Jump to content

Guns in a Fantasy Settings: Tips and Tricks for a GM


Manic Typist

Recommended Posts

Indeed, early gunpowder and metallurgy were indistinguishable from alchemy anyway.

Well, except for the fact that gunpowder and metallurgy gave consistent, reproduceable results. I get your point, but gunpowder is pretty easy to make once you know how its made. Even if the gunpowder priests try to keep it a closely-guarded secret, it's only a matter of time until someone manages to get ahold of some and figure out what's in it. Maybe a few years, maybe a decade or more, but not generations.

 

The flip side of the equation is if your world has the ability to manufacture ACW-level rifles, then their technology is going to be far more advanced than your typical medieval/fantasy society in other areas too. These advances don't happen in a vacuum. (Unless the guns literally fell through a portal from another world, which is what happened in the game I mentioned above.)

 

All of which begs the question: how long have guns been around in this world? If they're pretty new (less than a generation) then the rest of society might not yet have had time to change & adapt. But if they've been around long enough for gun tech to advance to 19th Century levels, then they would likely have had a bigger impact on society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider is what Zelazny did in his Nine Princes in Amber series: in different dimensions, different stuff works as gunpowder.  In the prime Amber dimension, jeweler's rouge was the substitute.  So maybe the stuff that makes it go bang is something rare and difficult to obtain, which limits the commonality of guns as well as how familiar people are with them.  Pointing a gun at someone might just look like a weird wand or something, because gunpowder is made up of ground dragon's teeth and almost nobody can get it.

 

early gunpowder and metallurgy were indistinguishable from alchemy anyway.

 

 

Alchemy was just very early, crude chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a dig around, (and had great fun reading some session write-ups which I created for upload to these very forums around a decade ago).

 

Bad news is that I couldn't find a document listing my own rules for black powder weapons or even any write-ups of black powder weapons.

 

I did find a few fragments from old character sheets though. A single-shot rifle, (rifled musket), took 11 rounds to reload by the looks of it. That was without any investment in the loading skill. A musket or pistol would have taken less time.

 

The loading skill cost 1 point per level, (might make it 2 points per level if I were doing this today). Each level knocked a round off the loading time but no matter how high the skill it still took at least one round to reload.

 

I also found a document containing some rules that another poster had made for black powder weapons to use in a pirates campaign setting. I've uploaded it with this post. I didn't use the rules as written in this document but got some ideas from it.

 

I don't know anymore who the original poster was since it was so long ago. I have a feeling that it could have been Spence but that might just be my imagination. Presumably the person who created these rules was happy to share them or I wouldn't have had them in the first place. Nonetheless if the author of this document doesn't want it shared then please let me know and I'll delete this post.

Blackpowder Guideline.doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magic armor that can stop bullets would likely render a bow obsolete.  A magic bow that can penetrate magic armor when a gun can't ... would  likely render a gun obsolete.

 

I think you get the point: there's a rock, paper, scissors thing going on with the projectile technologies as they relate to the armor technologies -- one that magic likely can't resolve.  (In fact, it would likely only change what is a rock, what is paper, and what are scissors ... without actually solving the dilemma?)

Taking this to another place, the presence of a wizard being able to, fairly cheaply, have an area of effect spell that merely stops sparks effectively renders guns, in that set of circumstances, useless, while leaving guns quite useful when a wizard is not present. When one is present, bows and armor are still highly useful.

 

This would be a rock paper scissors in which the actual rules of the game change based on circumstances.

 

Further, one could have enchanted places that have such magic in place from the get-go. Meaning, if going to such places, guns will not avail you.

 

On another issue, I'd have a bit of a hard time as a GM allowing someone to buy off the inherent inaccuracy of many versions of pre-modern firearms. A little of it, sure, but wholesale making it as accurate as a modern firearm would need an explanation, one that would probably end up being magic or telekinesis. Likewise, I wouldn't allow completely buying off the reload time without another such explanation. That's not the province of a skill, that's a power. But that's probably just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grrr, another reply just got eaten. Type again...

 

As Womble pointed out, in other games, it is not uncommon for non-magic weapons to have little utility against some creatures.

 

I think the question of why guns aren't dominant can, as easily, turned into an argument of why they shouldn't be.

 

Hunters typically have to move away from safe, populated areas to find game. If that means deeper into the forest, into the mountains, then this is also the type of environment that some bad, bad things may be in. Will hunters want a big loud stick to kill deer and draw attention to themselves in the wild, a big loud stick that will likely be no use if something bad comes, when they could opt for a quiet bow? Probably not.

