Scott Ruggels

I had to think on this through an insomnia period last night,  It all came back to the word, "story".  I came into this hobby through wargaming back in the mid to late 1970's (Microarmor for the win!), and I approached gaming as a competitive/cooperative group activity. Roleplaying was important, but it was in support of the activity. It was later in the  early 80's when playing Champions  with Carl Rigney, that we got into "Deep Roleplay", but even so, when I played and when I ran, I was thinking  "what would the characters do in this situation?{", rather than, "What would the characters do to be entertaining?".  In the old Usenet newsgroup rec.games.frp.advocacy, there were long and drawn out discussions and debates, and I found that I fell mostly in the "Simulationist/ Situationist" camp in that I was uncomfortable fudging die rolls as a GM, and  I would be completely transparent as a GM about rules and rolls, while being intentionally opaque about in game information and the intent of the opposition. That was what asking questions and detective work were for.  Sometimes the players found clues and stopped X, Y, Z on time, and sometimes they were ambushed because the missed, or didn't bother looking for clues.  I would also try not to play favorites among the players or characters.  I would lay out Hero System constructed "Tactical Puzzles" for my players and  see how they would solve it. I was entertained by watching them think, and fight. I didn't go for that "cooperative storytelling" philosophy, because my entertainment was seeing other people come up with creative solutions within a very tight, and mechanically constrained situation.
 
I rebelled against the trend  moving at the time that gave us "the Rule of Cool", and heavy reliance on literary sources.  To me, games like Amber or Fudge, and now Fate, were an anathema.  I desire structure and some amount of internal logic to my games. It may be, that I just don't "feel" the magic.  For me, a good game was a good "game".  It was cooperative in the way  a wargame was cooperative, but it was also competitive to a degree.
 
You mentioned " A good campaign striving to give magic unintended consequences should look to impose story consequences.", but all I can think of is the back an forth  between P.C.'s and N.P.C.s as they react to each other's moves in game. Having  utter, but localized crop failures because a P.C. used a spell seems unnecessarily arbitrary.  To me Consequences are a result of action and intent, usually. (or a bad decision or even bad luck), because in the end I want to have my game seen as "fair" to the players, and as open as I can manage, because I despise railroad tracks in games I play, as well, and a lot of RPG's of "Narrative significance", seem to invest a lot in steel rails and right of ways. 
 
For me, though it's all about the mechanics. I has to be, or it feels unfair and arbitrary and unattractive. Hero arrived, and for me was the fairest system I had experienced up to that time, as it was all about points rather than die rolls, and one could "wargame" a fight easily and simply. A good chunk of the fun of Champions was designing characters to test (or exploit) the rules in different combinations. This may be an antique point of view these days, but I still like it as a "game". For me a story is what the players tell "after the game" , not so much as during it. XD

In all cases, the firearm is discharged by introducing sparks or  a burning coal into an open pan of powder welded to the side of the barrel of the firearm, a small hole, allows  the flames from the powder to travel within the barrel and ignite the main charge of the weapon.
 
 A Matchlock, is defined by having a "Slow Match" usually a length of rope, dipped in various chemicals to cause it to burn slowly and continuously.  In early models the match was held in a metal arm, called a "serpentine" which had no spring and was lowered  by the operator squeezing the tail of the serpentine against the stock of the musket, causing the head to dip the glowing part of the match into the pan. The early variants did not have any springs, and the serpentine was usually just a bent piece of metal with a loop at the head, and a pivot in the middle, similar to some cross bows. as time passes, the match burns down and must be continuously adjusted by the operator, so the the glowing coal will hit the pan when he wants it to. Match rope tends to burn at a rate of of an inch ever two minutes or so, and operators would stat a battle with several coils held in the off hand.  I've used one, and the "lock time" between when you decide you want it to fire, and it ignites and discharges the ball downrange calls for very steady nerves as you have to keep the barrel on target all through the firing sequence, including the near volcanic eruption of powder in the pan igniting not very far from one's face. This will effect accuracy, and modern shooters are strongly advised to wear glasses while shooting.
 
