He changed the entire physics of his setting just so he doesn't have gunpowder

>he changed the entire physics of his setting just so he doesn't have gunpowder
>he actively supports medieval stasis, leading to a stagnant and boring setting
>he's afraid of non magic users being on par with mages because his magic is based on DnD magic
>His last cry to refute firearms is "romanticism" or "individualism" even though there is absolutely nothing individualistic or romantic about being one among many men holding a polearm as they charge into battle

My setting is a utopia. There are no open wars. International disputes are solved by kings dueling in court.

How did it become that advanced in the first place? A lot of technology and customs are a result of war in the first place

1. Having a fantasy setting where the bodies run on humors or some shit would be entirely fitting.
2. Most settings don't run over a long enough time period for technological advancement to be particularly noticeable. This is even assuming they're within a period of especially rapid advancement.
3. How exactly does a firearm do this?
4. Reading Homer and Virgil should be mandatory before posting on Veeky Forums.

I need to stress that last one. More posters on Veeky Forums need to read the fucking classics so they can actually understand the ideas behind the literature they consume.

>read
I'm no nerd I don't read, I'm just here to fuck shit up

lmao early gunpowder was shit you nerd, literally outclassed by longbowmen and crossbows.
thats besides the actual cost of black powder itself if youre not using placed cannons which get reckt by the mvp of 99% of human history...calvery

>lmao early gunpowder was shit you nerd, literally outclassed by longbowmen and crossbows.

But that's not true. It was used to great effectiveness early on.

chinese repeating crosbows were used yo better effectivness than blackpowder infantary tho, unless youre talking about muskets? in which case yeah but it took a while to shrink a cannon in the first place

War is the Father of invention and the wetnurse of human progress.

Wrong. If firearms weren't useful, they wouldn't be used; they exploded in popularity when they were still very basic in the 14th and 15th centuries and kept spiraling in popularity. They were used primarily as skirmishing weapons in Europe up until the 15th century where massed fire was shown to be very effective during the Hussite Wars.

No, I am talking about the weapons that would become a big feature of warfare in Europe during the 1400s, and ultimately wind up setting the technological standard of warfare at the time.

Would you fuck off already?

Bit off topic, but black panther is a great example of why you do not settle politics with duels

Because I don't like them.

>he's afraid of non magic users being on par with mages because his magic is based on DnD magic

Easy enough. Mages just need to blow up the gunpowder stock. No more supplies. No more wars.

Plebs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

Chinese repeating crossbows?

You mean the ones with such little stopping power that they had to resort to putting poison on the tips of the bolts?

Stop trying to force your gun fetish in other people's settings you certified american autist

from what I've heard Rocket Arrows and Fire Lances(and other early Oriental Black Powder weapons) were actually pretty effective within a very short amount of time of them being invented, there's a reason the Mongols took early firearms and cannon with them to the Middle-East and Europe

Meanwhile the entire reason they're not in my setting is because of a severe lack of volcanoes, springs, salt domes, and so on because they are simply not found in that region. And one faggot thinks that I was doing that as part of an elaborate plan to not have firearms.

Meanwhile on another setting; a catfolk alchemist is the pioneer, designer, and inventor of the modern firearm and also the #1 reason they're regulated to hell and back and why only a few people are allowed to manufacture them. Being it's an epic 6 world, firearms are much more dangerous than in a normal one.

This. People think early firearms were utterly shit and no one used them; except while they were very crude compared to what came later, they were still effective and kept being used time and time again, growing in popularity despite the fact you had to wait until the 16th century for people to put triggers on them.

China is just bad in general, user

The virgin roleplayer.

The chad rollplayer.

>his setting needs widely available gunpowder, because, somehow, power has to be available to everyone and not a restricted commodity that has to be stolen, controlled or bargained for
>his setting has magic, because "fantasy is only possible if you add handwavium into the setting!"
>his setting is based on medieval era or later, because he is too creatively bankrupt to run antiquity and/or primeval
>his last cry to justify ubiquitious firearms in his setting is "b-but muh gunz! muh great equalizer!" despite guns being usually restricted to nobility or a setting equivalent of thereof
Two can play this game, faggotron.

If there's nothing supernatural you're playing alternate history not fantasy.

>alternate history isn't fantasy

Fuck you, play the setting that you agreed to play, Jeff!
No one likes your passive aggressive bullshit, you know exactly what you're doing, knock it off or leave.

