I'm prepping a new setting to run in and I keep bouncing between having it be 17th Century Pike and Shot a la Warhammer Fantasy and 19th Century Regency / Napoleonic.
Does anyone have any feedback, thoughts, or autism to contribute or weigh in with?

I ran a long (five year) campaign in a homebrew Napoleonic-ish setting. Sailing, flintlocks, great powers and EIC expys, sea monsters, folklore, etc.
It was great, and I perennially fancy going back to it.

>>95866989 (OP)
Go 17th. More variety in weapons, soldiers, and tactics being experimented with. And you don't have to sacrifice wheellocks and flintlocks to do it.

>>95867032
>>95867066
It's reassuring that even you guys managed to both bring up great points for the opposing positions!
Thankfully a lot of the nuts and bolts under the hood will remain the same so it isn't holding me up *too* badly, but as a DM I really aim for some measure of internal consistency so I know I'll need to decide for sure one way or the other before I get things really dialed in.

>>95866989 (OP)
Having played both, I'd recommend the 17th, mostly because of more build variety. A lot of conventional melee weapons which you could take in the 17th, like large two handed sword, halberds, ect, fall off by the 19th.
What system are you using to run all this, though? That does kind of effect it. I ran both in GURPS.

>>95867182
Throwing my vote in 17th Century as well. The clusterfuck of Medieval warfare colliding with the first recognizably modern firearms is super aesthetic. The kitchen sink of stuff to use while still being appropriate for the time period is super cool.

pic related slightly exaggerated, but emphasis on slightly.

>>95867249
I'm most likely going to use AD&D Masque of the Red Death because my table is familiar with it, but we've discussed Blades in the Dark as well (since it's fun and I've been looking for an excuse to learn how to run it).
That said part of what got me into this mess was reading WFRP and being intrigued...if we go 17th century that might be worth a try.
Would love any suggestions! This game is still a month or two out so I've got time to pivot. The crunch isn't the hard part.
>>95867310
This is one of the major draws for me. I'm a bit of a fag for Conquistadors and Morions and polearms in particular.

>>95867363
Unsurprising for a gurpsfag, but I would strongly recommend trying it in gurps! You/d only need the Basic Set and Low Tech books to do so, or High Tech if you end up going with the 19th century. While GURPS can run a lot of things, the focus on history and simulationism makes it a good fit for historical inspired settings, especially if you want firearms to feel like more than flavored crossbows and players to be able to play more than the generic fantasy archetypes. GURPS also has a pretty fantastic combat system, especially melee combat.

>>95867571
Forgot to mention this but doing a history inspired setting in GURPS is also probably one of the easiest ways to learn the system, as it requires one book and almost no understanding of the more complex and confusing aspects (powers, building advantages, ultra tech).

>>95867032
So you ran Leviathan?

>>95867571
>>95867583
You know I've never *run* GURPS, but I've had a good time with it as a player.
I'll see what the table thinks. Maybe they'll be open to it! Execution wise it doesn't sound like a huge project for me as GM which is a plus.

>>95867586
Dunno what that is. My game was an original synthesis of things I'd been finding interesting for a while back in the late 00s and early 10s.
If you even saw the Love Death And Robots episode Bad Travelling that's the closest media I've seen to my game.

>>95867571
You want GURPS Swashbucklers, too. Not to steal the wind from your sails, but I'd be remiss not to mention Honor+Intrigue if OP wants 17th century adventures, since it is also intended for these kind of games specifically. Albeit pulpier by Default than GURPS.

Pic unrelated.

>>95868636
Good taste anon.
>>95869041
Oh! I saw that mentioned in the Swashbuckler thread and totally forgot to check it out. I'd be remiss if I didn't.

>>95869130
Grab Everywhen while you're at it. Like H+I, it split off of Barbarians of Lemuria. It does have some contingencies for running pike & shot era games, but it's intended as a more general toolbox and not so custom tooled as H+I.

>>95869265
Thanks a bunch anon. This has all been super helpful.
I think I'll move forward with 17th century - nothing saying I can't try out napoleonic down the road!
As a conclusion, shilling the rest of this neat Marienburg concept art I found online.

>>95869593

>>95869593

>>95869593
Helmet + Hat, an underexplored ostentation

>>95869685
See pic related

>>95869593

>>95869722
And finally some dapper banners.
Thanks again anons. I had low expectations considering how the 'wut if i put guns in me setting' slop threads usually go.

>>95869734
Pic related because I am a fool of a man.

