Thread 96237355

Why does this board look down at gunpowder fantasy

>>96237355 (OP)
Where the fuck is this "we" shit coming from?

>>96237372
No one said we

>>96237355 (OP)
Well in the case of OP's pic it's because I'm pretty sure that guy has broken arms, freakishly small hands, and something just seems off about that gun.

I'd call it AI slop except that I know for a fact I first saw that pic like ten or twenty years ago, before AI slop was a thing. So it's just genuinely bad art.

>>96237355 (OP)
Who has ever said this? Post a link to the archives.
You aren't just stirring shit, are you?

>>96237355 (OP)
Because I'm taller than it.

Oh boy another "why does all x do y" spam thread, i love wasting my life replying to these

>>96237355 (OP)
Stop making this fucking thread you cocksucker.
>>96237693
No one ever, but this fucking faggot is going to bump this thread off of page 10 for a month samefagging with mod protection.

Why does what "this board looks down on" affect how you play your games?

>>96237392
>this board
"We" occupy "this board", ergo, a statement of "this board" includes "us" (which is a permutation of "we").
Learn English.

>>96238187
Why do you type like a pedophile

>>96237355 (OP)
This board looks down on everything bro get in line

>>96238245
Because I am one, so what? You think I give a shit? We're on an anonymous imageboard.

>>96238245
Why do you type like a retarded little bitch?

>>96238245
>>96239102
samefag

>>96239154
Spotted the liberal

I'm planning an edo Japan themed artificer character who uses matchlock weapons, what's something neat I could do with the cord so that it has multiple uses

>>96237355 (OP)
shut the fuck up, looser

>>96237355 (OP)
>Musket magic IRL be like
"HAHA, I burned the magic sigil and drank the ashes on a night of a full moon and have, since then, not broken any of the taboos! I am impervious to shot and sword!" and then somebody stuffs a communion wafer down the barrel of their gun and shoots you dead.

>thread is solely kept alive by people complaining about OP
Jesus fucking Christ don't you people know how to sage.

>>96240123
Zoomers deserve to be gassed.

>>96237693
>the cries must flow

>>96240246
OP just fakes complaining while bumping because all the actual complaints saged his spam thread. Posting along this line will continue until he hooks a newfag or a piece of ragebait works.

>>96237355 (OP)
>Why does this board look down at gunpowder fantasy
It does?

>>96240523
I think OP just means how it's regarded as kinda stupid and nobody cares for it.

I love it, it just doesn't fit the DND system.
Like it or not, people think:
>guns are one shot kills (so large hit points pools are right out)
>guns make armor pointless (so heavy armored knights are right out)
Neither of those are true, but it doesn't matter. The cultural perception of guns means that they entirely change the mindset of a system. Yea, you can get groups that intuitively understand that hit points aren't meat points, and that armor can deflect gunshots, but you're working uphill.

*rips a greasy pepperoni fart directly in your mouth*
Fuck off.

>>96240548
>Neither of those are true
I mean they kind of are. If you get hit with a musket in the arm you could survive, but your arm isn't working at all. And guns are the reasons Knights stopped existing, even if they did try making heavier and heavier (and less functional) armor to keep up.

>>96237411
art from 2013, maybe earlie,r so that late 2000s, early 2010s Paldron core aesthetic
Also the easy that OP couldn't be bothering to link I'm sure this guy is the powder mage author, so he did say fuck it and make an entire setting where black powder is paramount to magic
>https://aidanmoher.com/blog/2013/02/articles/muskets-and-magic-by-brian-mcclellan/

>>96240550
Stop shitting in the water

>>96240572
True

>>96240510
Nah dude I only made like two three posts including the one calling a random anon a pedophile, every other post has been you guys

>>96240123
To think there was a time where people thought these things had value. I guess they never played Gatchas.

>>96240123
I read a book that had something like that, they tried to kill the guy by drowning him in a barrel instead

>>96237355 (OP)
Because people who like gunpowder fantasy create shitty bait threads

>>96237355 (OP)
>Fake and gay statement
>For one more "HURR GUNS DURR" thread
2017 called. They want you back

>>96237355 (OP)
Traditional games?

>>96241311
It's all fun and games until you discover that the Hermetic-Egyptian tradition is 90% Gatcha Roll Rituals created by people who thought that they could summon their SSR waifu IRL.