The Wheel lock came next  as a midification of the previous ignition system, in that  the previous "serpentine" was now used to hold a wedge of iron pyrite, against a finely toothed wheel. The difference now, is that there was a "frizzen", used to cover the pan, to prevent the priming powder from spilling out of it, and to cover the powder and touch hole in case of inclement weather. In operation, the wheel was given a quarter turn with a key, which tensioned an internal spring, held in place by the trigger mechanism.  In preparation for firing, the operator would Open the frizzen, and place the serpentine so that the flint was against the wheel. A pull of the trigger would produce a shower of sparks into the pan, igniting the powder as before.

Wheelocks are very expensive, and needed a lot of maintenance and care, compared to the matchlocks.
 
The Snaphaunce is essentially an early form of the Flintlock. In that the Serpentine was now spring loaded and released by the trigger. The Frizzen had an iron tail so the serpentine, striking it with a wedge of flint, would expose the pan, and shower the priming powder in the pan with sparks.  below is an exotic flintlock, in that it's a breech loading flintlock, which means it loads faster, and can be loaded prone (preserving one's cover or concealment or DCV)

 
Even More exotic was the Puckle Gun, which was a multi chambered flint lock weapon for use against  Pirates
 

Also Flintlocks can get fairly large

 
Hope this helps.
 

Resident gun nut, here.  The thing one is talking about, with Civil war era weapons is that those weapons (The Three Band Enfield and the Model 1861 Springfield, both in .58 cal. Minie Ball projectiles) were at the end of the development cycle for muzzle loaders and  the prepackaged paper cartridges invented by the British, and perfected by the Americans prefigured brass cartridge weaponry, very soon (like months) after the end of the Civil War. Loose powder and patched ball  could be reloaded by a trained infantryman to shoot 3 times a minute. paper cartridges added one more time per minute, or so.  The biggest effect on accuracy, were first, tight fitting ammunition, then Rifling, and then projectile shape, going from spheres of lead to pointed projectiles.  the Civil War era "Rifled Muskets", were very accurate, being mechanically capable to hit a 22 inch target at 300 yards or more. the problems with muzzle loaders were of course the slow reload times, as well as the fact one had to stand up, and stand still whioe reloading (Low to no DCV?), and it's sensitivity to weather conditions, or water immersion.
 
With the adoption of the cartridge fed breech loader (Taking the same 3 band Enfield, and turning it into the Snider conversion, and the same Sprinfield Rifled Musket, and turning it into a trapdoor springfield), boosted the rate of fire to once every  few seconds, or in Hero terms probably one reload and fire per phase, and yes one could now reload on the move, or reload from cover or prone positions. The difference was notable, only a few years after the Civil war, when Prussia adopted the Dreyse "Needle" rifle, and the Austrians still had the muzzle Loading Lorenz  rifled musket.  The Prussians won a decidedly one sided victory.
 
A few years after that, the Turks at the siege of Plevna, held off a numerically superior force using a mix of single shot Peabody Martini rifles, and American made Winchester Lever actions to resist attackers for a very long time, which started a run on Magazine rifles, so that by 1875, ten years after the Civil War ended, militaries in Europe were adopting magazine rifles, where the rate of fire climbed to one shot per action. by 25 years after the end of the Civil War, the first semi automatic pistols came on the market in Germany, and you have seen the rest in movies and television.
 
What prompted that explosion in technological  progress, similar to the  progress we have just seen with semi-conductor based technology in our lifetimes, was the industrial capabilities of the first world, first with consumer goods, and then military equipment, both falling into standardization and parts interchangeability, as well as the ability to communicate ideas through books and magazines, and by travel.

If you are talking about a high fantasy background, you will not have the  industrial capability (Except if you are from dwarven lands), and the communication. This is pre-enlightenment, and pre-industrial societies, where guilds controlled knowledge and crushed competition, and wondrous and nigh unto magical firearms may be available, but as single, or matched pairs, made one at a time by secretive craftsmen who value a Royal endorsement as much, if not more than money.  Any of the ides that followed the early matchlocks and flint locks might be available to various sages or guilds, but the production rate would be slow and there would be nothing in common between the various arms, except powder, and maybe shot size if you are lucky.  Even a run of simple flintlock, smoothbore, muzzle loaders would have a fair amount of variation among them, and a run of 100 might take  a smith  several months to make, even if he had jigs, dies and special tools to make them in batches. The more labor put into the weapon, the better it might be, but also a much higher cost, as it's made by a professional guildsman, rather than turned out by peasant labor. the highest achievement of the firearms art, before Eli Whitney, would have been the puckle Gun, and there were four made, and even if it was a multi shot weapon, there was still a delay between shots to line up the chambers to the single barrel, and crank them shut and fire them. It was not a machine gun. 