>>95869734
To be fair, those aren't real threads, just one guy samefagging while a mod protects him.
>>95869685
Helmet and hat is heavily underutilized and it's a damn shame.

>>95869734
Its rare to see a real thread on /tg/ that isn't just one retard baiting and a dozen smaller retards taking the bait. Glad I was able to post in one.

>>95868636
>Bad travelling

Unironically one of the beat episodes of that series, the story and world was actually interesting. Albeit it's literally just Dishonored same artist too but still.

>>95866989 (OP)
both are cool. I have to agree with other posters that the 17th century is more interesting just because of how diverse it is. You can get away with a lot. It also historically was an era of almost unending global conflict so there's no shortage of action.
Napoleonic era has its pros too. It's very colorful and dramatic. If you want to focus on big conflicts between empires and ideas it's certainly a very good option.

>>95866989 (OP)
Pike and shot as its very close to the medieval era while still having guns, and humanity is connected so you have the new world and old

>>95866989 (OP)
Pike/shot is better. There's way more variety and still plenty of room for melee combat without guns having completely obsoleted hand-to-hand formations on the field.

18th-19th century is fun but I feel like it's more limited on the fantasy side. It also would become very heavily ranged-focus.

>>95869965
I almost feel like it would really need to be laser focused on politics, social rp, organized crime, etc.

>>95866989 (OP)
I would do the latter, because ever since someone pointed out you could have an historically-accurate party of a cowboy, pirate, samurai, and gentleman detective I've wanted to run exactly that.

>>95866989 (OP)
I've always leaned toward 17th century, since I just can't let go of dudes in armor. Although in reality I've never known where exactly to place my own setting given the technology. The most common form of firearm uses an action with a hammer striking an internal flame crystal to produce the spark. This makes the mechanics of the gun slightly simpler than a flintlock, but the quality of the crystal introduces a whole other variable to the gun. The crystals aren't terribly expensive on the whole, but a really super high quality, reliable, long-lasting crystal might be as expensive as the rest of the gun while a particularly cheap crystal may be prone to cracking/misfiring just from dropping the gun and will wear out relatively fast. All that in mind, I've never been entirely sure how that would place it compared to flintlocks or matchlocks and the greater implications thereof.
Another thing I've never been too sure of is bayonets. I really like the idea of having the option for bayonet fighting, but barrel plug style bayonets are always kinda awkward and introducing socket bayonets is basically the transition point beyond the era I otherwise want to be in.

>>95869965
>>95869990
Depends on what the players are actually doing/fighting and how encounters are designed. If your party is fighting a horde of goblins and you've only got, say, 5 guns between the lot of you, then you're still gonna have to affix bayonets/draw swords because you're not shooting all of them before they're on top of you. Similar situation if you're dungeon diving and thus in enclosed environments a lot.
On the other hand, if you're fighting bandits who are gonna be similarly equipped to you, then yeah, it's gonna be more of a "see who's still standing after the smoke clears" thing often.

>>95866989 (OP)
At the battlefield scale it's the rifled musket which switches combat from melee/shock centric to truly ranged centric. Historically uneducated players might struggle with this but armor coexists fairly well with flintlock muskets.

>>95870065
>All that in mind, I've never been entirely sure how that would place it compared to flintlocks or matchlocks and the greater implications thereof.
sounds like a multi-use percussion cap that maybe (depends on how large the crystals are) take up more space but are presumably immune to moisture. So post napoleonic wars tech.
Also if you got self-contained easy ignition you can also easily have some sort of system (cylinder, casette, magazine) with preloaded powder and shot cartridges that can be loaded in quick succession. IRL early attempts at multiple shot weapons usually have some rube goldberg contraption to automatically put powder in the pan between each shot, which this would avoid

Someone might have already suggested this, but why not both? Technology doesn't change globally, you can have the backwards renaissance region and the advanced Napoleonic zone with a generalized pikeworld inbetween. Obviously that state of affairs won't last forever, but that's part of the fun.

