Thread 96350179

What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure? You can have magic or even limited sci-fi technology to radios but the moment you add a rifle something feels lost.

>>96350179 (OP)
Having a shelby GT500 is equally as unrealistic as having a dragon, but we accept the latter rather than the former in fantasy because a vintage car is somewhat more mundane to us than a dragon

Guns just feel more modern than plate armor even though both rose to prominence at the same time
Its also why cannons, bombards, and powder kegs are acceptable when guns arent
We associate big, black iron cannons fired with a smokdering cord with the distant past while a musket looks just a bit too much like a rifle

>>96350204
Would you think it would be possible to make guns aesthetically and mechanically feel "old" or is there just no feasible way of doing so?

>>96350233
It isn't just the style of the weaponry. The tactics that they encourage tend to ruin the fun.

Fuck you don’t just fucking use a project moon pic to ask that. You know why in that universe projectile weapons are so limited.
Unless your a fucking limbus onlyfuckingcadualidfuckingbreakyourcomouterrthen.

>>96350243
So does long range spells. The solution already exists: magic armor or letting warriors train to the level they're basically superheroes.
Super-regeneration also basically renders guns useless. Guns work by blowing holes in things, if hole-punching the monster only mildly inconveniences it, then guns are useless.

>>96350243
I already got a few contingencies and world building stuff in play to limit the scope and influence of guns, even in a desperate all out war. So those tactics are not going to be too much of an issue.

>>96350255
I used a project moon picture precisely because of how they handle their guns. I admire how they managed to pull it off. While I won't have a gun tax guns will be limited in similar inspired ways. also I am a limbaby

>>96350258
This is one way how I am limiting guns. Guns are more for the common person to protect themselves or having a fighting chance. They are a lot more useful at lower levels then they are at higher before you have to heavily modify them which at that point they are just a glorified melee weapon.

>>96350179 (OP)
People see the gun as a mysterious weapon that somehow instantly incapacitates people in a way a sword, bow, mace, etc. can't. This probably stems from the fact that the gun is A). a ranged weapon that requires less training than a bow B). close enough to modern people to remain understood as a proper weapon rather than a mysterious fantasy artifact people killed each other with C). associated with modern fiction in such a way that A and B are infinitely reinforced, and fantasy themes are diminished.

>>96350179 (OP)
Blame gunfags for throwing autistic fits over not having modern day military weapons in medieval europe fantasyland. If it wasn't for them we could have "realistic" medieval guns that wouldn't feel out of place.

>>96350258
That's not realistic. You can invent a plausible reason why Anon the Peasant can't cast Armageddon on level 1.

But there's no real reason any person, even a child or particularly crafty fae can't use guns to devastating effect. That's it. That's the terrible power of the future.
Bows used to be the ultimate weapon of the past and required as much commitment as a magic user to OP.
Crossbows came and broke that balance, first enabling almost anyone to kill with one good shot. But they tempered by complexity of construction and slow reload. They simplistic mechanic and drawbacks is what makes crossbows feel right.

And guns don't just work by blowing holes. They often work by entering the body and painfully exploding inside, only barely solvable by having impenetrable skin or magic forcefields, of which there are always caveats.

Guns are simply overpowered unless you force them to be very-very early in development, basically a baby.

>>96350179 (OP)
They don't. They just don't fit a fantasy milieu. It's probably because they weren't in Lord of the Rings or Conan. But modern myths have plenty of overlap with the time of gunpowder. Figures like Paul Bunyan or Davy Crockett.

Also the gun excel at scale as well, where anything else does not.

If your rifle or a cannon cannot just breach a monstrous dragon or wargolem, you can scale them up. Load a massive shell with a sharp tip, filled with the worst explosives alchemists can think up, and that would be actually epic scene to witness. But still, a common man can do it.

For equivalent magic, you will need to collect mana/power/god's favour/etc, relying on circumstance and luck, according to the setting. This requires your characters to be mary sues basically.

When there's something anyone can really accomplish with enough effort and discipline, it loses the novelty and magic.

>>96350388
>They often work by entering the body and painfully exploding inside,
Explosive shells are an incredibly modern invention
Without modern fuzes, explosive shells would simply explode when their wick burned fully

Solid shot or variants like chainshot were by and far the most common form of projectile
For subsonic, solid, projectiles the wound channel is comparable to being stabbed by a blunt weapon
That is, a bullet that penetrates 1in into flesh is about as fatal as a knife stab 1in into flesh
Though bullets can penetrate more deeply than knives can due to their high velocity, an arquebus shot isnt more lethal than being brained by an axe

>>96350179 (OP)
Because everyone alive today understands how lethal and ridiculously helpless guns make fights and how piss easy it is for anyone to use them.

>>96350204
The trouble is its more like having a sherman tank and a sherman-tank-eating dragon. One clearly shouldnt exist for long around the other

>>96350204
Having a car in a Fanta world would be dope though.

>>96350179 (OP)
I was really into pirates as a kid so you would be wrong

>>96350388
>You can invent a plausible reason why Anon the Peasant can't cast Armageddon on level 1.
Not every game is D&D anon.

>>96350677
You have better chances to learn that not only dnd can have levels if you stop griping, anon.

>>96350664
howdoyouturnthison

>>96350687
Still in the minority. The majority of ttrpgs like WoD/CofD, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer, etc. use entirely levelless systems.

>>96350179 (OP)
>What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure?
Nothing, because there's plenty of great adventurers who use guns. Indiana Jones for example.
>You can have magic or even limited sci-fi technology to radios but the moment you add a rifle something feels lost.
I think you're just autistic.

>>96350233
>>96350243
>>96350388
>>96350410
Use setting-appropriate guns (handgonnes or even firelances) rather than the pistols and rifles that 5e encourages you to use. Their loading process requires pre-measured powder, a wad which must be inserted after the projectile, and a ramrod which must be long enough to push the projectile all the way to the beginning of the barrel. In addition, the gun must be fired with a lit torch or string match, and it must be cleaned after use to prevent it from malfunctioning.

>>96350179 (OP)
>What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure?
Because people don't understand military history or how early firearms functioned. There is no reason a matchlock should feel any more out of place in high fantasy than a rapier.

>>96350388
Possible explanations (for systems that aren't D&D):
Guns and other high tech devices don't work against supernatural creatures.
Only enchanted weapons work against supernatural creatures.
Mass produced weapons can not be used against the supernatural, only handmade ones can.

Combine or select as you like.

>>96350179 (OP)
Depends on the nature of the gun? If it's just a pot on a stick that needs a dry lit fuse held in another hand or by another person altogether to fire, needs dry well mixed and rare powder to work and has the chance of wounding the user, then it doenst really break immersion much for me. They make good weapons for the stupid, insane, or desperate, like goblins. Larger cannons and bombs also make good siege weapons but are crap for battlefields or skirmishes, due to the time it takes to load them and the cost/difficulty in getting hold of, storing and using large amounts of powder,

When a player tries to argue though that their character can invent and use a pair of reliable six shooters, a bolt action sniper rifle, a machinegun or hand grenades, just because they the player knows what they are, they can fuck off. They are playing a character in the setting I am running, not playing themselves with the 21st century knowledge they have.