Good sources for early firearms technology can be had on YouTube these days, with Ian McCollum's "Forgotten Weapons" Channel, or "British Muzzle Loaders", and "Cap & Ball".
 
Damages for  early firearms firing a  ball of 1/2 in. or greater, may be around 2.5D6 RKA with them climbing up wards adding 0.5 D6 per pound of  weight of the shot so a 6 lb cannon ball would be around 5d6k. Loading and firing a cannon would take a crew of men one turn to fire.

Also remember that taking actions to set, brace, and aim, would increase accuracy, but also increase the time between the last shot and the next shot.  So unless the firearm has multiple barrels, it would be unlikely to get off more than one shot in a turn. (depending on the character's speed, though).

Hope this helps.

I had to think on this through an insomnia period last night,  It all came back to the word, "story".  I came into this hobby through wargaming back in the mid to late 1970's (Microarmor for the win!), and I approached gaming as a competitive/cooperative group activity. Roleplaying was important, but it was in support of the activity. It was later in the  early 80's when playing Champions  with Carl Rigney, that we got into "Deep Roleplay", but even so, when I played and when I ran, I was thinking  "what would the characters do in this situation?{", rather than, "What would the characters do to be entertaining?".  In the old Usenet newsgroup rec.games.frp.advocacy, there were long and drawn out discussions and debates, and I found that I fell mostly in the "Simulationist/ Situationist" camp in that I was uncomfortable fudging die rolls as a GM, and  I would be completely transparent as a GM about rules and rolls, while being intentionally opaque about in game information and the intent of the opposition. That was what asking questions and detective work were for.  Sometimes the players found clues and stopped X, Y, Z on time, and sometimes they were ambushed because the missed, or didn't bother looking for clues.  I would also try not to play favorites among the players or characters.  I would lay out Hero System constructed "Tactical Puzzles" for my players and  see how they would solve it. I was entertained by watching them think, and fight. I didn't go for that "cooperative storytelling" philosophy, because my entertainment was seeing other people come up with creative solutions within a very tight, and mechanically constrained situation.
 
I rebelled against the trend  moving at the time that gave us "the Rule of Cool", and heavy reliance on literary sources.  To me, games like Amber or Fudge, and now Fate, were an anathema.  I desire structure and some amount of internal logic to my games. It may be, that I just don't "feel" the magic.  For me, a good game was a good "game".  It was cooperative in the way  a wargame was cooperative, but it was also competitive to a degree.
 
You mentioned " A good campaign striving to give magic unintended consequences should look to impose story consequences.", but all I can think of is the back an forth  between P.C.'s and N.P.C.s as they react to each other's moves in game. Having  utter, but localized crop failures because a P.C. used a spell seems unnecessarily arbitrary.  To me Consequences are a result of action and intent, usually. (or a bad decision or even bad luck), because in the end I want to have my game seen as "fair" to the players, and as open as I can manage, because I despise railroad tracks in games I play, as well, and a lot of RPG's of "Narrative significance", seem to invest a lot in steel rails and right of ways. 
 
For me, though it's all about the mechanics. I has to be, or it feels unfair and arbitrary and unattractive. Hero arrived, and for me was the fairest system I had experienced up to that time, as it was all about points rather than die rolls, and one could "wargame" a fight easily and simply. A good chunk of the fun of Champions was designing characters to test (or exploit) the rules in different combinations. This may be an antique point of view these days, but I still like it as a "game". For me a story is what the players tell "after the game" , not so much as during it. XD

You don't have to be arbitrary. If you want unreliable magic, you tell the PCs they're playing with fire, and when they get burned, you make it interesting. The BBC series Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell gives a good example. The character uses magic he knows is dangerous to advance his position, and in doing so creates a situation that the plot flows from. Now that PC's actions are a centerpiece of the adventure, or in a campaign, perhaps create an interesting side adventure. How that's resolved should be utterly fair.
 