>>95870652
For what it's worth, there's some precision to seating the crystal so that the hammer strikes it correctly and, by extension, they're more difficult to swap out than a percussion cap. The more finely faceted and consistent the crystal, the more expensive.
So to say, it's more finicky than percussion caps and there's possibly a more linear relationship of cost to reliability than with conventional mechanisms

>>95870696
I was back at the drawing board (literally) and started considering this.
The general gameplay takes place in a stubborn old republic with rugged highlands, lots of cattle ranching, and a few big cities, especially the capitol. Not unlike a weird mashup of Tuscany, Liguria, and Texas.
Now, because Republics *tend* to be places of innovation, I was going to make them on the cutting edge, but in reality most of the civilization lives a feudal life out in the hills and pastures - answering to Barons and Viscounts ruling on behalf of the core City State that is the heart of the Republic. Really the only industry and 'advanced' society to speak of is going to be along one of two rivers, including the only good sea port.
So, rather than the cutting edge, maybe they're gruff (almost dwarfcore) traditionalists who have a lot of great innovations under their belt (when it comes to glasswork, textiles, and even some rudimentary automation) but is way behind the 8 ball on other things. Not unlike the Ottomans or Persians in the gunpowder age where they pioneered several things then fell behind.

In this example I think I have a perfect counterpart to Prussia to be starting to ramp up military science to that scary degree where musketeers become the spine of the army rather than just one arm.
That way the players and their sandbox can have this looming Gustavus Adolphus / Frederick the Great figure in the distance threatening the status quo.

>>95870696
The 19th century still had pikes.

Feel like Napoleonic era type fantasy is only really interesting for long games if you bring exotic places into the mix, aka focus on colonialism and great powers fighting over less developed people.

>>95875725
Isn't that true of most campaigns in general? No matter what, your primary enemies are usually monsters and savages (either in the form of outlaws, cultists, tribals, etc.) and most adventures take you to the wilderness and exotic locations therein, like ancient ruins, lost tombs, or caves (i.e. dungeons). Urban adventures don't really change much based on period, since there's always ghettos, urban decay, and crime.
To put it another way, how often do your campaigns actually involve your party being directly involved in symmetrical warfare?

>>95875699
Absolutely. Especially for officers and in guarding / policing.
A lot of blurred lines here.
>>95876464
I agree. On the one hand the distinctions certainly matter, but on the other there are similarities between urban settings across all different eras and likewise for rural settings.
Take some place like Wallachia. If you have a dracula story set there in 1865, a WW1 story set in the 1900s, and an Ottoman Era game set in the 1600s, a whole lot of the beats and setting would be exactly the same.
Conversely a game in Venice set in 1930, 1910, 1830, or 1510 is going to differ more than anything in
>The geopolitical state (what people are concerned about)
>Who is in power (what's the flag, what uniforms are the guards wearing)
>What's the scariest weapon a person can carry (Halberd? Handgonne? Musket? Rifle? SMG?)
>Do boats have engines yet
Other than that even the city map would barely differ from era to era.

>>95866989 (OP)
Ok, let's make it simple;
So what changed since you made this thread last year's spring?
What's new?

>>95876912
Does anyone else hear loud diarrhea noises?

>>95870696
You can definitely do this. I mean the dirkas were using smoothbore black powder muskets in isolated areas well into the 20th century. Sometimes they show up even in the 21st.

>>95877615
Cheap, effective tech never goes away, but doctrines do. You aren't going to see a French-style column with drums advancing in the modern day.

>>95876536
>Absolutely. Especially for officers and in guarding / policing.
And sailors, they had half-pikes. Confederate militias were issued them, but I don't think they ever saw use.

>>95877615
>>95879558
Absolutely. Very good points.
>>95879591
Boarding pikes are super cool, especially the ones with hooks.

>>95879591
>>95880173
>Half pikes with hooks
Those are pike poles. Not a weapon, just a tool to ease up with mooring.
>b-but it has a pike in the name
Yes, and poleaxe has a Pole in it, right?

>>95880212
To be fair, they were also used as weapons, along with axes that were principally for cutting lines or belaying pins.

>>95882898
Correct.
>>95880212
Why are you so desperate for others to be retarded? In the age of sail anything that could stab or bludgeon a motherfucker is a weapon.

>>95883691
Pikes are criminally underrepresented, if anything. Those and muskets.

>>95884357
Agree!

>>95884357
>>95884681
I guess it have to do with sad reality of war, war is boring. Spears, pikes and other pointy sticks are super effective but also super boring to portray, bunch of dudes with pointy stick standing in formation for hours and trying to stab other retards with them, yawn, compare it to master swordsman knight protagonist who know super secret sword technique taught to him by hermit monk who live in mountains and in his 150 years long life never saw woman or sword.
Everything fun you read about war is just 5 minutes of action between month of waiting and sitting on your ass being bored, and pointy stick while very effective is just boring weapon to portray.