>>96237355 (OP)
no good examples of it in media

>>96237355 (OP)
I like more modern fantasy settings. During industrialization, civil war era, etc.
My problem with it is that it's often WAY too fucking gimmicky. The fact that technology exists is almost always annoyingly fucking overbearing in the setting. It'd be like inhabiting a modern setting where the book fucking obsessed about cell phone use, cell phone technology, how magic interfaces with cell phones, the cosmology revolves around cell phones... You get what I mean?
I want firearms, trains, the printing press, all that shit. What I don't want is for that shit to be the FOCUS of the setting. You don't need to establish a spiritual paradigm of the battle between technology and magic, just let there be technology and magic. They're not INHERENTLY at conflict, so you don't need to spend paragraph after paragraph yapping about it like you're trying to mix oil and water.
There's no reason why a wizard shouldn't be able to throw a fireball while listening to a fucking mixtape. I can't fathom why people are so gut-level convinced that that should be so impossible that they must spend an entire chapter trying to talk me into it.

>>96242504
What would make an example of it “good” then?

>>96243034
dunno dude, no one's ever made it

anything would do, book, movie, comic book, cartoon, whatever

>>96242912
>It'd be like inhabiting a modern setting where the book fucking obsessed about cell phone use, cell phone technology, how magic interfaces with cell phones, the cosmology revolves around cell phones... You get what I mean?
The general problem of these settings is that they're written by people who just want to be edgy and different rather than folks who're proper obsessed with children's collectible card games.

>>96242504
Darkest Dungeon?
Bloodborne?

>>96237355 (OP)
The material components for a fireball spell is gunpowder, always has been, we don't need needlessly to subcategorize fantasy to a smaller and flawed mold a la -punk.

>>96243051
What precisely are the problems with the previous attempts then?

Faggot spammer

Guns make both melee and combat magic obsolete.

>>96237355 (OP)
It doesn't, but faggots like you keep making b8 threads about it.

>>96240550
If I ever met you in real life, I think we'd be bros. You're a good dude, greasy pepperoni fart, anon.

>>96237355 (OP)
/k/ fags are insufferable

>>96253006
So do rocks.

>>96237355 (OP)
This board is a hotbed of extremely shit opinions. /tg/ loves guns in fantasy settings.

>>96255929
Name one example that isn't Warhammer / AoS.

>>96252870
Neck yourself bumpfag

Faggot spammer

>>96237355 (OP)
Gunpowder fantasy is fine (indeed, it's a personal fave)
Many games featuring fantasy and firearms are fine.
D&D is based on assumptions that destroy what makes forearm combat work, and as such all attempts to implement firearms in D&D are doomed to be unsatisfactory.

>>96253006
how come guns didn't make melee weapons obsolete IRL
not until the age of full-auto anyway

>>96240572
>And guns are the reasons Knights stopped existing
Yeah, because giving a shitload of peasants guns is more economical than putting all that resources into a single asshole.

>>96240572
>And guns are the reasons Knights stopped existing
I recognize that birds aren't real, but the Beatles certainly are.

>>96240572
>If you get hit with a musket in the arm
what a retarded argument
if you get a mace blow on your hand you ain't using it either, it's not a reason to not include maces in fantasy ttrpgs
>guns are the reasons Knights stopped existing
no, not exactly, it's more complex than that
and heavy cavalry in bullet-proof breastplates existed up to the Napoleonic wars

>>96237355 (OP)
It's difficult to make black powder weapon tech work in a satisfying way with common game mechanics. Combine 5 second combat rounds with combat over ten rounds being tedious and you can't reload during most fights. To compensate, players inevitably carry ten pre-loaded guns to produce a stupid equivalent of semi-automatic fire (a real-world tactic taken to an absurd extreme). Games also inevitably lean toward close-range fights to keep map sizes reasonable and melee viable, so either going exclusively melee or hauling a pile of pistols will be dominant strategies. Making carrying capacity rules that prevent this without introducing other stupid side effects is troublesome and turns games into spreadsheet management chores (and they'll just start hauling extras in a wagon or something). Ideally you want people to hybridize as ranged/melee fighters who shoot a musket then wade in with swords and bayonets, but basically all systems make hybrid combat styles sub-optimal.

Spamming fagola

>>96237355 (OP)
90% of it is from fags like you who spam threads about why people NEED to include guns in their games.

>>96237372
>puckee art
Get out

>>96258006
>what a retarded argument
>if you get a mace blow on your hand you ain't using it either, it's not a reason to not include maces in fantasy ttrpgs
1. A guy with a mace can't hit you from ~50 yards away but a mercenary with a musket (and his dozens or hundreds of friends also pointing muskets in your direction) certainly can, and reliably
2. Assuming that you're not killed by it, whatever the musket ball hits that isn't a breastplate will be non-functional and/or amputated nine times out of ten. A typical load for a musket from around the Thirty Years War was a ~.80 cal. ball propelled by ~300 grains of black powder and even that is on the light side for muskets given they started life as man-portable wall guns.
3. THE defining characteristic of longarms all the way from the 15th century to the present is how thoroughly they ignore armor that isn't specifically designed to stop ballistic projectiles. At typical engagement ranges the loading mentioned above will blatantly ignore anything short of ~3mm of steel - maille, leather, wood, brigandines, lamellar and the like are all woefully inadequate protection when you're getting shot at with a longarm.