I'd say that if you want magic to figure into tactics as in a typical Pathfinder/DnD game, then it'd be unfair to make it unreliable. Your PCs will quickly all become rogues and fighters, leaving magic by the wayside. If you're going for tactical magic and still want some danger in the magic system, then doing something like separating the tactical magic system from the ritual magic system is probably in order. You want to bring your party's best fighter back from the dead? OK, you have some options, and they all have drawbacks. The easiest option, he comes back as a kind of stupid zombie, so scratch that. The second option, you have to petition a powerful magical being to help with the process, and run the risk of making a bad deal with said entity, or simply unleashing it on the world.
 
As the GM, you can treat it as simply a roleplay opportunity for the PCs to outwit the entity. The negotiation can be the thing, in and of itself. Let them outwit the entity. This time. Maybe next time, it gets the upper hand.
 
None of this is railroading. It's letting the players make decisions and steer the direction of the game as they play out the consequences. It's the furthest thing from railroading, and can be a lot more fun than the Pathfinder dickery described above.

The Pathfinder scenario imposes mechanical consequences. A good campaign striving to give magic unintended consequences should look to impose story consequences.

I actually kind of "reject" the Mysterious magic concept, especially in my games. (especially if we are dealing with my Quasi- Byzantine era campaign, or a campaign where magic and firearms co-exist). It's definitely a  personal taste issue, but anything "Mysterious" rarely remains such, because humans are curious creatures, and are also endlessly looking for patterns, even where they may not exist (superstitions).  Everything gets put into a framework, and the ambitious will rules lawyer reality given the chance. Magic is a tool, with predictable results in a game, just as science or engineering, it just uses different rules and equipment. It has a different flavor, then, but it's still a tool for manipulating reality like a shovel and fire are as well.
 
Most traditional spell-casting in folklore is very much in the same vein as a recipe for cooking the family Christmas cookies. One learns at the elbow of an elder, and it taught the steps one at a time, in sequence to get the desired result. Experience modifies it to make the results more consistent, and creative individuals will try different ingredients to experiment, Eventually when she's old, the family will ask for it to be written down so the knowledge of the recipe is not lost. Sometimes it's well written, sometimes it's not and steps are misplaces, forgotten, or badly explained as the language shifts. Some people can follow instructions or have a talent for cooking, and some people wont. The differences between Magic and cookies thought tend to be societal, with the overarching culture coloring people's perceptions of magic and what is, and what isn't acceptable.
 
In Roman Times, magic was believed in, but a lot of small household charms were within the knowledge of  everyone, as were small rituals.  In the Dark Ages, anyone that could read was nigh unto a wizard, but anyone saying they could practice magic was a heretic and consorting with the devil, and therefore burned. In the Renaissance a general spirit of curious research gave us Alchemy, and the beginning of science, and by the enlightenment, witch burning was no longer practiced in Western Europe, and the scientific method was used, and soon gave birth to engineering and the industrial revolution.

Having Firearms presupposes having a supporting society, that  carries a more Renaissance view of the world, rather than a dark age, or barbarian outlook. It supposes  the primary users of said weapons are no longer tribal, or feudal, but proto-nation states with economies large enough to support a class of experimenting "renaissance men", as well as being able to support standing armies and navies (Small, but professional at this time, or even mercenaries). None of that prohibits the existence of magic in a campaign, but it will definitely "color" the attitude about magic.  Making magic "mysterious" presupposes that there is an organization that decides the morality of knowledge, and has the power, and the motive to suppress knowledge, and remove it from society, and cause severe social penalties, including death upon those that continue to quest for such forbidden knowledge.  
 
Mystery is generally just in it's simplest term a lack of knowledge, and all of us even in this modern age have blind spots in our knowledge about something, whether it be cars, computers, firearms, or the law, all forms of knowledge we trade with specialists for money to maintain our standard of living. IF one looks at magic like the ability to draw or paint, as in it's a mystery, and not everyone knows how to do it, speaking as an artist, it's the product of observation, practice, book learning and time, and the more of each one spends on one's art, the better they get. Artistic Talent is just how much self motivation does one have to put in all that time and effort to learn? The same could be said if we looked back at magic as cooking, where a few years on Culinary school may give one a leg up on using exotic ingredients, and cooking techniques to prepare meals at the highest skill,  and different schools teaching different skills.  This would relegate Grandma's Christmas cookies to  "hedge magic", though also a beloved local or family ritual. This sort of read still allows anyone with a school diploma so command respect and high fees  in society, but it's not the dark age folklore flavored image. How magic is viewed by "the Characters" is dependent upon how magic if viewed by society.  Sure magic will be mysterious, if knowing about it means danger to one's immortal soul, or membership in the church, the town or the polity.

