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

[massey]

A gun is basically just a better version of a normal non-magical weapon.  It does more damage at a longer range than a normal bow/crossbow/whatever.  And yeah, everybody gets that an army equipped with guns is better than an army equipped with swords and bows.  But it's so damn expensive.  For many of these guys, it's better to just conscript large groups of peasants and then give some gold to that party of adventurers to go try and take out the enemy leadership. A unit of men with guns isn't as scary as a group of high level murder hobos.

[Hugh Neilson]

While I dislike the way that D&D has made magic items just a thing you can purchase (the magic item list shouldn't be seen as the Sears catalog), it would make sense for a powerful noble to keep a wizard on retainer.

How is the Wizard creeping invisibly behind enemy lines and casting Cloudkill different from the Noble purchasing Potions of Invisibility and sling bullets enchanted to produce a Cloudkill on impact? We could even keep the same Wizard on retainer to produce them.

 

While I have a similar feel to "magic items as a commodity", the wealth by level system provided a rough balancing mechanic for magic items, and an actual use for the truckloads of treasure D&D characters regularly haul back to town. If you want it to be balancing, the characters need the ability to obtain items that synergise with their characters - a Fighter who dedicated a lot of feats to being a spectacular Axe Wielder will be a lot more potent with a magic axe than a magic trident, so the system needs to ensure he can get that magic axe, without a "feat tax" requiring the spellcasters to be item crafters for the warriors to be useful.

 

The D&D dynamic has consistently drifted to "magic becomes the science of the world and is commoditized", and this was only one more step in that direction.

 

Because you can't possibly use a gun for coercion to get the same end result (not effect, but end result) as charm?  And you can't feed yourself with a gun?  And you can't use a gun to acquire shelter?

You are assuming intimidation and loyalty are interchangeable. They are not.

 

Can the gun provide food and shelter in the desert?

 

​And, if I accept your arguments, how is a sword, a bow or a big stick, or just being a big, tough dude, any different?

 

Or, much more concisely: 

 

Whatever, dude.

[massey]

How is the Wizard creeping invisibly behind enemy lines and casting Cloudkill different from the Noble purchasing Potions of Invisibility and sling bullets enchanted to produce a Cloudkill on impact? We could even keep the same Wizard on retainer to produce them.

 

While I have a similar feel to "magic items as a commodity", the wealth by level system provided a rough balancing mechanic for magic items, and an actual use for the truckloads of treasure D&D characters regularly haul back to town. If you want it to be balancing, the characters need the ability to obtain items that synergise with their characters - a Fighter who dedicated a lot of feats to being a spectacular Axe Wielder will be a lot more potent with a magic axe than a magic trident, so the system needs to ensure he can get that magic axe, without a "feat tax" requiring the spellcasters to be item crafters for the warriors to be useful.

 

The D&D dynamic has consistently drifted to "magic becomes the science of the world and is commoditized", and this was only one more step in that direction.

 

 

Yes, and I really dislike that direction they've gone.

 

Science-ing magic makes it not feel like magic anymore.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't disagree. If anything is common enough, including magic in the typical D&D setting, it stops feeling like magic.

 

How magical is a Magic Missile when every wizard casts it and every player knows the spell well enough to recite its effects from memory?

 

It's still "magic", but the mystery of magic has been removed.

 

Simply by adding rules, we make it "no longer magical".

 

The old DC Heroes game had an essay on grappling with this, especially after a discussion that, if two characters were equally powerful, the one using magic would win - because "it's magic". That works a lot better for fiction than gaming!

[Surrealone]

You are assuming intimidation and loyalty are interchangeable. They are not.

 

Can the gun provide food and shelter in the desert?

 

​And, if I accept your arguments, how is a sword, a bow or a big stick, or just being a big, tough dude, any different?

 

Or, much more concisely: 

 

Because I'm feeling froggy....