>>96350950
Early guns were hand made, just like everything else at the time of their introduction. What if they use cold wought iron bullets against demons and elves, or silver bullets against demons and werewolves? What if a wizard made a bunch of enchanted bullets instead of enchanted slingstones?

>>96350179 (OP)
Nothing, I have a feeling that all the complaints come from American anti-guns retards and autists.

>>96350388
>But there's no real reason any person, even a child or particularly crafty fae can't use guns to devastating effect.
Murican education strikes again. The first firearms were so expensive that only the elite could afford them. And very ineffective. It took more than a hundred years before firearms became valid, and even after the end of the Middle Ages there was a lot of armor that effectively protected against pistols and even muskets. And this is in the real world, in fantasy there are an infinite number of options. So the whole problem is with retards like you, not with guns.

>>96351132
also, the domination of guns only came after sweeping military reforms and the rise of the standing, professional army
while any peasant can learn to use a gun, actually being able to reload it in the middle of battle was extremely difficult

>>96351152
And also training with firearms requires resources. With a bow you can reuse arrows while there is no reusable gunpowder and bullets. And also, targets tend to break quickly when you train with firearms.

>>96350179 (OP)
My opinion is kind of mean, so I apologize in advance.
It's the fact that you're on the spectrum. Autists don't like change, they don't like variance, they want to stay in their comfort zone and never, ever leave it. Generic fantasy isn't something to be iterated upon or changed for the sake of variety, it's something that's supposed to be perfected and distilled down into a perfectly generic, perfectly tropified slop.
You're the type of guy who only plays 5e, only reads Brandon Sanderson crap fantasy, gets angry if someone makes a fantasy setting without generic elves, etc.
I don't know what else to say.
It's not the guns, it's you having sacred cows that you worship for reasons that ultimately come down to the fact that you have a mental illness.
There is no actual, logical reason that you dislike guns. You're just irrationally married to a very specific, very generic aesthetic.

Guns don't ruin adventure or fantasy at all. It's merely a strict adherence to people's perception of what "traditional" fantasy should be that says guns "ruin" fantasy. One of the first depictions of a firearm is a demon shooting one at the Buddha in a 10th century painting, kinda like the first depiction of a violin is an angel playing one a few centuries later in Europe. Both of these inventions of relatively recent, yet not un-fantastical.
People overstate how much modern generic fantasy rips off Tolkien, but it really is a moment of "well he/howard/gygax/etc didn't do it, so therefore we can't". I don't know how else to explain it.

>>96351132
The timeline where the full plate already exists is also the one where gunpowder weaponry started to dominate, said full plate the only thing they couldn't pierce but more expensive to produce anyway.

And that's excluding magical malarkey to speed up and/or improve development of guns that's possible in most technomagic settings ala Warhammer.

So yes, the whole problem is the retards like you who want to yap shit without knowing anything.

>>96351360
Full plate was always top armor while most infantry could only afford a wooden shield, gambeson, and steel helmet, what the fuck are you talking about? Sure things changed in the late Middle Ages, but not much. Also, why would mages be interested in speeding up the production of firearms? Why wouldn't they be interested in improved armor? And why would they even be interested in mortal matters?

>>96351495
Exactly, so guns would make life hell for majority of soldiers.
Gunpowder weaponry trumps basically all existing armour, including even the vaunted full plate if we consider artillery cannons.
So even if we add magic into the equation, the result would remain the same. Some mages would invent magic armour, other mages would invent greater magic weapon, simple.

And why wouldn't mages be interested in gunpowder? Wizards love things that explode violently. It synergizes very well with alchemical experiments.
If not, the original point stands. Might as well play during Bronze Age. Much more fantasy-appropriate btw.

>>96350179 (OP)
What is it about greasy pepperoni farts that ruin a mod thread?
*rips a nasty ass greasy pepperoni fart down your throat*

>>96351559
>Exactly, so guns would make life hell for majority of soldiers.
Just like bows or crossbows. Or knights. So what's the point?

>Gunpowder weaponry trumps basically all existing armour
Murica moment. 3/4 armor was specifically made against firearms, you uneducated monkey.

>So even if we add magic into the equation, the result would remain the same. Some mages would invent magic armour, other mages would invent greater magic weapon, simple.
By this logic, there shouldn't be any weapons in the setting at all except magic.

>And why wouldn't mages be interested in gunpowder? Wizards love things that explode violently. It synergizes very well with alchemical experiments.
Oh, when it's an alchemical bomb it's okay, but when it's a much weaker gunpowder bomb it's suddenly not okay? Make it make sense. Fucking autist.

I don't have guns in my games because people get super nitpicky and "uhm acktually DM you see-" fuck off. Let's play a session of Cyberpunk and see how you enjoy guns in your game then. Spoiler: none of the people clamouring to have guns in our play pretend magic and dragons game want them to actually be realistic they just want to "cheat" in a way that isn't playing a wizard, they need to be more "unique" and "smart".

>>96351727
>Just like bows or crossbows. Or knights. So what's the point?
For adventurers, they will pick the best option available.
>Murica moment. 3/4 armor was specifically made against firearms
Yeah, and was only slightly less shit than nothing at all, due to poor quality metal and only protected alright against early-to-middle firearms. It ate more dick than your mother.
>By this logic, there shouldn't be any weapons in the setting at all except magic.
Well, yeah? And that's what happened in the real world, isn't it? Only peasants use knives, clubs and improvised weapons to solve petty disputes in the current year.
>Oh, when it's an alchemical bomb it's okay, but when it's a much weaker gunpowder bomb it's suddenly not okay?
Who are you quoting?
But yeah, small gunpowder bomb would take a few extra centuries of refinement and creativity to imagine.

>>96351792
>For adventurers, they will pick the best option available.
Then what's the problem?

>Yeah, and was only slightly less shit than nothing at all, due to poor quality metal and only protected alright against early-to-middle firearms.
So a long period of time which is more than enough for adventures. Again, what's the problem, autistic?

>It ate more dick than your mother.
Good for you.

>Only peasants use knives, clubs and improvised weapons to solve petty disputes in the current year.
In any year. Peasants have always been poor.

>But yeah, small gunpowder bomb would take a few extra centuries of refinement and creativity to imagine.
So in a magical world where magical nukes capable of ending the world exist, why should a gunpowder firecracker be a problem? You're autistic and just against changing the setting, that's all. Admit it, damn it.

>>96350431
nta but he's probably talking about bullet fragmentation and wound cavitation, not bullets with explosive charges inside them.