So I reject "Mysterious Magic" for Mystery's sake, and lay it all out fair and open to the players, and in general it's another tool, and a tool, like a gun is neutral, and dependent on the motivations of the user, and the perception of the tool by society.

I actually kind of "reject" the Mysterious magic concept, especially in my games. (especially if we are dealing with my Quasi- Byzantine era campaign, or a campaign where magic and firearms co-exist). It's definitely a  personal taste issue, but anything "Mysterious" rarely remains such, because humans are curious creatures, and are also endlessly looking for patterns, even where they may not exist (superstitions).  Everything gets put into a framework, and the ambitious will rules lawyer reality given the chance. Magic is a tool, with predictable results in a game, just as science or engineering, it just uses different rules and equipment. It has a different flavor, then, but it's still a tool for manipulating reality like a shovel and fire are as well.
 
Most traditional spell-casting in folklore is very much in the same vein as a recipe for cooking the family Christmas cookies. One learns at the elbow of an elder, and it taught the steps one at a time, in sequence to get the desired result. Experience modifies it to make the results more consistent, and creative individuals will try different ingredients to experiment, Eventually when she's old, the family will ask for it to be written down so the knowledge of the recipe is not lost. Sometimes it's well written, sometimes it's not and steps are misplaces, forgotten, or badly explained as the language shifts. Some people can follow instructions or have a talent for cooking, and some people wont. The differences between Magic and cookies thought tend to be societal, with the overarching culture coloring people's perceptions of magic and what is, and what isn't acceptable.
 
In Roman Times, magic was believed in, but a lot of small household charms were within the knowledge of  everyone, as were small rituals.  In the Dark Ages, anyone that could read was nigh unto a wizard, but anyone saying they could practice magic was a heretic and consorting with the devil, and therefore burned. In the Renaissance a general spirit of curious research gave us Alchemy, and the beginning of science, and by the enlightenment, witch burning was no longer practiced in Western Europe, and the scientific method was used, and soon gave birth to engineering and the industrial revolution.

Having Firearms presupposes having a supporting society, that  carries a more Renaissance view of the world, rather than a dark age, or barbarian outlook. It supposes  the primary users of said weapons are no longer tribal, or feudal, but proto-nation states with economies large enough to support a class of experimenting "renaissance men", as well as being able to support standing armies and navies (Small, but professional at this time, or even mercenaries). None of that prohibits the existence of magic in a campaign, but it will definitely "color" the attitude about magic.  Making magic "mysterious" presupposes that there is an organization that decides the morality of knowledge, and has the power, and the motive to suppress knowledge, and remove it from society, and cause severe social penalties, including death upon those that continue to quest for such forbidden knowledge.  
 
Mystery is generally just in it's simplest term a lack of knowledge, and all of us even in this modern age have blind spots in our knowledge about something, whether it be cars, computers, firearms, or the law, all forms of knowledge we trade with specialists for money to maintain our standard of living. IF one looks at magic like the ability to draw or paint, as in it's a mystery, and not everyone knows how to do it, speaking as an artist, it's the product of observation, practice, book learning and time, and the more of each one spends on one's art, the better they get. Artistic Talent is just how much self motivation does one have to put in all that time and effort to learn? The same could be said if we looked back at magic as cooking, where a few years on Culinary school may give one a leg up on using exotic ingredients, and cooking techniques to prepare meals at the highest skill,  and different schools teaching different skills.  This would relegate Grandma's Christmas cookies to  "hedge magic", though also a beloved local or family ritual. This sort of read still allows anyone with a school diploma so command respect and high fees  in society, but it's not the dark age folklore flavored image. How magic is viewed by "the Characters" is dependent upon how magic if viewed by society.  Sure magic will be mysterious, if knowing about it means danger to one's immortal soul, or membership in the church, the town or the polity.

So I reject "Mysterious Magic" for Mystery's sake, and lay it all out fair and open to the players, and in general it's another tool, and a tool, like a gun is neutral, and dependent on the motivations of the user, and the perception of the tool by society.