 

Given that all a magic that stops guns in an area effect needs to do is stop sparks, this should really be a cheap spell.

 

What leader will put heavy weight into gun production when his rivals will be using creatures who cannot be harmed that way and using wizards who can make the guns useless before they get into range?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of great feedback and ideas.

 

Quick question, for someone to check my math:

 

In a typical RPG fight, the ranges are going to be pretty close. Ser Knight is perhaps 50 meters away from his target, Mr. Rifleman.

 

Mr. Rifleman's weapon is pegged at a Longbow (2d6RKA), and Ser Knight's armor full plate (8rPD).

 

On average, the rifle will do 6 damage, so with AP 2 damage gets through. Assuming it's a center mass hit, Ser Knight is wounded but should be able to close with the rifleman before he reloads and get off at least one attack, maybe more.

 

Am I missing something, besides the fact that it's obviously better to shoot from behind a fortification?

 

I feel that there is a difference in the strategic advantage of guns versus the tactical advantage of guns, and HERO combat is about the latter and not the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magic armor that can stop bullets would likely render a bow obsolete.  A magic bow that can penetrate magic armor when a gun can't ... would  likely render a gun obsolete.

If the intent is that guns have advantages like AP or Penetrating that Bows lack, then making magic armor Hardened or Impenetrable, with the same defenses, means that, if both have the same DC, the bow becomes superior again.

 

Bow - 1 1/2d6 RKA; Gun 1d6+1 AP RKA - both 25 AP. Bow hits Plate Armor Dude, and has to get through 8 points of rDEF with its 5.5 points of average damage. The gun averages 4.5, but is only going up against 4 rDEF because it's AP.

 

Slap Hardened on that magic armor and the bow is a slightly better bet.

 

Or you can give magic armor Damage Reduction against certain types of attacks - my armor is enchanted to be bulletproof, not arrowproof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also. Depending on how technical you wanted to get you could base the armour piercing abilities of black powder weapons on their range.

 

Point blank a bullet should go through armour much more easily. Of course it can also do more damage and Hero doesn't usually allow for ranged attacks, (barring line-shaped explosions), doing less damage at long range.

 

But if you wanted to make your life harder and Mr Rifleman's life easier then you could give black powder weapons levels of Penetrating e.g. 3 at short range, 2 at medium range etc. Could still have Armour Piercing. This would be fiddly as hell but would ruin Ser Knight's day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a typical RPG fight, the ranges are going to be pretty close. Ser Knight is perhaps 50 meters away from his target, Mr. Rifleman.

 

Mr. Rifleman's weapon is pegged at a Longbow (2d6RKA), and Ser Knight's armor full plate (8rPD).

 

On average, the rifle will do 6 damage, so with AP 2 damage gets through. Assuming it's a center mass hit, Ser Knight is wounded but should be able to close with the rifleman before he reloads and get off at least one attack, maybe more.

 

Am I missing something, besides the fact that it's obviously better to shoot from behind a fortification?

 

I feel that there is a difference in the strategic advantage of guns versus the tactical advantage of guns, and HERO combat is about the latter and not the former.

50m away?  In today's world and dating back to WWI, for accuracy reasons most riflemen using iron sights wouldn't take that shot ... until Ser Knight was 30m or less away. Those with appropriate optics would tend to take shots out to 50m .. perhaps up to 100m.  A designated marksman or sniper with optics to visually compensate for the range ... and with training to address windage and bullet drop would tend to stay inside 300m unless position and equipment (i.e. optics, rifle, and ammo) and situation dictated longer distances to be reasonable.

 

Here's some food for thought to properly set some very rough, MODERN 'gunfighting' distances in your mind:

In the real world, the typical distance in which a handgun is used is 7 meters or less ... with most lethal uses of handguns occurring in under 5 feet.  Law enforcement will sometimes take shots at 15 meters if the background (regarding potential misses) permits it without compromising the safety of innocents.  Pistols are certainly lethal at longer ranges, but they aren't as controllable as firearms that have shoulder stocks, so accuracy suffers enough that most shooter training discourages shots beyond 15 meters.  (i.e. The pistol is typically considered the wrong tool for longer range jobs.)  I mention this to give you reasonable ranges to work with for pistols you might incorporate ... knowing that American Civil War era pistols were even less accurate than those of today.  Think pirate pistol use and you have the right concept of a reasonable range for antique pistols to be used at.