>>95884783
>I guess it have to do with sad reality of war, war is boring. Spears, pikes and other pointy sticks are super effective but also super boring to portray, bunch of dudes with pointy stick standing in formation for hours and trying to stab other retards with them
That's fun and original though, would definitely play and enjoy a campaign with this.
>master swordsman knight protagonist who know super secret sword technique taught to him by hermit monk who live in mountains and in his 150 years long life never saw woman or sword.
That's boring as shit and cliche though.
All in all, people shouldn't limit themselves by what normies think. Yes, the majority of people would prefer their power fantasies to be heckin amazin knights in shining armor and with swords the size of a truck, but you can find people with more refined interests too. And maybe even your more normie friends would appreciate it if they'd try it.
If you ever get discouraged by the shit tastes of normies, remember that the vidya publisher Matrix Games have basically made the majority of their profit on ultra-autismo-simulators with thousands of ships all with simulated fuel, crew morale and reinforcement date / hundreds of divisions with correctly represented thousands of battalions and equipment, battle results literally displaying casualties to a single man, and any balance gone out of the window in favor of historical accuracy. These games also have very positive reviews.
I guess this was a barely related rant, but I hope that more and more RPG devs or DMs start following their actual wishes and niches and capitalizing on them as much as possible instead of constantly complying to the majority of the market owned by normies. And there will always be players willing to play anything.

>>95870560
Heavy armor, shields, and pike formations were obsolete by the early 1700s, if not earlier. I'd say the development of socket bayonets was what basically ended the dedicated melee infantryman.

>>95884877
Polearms are fuckin' cool. Simple as.

>>95867571
As someone who only knows about GURPS through osmosis and never really looked at it, is it as complex as this looks? Are there any resources to listen to while I slave away at work?

I think it's worth pointing out here that a small band of adventurers will not be fighting like normal line infantry in most situations, but probably have more in common with light cavalry in what is useful and used.

>>95886922
Its not that complex really, and sadly there are not a ton of good gurps guides. I would recommend Enraged Eggplant but thats not really beginner tutorial stuff. GURPS does a good job of having complexity that actually does stuff, theres very little "solve this geometric equation to determine your anal circumference" shit going on. Everything in that list serves a purpose, and about half of the stuff in that table is relevant only when building your character and ignored the rest of the time.

>>95887281
Fair enough. Maybe know any good actual plays using GURPS?

>>95884783
>formation battles are completely different than Kung fu heroes

Yeah that makes sense, I don't see how they're mutually exclusive. The three musketeers takes place during the hight of pike and shot warfare

>>95886977
>>95888347
Wholly agree. Whether lightly or heavily armored an adventurer will more resemble mounted infantry or hussars.
In discussing all this and in reading some Zorro I think there's an overlap to be had with Westerns here too. Your stereotypical cowboy or texas ranger is only a few degrees away from being a valid pike-and-shot character.

>>95889196
Sure. They're even still armed for melee, be it with Indian lances, hatchets/tomahawks, and knives that amounted to short swords, or near enough. It's just that repeating firearms with more punch had mostly eliminated armor and emphasized fighting at a distance.

Something to remember when running combat in either situation except the very late 19th century: black powder produces smoke. A lot of it. On a still day or a cramped space you're soon going to have shit for visibility. Adjust to hit accordingly.

>>95866989 (OP)
Depends. If you're a metalhead go 17th and if you're a fat-ass go napoleonic (we both know steampunk is just "goth for fat people."). If you're neither then listen to your heart: does it wanna yell at daddy or eat a sandwich?

I pick the sandwich. Gears make things more fun.

>>95889339
True. I recall reading about at least a few instances of units firing a long time after the enemy was gone due to the absolute shit visibility.

Whatever system you choose, don't make the typical problem of making BP weapons too expensive to use for their intended purpose, which is turn 1/2 nukes.

>>95889409
Well said. Also fuck steampunk.
>>95889698
Or just mowing down friendlies, if you're the Austrians.
>>95889956
My first ever RPG character was a pathfinder gunslinger almost a decade & a half ago. Barely even got to use my damn gun because the DM was 'muh realism' about it. He was similarly restrictive against the fighter getting full plate.
At that point just tell the player that using that class is going to suck ass so they can choose something else.

>>95887433
Again I'd look at Enraged Eggplant, which has some good combat examples on it.