I actually kind of "reject" the Mysterious magic concept, especially in my games. (especially if we are dealing with my Quasi- Byzantine era campaign, or a campaign where magic and firearms co-exist). It's definitely a  personal taste issue, but anything "Mysterious" rarely remains such, because humans are curious creatures, and are also endlessly looking for patterns, even where they may not exist (superstitions).  Everything gets put into a framework, and the ambitious will rules lawyer reality given the chance. Magic is a tool, with predictable results in a game, just as science or engineering, it just uses different rules and equipment. It has a different flavor, then, but it's still a tool for manipulating reality like a shovel and fire are as well.
 
Most traditional spell-casting in folklore is very much in the same vein as a recipe for cooking the family Christmas cookies. One learns at the elbow of an elder, and it taught the steps one at a time, in sequence to get the desired result. Experience modifies it to make the results more consistent, and creative individuals will try different ingredients to experiment, Eventually when she's old, the family will ask for it to be written down so the knowledge of the recipe is not lost. Sometimes it's well written, sometimes it's not and steps are misplaces, forgotten, or badly explained as the language shifts. Some people can follow instructions or have a talent for cooking, and some people wont. The differences between Magic and cookies thought tend to be societal, with the overarching culture coloring people's perceptions of magic and what is, and what isn't acceptable.
 
In Roman Times, magic was believed in, but a lot of small household charms were within the knowledge of  everyone, as were small rituals.  In the Dark Ages, anyone that could read was nigh unto a wizard, but anyone saying they could practice magic was a heretic and consorting with the devil, and therefore burned. In the Renaissance a general spirit of curious research gave us Alchemy, and the beginning of science, and by the enlightenment, witch burning was no longer practiced in Western Europe, and the scientific method was used, and soon gave birth to engineering and the industrial revolution.

Having Firearms presupposes having a supporting society, that  carries a more Renaissance view of the world, rather than a dark age, or barbarian outlook. It supposes  the primary users of said weapons are no longer tribal, or feudal, but proto-nation states with economies large enough to support a class of experimenting "renaissance men", as well as being able to support standing armies and navies (Small, but professional at this time, or even mercenaries). None of that prohibits the existence of magic in a campaign, but it will definitely "color" the attitude about magic.  Making magic "mysterious" presupposes that there is an organization that decides the morality of knowledge, and has the power, and the motive to suppress knowledge, and remove it from society, and cause severe social penalties, including death upon those that continue to quest for such forbidden knowledge.  
 
Mystery is generally just in it's simplest term a lack of knowledge, and all of us even in this modern age have blind spots in our knowledge about something, whether it be cars, computers, firearms, or the law, all forms of knowledge we trade with specialists for money to maintain our standard of living. IF one looks at magic like the ability to draw or paint, as in it's a mystery, and not everyone knows how to do it, speaking as an artist, it's the product of observation, practice, book learning and time, and the more of each one spends on one's art, the better they get. Artistic Talent is just how much self motivation does one have to put in all that time and effort to learn? The same could be said if we looked back at magic as cooking, where a few years on Culinary school may give one a leg up on using exotic ingredients, and cooking techniques to prepare meals at the highest skill,  and different schools teaching different skills.  This would relegate Grandma's Christmas cookies to  "hedge magic", though also a beloved local or family ritual. This sort of read still allows anyone with a school diploma so command respect and high fees  in society, but it's not the dark age folklore flavored image. How magic is viewed by "the Characters" is dependent upon how magic if viewed by society.  Sure magic will be mysterious, if knowing about it means danger to one's immortal soul, or membership in the church, the town or the polity.

So I reject "Mysterious Magic" for Mystery's sake, and lay it all out fair and open to the players, and in general it's another tool, and a tool, like a gun is neutral, and dependent on the motivations of the user, and the perception of the tool by society.

I've got an essay inside me somewhere on this subject.  I'll try to cook it down some for here, but there's a lot to it...
 
RPGs in general, and the HERO System in particular, like to highly quantify and systematize as much as they can.  Partly so that we can figure out how to make a game out of it, and partly so that game can be fun and fair.  (For instance, look at the weapon lists; both modern firearms and fantasy hand weapons have lots and lots of variation.)  
 