1. ​I made no such assumption.
2. A gun can, indeed, provide food in the desert, as there are a plethora of animals that live in deserts.  (Link to some examples: http://www.desertusa.com/animals.html)  In fact, on evolved, habitable worlds such as ours, life tends to adapt to most environments ... which means there's probably a food chain of some sort on which to prey using a gun ... in most places where bipeds like us can actually survive.
3. ​A sword, bow, big stick or just being a big tough dude are different from a gun in several ways:

• They are generally easier to manufacture than a gun.
• They generally cost less than a gun (in the time period about which we're talking)
• They can generally accomplish a lot of what a gun can accomplish via different means ... but not all of it .. examples include:
  • They generally cannot hurl projectiles at the same velocities as a gun.
  • They generally DO NOT create a chemically-generated flash and sound as part of their inherent functions -- a flash that can blind (at night) and a sound that ring ears (without hearing protection) for days.

Hey ... you asked...

[Lucius]

Because you can't possibly use a gun for coercion to get the same end result (not effect, but end result) as charm?  And you can't feed yourself with a gun?  And you can't use a gun to acquire shelter?

 

​Sir, I believe the gun is more versatile than you think it is ... depending on how its wielder uses it.  You can absolutely use a gun to get someone to do your bidding (much like you could with magic and charm).  You can absolutely feed yourself deer, boar/hog, fowl, etc. with a gun.  You can 100% for sure acquire shelter with a gun.  You can even clothe yourself in skins/pelts to shrug off some of the elements ... using a gun.  Guns don't just kill people, they can also threaten, intimidate, inspire awe (in someone who has never seen one and, thus, thinks of it as powerful magic/mojo), and the like ... all of which can be used to good effect to do a lot of what magic can do.

 

​But you're right about one thing -- you can't turn someone into a toad with a gun...

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says, whatever

[Ninja-Bear]

Putting shrapnel in the tube of the fire lance doesn't count as a weapon? I'd have to disagree with you on that, as the moment shrapnel was added to the powder in a fire lance what you had was the invention of the world's first (primitive) gunpowder-based shotgun.

Sorry, I missed he shrapnel part.

Again though my.point is that if I understood Bigdamnhero right, it shoukd be easy for a culture to pick up how to make gunpowder and guns easily if they just have access to it.

[TheDarkness]

In response to the idea that a gun can charm, intimidate, all that, yes, but it cannot do so without the other person knowing it was done to them, nor will its effects be likely to last once away from the gun wielder.

 

 And as for hunting, as I said earlier, every environment in which hunting tends to take place is also where monsters who may be immune to guns are prone to frequent, and they probably won't hear a bow shooting a deer, but they would be very likely to hear a gun and get territorial.

 

In a world where magic exists, those with a corner on that market will, without question, have the best information on enemies who lack it, the greatest potential mobility to attack almost anywhere in a moment. If a society without magic messes with them, exactly what does that other society have to prevent the assassination of all their leaders wherever they may be by way of magic?

 

If we're going to get super real world battlefield, magic is the shortest supply lines ever(gates and teleports), the best intel ever(scrying, invisible people, shape changing), unless that society is completely ignoring the outside world the opportunities for them to devastate any non-magical enemy army before they got to the battle, even if by simple weather control(good luck sending an army through ANY mountains without thousands dead from flash floods before they get where they want to go) is staggering.

 

An enemy that can block any mountain passes, put pieces on the field that not a single gun can damage, potentially cause supernatural fear, can reach the enemy leaders, enemy economic leaders, enemy's enemies, with a single incantation, can INSTANTLY find ANY of them: even with all our technology now, this is a capacity the NSA and CIA would druel at the thought of.

 

The more likely answer to why this capacity wouldn't take over is because anyone who plans it is either mad, dead, or wishing they were.

 

Just some thoughts.

[TheDarkness]

Taking this thinking to other places.

 

Guns ended knights and castles.

 

Guns and cannons, of course.

 

Human castles in the non-magical world.

 

Dwarf fortifications? Well, there's no evidence on this.

 

And who wouldn't hire dwarfs to have a hand in their castle design?

 

Oh, this group of humans is building guns. They are mining for steel for barrels and bullets and whatnot.

 

Oh, they have a tiny proportion of their population available to extract metal from the earth. And they aren't able to work with mithral, because no runes and no dwarf gods.

 

How quaint.

 

Do they realize that the entire bulk of the dwarf population live in cities that are, effectively, mines? Mines that put modern mines to shame in terms of stability and size?

 

I mean, only natural. Those poor human miners get tired. Not the dwarfs, with their very nature and the help of runic magic and dwarf gods and the entirety of a population dedicated to mining, refining, building, forging, etc, that entire population, again, living in a mine and quite thrilled about it.