 

12ga shotguns using birdshot in the real world, today, tend to have a 40 inch pattern at 40 meters.  Lethality falls off rapidly thereafter because the pattern is too sparse and the energy too low beyond 40 yards to kill all but small varmints effectively.  (i.e. Birdshot at 50 meters will piss someone off, and may wound him/her ... but it is unlikely to kill him/her in a single shot.  A fully armored knight would likely snicker at a 50 yard birdshot hit ... but would be severely wounded from that same shot at 3-5 meters.)  Thus, shotguns using birdshot will usually be 30-40 meter max range, with 20 meters being preferred/ideal.  Keep in mind this is a sweeping generality based on a modified choke ... knowing that choke variations can and will yield different results.  I'm again throwing this out there to provide some idea of reasonable ranges in a modern shotgun that uses perfectly formed birdshot ... knowing this should likely be tuned for older shotguns and imperfectly formed shot ... with powder that burns nowhere nearly as reliably as today's nitrocellulose-based smokeless powders.

 

That brings us to the rifle, where snipers aside, in modern warfare the average range to the target remains largely unchanged from WWI -- where the average distance was 30-35m.  Shots other than cover fire over 100m are rare ... and the typical max range (again, snipers aside) is 300m.  Since WWI, most designated marksmen and snipers tend to take shots well under 300m ... even today.  There are, of course, outliers given the amazing optics and modern firearm/ammunition combinations specifically designed for long-range anti-personal or anti-material roles (i.e. I'm talking the .338 Lapua, .408 CheyTac, and .50 BMG rifle/ammo combos, here), but those are the exceptions not the rule.

 

 

 

So you asked if you were missing something besides it being better to shoot from behind fortification.  The answer is, 'yes!'  One missing thing is the typical ranges at which firearms tend to be used -- which I think I covered and hopefully helped you wrap your head around.  Your 50m example for a rifle shot was an unusually long shot for a rifle with iron sights ... even today ... let alone 200+ years ago with firearms that had less aerodynamic ammunition and less reliable powder (in terms of ignition and burn consistency)...

 

 

Another missing facet is the one Shadowsoul just touched upon:  the longer the shot, the less damage it does ... because of the loss of energy by the projectile(s) as energy is spent cutting through the wind.  The more aerodynamic and heavy a projectile, the more energy it will maintain and deliver to its target ... provided it is spun adequately by rifling (to promote stability) without being overspun.  The base Hero System RAW completely fail to capture this ballistic concept. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Rifleman's weapon is pegged at a Longbow (2d6RKA), and Ser Knight's armor full plate (8rPD).

 

On average, the rifle will do 6 damage, so with AP 2 damage gets through. Assuming it's a center mass hit, Ser Knight is wounded but should be able to close with the rifleman before he reloads and get off at least one attack, maybe more.

Average would be 7 BODY, not 6, so that's 3 BODY getting through after defenses. But yes you're correct it's not going to be a one-shot-one-kill thing. If you use the standard x3 STUN, that's 21 STUN or 28 with a +1 STUN Modifier, so with AP that has a decent chance of Stunning him. So certainly more powerful than a longbow, which would bounce, but not completely unbalancing. 2d6K may be too low: that's not even going to kill most unarmed individuals, so it just depends how powerful you want them to be.

 

I feel that there is a difference in the strategic advantage of guns versus the tactical advantage of guns, and HERO combat is about the latter and not the former.

That's a great point: a lot of early firearms' advantages are in stuff that doesn't necessarily get modeled in RPGs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That brings us to the rifle, where snipers aside, in modern warfare the average range to the target remains largely unchanged from WWI -- where the average distance was 30-35m.  Shots other than cover fire over 100m are rare ... and the typical max range (again, snipers aside) is 300m.

Citation needed? My Army marksmanship training is a few years out of date, but 50m is point-blank range for a modern rifle. I agree with 300m for a typical max range, but 100m or less is a gimme, especially if you're braced. Even against a moving target, I'd take that shot; not saying I'd hit 100% of the time against a moving target, but I'm certainly not going to wait until they're inside of 35m!

 

The environment makes a big difference too. In urban & jungle settings, ranges are going to be shorter but that's more a factor of reduced LOS rather than a question of accuracy per se. Similarly, the incredibly short range of most law enforcement gunfights is partly due to the nature of law enforcement encounters rather than accuracy issues per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern (i.e. 20th-century) muskets are still significantly more accurate than, say, Civil War-era muskets, and those in turn are far more accurate than 18th-century smoothbore muskets firing round-ish musket balls.  The latter were so inaccurate that we had to march around in a big formation and fire all at once like a giant human shotgun, at thrown weapon ranges.

