess. Things be stuff.

Speaking of points, are bayonets on guns OP? should be nerfed or require a seperate specialisation from gun specialisation?

They're only good if you can engage at the right range with them.

So this is the newest bait in Veeky Forums, guns in fantasy

Because I was replying to the OP's suggestion that you are obligated to include guns in a fantasy setting, and are automatically better off doing so. I wished to disagree, and articulate my argument why.

Funny story, about that image. Thomas Jefferson owned a Girandoni air rifle, which capable of firing well over 20 shots per minute. Also, a trained musketman could certainly fire 3 shots per minute.

but consider you have a range weapon that does halberd damage at close range and can turn a gun into a 11 foot pole for dungeoneering.

Instantly your ranger has rendered half your party pointless, all because he's stuck a knife on the end of his weapon.

Its chill. I think I'm just caffeinated and indulging my autism too much.

What bayonet is going to turn a gun into an 11 foot pole?

You have a short, slightly wonky spear.

New? The fuck? I practiced this retardation for years, you don't think autism like makes itself, do you?

yeah but I only posted it for example of how quickly the earliest types of firearms fire compared to the fastest firing modern firearms.

Obviously the actual argument it's making makes no sense because the founding fathers made the 2nd amendment in the context of the militia clause - everyone needs the most lethal gun possible so they can bring their own gun if they're conscripted into state militias when the devious canadians north of lake michigan who covet the US' freedom inevitably invade to force us all into worshipping their papist-king.

(obviously, the neccesity of everyone havng guns makes no sense in a modern edition of the setting since Permenant Standing Army and standardised mass produced equipment rules were introduced, and is basically a weird holdover of previous editions of the USA setting.)

A gun with a bayonet is vastly inferior to a real polearm. It's heavier, shorter and more unwieldy. It's better than nothing, but not great.

a 10 foot long one.

Yes. The production and circulation of gunpowder is controlled by magic users and it is an important material component in many spells.

N-no? But imo, every setting with the possibility of such weapons should have them. They are just to effective not to have (unless your Not-China who doesn't fight serious wars for centuries)

I got this special through my own forms of retardation before Veeky Forums was a thing thank you very much.

Why should guns be possible in a fantasy setting? It runs on completely different rules, so there's no absolute reason why they should even be possible. It's up to whoever makes the setting.

Why do gunfags assume every setting is 14th century Europe? Why should my Norman inspired setting, or a setting based on Ancient Rome, feature guns, even though they weren't around at that time?

But they're possible in real life, so even if not easily discovered they're just too useful for any realistic culture to not develop them immediately.

Except that there could be tons of reasons why they might not be developed even though people would totally make them if they knew about it

Them being possible in real life in no way implies they should be possible in a fantasy setting, especially if it goes into the metaphysics of its world. If a setting runs on medieval alchemy, for example, the sort of chemistry that leads to gunpowder doesn't exist.

because duckbill helms and wide spread chainmail with plate armor being the more expensive and rare variety of armor.

Actually muskets could be fired 4 or even 5 times per minute in the hands of a skilled user. An average soldier could do 2-3. 1rpm would probably be if you've never fired one before but can follow instructions.

There's also the "spit the ball down the barrel and tap" trick to remove the ramming step, though this generally means the ball may not fire well. I've heard it might also be dangerous in case of misfire.

youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
youtube.com/watch?v=Pvc86ggLUY4

What about all of the cultures in real life who didn't develop them for millennia despite having the necessary bronzeworking technology?

Also I forgot to mention, the tap loading method will foul the barrel so you couldn't do it more than maybe once or twice in a row.

I don't understand their relation to a historically accurate fantasy game. Why would these imaginary cultures not use something so optimal? Authenticity is important.

>It's up to whoever makes the setting.
Yes.
Yeah, I phrased that badly. If the prepositions exist for example an Alchemist who figures out an explosive potion. It won't be long until it propels projectiles out of a rudimentary pipe.