 

And where are the humans mining? The dwarfs have had long eons to establish themselves in the richest places to mine, poor young race of humans who no way and no how can support the population needed in the mines to compete with the dwarves without having hugely fragile supply lines to those mines.

 

And what is the basis for the human's economics? Is that a gold piece? Wanna compare stashes?

 

Ah! Poor, gun-toting humans, with their wonderful technology but no night vision, and thus, absolutely the least able of the major races to deal with combat at night except against other humans. And since the other humans have magic, the other humans can infiltrate the ranks of the non-magic using humans with ease and unleash horrific things on their leaders. They can control their leaders. They can become their leaders and these humans wouldn't even know it.

 

Poor humans. It is truly a cruel path they must tread. But the dwarfs do salute the ingenuity of their inventiveness. If only they had the capacity to use the runes, they might not be living in kingdoms facing such tumult.

[TheDarkness]

Latest elf report on the human army moving through the holy forest:

 

Day 19:

 

Their weapons deafen everyone, friend or foe, but when attacked by an army of silent elves at night taking positions of cover, they take heavy losses before even realizing the attack has begun, and have no capacity to find the more mobile elf warriors. They also falsely believe dogs will warn them of elves. They are apparently marching without significant magical support, or any, and are completely blind in the dark. We have done heavy damage on them, and they are only able to set camp on clear, moonlit nights. Recommend cloud summoning.

 

Day 20:

 

Ate lembas. Settled heated camp argument over which member of the camp has the most ethereal demeanor.

 

Day 21:

 

Enjoyed more lembas while smuggly thinking about what fools the numenoreans were and blaming them for current conditions while conveniently ignoring shenanigans of a fair number of elves in the Silmarillian. Spent a portion of march discussing the very real possibility that giant eagles are a plot device of Eru.

 

Don't feel a day older for the millionth day running.

 

Day 723:

 

Came to the conclusion that Peter Jackson is stretching out this entire business far past it's intended narrative. Cannot discern reality from platform console game at this point. Entire party now has dwarven love interests and racist parents like some strange melange of Death at a Funeral meets All in the Family.

 

Day 729:

 

Can no longer trust my senses. Saw Radagast on sled jumping over a shark. Saruman making token appearances for no apparent reason, and hobbits now appearing solely in choppy video sequences while orcs have entirely converted to CGI.

[Manic Typist]

The more likely answer to why this capacity wouldn't take over is because anyone who plans it is either mad, dead, or wishing they were.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Alternatively, magic doesn't work in whatever way the wielders might wish but instead has real limits and costs. Perhaps it requires great sacrifice (some people probably are willing to sacrifice their son because a voice in the sky said so, but most people, even powerful people, would balk at that price tag), or specific conditions (only "twu wuv" can revive someone who is "mostly dead"), or even can't do certain things (we can bend elements, not minds!).

 

Personally, I find magic more interesting when it is limited as opposed to anything and everything.

[Manic Typist]

Oh, also, to veer slightly back toward the central topic:

 

Any other tips out there for GMing scenarios involving magic and guns?

 

For instance, how you would approach the typical HERO scrimmage scenario as a gun wielder- strategies for maintaining your distance, handheld weapons, armor, etc. How you, as a non-magic user, would close to grips with a gunner? 

[TheDarkness]

Alternatively, magic doesn't work in whatever way the wielders might wish but instead has real limits and costs. Perhaps it requires great sacrifice (some people probably are willing to sacrifice their son because a voice in the sky said so, but most people, even powerful people, would balk at that price tag), or specific conditions (only "twu wuv" can revive someone who is "mostly dead"), or even can't do certain things (we can bend elements, not minds!).

 

Personally, I find magic more interesting when it is limited as opposed to anything and everything.

If all the kings in a world employed all of those able to scry in the world, one per king, it would still be an extremely rare magic held by an extremely limited number of people.

 

That said, since it's your game, obviously you know what you're after. I just don't see how, if magic is that rare and lower in power, it isn't already dead in such a world. Without magic, you would already have had the same results. If even dwarf built fortresses cannot stand against gunpowder, it seems like you would already have a world without reliance on armor and castles. An army with guns would clean up if magic is that rare, and would sweep through rapidly and that would be that.