The biggest problem with guns in fantasy is that if you want your setting to have firearms while preserving the traditional methods of violence and protection from the same then you have to nerf them into the ground (and at that point what's even the point?) and/or engage in some pretty heavy handwaving to explain why they aren't the dominant meta of organized violence in your setting. If you want a case in point for this in the real world, look at Sengoku-era Japan. It took less than a generation to go from one (1) local /k/ommando seeing the potential of the contemporary Euroean firearms that fell into his lap to said firearms being the dominant force on the battlefield and over the next century or so the japs produced literally hundreds of thousands of them.

>>96253006
a simple protection from missiles spell makes guns obsolete.

>>96257839
they did though

>>96261932
>firehosing bullshit retarded takes
so this is your tactic?
I have to discuss volley-fire in a context of ttrpgs? How is that different from getting wrecked by crossbow volley fire? also if your PCs get into that situation, maybe they should just get fucked
look all your bullshit is refuted by actual real life where melee combat stayed relevant up to WWI and mass introduction of repeating and full-auto firearms

even 18th century muskets have a spread of like 20'' at 50 yards by the way, you aren't
hitting any single moving target reliably, that's the whole reason for volley fire tactics that existed up to the end of 19th century
>amputated
guess what happened with solders with stabbing wounds from narrow blades historically?
infection followed by either death or amputation.
that's not stopping anyone from having stabbing blades in ttrpgs

It just tends to get lazy
>guns ignore all magic and instagib wizards xD
>bro my character is going to make an ak47 fuck I'm so original
>haha ballistic missile at the dragon its so easy just explosives in a tube and magic guidance system
Like, if I wanted a game with modern warfare, I would play something with that kind of setting

>>96262257
>looks up IRL wars that have all seen regular use of melee weapons, swords, lances, hangers, bayonets (aka a spear we have at home) all the way up to late 19th century
they didn't though

>>96262324
took those retards hundreds of years to realize that maybe walking at each other in straight lines wasn't the peak of military tactics

but melee was still obsolete

>>96262327
trying repeating something until its true again, timmy?
you know that's not how it works

>>96262342
ranged weapons have always mogged melee toys

medievaloids were just too stupid to use them right

>>96261932
So you're saying you need "dozens or hundreds of friends pointing muskets in your direction" to beat a single guy with a mace? Sounds like either the mace is superior to muskets, or you're a retard who can't make an argument.

>>96257932
>Yeah, because giving a shitload of peasants guns is more economical than putting all that resources into a single asshole.
Mostly because that single asshole dies to one peasant with a gun.

>>96258006
>if you get a mace blow on your hand you ain't using it either
If you're wearing plate armor? You would still be able to use it, actually. It might disable it if it's a really bad hit.
But then, the other guy has to get close enough to hit you, then actually get around your defenses, and then actually hit you hard enough to cause a significant enough injury.
Compared to pointing and shooting a gun, it's much more interesting.
>no, not exactly, it's more complex than that
No, it's really not. The moment guns were introduced they started causing problems for the professional warrior class of European society. As they grew in use the problems got worse and battlefield use of Knights shrank and shrank until they were replaced by people who basically just wore a steel slab on their chest because it could sometimes stop gunshots. And then when even those were made entirely useless by firearms, they stopped existing.
By the time of Napoleon, they were easily the most outdated part of the military and totally secondary to light cavalry, and most of them were no longer Knights or anything like Knights.

>>96262346
The last bayonet charge I'm aware of happened in 2011, against ambushing force armed with automatic weapons, with 80 meters of space in between. It worked.

The more famous one happened in 2004, Brits ambushed in Iraq, charged insurgents outnumbering them about 5:1 after they ran out of ammo. 28 kills while suffering only 3 wounded.