>>96351828
>but he's probably talking about bullet fragmentation and wound cavitation
that is true for modern rifle rounds
but less so for pistol rounds, which just icepick the target as described above

there is, unsurprisingly, very little data on musket ball wounding
and there never will be until theres a crack epidemic in a re-enactor society
but they fragment about 1/5th of the time in targets and produce an exit wound about 1/4th of the time based on a very small number of modern samples
and projectiles causing an exit would did not fragment

so terminal performance is above a modern pistol but well below a modern assault rifle
icepicking occurs when impacting soft flesh, so a wound comparable to a very large pistol round
fragmenting (sometimes) occurs when striking bone, increasing lethality well above pistols, but not nearly as reliable as assault rifle fragmentation

1D12 damage from 5e seems about right, in this case

>>96350258
>So does long range spells. The solution already exists: magic armor or letting warriors train to the level they're basically superheroes.
Ranged magic doesn't necessarily equate to guns, and having PCs be superheroes might not be the style of combat or flavour that you are going for.

>>96350233
Yes and they're called magical wands and staffs

>>96350179 (OP)
Why do you feel the need to relitigate this thread like every week?

Are you taking a break from making your weekly 40K vs X thread or something?

Do you even play any games where this is an issue?

>>96350233
Sword World has them as relics of a bygone magitech civilization

>>96351959
>Ranged magic doesn't necessarily equate to guns
Yeah, it's fucking Armageddon, the comparison with nuclear weapons is much more correct.

>>96352019
Depends on the system and setting. TDE for example has rather mundane magic.

>>96350179 (OP)
>What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure
Nothing. It's you problem.
Guns are just better crossbows that are loud and more expensive. Unless you are talking about later flintlock muskets then you might as well have Honda Civic with stereo radio. Just stick to appropriate tech levels, shit evolved way it did for a reason and you had matchlock and wheellock firearms in what is currently understood as "medieval fantasy" aka XVI century early modern perioid.
Firearms are just sidegrades to crossbows, or downgrades if we are talking about handcannons, there is nothing they can do mage also can't do.

If your game is set in a world where a gun could feasibly exist, but giving them to a PC ruins the game, your a shit gm

>>96350179 (OP)
I aim for a "mythic dark-ages" experience. Only dwarvern smiths can make plate mail.
I reserve the right to have one of the high level dungeons be a crashed space ship with functioning laser pistols in it, however.

>>96350179 (OP)
>millions upon millions of fan cream their pants about how pic related was (and still is) the peak of adventuring
>literally opens to a dwarf with a rifle
I think you might just be full of shit

>>96351818
>Then what's the problem?
For the players, none. Although some may get bored faster.
For GMs, will make standard encounters repetitive and underpowered.
>Again, what's the problem, autistic?
I don't know? People want to play with guns here.
>In any year. Peasants have always been poor.
Yeah, right. Peasants of middle ages always had a few dozen relatives with weapons and armour, as they were soldiers or militia. From simple gambezons, to proper armour, like aforementioned 3/4.
>So in a magical world where magical nukes capable of ending the world exist, why should a gunpowder firecracker be a problem?
Do you see anyone using nukes in the current year? Exactly.
Using guns in a fantasy setting is as boring, soulless and unininspired as drones in the current and artillery in the previous.
>You're autistic and just against changing the setting, that's all. Admit it, damn it.
Of course. And?

>>96352526
>For GMs, will make standard encounters repetitive and underpowered.
So it's your typical campaign.

>I don't know?
As expected.

>Yeah, right. Peasants of middle ages always had a few dozen relatives with weapons and armour,
Nope.

>Do you see anyone using nukes in the current year? Exactly.
But this is a common occurrence in fantasy, magical Armageddon happened every millennia or so.

>Using drones is boring
No.

>Of course. And?
Then you have no right to open your mouth and express your unnecessary opinion. End of the story.

>>96352641
>So it's your typical campaign.
If you're a hack, may be.
>Nope.
Lol, and that monkey was calling someone educated.
>B-but..!
No. And preventing that is often the case for questions anyway.
>No.
Of course it is.
>T-t-then
I don't remember asking, know your place, faggot.

>>96350179 (OP)
Because gunfags are rarely satisfied with those guns. They want the repeating guns with metallic cartridges of the 1870s and later.

>>96350179 (OP)
>this fucking thread again
No one actually believes this shit and you're a nogames subhuman

>>96352312
WoW was always shit thobeight

>>96352660
Are you still opening your mouth? Back to the mental asylum, know your place.

>>96352859
>n-no you
Kwab

>>96350179 (OP)
It’s less any guns feel unrealistic than every player who wants to use a gun in game doesn’t want a medieval gun, they want a modern gun with a fantasy coat of paint.

>>96352770
cringe npc opinion

>>96352312
Settings with guns built into them from the beginning are received better than others. Wow is notoriously unbalanced shit anyway.

>>96350179 (OP)
>What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure?
They don't. Especially when the guns arent a /k/fag wet dream of instadeath sticks like so many fuckwits want in these types of threads about guns.
Simply excluding modern weapons is easy. The next is not being a shitty autist who needs an exact simulation of real world guns for his games. Once you have these down, making guns that compete with other ranged weapons is easy to do, and allows you to have a bow ranger alongside a gunslinger without any issues of any stupid sense of loss of an "archaic" adventure or immersion.

Basically, stop being a gun autist and play the fucking game.

>>96350884
>Use setting-appropriate guns (handgonnes or even firelances) rather than the pistols and rifles that 5e encourages you to use.
How exactly do you determine what "setting-appropriate" is, exactly? If you're going by the contemporary non-firearm martial technology as roughly analogous to their IRL development then it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect snaplocks and wheellocks in any setting where full plate and rapiers exist.

>>96351132
>The first firearms were so expensive that only the elite could afford them. And very ineffective. It took more than a hundred years before firearms became valid,
All of this is wildly incorrect.

>and even after the end of the Middle Ages there was a lot of armor that effectively protected against pistols and even muskets.
Pistols? Certainly. Light arquebus? Maybe. Muskets? God no. We actually have armory data and manuals of arms for muskets from the thirty year's war; a .87 cal lead ball pushed by ~300gr of powder was a standard load for the Swedes and that's going to give any breastplate a bad day.

>And this is in the real world, in fantasy there are an infinite number of options.
Certainly true as well.

>So the whole problem is with retards like you, not with guns.
Eat shit and die you smug retard.

>>96353425
>The next is not being a shitty autist who needs an exact simulation of real world guns for his games.
That's good as I don't plan to do that at all. I always found it silly how a sword will deal "1D6+1" damage but a gun will deal "2D10" when a sword realistically could deal even more damage then a gun if it gets by armor. This is fantasy and a game, it doesn't need to be realistic.

>>96352680
Do you keep making these threads so you can seethe about imaginary "gunfags" doing shit that's verifiably never happened, or do you just eagerly await for some other fag to remake the same thread so you can keep posting this sort of retarded bullshit?

>>96350179 (OP)
>What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure?
Nothing, just have guns match the tone of the setting. If it's generally medieval or something have the guns players are liable to use be baroque works of art as expensive as a whole suit of armour with more common guns that are so unreliable and shitty that nobody would ever use them as an adventurer.