 

Perhaps I'm not following the thinking. Is this intended to be an 'end of magic' campaign? I'm having trouble seeing what advantage magic gives beyond temporarily, oh, this king temporarily has a wizard able to scry and so can preempt the invasion attempts of enemies, but as soon as that wizard dies, it's all over sort of thing, but if the intent is to depict exactly that sort of scenario, I can follow.

 

That said, I'm not sure I'd be wanting to play one of the doomed magic using creatures in such a world.

 

As for tactical issues, if we're talking rifles, obviously they will want to keep distance, obviously those fighting against someone with a rifle will want to close. Cover will be a big factor, especially cover to move to in order to safely close the distance. Reload time will also. That seems to me to be the main factors, and I would think that being anywhere in the country that doesn't use guns with one is going to mean having to stash the gun before going to any city for fear of being seen as one of the enemy.

 

The country that uses both, well, it's a bit impossible to say without magic being somehow defined and abilities having some reproducibility; not knowing what magic is like in the world, it's very difficult to say what tactics players might use.

[Shadowsoul]

Oh, also, to veer slightly back toward the central topic:

 

Any other tips out there for GMing scenarios involving magic and guns?

 

For instance, how you would approach the typical HERO scrimmage scenario as a gun wielder- strategies for maintaining your distance, handheld weapons, armor, etc. How you, as a non-magic user, would close to grips with a gunner?

 

Perhaps you could look at real world examples of guns versus more traditional weapons.

 

There are accounts of Scots highlanders who carried swords and shields succesfully fighting English soldiers who used muskets with bayonets in melee. At range the highlanders died but close in they could parry the unwieldy guns and cut the musketeers down.

 

There are stories, (hotly contested on military history forums), of soaked leather shields or rattan shields providing effective protection against early fire-arms. Even if they didn't work your medieval side could certainly give them a try.

 

There are also stories of Zulu warriors being fed various drugs to make them fearless, faster or more resistant to pain. It would be easy to write up some combat drugs for use by medieval 'shock troops'. E.g. CON - Only to prevent being Stunned.

[Manic Typist]

If all the kings in a world employed all of those able to scry in the world, one per king, it would still be an extremely rare magic held by an extremely limited number of people.

 

That said, since it's your game, obviously you know what you're after. I just don't see how, if magic is that rare and lower in power, it isn't already dead in such a world. Without magic, you would already have had the same results. If even dwarf built fortresses cannot stand against gunpowder, it seems like you would already have a world without reliance on armor and castles. An army with guns would clean up if magic is that rare, and would sweep through rapidly and that would be that.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you have the impression that magic is rare in my setting (you've commented on my other threads that give detail to the setting); I was merely pointing out alternative ways that magic could be limited below the "unstoppable cosmic power" level you were describing that didn't involve the user being dead, insane, or wishing that they were.

 

And I don't see how guns would remotely pose a risk to magic dying out unless one was specifically writing to that scenario - after all, just because we have guns doesn't mean we don't give soldiers knives too. Or put another way - even if all magic can do is let people shoot lasers out of their eyes once a day.... you don't think that's a useful tool to have on hand?

[Lucius]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juramentado

 

 

"A strong band was wrapped firmly around the waist, and cords wrapped tightly around the genitals, ankles, knees, upper thighs, wrists, elbows, and shoulders, restricting blood flow and preventing the mag-sabil from losing too much blood from injury before reaching their target"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that like suicide bombing, this is a tactic for someone trying to get killed but to take as many as possible out with themselves.

[TheDarkness]

I'm not sure why you have the impression that magic is rare in my setting (you've commented on my other threads that give detail to the setting); I was merely pointing out alternative ways that magic could be limited below the "unstoppable cosmic power" level you were describing that didn't involve the user being dead, insane, or wishing that they were.

 

And I don't see how guns would remotely pose a risk to magic dying out unless one was specifically writing to that scenario - after all, just because we have guns doesn't mean we don't give soldiers knives too. Or put another way - even if all magic can do is let people shoot lasers out of their eyes once a day.... you don't think that's a useful tool to have on hand?