>>96262313
>I have to discuss volley-fire in a context of ttrpgs? How is that different from getting wrecked by crossbow volley fire?
I like how you ignored the part about only needing one mercenary to do it. The ubiquity of firearms exacerbates a severe problem that already exists at a scale of 1, anon.
>your bullshit is refuted by actual real life where melee combat stayed relevant up to WWI
If by "relevant up to WW1" you mean "became obscure and largely forgotten by the 1700s" sure.
>even 18th century muskets have a spread of like 20'' at 50 yards by the way
Hah, no. In the 1600s, a formation of Musketeers had an effective range between 400-600 yards.
We have military treatises from the same period that considered smoothbore muskets accurate out to 100 yards for the purposes of targeting individual soldiers.
Hell, we even have videos of people demonstrating such accuracy with minimal practice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfHJjcKyDYE

>>96263323
Do you have proof for either of these claims? Because something tells me you're not just lying, but lying a lot.

>>96263223
I mean, yeah, one of the dozen peasants may get lucky.

>>96263338
Sure, and with about 10 seconds spent with uncle Google, so could you.

>>96261605
What the fuck is "puckee" and why is it bad

>>96263366
From my understanding, it's someone who comnissioned a bunch of different art, and this one anon is obsessed with him, sperging out every time anything even remotely similar is posted.

>>96263348
Nope, just takes one and he doesn't need luck.

>>96263358
>Sure
May we see it?

>>96263397
Well, I can't stop you, can I? I'm sure you can figure out how to use Google or a search engine of your choice on your own.

>>96263444
Lotta words to say "No because I don't have it."

>>96263444
>>96263453
Hurry up an kiss, god damn it.

>>96263471
Hurry up and learn how to use google, bitch.

>>96263245
>anon is being a picrel
what if historical plate gauntlets are not made the same way modern day buhurt ones are and your fingers are still fucked and disabled
what if your 50 moa primitive musket misses?
what if armored heavy cavalry charges were effective up to the early 1800s and there are deeper socio-economic reasons for knights being displaced from the battlefield?

what if you are going to go be retarded somewhere else?

>>96263333
>dem digits wasted on a bunch of bullcrap
shame

>>96263566
>what if historical plate gauntlets are not made the same way modern day buhurt ones are
Nobody is talking about modern day buhurt gauntlets.
>and your fingers are still fucked and disabled
Wouldn't happen with real historical plate.
>what if your 50 moa primitive musket
You don't know what a moa is, that's funny.
>misses?
Why would it?
>what if armored heavy cavalry charges were effective up to the early 1800s
I guess we'd be living in a fantasy world where guns were never invented or had a fraction of the utility they do.
>what if you are going to go be retarded somewhere else?
I think you are after a janny notices your post lol.

well I have my callidus assassin color scheme set
should I add stage lights for the bisexual lighting?

>>96263245
>Compared to pointing and shooting a gun, it's much more interesting.
Nayrt, but this is wrong thinking. Firearm combat increases the size of your zone of control. Instead of thinking of it in terms of pointing and shooting, zoom out the camera. Two combatants are trying to move around one another to get a line on their opponent without opening themselves to return fire. Athleticism, quick decisions, smart use of cover and terrain, use of gadgets and equipment (smoke, explosives, etc). The dance of fencing expanded out to take in a much larger scene. AND you can still have fencing/fisticuffs if the terrain forces two combatants into that kind of distance.

>what if armored heavy cavalry charges were effective up to the early 1800s
>there are people here who really believe that charging in a big triangle was effective

>>96262313
>I have to discuss volley-fire in a context of ttrpgs?
I didn't mention volley fire at all.

>How is that different from getting wrecked by crossbow volley fire?
It's substantially more lethal.

>also if your PCs get into that situation, maybe they should just get fucked
My point was that if you have realistic firearms then they shit on everything else in terms of sheer lethality and if they're not at least nominally realistic then there isn't much of a point. If a PC wearing a gambeson takes an arrow to the chest while facing down some bandits accosting him on the road (a common enough scenario) then it's not unreasonable for the outcome to be a new ding in his armor; if he takes even a pistol to the chest in the same outfit then he's almost certainly taking a severe wound and likely a lethal one.

>look all your bullshit is refuted by actual real life where melee combat stayed relevant up to WWI and mass introduction of repeating and full-auto firearms
You're having "relevant" do some pretty heavy lifting there. Assuming that both forces have contemporary weapons, the relevance of melee combat fell off of a cliff once repeating handguns and cartridge longarms appeared. Hand to hand combat certainly occurred, especially during CQC, but the number of battlefield fatalities from bayonets and swords and rifle butts shrank massively compared to fatalities from firearms and artillery. This occurred from about the 1850s onwards, by the by. Metallic cartridges appeared starting in the 1860s with repeating cartridge rifles becoming ubiquitous in the 1880s.

>even 18th century muskets have a spread of like 20'' at 50 yards by the way,
Not really, no. You're looking at ~16MOA with the gold standard of the era, the Brown Bess. Buck-and-ball also exists.