>>he changed the entire physics of his setting just so he doesn't have gunpowder
No need to do that, just say it isn't invented.
>he actively supports medieval stasis, leading to a stagnant and boring setting
Stagnant settings are good because they let you focus on the characters and their stories.
>he's afraid of non magic users being on par with mages
Good. People with good combat skills should never be the equal of people who can directly manipulate the fabric of reality
>His last cry to refute firearms is "romanticism" or "individualism" even though there is absolutely nothing individualistic or romantic about being one among many men holding a polearm as they charge into battle
Historical fact: Firearms caused casualty rate for officers to skyrocket, leading to less emphasis on individual heroics from commanders

How would gunpowder effect a world with few sources of metal?
Would most soldiers have wooden fire-and-drop rifles and then default back to spears, with rifled metal barrels being a sign of office or rank? Would grenades and other disposable explosives be common? Would you even need firearms if metal armor is rarely if ever implemented?

>look mom, i posted it again!

We have this thread every day

"Allright, there is gunpowder, but the setting is still per-miniturization so there are only massive cannons for siege warfare! Happy now? Can we just play the game instead and if we want to discuss things, can we discuss how to make fighters that aren't musclemagic or anime bullshit interesting?"

GOND SAYS NO

A huge part of their effectiveness was moral and not causing actual damage though. Even if they were much less cost effective than arrows, it's much more demoralizing if you just hear a noise and the guy next to you gets blown to pieces

Not in the 13th and 14th centuries. The only real gunpowder weapons were cannons and they could only be fired once or twice a day. Infantry firearms tended to explode in the hand and couldn't be aimed more than pointing it in the genera direction of the enemy.

It was only by the 15th century and the invention of the matchlock that you could actually get anywhere with massed firearm carrying formations and even then they could easily be overrun by a fast and determined foe. The arquebus was man portable but could only be aimed with a monopod. Even then, you needed pikes to guard them well into the 17th century. It's only the 18th century that you see soldiers running around with only muskets.

Honestly the primary reason for the phasing out of pikes was the bayonet. Allowing you to arm more men that were capable of fighting (Not as well as a full on pike but they could also shoot) in melee

And real men move away from both when they're 18.

It's all kind of sad, really. You can't even call it trolling, since no one ever gets mad. He just knows it's something guaranteed to get responses and that insignificant bit of acknowledgement seems to be all that's standing in between him and suicide

Again, that's not true. We see firearms surge in popularity and we have accounts of them being used in skirmishes and battle frequently in the 14th and 15th centuries.

>lmao early gunpowder was shit you nerd, literally outclassed by longbowmen and crossbows.

They replaced ballista, non-blackpoweder incendary devices and close-rage, hard-hitting missile weapons that early.

And at all of those, archers and crossbows lose hard.

The experiments with organ guns and such didn't yield useful results though, yes.

>chinese repeating crosbows were used yo better effectivness than blackpowder infantary tho

Repeating crossbows were strictly limited to defending ships and walls, as far as we know. And I think only the Koreans used the larger examples.

>Even if they were much less cost effective than arrows,
Gunpowder was way more cost effective than arrows. Arrows are expensive as fuck, they're professionally manufactured with straight wood metal heads, you need a shit ton of them for an army, they're bulky and if you don't handle them properly they're warped and useless. Gunpowder is just keep dry and away from fire, mix it up again if it's settled. Lead is cheap because it's a natural byproduct of silver mining and you don't need a whole lot per bullet.

Not to mention a lead ball about the size of your forefinger is a hell of a lot less material then an arrow shaft, plus feathers, plus the arrowhead.

And the fact that a gun is equally deadly in the hands of an amateur or a professional. Point at the target and shoot.

Gunpowder wasn't exactly easy to make, store or transport and experts on the matter were coveted by all powers. Its use also required training.

Early guns weren't as safe or easy to use as a modern assault rifle, complete amateurs and even experts were still likely to blow themselves up.

That gunpowder experts were coveted proves the point. Everyone wanted guns, not bows.

Guns need training, so do bows. Difference is you can train someone to use a gun in weeks while it takes years to build the physique for a war bow. The man suffering malnutrition from poor diet while on campaign can still fire a gun perfectly well, while the archer next to him might not.

Dying to stupid accidents happens but that's an occupational hazard. It's weeks of marching between battles as everyone dances around jockeying for advantage anyways.

imagine this anthropomorphised social dynamic for a setting.