I've unfortunately been designing my own game, and reading through a ton of games to see what kind of issues I'm likely to deal with and how others have dealt with them, so I'm undoubtedly mixing up settings like crazy, sorry about that. I took your comment about limited magic to mean rarer when you meant less powerful, my mistake!

 

And, in response to the first paragraph, I was refering to the leaders of non-magic using states that sought to use technology against magic using states being suddenly dead, insane, or wishing they were. I was more trying to illustrate that, even non-cosmic levels of power like simple shape shifting, clairvoyance, and such would be boons to the magic using states as far as being potentially far better informed about their rivals than their rivals could be about them, and the advantages of that.

 

Even without the level of power being cosmic, healing, shape shifting, ability to convey thoughts or speech across distance, ability to give people cursed items(it's just a shiny ring!), diplomatically and tactically, a state with access to these would be very difficult to deal with, because the guns have to get to their destination to be of any use. Oddly, it seems to me to be the little spells that players might not make regular use of that, for a kingdom, have the greatest impact. But those comments I made were more in relation to setting ideas rather than character level things, and I wrote them as an exercise in 'why might magic still prevail in the setting' than 'why, in game, would a character use magic'.

 

Anyway, I digress again. Nuts and bolts for players.

 

Assuming that the technological kingdom is a human one, lack of night vision is something I would want to take advantage of if I were playing someone who does have it who is in danger of dealing with someone with guns. At that level, though, I feel the gun issue is not a huge hurdle either way, as the party is not going to be able to simply barrage people with gunfire with such weapons, and, conversely, they have the chance to do decent or significant damage if they manage to hit before melee occurs.

 

I think terrain will become a really important factor at that point, and melee might actually be delayed as players decide it is wiser to play the terrain until they can safely get close. More cat and mouse, I imagine.

 

One nice thing is I think the presence of guns could bring the combat values of the stealthy characters and the ones who can normally charge in and crush with big spiky mallets into some parity, as the spiky mallet guys might more often need the stealthy ones to disrupt the ability to fire of enemies with guns.

 

Further, depending on the setting, guns might be unwise in certain situations. In populated cave networks, they'd draw far too much attention, though hand waving for the sake of having such adventures is pretty much canon, since armored people sword fighting in caves should also draw too much attention, but we've all done it.

 

One of the nice things about guns is that few things make a pirate adventure feel more right than parrying with your cutlass while you unload a pistol into the scurvy dog...

[Doc Democracy]

I'm not sure why you have the impression that magic is rare in my setting (you've commented on my other threads that give detail to the setting); I was merely pointing out alternative ways that magic could be limited below the "unstoppable cosmic power" level you were describing that didn't involve the user being dead, insane, or wishing that they were.

 

And I don't see how guns would remotely pose a risk to magic dying out unless one was specifically writing to that scenario - after all, just because we have guns doesn't mean we don't give soldiers knives too. Or put another way - even if all magic can do is let people shoot lasers out of their eyes once a day.... you don't think that's a useful tool to have on hand?

There are many little bits of magic I bet soldiers wished they might have.

 

A charm that prevents water and dust getting into their gun (even more useful for black powder weapons than modern stuff.

 

A charm that strengthens the integrity of the weapon (so less chance of barrels breaking etc).

 

A charm that keep your uniform clean (or at least presentable).

 

A charm that cleans your uniform (when the first one doesn't work)

A charm that speeds the loading of your weapon.

 

A charm that helps your aim.

 

A charm that reduces your need for water (or food)

 

A charm that keeps you warm (or cool)

 

A charm that identifies friends and foes on the battlefield.

 

A charm that allows squads to keep in communication.

 

So many little magics that make being a squaddie more comfortable.  :-)

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

It's funny how guns change our perspective. In the real world, the Roman ability to work steel and make short swords for their army made arming your troops with spears obsolete. Then cavalry brought (longer) spears back into vogue. When better metalworking allowed the creation of longswords, the short sword went away. But in fantasy games, we accept that huge list of weapons all existing at the same time, and all fairly well balanced against each other.

 

But not if we add guns. Guns are different. Just like everything else.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The show Forged in Fire is enlightening to me about how small variations in weaponry make them superior for different tasks.  A chopper isn't as good as a stabber for poking things, etc.  But even more subtly, a thin, flexible sword is terrific against hard, rigid objects (goes right through) but a thick, heavy sword is better against softer targets like a human body (the light flexible one tends to bend).  So even within given weapons, there's variation, strengths and weaknesses.