Repeating firearms in various forms have existed since the 16th century and overlap with full plate, longbows, crossbows, and horsemen with recurve bows. They were simply specially made weapons often purchased by high ranking nobles to show off when they go hunting.

In essence a basic handgun should be a more powerful, less reliable crossbow, while a good handgun with multiple shots or something should be akin to a magic bow in terms of rarity and thus power.

>>96351577
Tabletop games have Spells like Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill so nothing is ruined.

What's wrong with just adding handcannons. Problem solved

>>96350179 (OP)
It doesn't, it's a matter of taste that those who feel that way push as if it's the default that should be respected.

>>96350179 (OP)
Because most people only read slop nowadays. That is, if they read at all.

>>96356065
Unironically a common problem not just on here but on the internet as a whole. They think their tastes are some objective fact.

>>96353497
>All of this is wildly incorrect.
the first firearms were literally showpieces to impress people with and were used by specialists

>>96356938
Genuinely asking for proofs for the first firearms being like this.

>>96356570
It is often forgotten that guns didnt even displace swords until the 1800's, if even then.
Modern machine guns yeah good fucking luck, but muskets arent that different from a magic missile in niche. Limited shots and very long reload times that mean if you miss the shot you'll get fucking charged.

>>96356570
Most people don't read and worse still, can't read at a grade school level.

>>96356938
>the first firearms were literally showpieces to impress people with
There are Chinese records of gunpowder weapons (mostly fire arrows and fire lances) antedating firearms being used in warfare so you're going to have to do a hell of a lot of convincing to show me that firearms were anything else before they were weapons of war - especially in a European context, given that they reached Europe from Turkey and we know for a fact that the Turks were using them in warfare at that point.

>and were used by specialists
"Specialists" defined how, exactly?

>>96357111
>It is often forgotten that guns didnt even displace swords until the 1800's, if even then.
Firearms and swords were never in the same niche. A more accurate comparison would be between crossbows and arquebus as they were both both slow-to-reload, trigger-actuated, shoulder-fired longarms that were vulnerable to wet weather; the crossbow had been the premiere weapon of war in Europe for almost half a millennium and then the arquebus made the crossbow functionally extinct inside of 50 years.

>but muskets arent that different from a magic missile in niche. Limited shots and very long reload times that mean if you miss the shot you'll get fucking charged.
Gunpowder weapons don't use spell slots and you don't need to know magic to use one.

>>96350179 (OP)
the tiffany problem and laziness/indifference from creators.
I like guns in magic setting as long as they are slow and clumsy (matchlock/flintlock or single shot at most) problem is most settings with flintlock weapons and the like make them shoot like modern guns, barely taking half a second to reload if they even need to reload at all, greed fall and new world spring to mind, "flintlock" guns in there can shoot 6 times or more before having to reload and they reload like a semi-automatic gun, it's maddening, and this are just 2 examples, a lot of games do this, I would even say the majority of them make guns either too much like modern guns which ruins the appeal or make them like another version of a bow which makes them redundant.

>>96350179 (OP)
They weren't in lord of the rings

>>96351765
True. Guns are a way of letting martials compete with casters, that's the real reason they need to be crushed.

>>96350179 (OP)
Americans are somehow the only people who feel like that, so thats a you issue

>>96357214
>There are Chinese records of gunpowder weapons (mostly fire arrows and fire lances) antedating firearms being used in warfare so you're going to have to do a hell of a lot of convincing to show me that firearms were anything else before they were weapons of war - especially in a European context, given that they reached Europe from Turkey and we know for a fact that the Turks were using them in warfare at that point.
This is why ask earlier(>>96356962), since I'm aware of Chinese firearms so his post sounded weird.

>>96357730
Maybe he's confused and thinking of rifling? From what I remember reading, rifles were - early on - a scout's weapon and/or for hunting, not given en masse to soldiers, because they were too expensive to produce at first.

>>96350700
Warhammer has Magic Levels though.
>WoD, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu
All have guns too and aren't ye olde fantasy. Hownew.ru?

>>96350179 (OP)
Traditional games?

>>96350179 (OP)
I imagine it must be your weepy bitch vagina that's ruining the experience of gatting motherfuckers.

>>96358251
yes

>>96350671
This desu. Every party needs a boat with cannons.
>>96352312
Need a version of WoW I can just walk around in.
>>96357704
Seethe manafag.

>>96357754
>From what I remember reading, rifles were - early on - a scout's weapon and/or for hunting, not given en masse to soldiers, because they were too expensive to produce at first.
Riflemen as a distinct and important organizational element of warfare basically only lasted for ~100 years; they became relevant in the mid to late 18th century, peaked around the Napoleonic Wars and then effectively ceased to exist a few decades later because everyone was being issued rifles.

The early (17th c.) use of dedicated riflemen in a military context was basically rich cunts recruiting skilled shooters, hunters and gamekeepers (ie. men who already owned their own rifles and knew how to use, maintain and feed them) and attaching them to existing units for reconnaissance and (relatively) long-ranged skirmishers but the drawbacks of rifles compared to smoothbores meant that they remained extremely niche, especially before true flintlocks came along.

Regarding the "en masse" bit, that depends on what you mean. Everyone who played with them in the 18th century pretty quickly figured out that by far the best way to use riflemen was either as detached skirmishers or by attaching them to line infantry regiments; in the former case the use case is obvious but in the latter case the idea was to use the superior range of the riflemen to pick off the enemy line infantry as they were closing to smoothbore range which would then give your own forces an advantage in volume of fire when the enemy line infantry entered firing range. It was also common knowledge that riflemen were very easy targets if they lost their mobility - there were always less of them, their volume of fire was at best half of what line infantry could lay down (even less so in a prolonged engagement) and rifles didn't have bayonets.

>>96358629
>Need a version of WoW I can just walk around in.
EpsilonWoW is an RP-focused private server where you can create your own empty phase and explore around with GM powers. I tried to mess around with it to fill in the void of Prologue/Legacy, a truly outstanding RP server but destined to wither under drama like all of that scene, but it wasn't my cup of tea, should help what you're looking for though.

Alternatively you can find a 1 player self-hosting server to download but I'm less familiar with that process.

>>96352770
It's shit, but it wasn't always shit.
What's with you people and revisionist history? It's freakish and creepy.

>>96350179 (OP)
Guns are very prevalent in the Age of Sail and I would argue that's one of the most adventurous eras in human history.

It also makes for a great setting for tabletop gaming. Don't know why everyone's stuck on Faux-Medieval PopEurope-y settings.

>>96358657
No, I mean rifling specifically, i.e. guns that have rifling in the barrel, greatly increasing accuracy at long distances.

>>96359208
WoW was always shit.

>>96358629
https://noclip.website/

>>96359713
>No, I mean rifling specifically, i.e. guns that have rifling in the barrel, greatly increasing accuracy at long distances.
...And soldiers who used rifles, as opposed to smoothbore guns, are referred to as "riflemen".

>>96350179 (OP)
>What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure?
Absolutely nothing.
>You can have magic or even limited sci-fi technology to radios but the moment you add a rifle something feels lost.
No it doesn't.