>>he's afraid of non magic users being on par with mages because his magic is based on DnD magic
Whe Casters can stop time; gate in Solars; create their own planes; summon massive walls of stone, steel or even pure indestructible force; summon godzilla; shapeshift into godzilla; etc guns dont equalize shit.

They were mentioned, yes, but how often did these guns play a major part of a battle? How often did you see massed formations of gonne armed troops. Really, it wasn't until the 15th century that there was even pike and shot formations

>People with good combat skills should never be the equal of people who can directly manipulate the fabric of reality
Magic-users should not be able to directly manipulate the fabric of reality. They should be asking something for their power.

>Historical fact: Firearms caused casualty rate for officers to skyrocket,
>leading to less emphasis on individual heroics from commanders
I'm pretty sure the crossbow already did the first part, with general human cowardice causing the second.
Hence why the church/nobility tried to outlaw crossbows, and ranged combat in general.

>a weapon that feebly launches a wooden stick that can be stopped by 8 or 9 layers of fabric
hmm yeah bows and crossbows sure were great weapons, gunpowder only took off because it was cost effective and had a "morale effect"

Yeah I'll do all that and there is nothing you can do about it.

Oh certainly. For the most part they were adopted some time in the 1700s depending on the country.There's arguments about how effective the bayonet was as a melee weapon but most generals knew it didn't matter. As long as troops could perform in melee commanders could use them in melee and the rest just wasn't important.

Why do we have to have this thread up at all times.

Because we're devoid of imagination and interesting topics.

This board is such a fucking shithole

>His last cry to refute firearms is "romanticism" or "individualism" even though there is absolutely nothing individualistic or romantic about being one among many men holding a polearm as they charge into battle
what kind of PC does that?

See

No. Crossbows were poor weapons against armoured targets. The "crossbow ban" (which included normal bows) was just some turbo-tier autism from the pope that literally everybody ignored - especially the nobility.

Please Crucify yourself at the earliest inconvience

I mean, T'challa technically didn't lose that duel

t. Luddendorf

They were generally effective against chain mail. Not so much against heavier.

...

Hence the picture with plate armour.

Of course physics changes. In my setting, things aren't made up of cells, with DNA and crap. We've got "essence" and all sorts of magic-tastic ways to gloss over all of that for the sake of fun and cool stories.

Only problem is that he doesn't always put gun in his post

I mean, I think the crossbow ban was more about "Some random dude with a crossbow can put a bolt through anyone's head while they're just hanging out" more than anything to do with battlefield effectiveness.

Kys already
Technology makes achievement feel cheap, full contact a-go-go

>his fantasy universe has real world physics
kys

Give it a rest already you autistic faggot

>ye anceynt wyruld
PC's are individuals that buy equipment

>cutting edge technoacceleration
PC's are organizations that buy individuals

Why are gunfags so aggressive the last few weeks?

Have guns in YOUR setting, sperg. Have at it. I just don’t want them and if that bothers you, then don’t play in MY setting.

The only good thing about early gunpowder was the fear factor associated with them. If they became common place you would lose some of that and that is not even talking about the chances you have of them blowing up in your own soldiers hands taking out him and anyone close by. The fact that gunpowder is completely useless if it gets wet and that they produced so much smoke that you wouldn't be able to the see enemy running right at you if you volleyed them.

>No. Crossbows were poor weapons against armoured targets.

They worked well enough. It's just that guns were comparable, but better in the range bands crossbows were used to penetrate plate armour at.

The crossbow ban covered all missile weapons safe javelines.

blame lazy casters for the idea

>crossbows are treated as a cultural mix between a flintlock musket and a 20th century bolt action rifle, complete with sling and bayonet and carried by the average infantryman
>pistol crossbows are somehow simultaneously a flintlock pistol analogue and an analogue for a modern handgun
>18th century sailing ships using ballistae in place of cannons
>repeating crossbows are fully automatic machine guns instead of shitty low power lever-operated peashooters
>the barkeep pulls out a crossbow from under the counter
>"I don't want guns that'll ruin my medieval aesthetic"

If it's a duel to the death and you don't kill the other dude, then at least beat them so bad that you can legitimately say "You're not worth killing"
Any less and the fight is still on and you just took a breather

Almost excusable if the gods themselves want to maintain a status quo of technology and magic. Magic superiority over martials is bullshit, though.