[Old Man]

It's funny how guns change our perspective. In the real world, the Roman ability to work steel and make short swords for their army made arming your troops with spears obsolete. Then cavalry brought (longer) spears back into vogue. When better metalworking allowed the creation of longswords, the short sword went away. But in fantasy games, we accept that huge list of weapons all existing at the same time, and all fairly well balanced against each other.

 

But not if we add guns. Guns are different. Just like everything else.

 

Guns are different because in reality they eventually rendered all melee weapons and armor obsolete (militarily speaking).  No one would pretend that spears and longswords are competitive with modern repeating firearms in real life.

 

But because we still want melee weapons and armor in our fantasy game, it would help to figure out a way to balance them with guns, both tactically and in terms of campaign effects.  The usual method is for magic to blunt the effectiveness of firearms and/or boost hand weapons and armor to match.  Exactly how this is accomplished can depend a bit on the prevalence of magic in the campaign.  If magic is everywhere, guns kind of become just another focus.  If magic is uncommon, guns probably need to be fiddly or rare to balance them.

 

To address the scrimmage question above--assuming a fiddly gun, one would expect gunners to remain toward the rear of any formation and seek cover or high ground from which they can employ their fiddly firearm in relative safety.  Reload times and limited ammo mean that you would prefer to either use firearms at the outset of an engagement to seek an immediate advantage, or else reserve shots for strategic usage against stationary or especially dangerous enemies.  In particular, you'd probably want to shoot the enemy wizard first.

 

Conversely there are probably any number of ways a wizard could interfere with a gun user.  Jostle him with TK, get his powder wet, set his powder off, bust the trigger mechanism, blind the firer, turn the bullet to cork or the barrel to glass, or just curse the thing so it'll miss.  I could go on.  Magic, being magic, could do all sorts of things in this regard.

[massey]

Guns could represent the midpoint between a normal soldier in a truly powerful character. Guns are more powerful than bows and arrows, but they don't hold up in a damage comparison with a lightning bolt. "High level" characters, who routinely have things like belts of giant strength or other damage increasing items, will do significantly more damage then a guy with a gun.

 

The fantasy genre can be maintained by the presence of larger than life heroic characters.

[Cantriped]

It could simply be prohibitively expensive to enchant ammunition compared to melee weapons and armor. It could similarly be cheaper to enchant reusable firing mechanisms (such as bow/crossbow strings), or outright impossible to "enchant" blackpowder.

[Pattern Ghost]

Interesting thread. A few random thoughts:

 

• It looks like the OP is leaning towards single shot rifles. These would likely be employed as volley fire by an army.
• Single shot rifles used in formation aren't one and done deals. You'd have some of the formation shooting while the others are reloading.
• Riflemen would likely have bayonets as backup weapons. Here's a an Army field manual on the art of stabbifying things with a bayonet: FM 23-25. Might be useful for figuring out a bayonet MA (or standard) maneuver list.
• Someone mentioned using percussion revolvers offhand as requiring training firing with non-dominant hand and eye. Just to be a bit pedantic, you'd only need to train the hand. Offhand shooting of a handgun should use the dominant eye. Or just shoot both eyes open, making it a moot point. I agree that offhand revolver, main hand melee would be a fitting combo for such a campaign.
• I'd roll the weapon tech back to Renaissance level, where you still had some units in at least a breastplate and helmet. Mobility was becoming more of a concern, even with early firearms, but there was still value in protecting the vital bits of anatomy. The trend of helmet and chest armor pretty much continues today. At that tech level, you'd still have some hand weapons and metal armor in the mix.

[Doc Democracy]

It could simply be prohibitively expensive to enchant ammunition compared to melee weapons and armor. It could similarly be cheaper to enchant reusable firing mechanisms (such as bow/crossbow strings), or outright impossible to "enchant" blackpowder.

 

Have a look at the Brian McClellan books which is a fantasy setting in an age of black powder with some powder mages focussed round gunpowder.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sins-Empire-Gods-Blood-Powder-ebook/dp/B01MAUGT9K/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489397937&sr=1-4&keywords=brian

 

Interesting story if not brilliantly told.

 

 

Doc