 

Guns in warfare originally made their mark as siege/fortification weapons, most famously at Istanbul (neé Constantinople).  As size dropped and accuracy "improved" they eventually became useful for hunting, another activity where the firer could reasonably be expected to go DCV 0 without getting himself killed.  Firearms of the day were able to either fire shot, improving hit probability, or do more damage, allowing the hunting of larger game, all with a lower STR min than any crossbow or longbow.

 

Modern rifles, of course, have effective ranges measured in hundreds of meters, and average engagement distances have been creeping up accordingly since WWI and WWII. 

 

Against armored humans I'd define musket damage as definitely AP and probably increased STUNx.  I'm not sure about penetrating but I could see it.  While an average shot from a 2d6K musket would only inflict 3 BODY against an 8 DEF target, you can't discount the higher end of the damage range.  An 11 BODY musket hit against the same dude is impairing, whereas an 11 BODY hit from the longbow only inflicts the 3 DEF scratch that the musket inflicts on average.  Against unarmored targets there is little difference--if you have the STR to draw a 2d6K longbow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call no way on the range issue.  I can hit a coffee can at 50m no problem at all.  My dad used to get deer all the time at longer ranges than that with a musket, and he's not even that great a hunter.

I think the range stats listed can be misleading.

 

A lot of engagements have a range defined not by the rifle's capabilities, but by the distance at the time the firefight starts. In jungle and urban settings, whoever initiates the combat has a great capacity to force the shooting to start at point blank range.

 

Further, hunting is a bit different. A good hunter stalks their prey and fires on a commonly non-moving, unaware target, usually not under appreciable cover, and most often not attacking.

 

Shooting something that is attacking is a whole different ballgame. I forget the name of the statistic, but within 21 feet, statistically speaking, knives have tended to be deadlier in actual cases of gun vs. knife scenarios. Combat situations do a number on aim possibly being one of the factors, although drawing the weapon itself is an issue as well. Adrenaline dump is far more a factor in combat scenarios than in hunting scenarios.

 

Hunting accuracy is closest to the skill of a sniper not under fire aiming at a target. It is not a good measure for firing under other combat situations, no one shoots as well when being fired upon as when not being fired upon unless they are simply aiming and not caring about whether they are shot.

 

Regardless, modern firearms are more accurate at further ranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citation needed? My Army marksmanship training is a few years out of date, but 50m is point-blank range for a modern rifle. I agree with 300m for a typical max range, but 100m or less is a gimme, especially if you're braced. Even against a moving target, I'd take that shot; not saying I'd hit 100% of the time against a moving target, but I'm certainly not going to wait until they're inside of 35m!

 

The environment makes a big difference too. In urban & jungle settings, ranges are going to be shorter but that's more a factor of reduced LOS rather than a question of accuracy per se. Similarly, the incredibly short range of most law enforcement gunfights is partly due to the nature of law enforcement encounters rather than accuracy issues per se.

I'm not talking about training, I'm talking about actual distances in real engagements.  Take Iraq in urban environments: streets and the like might provide 30m of distance, tops, unless someone's lined up to shoot down a street or alleyway, in which case they are likely sniping or acting as a designated marksman (both of which I specifically precluded, since all they tend to do is long-range shooting -- unlike the bulk of those carrying weapons in war).

 

Go back to WWI's trench warfare, and you have something similar where the distances were either vast and not worth the ammunition ... or up close and pretty personal.  Hit the jungles of Vietnam or the hedge rows of France in WWII and you get a similar story ... long-range fire just tends not to be the norm with rifles in warfare ... unless you're sniping.  The key element tends to be field of view or fire ... and part of the driver for this is that both warring elements tend to know the value of cover ... and surprise.

 

​If you need a citation, this one's imperfect but it references some USMC after action reports that were posted on ar15.com ... and takes a direct quote from one of them regarding actual ranges/distances experienced in Iraq: http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html

 

 

I call no way on the range issue.  I can hit a coffee can at 50m no problem at all.  My dad used to get deer all the time at longer ranges than that with a musket, and he's not even that great a hunter.

See the previous explanation and link ... and be sure to go and actually read through the mass-posted after action reports.

 

​Regarding hunting, I take deer out to ~150 yards with a muzzle loader and am good to ~300 yards with a .308 suppressed bolt gun.  (Probably more, but the longest shot with which I've harvested a deer was ranged at 290yd.)  But ... I'm also hunting a field ...  meaning I'm not in a jungle, not in an urban environment with buildings all around me that limit my shot distances, not in hedge rows, not in trenches, and not in any other place that limits field of view and/or fire.  I'm also not taking fire while I shoot...