>>96358681
>>96362715
Thank you.

>>96359208
It's not revisionist when I thought it fucking sucked in 2004. You realize that discussing it used to be banned here, right?

>>96362915
>You realize that discussing it used to be banned here, right?
When

>>96350179 (OP)

I keep thinking about that scene in Seven Samurai where they're in the middle of the final battle and you hear a rifle crack and one of the best samurai is abruptly dead. Or that video of the guy shooting a mountain lion. Some dork with a gopro and a cheap pistol being able to take out nature's perfect killing machine feels unfair.

But I suppose you'd appreciate that equalizing power if your wife or daughter had to defend the homestead from burglars. You have to take the good with the bad, I guess.

>>96363649
Nature's perfect killing machine is man, specifically because we make it "unfair".

>>96350204
spiritually castrated response

Complaining about guns in a world with magic is just straight up Magefag propaganda to try convince the fighterfag to not invalidate the existence of 99% of mages via a bullet to the head.
Remember folks, Wizards don't reproduce, they take YOUR kids to their "tower" and indoctrinate them.

Read more pulp fiction. There's plenty of adventure stories with guns.

Just throw more weak enemies at your gunslinger to soak up the hot lead. Send in the big boss when he has to reload or runs out of ammo.

>>96363525
2004-2006. The mods would swoop in and ban the fuck out of you for talking about WoW on 4chan back then.

>>96350652
Not really, plate armour was developed partially to protect against the rising threat of firearms.
The term bulletproof comes from an actual test where someone would fire a flintlock at a newly forged piece of armour to prove it could take the hit. plate armour didn't get phased out until around 200 years after early firearms developed and most full plate armour was designed after the musket was already commonplace.

>>96350652
We got plenty of things that are good at destroying tanks and we're fielding tons of tanks from the 50s and 60s, both east and west, which have very limited defences against modern anti-tank weapons (some not even against contemporary anti-tank weapons, like Leopard 1s). But as long as there's not sherman-tank-eating dragons behind every corner, sherman tanks work just fine. Just keep away from any mountains that house them.

>>96365455
>2004-2006
how old is /tg/ anyway?

>>96369301
2007. I said 4chan, not /tg/.

>>96365455
>>96369531
Sounds made up

>>96350179 (OP)
But Westerns are based.

>>96350233
You take a cannon, slap some handles on it, and give it to the biggest dude around to use while holding..

>>96350179 (OP)
>People do not like gun
>Then people make WALKING GUN
>Call them wizards
>Suddenly fine with gun

Who knows, OP?

>>96350179 (OP)
>What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure?
Literally nothing at all.

It's movie brainrot. Guns are already harder use, more expensive, and harder to get than people realize. If you doubt me, go to America's most lenient state and try getting a gun the same day through legal means. You probably won't succeed. If you can even pass the checks needed, you'll experience sticker shock. If you want a gun that won't blow up in your hand, that sticker shock will give you heart palpitations. Guns are EXPENSIVE. Good ones are several times more expensive than that. If you can pass all those hurdles, and buy ammo for it at all, you'll hit the harsh realization you can't use your stupid gun because they're harder to operate and aim than you'd think. Your ass would easily get washed by some rando with a pocketknife even from like 30 feet away. It really is that bad.

But John Wick sure made all of that look easy. I'm sure. The amount of dedicated training to even bother is going to bite you hard.

If that's not convincing enough as is, it's still the fakest problem in the world. Have guns work like the fire guns from Vermintide. Or the making of smokeless powder requires deep alchemical secrets and means since it literally does need that. Or go extra and rounds are actually paper rolls with runes inscribed stuffed in to the barrel. Don't know how to write runes? Too bad. So sad. Should have had your great grandfather learn how to use a bow so his descendents could eventually get good at that instead. Would have been more simple.

>>96356570
This is a very rapey image.

>>96370129
Is.

>>96350179 (OP)
pop culture training

>>96350691
The secret is that it's always on. Which is also a problem.

>>96371539
I have bought two guns at a gun store and been handed them within an hour. One took the entire hour because the ATF site was being clogged up. I'm sorry you had such a difficult experience, anon.

>>96371539
0/10.

>>96371539
The thing is you don't need gunpowder - bog standard DnD, Decanter of Endless Water set on maximum output put through small enough nozzle will launch projectile at hypersonic speed.

>>96374704
I'd rather not abuse existing things in the way the peasant railgun does. Best not to encourage it. However, guns working through obscure magic presents the aesthetic people want while controlling their proliferation AND preventing gun autists from pulling up and letting out a scream.

>>96350179 (OP)
They don't. You're just a faggot. Simple as.

>>96351851
>but less so for pistol rounds, which just icepick the target as described above
Literally what hollowpoints are for

>>96371539
I live in Texas, have owned multiple guns, literally every single one of them I walked in to a store and was like 'hi I want a Beretta 92fs' or whatever it was and bought it right there.
Even in California it's definitely not as impossible as political talking points make it sound- you pass a safety test and wait ten days. Go play a video game or something, if ten days is a deal breaker for you you probably genuinely shouldn't be handed a gun.
"Guns aren't cheap" I mean sure buddy you're not buying a precision .308 rifle cheap but you can buy a .22 handgun for a hundred bucks.
>hurr durr 22 bb gun
Sure bro let's see you take a couple to the face, I'll wait
Your point is barely intelligible, maybe don't talk about guns if your only experience with them is /k/ memes.

>>96371539
>Guns are EXPENSIVE

>>96350179 (OP)
>The Head member typed this

>>96350179 (OP)
There are a few reasons why guns can kill a vibe in a fantasy vibe more than most things.

First off, people tend to "Hollywood" the shit out of guns. The people who often try to push guns into a fantasy game have little to no knowledge on guns or try to handwave the problems of having and using guns in said world. Especially when it comes from what type of guns/ammo they use. Flintlock would be less useful to an adventurer than say a bow or crossbow. (Loud, needing to get powder dry, at best could get 3 shots a min.) Where modern guns would be too overpowering and basically make it where people would use guns for everything over swords and magic spells. Even then people other don't know the problems guns would have in a adventure, or try to handwave it away with magic. EVERYTHING will hear you if you were to use it once. How it can deafen you and everyone around you. Depending on the type of gun having very limited ammo and the weight to carry said ammo/mags/clips.

Also let's be honest, most settings are meant for swords and sorcery not guns, and often the people who push for guns want to be the one to "invent" said gun or be part of a super secret organization that uses said weapon and all. So it just I am special shit.

and one more thing. Often in the game system itself it has no way of adding it without changing everything without making it broken AF. Or just making it a crossbow in all but name and ammo only.

>>96371539
>Rural Tennessee
>Walk into gun show
>"I would like this [pistol from the 80s]"
>-350$
>Forgets to check my ID
>Buy a box of ammo at the next table
>Walk out

>>96377404
Well, those do sell for 200-300 at those buy back programs especially since it's a scary "Ghost Gun." LOL

>>96350179 (OP)
it implies that there is an industrial supply chain utterly incongruous with an adventurer era of history dnd is "meant" to be played in

>>96387128
>buy a few bucks worth of pipe and parts
>make hundreds of bucks
So, in fact, guns are PROFITABLE.