>technology makes achievement feel cheap
Do your players play as some sort of proto-humans?

Not to mention this is definitely a game where the nobility are walking about in full harnesses whilst carrying rapiers too.

I've never met anyone who didn't want guns in the game as a crude method of metagaming their character to personally invent 100s of years of technological development and essentially forcing us all to play in their extended fantasy jerk-off session.

This is most common among engineering students, but it's pretty common just based on what certain fuckos read on wikipedia.

>He has everyday gay-ass guns in his setting
>when with some creativity some new kind of range combat or cool gun plus magic artifacts and weapons can pop up.

A-am i the only one who does this? Yes? Oh... Ok.

In my setting, the firearm is kind of shit compared to the truck-sized glaive.
I mean, sure, it's nice in duels, but when you are fighting the clicking tides, you want nice wide swathes and no reload times.

That's because they were seen as skirmishing weapons; you didn't see massed ranks of them, mostly because cost of manufacturing and the whole 'massed fire' thing hadn't been invented yet. Instead it was very common for them to be sent out in front of armies to fire off a few rounds against other skirmishing troops and harass the enemy.

>he doesn't have gunpwder
>his magic is based on DnD magic
How do wizards cast fireball? The freaking material component is literally gunpowder.

Remember the same Papal bull banning crossbows also banned tournaments.

It's likely actually someone who doesn't like guns at all; this is how autists get something banned on Veeky Forums.

>Autist doesn't like something.
>Autist spams the board with it.
>Other people turn on it.
>Mods see there's a problem and don't understand the board, so they ban it.

Look forward to discussion of guns being banned entirely.

I want guns in my game but I want them to be firelances and hand gonnes because I fucking love late medieval warfare and that aesthetic.

>1. Having a fantasy setting where the bodies run on humors or some shit would be entirely fitting.
Is there any setting that runs with aristotelean physics plus stuff like humorism, miasma theory of disease, etc?

>he's afraid of non magic users being on par with mages

Firearms would not even dent magic supremacy.

One fog summoning spell and your line infantry is now useless.

And in reality black powder firearms are not this magical all slaying super weapon. Plenty of good plate armor could stop bullets. This is the entire reason why samurai abandoned lamellar for plate.

>lmao early gunpowder was shit you nerd, literally outclassed by longbowmen and crossbows.

Wrong. Read on Japanese invasion of Korea.

Matchlocks already had obvious advantages over powerful korean reflex bows much stronger than english longbows.

But it was a weapon best used together with other kinds of weapons.

You hit so many spots, so well. user, take me.

>Wrong. Read on Japanese invasion of Korea.

Mind you, part of that was that Korea had utterly shit discipline so the matchlocks were an intimidation weapon. The same reason melee was so devastating to them in that war, because they were very bad at actually standing up to scary offence.

Bows had better range, accuracy and rate of fire. This was pointed by both japanese and korean sources. But Tanagashimas were still very effective weapons that made most armor obsolete.

Most people fail to realize how bad bows are at piercing armor. And making arrows is a pain in the ass while lead bullets are easy to make and you can carry 10x more of them.

These threads need to stop. I don't know if it's one autist or a bunch of idiots who thinks it's funny, but I need to stop seeing these in the catalog

All I'm getting is that if we ignore him he will go away forever

I think it's a hurr Durr its Veeky Forums le edgy school shooting bullshit, gun controls in the news let's try to egg on the great hate furnace of the internet for teh epic screencap thing.

>he actively supports medieval stasis, leading to a stagnant and boring setting


> Implying this isn't an god-tier trope

Why is it stagnant? Who/what is keeping it that way? What happens when you try to change it? How do people react when you try to change it? Was it always like this? Can it be different in the future?

Half of creativity lies in exploring underexplained and underexplored concepts from previous authors.

You dumb nigger there is zero reason why gunpowder was an inevitability. There is no reason why medieval stasis is a mistake when we had technological periods of stagnation and stasis for millenia previously. We had a general technological stagnation from the 7000s BC to 3000 BC with only just a moderate use of copper and bronze among the highest echelons of society. Stone was still used by the majority.

>DERP A HERP PROGRESS MUST CORRESPOND TO THE TRAJECTORY, TIME, AND GEOGRAPHY OF REAL WORLD.

The source I read said that the Japanese guns could outrange their bows and fly more accurately so they had to try and let them get close, use reverse slope tactics, etc to use the bows effectively.