>you aren't
>hitting any single moving target reliably, that's the whole reason for volley fire tactics that existed up to the end of 19th century
Also incorrect but I'm out of characters for this response.

>>96263196
>So you're saying you need "dozens or hundreds of friends pointing muskets in your direction" to beat a single guy with a mace?
No, I'm saying that one shot from a longarm will wreck anyone who isn't protected by a relatively thick sheet of steel or an even thicker sheet of iron.

>Sounds like either the mace is superior to muskets, or you're a retard who can't make an argument.
Sounds like you're reading comprehension is shit.

>>96267474
>Firearm combat increases the size of your zone of control. Instead of thinking of it in terms of pointing and shooting, zoom out the camera.
This doesn't actually change anything and is not how firefights work IRL. There are two elements to a firefight:
1. Aim.
2. Shoot.
If something is preventing #1 (LOS is all), you move to correct it (Terrible idea), or wait for it to correct itself.
If something is preventing #2, you clear the jam/reload.
This is why in war the concept of suppressing the enemy exists, because if you vaguely know where he is you can just shoot to keep his head down and have someone else move into a better position to actually kill them.
It's not very interesting there, and it's even less interesting when there's far fewer combatants and everyone is playing a single character. Hence why almost nobody bothers.

>>96269033
(Cont'd)
Another large part of the problem is that failure points come down to a single party's capabilities.
If I miss a clear shot, it's because I fucked up somewhere. You didn't dodge the hit or parry the blow or exploit my reach, and there's not much you can do to throw me off other than hope I make a mistake.
The only way you can make this fun or interesting is with real time experiences like video games, because you're testing your reflexes. If you put it to tabletop, all you'd be doing is rolling a die and there would be functionally no level of tactical thinking involved.

>>96237355 (OP)
Because it attracts retards like (you)

>>96269033
>>96269065
Every part of this is fucking false. 1/10 not mad but disappointed you couldn't be bothered to bait me properly.

This gay, lame argument should be all the evidence you need for why guns and fantasy rpgs are a bad mix. Imagine this happening at your table. Imagine how much you would want to strangle everyone involved.

That's why you generally want to keep guns out of your generic fantasy rpg setting.

>>96270709
skill issue
just don't play with retards more than once
in fact firearms in fantasy help detect the worse retards, like the retard in this thread who is trying to bait

>>96271071
>just don't play with retards
Which is why OP isn't allowed in gun x sword games

>>96263245
>By the time of Napoleon, they were easily the most outdated part of the military and totally secondary to light cavalry
I understand that Nappy re-introduced heavy cav, simply because putting some armour on his boys made them lol@light cav and their puny sabers.

>>96271264
Yeah, which is why they were secondary to them. The dedicated anti-light cavalry cavalry that can't actually engage light cavalry turned out to be kind of useless, especially since a musket would blast right through their armor.

>>96263323
>>96263338
>>96263358
>>96263397
>>96263444
Since both of you can't seem to do anything without arguing, here:

2011 charge in Afghanistan
https://www.military.com/history/british-soldiers-afghanistan-counterattacked-taliban-ambush-bayonet-charge.html

2004 bayonet fight in Iraq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Danny_Boy

>>96271619
>2011
>Article from 2022
>Stories came out years after service, conveniently when said soldier who definitely saw all that was suing the government for not giving him his vetty bennies
Methinks the story is, like many you hear in a mess hall, not true at all.

>>96271619
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Danny_Boy

>On 17 December 2014 the inquiry, which cost nearly £25 million, returned its findings. It found that no prisoners had been murdered, nor that their bodies had been mutilated and that the evidence to that effect from the detainees was deliberately untruthful.
Taxpayer money well spent.

>>96263393
Anon, it takes luck to land shots even with modern guns. You need to take this retarded idea of guns being hyper-accurate death beams out of your ass, because it's never been true and there's a reason some gunslingers/snipers have basically been given legendary status for their accuracy.

>>96271684
>After a series of paid holidays and home extensions, the investigating body cleared themselves of wrongdoing

>>96240531
OP is projecting because nobody looks down on Warhammer Fantasy for being gunpowder fantasy, they just make fun of retards who think they should be able to have a Colt Single Action Army in settings that wouldn't have the industrial capacity to make centerfire cartridges at scale, or think that having a gun should be an "i win" button regardless of context.

>>96276791
No it doesn't, it takes skill.
>there's a reason some gunslingers/snipers have basically been given legendary status for their accuracy
According to you accuracy doesn't exist and it's all luck lmao