>>96350179 (OP)
All the D&D nigga gotta be reminded that Grygax' D&D campaigns had one of the players literally play a John Wayne Cowboy Character with two six shooters on his hips.

So ya all should be banishing anybody who's against guns in their D&D from ya all tables.

what if its orcs who get the matchlock cannons instad of your normal humans?

Verified kino

>>96388018
Quite based. Quite based indeed.

>>96350179 (OP)
>What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure?
You've never heard of the Wild West?

>>96350179 (OP)
You're not a big fan of pirate fiction, are you?

>>96388018
Kino casino, one might even say.

>>96350179 (OP)

In reality, most plater armour you see don't belong to the Middle Ages but to the Early Modern Period.

>>96400934
Makes posts by retards like this >>96387161 especially funny.

>>96350179 (OP)
Because gun and gunpowder weapons are the sort of thing that the Bad Guys use. Mechanical and impersonal. Made for killing at a distance and overthrowing any form of social order. Even Tolkien thought so:
>It is not unlikely that they [goblins] invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them

Heroes are in tune with the natural world, and if they kill, they almost universally do so face to face where the enemy knows it's coming. Even archers shoot people in the front. Guns inevitably lead to massed formations of nameless peons pulling their trigger simultaneously and projecting forth a volley that just deleted whatever is in front of it. No plausible physical force in the human experience can stand up to it,or dodge it, or resist it, or survive in any way save through dumb luck. Guns are the weapon of the medieval anti-hero at best, or the villains most commonly. That's just the nature of the genre. If you want guns, just don't play medieval fantasy, any more than you'd play a drone operator in a Pendragon game.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with guns in *a game*. There's everything wrong with not acknowledging the genre you're playing in.

>>96401157
Wow. This guy knows what's up.

>>96400934
The more you know.

>>96401157
It's not as if I don't understand what you're trying to say.

But Tolkien was a product of the trauma. He held a front row seat to how many bodies could be piled up and how quickly. He saw many who he called brother never come back. His is a 'sole survivor' style tale. He had so many friends. He came back alone. However, I'd question why anyone acts as if the sword was the soul of humanity's honor. I can assure anyone, there's nothing glamorous or envious about running a man through versus shooting them. Men came back from this with scars of the soul and mind more impossible to fix than any other kind of wound. This didn't start with the advent of the gun. And by the way, massed formations of archers volley firing without a specific target were used more than just a little. What kind of revisionist excuse is this? War was NEVER personal.

Any kind of nobility in this is.. entirely imagined and born of the kind of nostalgia people can only have for an age that they never lived in.

I'll throw in a freebie too. The advent of the gun has changed how the common man relates to their government. There's a reason why so many governments seek to take such implements away, and it's not for their lack of civility versus other weapons. Also, I'm sure you don't appreciate your lack of local brigands you are helpless against unless you have been training since birth for violence.

I really like fantasy, but the flip side to all of this is very ugly.

>>96401157
>Guns are the weapon of the medieval anti-hero at best, or the villains most commonly. That's just the nature of the genre. If you want guns, just don't play medieval fantasy, any more than you'd play a drone operator in a Pendragon game.
See, now I want to play a Predator drone operator in a Pendragon game. If the other players can suspend their disbelief enough to allow ladyknights and full plate armor in 550AD, there should be no issues with drone striking Mordred. Just use your imagination.

>>96376149
Pistol hollowpoints rarely fragment to the same degree as a rifle cartridge. They'll massively expand, but aren't that frangible. Fragmentation is usually a function of velocity more than anything.

>>96408329
People have this idea that warfare was honorable little one on one or maybe one on three bouts, instead of guys swiping and jabbing at each other from a line and occasionally catching an unlucky blow to the face, neck, thigh or wrist and don't realize a vast majority of people killed in pre-gunpowder warfare were killed on the rout by cavalry, which I think even carries all the way up until the Napoleonic era.

>>96401157
Counterpoint - Viva la revolución, motherfucker.

>>96408375
Media brainrot. Which I won't blame people for, but we have to call it like it is.

There's also all that downtime where the standing armies were given stuff like tournaments or other jobs so they don't turn to banditry out of sheer boredom. Which, yeah, I bet tournaments look glamorous and personal. That was probably the closest most people got to seeing war in person.

I'm reminded of a specific battle in the American Civil War that taught people this lesson harshly. Bunch of citizens showed up see the armies match off and thought it would be cute. They had their picnics and everything ready on a nearby hill. Not only did they get traumatized, but some caught stray fired and got maimed or died. For some reason, everyone thought it would be this organized, tidy, cute little standoff they can just watch unfold? Maybe this is just our default assumption on how things SHOULD work.

>>96363649
>you hear a rifle crack and one of the best samurai is abruptly dead.
I think this comes into it as well. There's a mental image of the gun as a 'magic wand', where you activate it and boom, bad guy fall down. Despite an arrow or sword really being able to do the same, I feel people feel more willing to accept a glancing blow or "I can fight on" with them than a bullet wound, for whatever psychological reason.
Take Boromir, for instance. Three arrows and fighting on is "wow what a hero". Say he took three bullets and the cry is "bullshit", despite many, many medal citations across the world saying the lucky soul who won it did exactly that.

>>96408360
... Scry-and-die combined with demon summoning? Hmm. That does feel like a character/antagonist concept right there (I just couldn't do it in Pendragon, but...)

>>96350233
Nope

>>96408389
Given that democracy and vox populi and all that nonsense has been a tremendous disaster for the human race, all you're doing is proving anons point correct. Guns are the tools of villains, not heroes.

>>96371364
>>96350179 (OP)
Absolutely nothing at all.

>>96350179 (OP)
They don't, you've just decided Guns In Fantasy Bad and are making up a post-hoc justification for it.

>>96412104
One does not have to justify objective truth. Therefore any justification is sufficient.

>>96408394
>I'm reminded of a specific battle in the American Civil War that taught people this lesson harshly. Bunch of citizens showed up see the armies match off and thought it would be cute. They had their picnics and everything ready on a nearby hill. Not only did they get traumatized, but some caught stray fired and got maimed or died.
Battle of Bull Run or Manassas depending on who's doing the telling. With "First"s tacked on as the war went on.

>>96350179 (OP)
>What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure?
Nothing.

>>96350179 (OP)
Any sophisticated gun implies industrial infrastructure that clashes with medieval stasis

>>96387161
>>96412580
Guns were hand-forged for a very long time.

>>96350233
The fire lances/handgonne of Princess Monoke or the Huolongchushui of Mulan are in my opinion the way to try and match with the least friction.

>>96412580
Early matchlock firearms were not "sophisticated" and even more primitive handguns were in use since the 14th century.

>>96350884
This guy gets it.