>>95887281
>GURPS does a good job of having complexity that actually does stuff
this also requires the GM and players to actually know the rules too. Melee combat against sufficiently armored enemies comes to mind. If you're just doing basic attacks it becomes boring and frustrating

>>95866989 (OP)
If your players are only kinda into guns then go Pike and Shot. If they're fans of Richard Sharp and Horatio Hornblower then go full flintlock.

>>95891131
If you're just doing basic attacks you really have not learned GURPS desu. I have fairly low tolerance for people who can't read a fucking rulebook, or for GMs who either can't read (why are you running a system at all) or aren't willing to help out newer players. The tradeoff for GURPS having complex melee combat is that it has actual options. Where in other systems I can fluff up a standard attack, in GURPS if I want to bypass somebody's armor by wrestling them to the ground and sticking a dagger through their eye slit, thats a specific set of actions with meaningful gameplay effects.

>>95880212
The search for stupidity in others is often a sign of one being unhappy with his own lack of knowledge.

>>95891905
Granted and true, but there are simpler systems that also make this an option, like Honor & Intrigue.

Just don't bother trying it in WFRP. Though shoving people was really powerful in mixed terrain in 2e.

>>95892342
What makes gurps is that this isn't just a special action that the writers thought up as a way to get around armor, its a result of the complex system. Instead of "you have a feat/perk/trait that lets you ignore armor with this attack", its a result of:
Helmets don't cover eyes.
Impaling attacks to the eye do massively increased damage.
Its hard to hit the eyes, but its easier to hit anything when you can do away with trying to defend yourself (via an all out attack) or worrying about the enemy dodging (via a telegraphic attack)
hence, an enemy who is grappled, and therefore will struggle to attack you or defend himself is easily stabbed in the eye.
Note that because of this complexity I can vary options here to say, stab him in a chink in the armor, or stab him in a less armored area, or hold him down while somebody else smashes his head in with a rock, and its all up to player creativity. If you can think of an action, you can recreate it in gurps, and it'll actually represent how effective that action would be

>>95892460
>What makes gurps is that this isn't just a special action that the writers thought up as a way to get around armor, its a result of the complex system.
yes, but the GM and players have to get this. It's a complex system that isn't immediately apparent.
If it's not apparent why you should do the more advanced actions people won't use them and unknowingly trap themselves in doing no damage and ultimately think the game sucks.
I've met people IRL who say that the gurps firearm combat is good, but melee sucks, just because they didn't get the rules.

Just a tip for people that want to play gurps, not a mark against it

>>95892753
I've seen this in my group like three times.
Now we have a GURPS game but are really specific about who we let engage with it.

It's not an elitist thing, GURPS just hard filters some people.

>>95892753
yeah thats fair. When I'm introducing a new player to GURPS I usually show them a combat example and go over some of what I think are the most important maneuvers, namely:
all out attack
dodge + retreat + feverish defense
extra effort step twice
targeted attack
telegraphic + targeted in response to all out

>>95893491
Oh and deceptive attack.

As a massive nerd for both eras, they aren't terribly distinct. A Frenchman from Malplaquet wouldn't struggle to grasp anything happening at Waterloo.

>>95893771
That's actually a very helpful point to make, anon. Thanks.

>>95892460
>Instead of "you have a feat/perk/trait that lets you ignore armor with this attack"
It's not that in H&I, either. It's just a set of maneuvers anyone can do, and works on the same basic logic of "you can grapple a guy, and if you do, it's easy to stab them where they're vulnerable."

>>95892047
No need to search stupidity in others when it is readily available for everyone to plainly see.

>>95894449
>forgoes introspection for continued projection
how sad

One nice thing about the pike-and-shot era is the artisanry of things.
This pistol of Charles V was pure sex.

>>95866989 (OP)
Anyone know if there are any good homebrew/converted expanded firearms rules for D&D 2e? I know they had their gay 'erm actually black powder is inert in our worlds' thing to limit gunpowder weapons, but fuck that, guns are awesome

>>95897528
Be a chad and use Friday Night Firefight with homebrew musket ball and armor stats.

>>95897894
That actually is super based. I recommend this.

>>95897894
Friday Night Firefight as in Cyberpunk 2020 combat rules? Shit, that actually might work lmao

>>95898175
Hell yeah let's fucking go boys

>>95867310
>lose war
>jews, joggers and changs immediately move in
Many such cases.

>>95898209
Aztecs unironically deserved worse and it's a damn shame pandemic robbed their former victims time to enjoy a leisurely genocide.