 

Sure ... rifles are lethal at much longer ranges than those I listed. Sure modern ones are even accurate at much longer distances.  But their non-sniping usage tends to be such that you sucker the enemy in close, and only then do you take the shot that reveals your position within cover.  Rounds have more energy up close, too, so there's a certain pragmatism to letting Ser Knight roll up within 20m of you and popping him with a big conical round from your black powder rifle ... to be sure you pierce his armor.  (Something less certain the farther away he is ... due to the loss of energy by the projectile.)  Even in Hero System there's good reason to sucker him in: less of an accuracy hit due to the range modifier!

 

​So, pop coffee cans at 50 meters all you want; that just isn't how actual warfare tends to be conducted with rifles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is my difficulty.

 

I'm trying to strike a close (it doesn't have to be perfect) balance between a nation that emphasizes guns versus one that emphasizes magic and swords.

 

If the feudal troops show up without their sorcerers backing them up, then they are in a world of trouble.

 

If the magic is there, then both sides should be near parity depending on circumstances (what kind of sorcerer showed up? What are the ranges/mix of forces? Is there artillery? etc.).

 

That's why I was originally leaning towards flintlock rifles with percussion caps (and... I think I'm using those terms correctly. I'm not a historical gun buff).

 

Even still, I think I didn't fully appreciate the need for melee weapons geared towards fighting a feudal opponent, because it seems like most skirmishes are only going to afford the opportunity to get off one shot. However, perhaps being Stunned will make up the difference and this is about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

​If you need a citation, this one's imperfect but it references some USMC after action reports that were posted on ar15.com ... and takes a direct quote from one of them regarding actual ranges/distances experienced in Iraq: http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html

 

I should point out that your cite is specific to Iraq.  Average engagement distance in Afghanistan is 87 meters--but that tends to be either within 40m or greater than 300m, depending on the battlefield.  (Evidently the Taliban are fond of very long range ambushes.)  Anyway Afghanistan is what has been driving the recent deployment of "designated marksmen" in squads, armed with M14s or SDM-Rs.  The 7.62mm Mk48 is also the preferred SAW in Afghanistan, as opposed to the M249 with its lighter round, for this reason.

 

At any rate, even modern firearms should not be difficult to balance against sorcery in Hero, but you'd have to increase the availability and power of sorcery to match.  One thing to note is that sorcery could be able to defend against modern firearms in a way that is impossible with current tech, as resistant defenses and barriers are relatively inexpensive pointwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I was originally leaning towards flintlock rifles with percussion caps (and... I think I'm using those terms correctly. I'm not a historical gun buff).

 

Even still, I think I didn't fully appreciate the need for melee weapons geared towards fighting a feudal opponent, because it seems like most skirmishes are only going to afford the opportunity to get off one shot. However, perhaps being Stunned will make up the difference and this is about right.

In your world, early revolvers that leveraged percussion caps would likely allow 1-2 shots before being relegated to a backup role in close quarters combat.  Once the current enemy had been dispatched the revolver could then potentially be used for another 1-2 rounds before rinsing/repeating.  The trouble with this is the need to change weapons with the dominant hand.

 

With that in mind, such a revolver would make for an excellent off-hand weapon for someone who had trained with it using their non-dominant hand and eye, as it would permit him/her to fight with a melee weapon (i.e. sword) as well as make use of a ranged weapon ... rapidly.  Once the revolver's ammunition was spent, gripping it by the barrel and using the butt of the grip as a club would add another melee weapon to the mix (a la pistol whipping).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I was originally leaning towards flintlock rifles with percussion caps (and... I think I'm using those terms correctly. I'm not a historical gun buff).

 

In the interest of verisimilitude, in case you get a gun buff in your group...

 

The percussion cap serves the same purpose and largely superceded the flintlock. Both are methods of initiating deflagration in a propellant charge. The propellant charge was black powder for the operational era of the flintlock, and early "percussion lock" guns also used black powder. Later percussion cap guns may have used more advanced propellants, but by the time those came about, the percussion cap had been incorporated into the composite brass cartridge.

 

You can have a musket (smooth bore, one shot long barrelled, fired with both hands from the shoulder) with either 'lock'. Early percussion locks pretty much just swapped out the flintlock's frizzen pan for a cap nipple, and the flint-holding hammer for a simple striking one, but the convenience of the percussion cap led to practicable six-guns and breech loaders and other advances in loading methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...