>more of a hireling weapon than anything for PCs in 5e.
>In Savage Worlds they're heavy, cost over half your starting gold, and reload 3. Had to get buffed in Fantasy Companion to reload 2. Even after the only gun to shine is the Blunderbuss when you're in the specific scenario where you don't have to worry about friendly fire.
>TL3 Handgonne takes 60 seconds to reload after firing once. Effectively requires you to have multiple to even effectively use
In what system are black powder firearms are so overtuned that they invalid melee, replace bows, and absolutely BTFO magies?

>>96411897
>rrreeee, I'm a retard suffering under democracy because I'm stupid and don't know what to do
>so everyone should starve to death in an authoritarian regime with me
I hope you die childless and then your death will show that democracy works perfectly as a filter for genetic garbage.

Because as a kid you obsess about crusader era chainmail knights up to full plate knights and think longbows are the coolest shit and that's the image you have in your head until you start thinking about muskets in your teens and only then do you start your "Uuh achually plate armor and musket coexistance" -autism.

Kid you knew what was up. He knew that guns are fucking lame and your pike and shot grimy shit is not true heroic fantasy. Deal with it.

>>96415160
Ok retard.

>>96408375
>a vast majority of people killed in pre-gunpowder warfare were killed on the rout by cavalry,
considering this why wasn't there an edict from the pope or something to stop psychopath nobles from stabbing fleeing soldiers in the back like he attempted (unsuccessfully) with the crossbow ban? Could have actually had some cool ritualized warfare with minimal deaths if they did it that way.

>>96415187
>sci-fi shit
every kid knew if we were playing knights or if we were doing power armor sci-fi shit, there was a clear difference that was understood on an intuitive level, you know this

>>96415201
they took ransoms pretty seriously...so maybe it was only okay to stab peasants in the back but not noble knights if they were on foot

>>96415208
Behold - knight in space.

>>96415214
sci fi power armor knights with guns and swords=cool. Pike and shot museum-slow-ass-history-documentary-shit=not cool. This is the iron law of childhood where you draw hospitaller knights with great helmets interchangably with full plate shit and worship masterchief and ultramarines until your history knowledge increases in your teens and you start getting snarky and "achually".

>>96415208
Also behold - knight with a gun

>>96415256
you guys ever played knights with wheellocks? No, no one did, lets be real. A child's soul is too noble for such dishonorable crap.

>>96415250
>slow-ass-history
>https://youtu.be/rA1S_UGbW8E
Ok retard. And I won't even mention that formations are used by large armies, a party of adventurers definitely can't do that.

>>96415271
You know what I find funny about these discussions?

People bring up military tactics and norms but forget that the typical adventurer group is maybe 2-5 people who are no where near a battlefield and whose combat conditions are nothing like open warfare between two large groups but act like that would dictate how a bunch of tomb robbing murder hobos would fight on the regular.

Since this is the early modern guns thread, how did people deal with wild animals during the time?

Limit their use and distribution (e.g. to a cultural/interest group).
Introduce technology that mitigates their effectiveness, or increases the viability of classical weaponry.

>>96350179 (OP)
Two things.
1. Dumb fuckers who think that the invention of firearms ended the "armoured fighting dude" when they actually coexisted for a while and there was a HUGE stretch of time where even as armour declined, melee was very, very relevant (Pike & Shot, or when in fantasy settings, Flintlock Fantasy).
2. People who feel as though the presence of firearms indicates the setting has become "technologically mobile" and that the medieval stasis they want to enjoy is in its waning days; they would prefer to imagine that the setting will remain fantasy forever and never become modern. Even if it isn't depicted in the material, just knowing that the world's time in that state is running out ruins the comforting fantasy of a world that never becomes modern.

>>96350233
Type 1 either won't be satisfied by anything, or can be assuaged by guns being statted to be no more powerful than crossbows and by armoured fighting dudes remaining a mechanically powerful choice, although this does lure in the "waah guns should be modern killing machine autists"; you can't make everyone happy all the time.

Type 2 I think you can solve that by having guns just be ancient tech already. Like you make it clear that the not-Chinese philosopher Gun Fu invented "dragon powder" millennia ago and that guns aren't here because of technological advancement, they're just something that exists, but because there's no scientific method, no machine tools, and no proper standardization, the industrial base to do things like create machine guns or produce super high accuracy rifled barrels or mass produce firearms in a way that shapes warfare to favour masses of peasant conscripts with muskets. They're all hand crafted, they fire lead shot rather than bullets, and they do not have rifle accuracy.

>>96350179 (OP)
It's clear that you are leftist. Not one man in my gaming group had a problem with mage who made magical flintlock for them.

>>96363649
>I keep thinking about that scene in Seven Samurai where they're in the middle of the final battle and you hear a rifle crack and one of the best samurai is abruptly dead. Or that video of the guy shooting a mountain lion. Some dork with a gopro and a cheap pistol being able to take out nature's perfect killing machine feels unfair.
Or some little Israelite with a sling taking out the Philistines' mightiest warrior.
Ranged weapons have always been unfair and easily capable of killing someone in one shot.
To beat them, you needed enough numbers that you could survive having your guys killed until you got close. If you got close. Up against horse archers? Good luck, your society's probably getting conquered and will stay that way until you either assimilate the invaders or scrape together enough industrial society to out-ranged-combat them.

>>96415345
Why wouldn't people optimize for firearm use in any setting they exist in without mechanisms that limit its effectiveness?

Makes zero sense to me. Cut out that pedantic bullshit and just make it scifi or scifantasy then. Unless you want to play in that intermediary period where primitive guns coexisted with swords and armor.

>Melee was still relevant
Yes but firearms informed how melee is used and would continue to do so, altering what kind of characters you can put in. Guns affect every strata of the setting. The history lesson isn't the crux of the matter here.

>>96363649
>I keep thinking about that scene in Seven Samurai where they're in the middle of the final battle and you hear a rifle crack and one of the best samurai is abruptly dead.
Your post clearly demonstrates that majority of people are retards who only consume stupid pop culture and have never opened a book in their entire lives. First, samurai armor easily deflected bullets, Nobunaga, who survived the assassination attempt can confirms this. The second is that samurai were horse archers first and foremost, and became swordsmen in times of peace when most samurai turned into murderhobos without armor, bows, and horses.

>>96415389
>Why wouldn't people optimize for magic use in any setting they exist in without mechanisms that limit its effectiveness?
>Makes zero sense to me. Cut out that pedantic bullshit and just make it magicpunk or science magic then. Unless you want to play in that intermediary period where primitive magic coexisted with swords and armor.

>>96415406
This is why I hate when Samurai are used as a class because they always miss an important part of their kit.

there's varying degrees of gun

>>96350179 (OP)
>You can have magic or even limited sci-fi technology to radios but the moment you add a rifle something feels lost.
High tech = magic in terms of wonder. You can reskin radio telecommunications with orb pondering. But the moment you add a rifle you're replacing the fireball. Why train mages when you can deploy uneducated firestick peasants to die for you. Guns make it ultramundane.