>>95866989 (OP)
>17th century
Warhammer fantasy is 16th century you absolute retard
Why do the people who claim to love pike and shot so much ignore the 16th century, which is where pike and shot originated and where it was arguably more dominant?
It's like their understanding of pike and shot extends exclusively to the english civil war, the thirty years war and the polish deluge and completely ignores everything before and after those periods
>>95867249
>A lot of conventional melee weapons which you could take in the 17th, like large two handed sword, halberds, ect, fall off by the 19th.
Large two handed swords were all but extinct by the 1610s you imbecile
>>95867310
>Throwing my vote in 17th Century as well. The clusterfuck of Medieval warfare colliding with the first recognizably modern firearms is super aesthetic. The kitchen sink of stuff to use while still being appropriate for the time period is super cool.
That literally occured in the 16th century, not the 17th, but keep on being ignorant

>>95898658
Broad strokes you Mongoloid. This isn't about historical roleplaying it's about mixing shit from across relevant eras.
Warhammer Fantasy is the most widely known fantasy system with pike and shot, that's guaranteed why OP brought it up. Same reason he shorthanded the 19th Century to just the Regency and Napoleonic Wars.

>>95898603
>their former victims
this pop history is bs, the non-aztec tribes didnt ally with the spanish to "take revenge", they viewed the conquistadors more as mercenaries, and wanted to replace the Aztecs, who had only 100 years earlier replaced their own overlords. They had no problem with the human sacrifice and whatnot, they just wanted to be the top dogs

>>95898658

>>95898832
Aztecs were far more pernicious in sacrifice and general resource extraction. This is not speculative, this is archeological. Score settling with a hated overlord was part of it.

>>95898719
>Broad strokes you Mongoloid. This isn't about historical roleplaying it's about mixing shit from across relevant eras.
>Warhammer Fantasy is the most widely known fantasy system with pike and shot, that's guaranteed why OP brought it up. Same reason he shorthanded the 19th Century to just the Regency and Napoleonic Wars.
Cope for being a historically illiterate retard
Warhammer Fantasy is 16th century. The golden age of pike and shot was 16th century.
>>95898846
Cope

>>95898603
>Lose war
>Instead of being exterminated your nobility are integrated into the Spanish empire and you get to continue running things with the new benefits of European technology
Nothing personnel, tlaxcalans.

>>95899551
Well, until smallpox kills you.

>>95899794
The smallpox outbreak was during the war primarily. Also, the nobility who survived have direct descendents and noble titles in modern day spain

>>95899250
>The golden age of pike and shot was 16th century.
NTA but the golden age of pike and shot was late 16th to early/mid 17th.

>>95869602
I see Hurdy Gurdy, I approve

>>95904676
So underrated!

>>95904676
Combine it with a gun and get the worlds most melodious hand-cranked automatic weapon!

>>95907033
oh hell yeah
There's an organ gun...why not a hurdy gunurdy?

>>95886922
No. The only complicates stuff is that some of those damage values multiply after going through DR. So it might be 2d6+2, you roll and get 9, subtract the targets DR of 5, then multiply the remaining 4 by its wounding modifier for being Large Piercing (pi+) and it's like 1.5 or something, for 6 total damage. That's for a musket ball. Whereas arrows are Imp (impaling) which is a 2x modifier after DR.

17th century is just mudcore with extra steps. Everyone is jadded, ugly and fat with extra steps. I would say Napoleonic warfare is more interesting, but you need to tone down artillery.

>>95915112
The Musketeers and Alatriste are mudcore?

>>95915121
Yes. They're all mercenaries, brigands, bandits and other scum. And the central themes are all very similar.

>>95915143
>jaded
>ugly
>fat
>mudcore
Strange how I see dashing swordfighters in colorful tabards and plumes, then.
Not that you don't have that with the 19th century (maybe swap the tabards for a jacket or doublet), but that just reinforces that they're both a good basis for a setting.

The main advantage of the 19th century, to my reckoning, is that most current knowledge and much of the technology existed at a minimum in some primitive form by then, and attitudes on a myriad of subjects were more easily relatable. The ability of a GM and group to feel in the world is a virtue not to be despised depending on how much you care about anachronism.

>>95919800
That's something I think too, in addition to the popularity of Regency fiction, Napoleonic stuff, and Gothic Horror.
Easy to get people on board with more esoteric shit if the base setting is easier for them to grasp.

>>95915121
3 Musketeers not really, but Alatriste absolutely, explicitly by statement of the writer.