>>96415414
Yeah, that's personal preference I was expressing.

This thread is clearly for pedants. There are only three questions you need to answer here.

- Include guns?
- How advanced are they?
- What counterposes them (if anything)?

>>96415297
this is why guns don't feel right, because the dungeoncrawling experience draws from myth and imagery like arthurian quests, which thanks to later depictions also feature plate armor even if it's "inaccurate" and which is why plate feels mythic but guns don't. There's no old myth where someone goes and kills the dragon with a gun.

>>96415406
>attempting to take down the top daimiyo with a fucking matchlock with that burning fuse running
I dunno why, but I find this method hysterical

>>96363649
Best post ITT. This is what it boils down to, but autists can't see past the "BUT DATS NOT HAO IT WORKS DOE". Doesn't matter, it's the perception of it, even if there was a sliver of history where you could make bulletproof armor. that no one has made a scene in a movie akin to the iron man 1 primitive suit or some Ned Kelly shit where a big knight takes a salvo of muskets and then wrecks a score of musketeers is a crime

>>96371539
>our ass would easily get washed by some rando with a pocketknife even from like 30 feet away. It really is that bad.
So what you're saying is...40k melee is realistic and valid. Cool.

Fantasy lever-action crossbow without that stupid-looking korean box is the perfect compromise, no guns needed.

>>96415489
>that no one has made a scene in a movie akin to the iron man 1 primitive suit or some Ned Kelly shit where a big knight takes a salvo of muskets and then wrecks a score of musketeers is a crime

there might be something similar

>>96415512
that box is the magazine

There's always the talk of what particular historical combination of things feels "authentic" but when it comes to magic people don't give a fuck about how it was really practiced in history and fully accept any and all versions of it. Why aren't there more autists advocating for the "right" sort of magic as they do with guns? You'd think you'd see at least some of them.

>>96415555
>Why aren't there more autists advocating for the "right" sort of magic

>>96415560
the autism is more about what rules and feel the magic should have. But everyone is in agreement that there should be war wizards who can shoot fireballs and shit. There's very little argument about what spells should and shouldn't exist, citing history and myth as examples.

>>96415201
Because they wouldn't listen, as it turns out the best way to degrade the enemy with almost zero risk to your own people is to attack them while they flee back to whatever rally point they have behind their lines, instead of engaging them in pitched combat.

>>96350179 (OP)
I've played plenty of fantasy games with guns in them, never ruined the sense of adventure. The trick is to use primative firearms instead of jumping straight from crossbows to late 16th century flintlocks, and to play a system which actually represents the problems early guns have.

I'll use GURPS as my example here, but just to give you an idea. A musket in GURPS is one of the strongest weapons for its era. It also takes 60 seconds to reload. A gurps turn is one second. You cannot just use the musket. Pistols are more popular, but they are a little less powerful proportionally and most people will still fall back on swords. You can 100% run a late renaissance game that still has the spirit of adventure with this form of firearm. What makes it fall apart is when you give somebody the equivalent of a breachloader or bolt action rifle because your system doesn't have the balls to say "you are not reloading this in close quarters."

>>96415555
>Why aren't there more autists advocating for the "right" sort of magic as they do with guns?
Ancient magic: Perform Gatcha Roll Ritual, make your gatcha waifu real and fight alongside you. Maybe.
Grind up babies to make love potions, death curses, transform into an animal.
Medieval and early modern magic: Become invincible, use your cum jars to create artificial beings. Get invites to really wild parties, turn into a newt and get better.
Modern Magic: Energy vampirism, Astral realm travel, probability manipulation, being eaten by the schizophrenic personality you created in your own head.

>>96350179 (OP)
Is this thread safe?
Can we discuss LoR and LC without the unremitting vermintide of Gatcha-brained Limbus Locusts shitting everything up?

>>96416294
interceptions are just too abstract of a thing to ban, even back then they had ruls lawyers.
The idea that they should pillage and rape other catholics was widely respected and by intertia calmed down other conflicts. Then the protestants turned into a very valid target by the same logic, and by intertia that ended in centuries of constant war.

>>96350179 (OP)
>What is it about guns that ruin that archaic sense of adventure?
The Dunning-Krueger effect. If you want to be a historical autist, remove plate armor. Plate was largely developed to counter handegonnes. Before that you had gambesons and chainmail. And if you can't think of a way to add some fantasy spice to a weapon that's been around for the better part of 600 or so years, that's a you problem.

>>96352009
>Do you even play any games where this is an issue?
Of course he doesn't.

>>96416678
I also submit this clip for the retards that think any guns you do add need to be the most archaic versions to be fun or balanced or whatever.
https://youtu.be/MIzAfXcCX3c?si=QJImy0ew0o733a30

>>96415555
Cause those types are also the kind to sperg about wizards needing to be gods or over how literally every form of human study and invention should be considered supernatural in some form, so they're equally as worthless to such a discussion. If they did it like how it was historically, most people would whine that wizards are boring, since a bunch of old fucks and monks studying ancient Hellenistic texts and getting into long drawn out arguments over whose translation over Biggus Dickus's daemon summoning ritual is right, mixed in with local herbalists and recluses spooking the shit out of their superstitious neighbors by shouting how they're going to get the shit cursed out of them if they don't get off their lawn already wouldn't be considered "real magic" by slobs like that.

That said, Ars Magica is probably one of the more "authentic" ways to depict magic in the given historical context out there.

>>96416678
>Plate was largely developed to counter handegonnes.
Ah, yes, that makes perfect sense.

>>96415501
Law enforcement has to train on this very issue so they respect things like distance. There's a lot of situations a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL can get stabbed to death from a decent distance by just some guy with a knife who is possibly on drugs. Drawing your side arm and being able to use it in time is fairly difficult. Some rando who just got a gun isn't doing anywhere near that well either. You'd have to have it already prepared to shoot.

That is a very stark reality. Ever wonder why these guys get kind of twitchy in certain situations? That's one of many similar reasons. Things can turn fast, and even training can only do so much.

>>96418035
The 21 foot rule is very misrepresented. It explicitly refers to the time it takes for you to draw, identify, then shoot. If you're not following a cop's RoE the distance at which you can draw and zap someone drops significantly.

>>96418060
And the point is some rando who just gets a gun isn't even going to do near that well in any similar situation. Even if they aren't doing target ID properly. Guns aren't mystical devices that make you an immortal badass. They're decently difficult to use well. Combat drill courses also exist for a reason. These things are worth training in for a reason. Anyone who lacks experience with a gun probably thinks it's like a movie. Even aiming these things accurately under stress is difficult. This is the realm of professionals.

That guns let Joe Blow pick up a 9mm then go kill the BBEG that afternoon is a fake problem.

I bet the same people complain their farmer's boy, who never even saw a sword before, can't pick it up and go fight the BBEG without becoming some variety of magician or super hero tier strong.

>>96412580
But making a fully articulate suit of plate arnour doesn't?

>>96415201
Because the pope never actually was present for combat so he likely never saw such acts.