Brandon Sanderson talks a lot about what has been called Sanderson's Laws of Magic.  Sanderson's First Law of Magic is:
 
 
Link.  For magic to be fun, useful, and not-game-breaking in an RPG both the GM and player need to understand it.  Sanderson talks some about a "soft magic system", which would be a magic system that the author doesn't explain as well; Tolkien's magic system would fall into this.  The drawback to a soft magic system is that the author -- and by extension, the GM and players -- can't use it to solve problems.  Sanderson sez:
 
 
You could have an unexplained magic system in your games, either soft or hard yet unexplained, but the trap here is that figuring it out ends up being a puzzle between the GM and players.  Think of Original D&D, the 0th edition in the original white pamphlets.  Those original books didn't include a thief class, and there was no "climb walls" skill.  That didn't mean that characters couldn't climb walls; it's just that in order to climb a wall, the DM would ask the player, "How are you going to climb it?"  The player would then describe to the DM how they're hammering pitons into the wall, tying off their safety lines, finding their handholds and footholds, and so on.  I assert that in order for a magic system to "feel like magic", which seems to be most players' and GMs' holy grail, your entire magic system has to be done like this.  The GM absolutely must understand the system, but when the player says "I want to cast my (x) spell," the DM then asks, "How are you going to cast it?"  The GM then has to actually come up with the spell -- the gestures, incantations, material components, even obscure things if applicable like phases of the moon, zodiacal positions, whether the character currently has the correct moral status, and the like.  That means that either the PCs have to be able to do the research, or go through a lot of frustrating experimentation that doesn't work.  Or else the GM relents and lets the character cast the spell, but then it's either a Deus Ex Machina, or else it's a hard magic system.  

You could possibly consider Magic like how society sees the ability to draw or make music, in that you need an innate talent. (This is not how those talents really work, what they are is an affinity for practicing that skill, even in the face  of setbacks=as a sometimes art instructor). You could have  Self taught, and wild talents of  moderate to low skill, but then apprenticed and instructed mages that stand on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.
 
Another way of looking at it, is that magic requires a college level education. Universities existed in late medieval times and you could have magical colleges, which would make magic contingent on literacy, and patronage, which means that magic would be the bailiwick of societal elites, like the Nobility and the clergy. The One Percenters who can fling spells around and become rich off of it, but also  represent a wide variety of interests and  activities.
 
Magic could be  a random effect, delivered to the just and the pious, and usually only used by clergy.
 
lots of ways to approach the conceptual framework for magic, but in general in most settings, magic is used by a small percentage of the population, or a small percentage can use it with large, and powerful effects.  This means that non-magical methods of force multipliers would be advantageous to countries with large armies and large populations. Canon, Firearms, Greek Fire, repeating crossbows, all would be effective for a large army, and Magic would only be an enhancement. What magic may give you though is  more tactical flexibility and agility in the face of a changing situation. Magic becomes the tool of the specialists, the Special Operators, and the spies.  The cost of training and educating one mage, may cost a multiple of what it takes to train qand equip a common soldier, and that multiple (Cost, even point cost) is going to dictate the commonality, or scarcity of battlefield magic. 

the Colonial era. with magic, and you get Randall Garret's fiction type universe.
 
But yes, if applying a scientific method of study to magic resulted in improvements in the quality, precision and focus of magic, then that would be the approach they would take, as well has having a very clear idea of the advantages , limitations, and frameworks of the meta -magic.  One would then be able to figure out if effects were scalable, applicable to scientific/ industrial processes, the advancement of academic interests,  and/or commercial exploitation.
 
if it's not  amenable to the scientific method, and continues to be irreproducible, capricious, and emotional, then it will continue to be the domain of eccentrics and  sages, leaving scince as a more reliable, and reproducible effects.

Definitely, one would have morale effects when the weapons became unreliable (see the Canadian Ross Rifle controversy, or the Chauchat controversy, both in the First World War, that brought down politicians because of the reported unreliability of the aforementioned weapons, let alone what the troops thought of them.). It may appear then that in situations where that happened, the smart money would be in keeping "mixed units" longer than they were in history, keeping Pike & shot formations together until such time as an enemy mage was eliminated from the field.  There may also be "spring loaded" backups such as Arbalests, and crossbows. A change in tactics will surprise an enemy for a major battle, or a season, at most. By the next season there is going to be a conservative shift in the tactics to take into account the change, other factors being the same.  Look how fast the Germans adopted a smokeless cartridge rifle, after the French adopted the Lebel Model 1888, the first smokless cartridge rifle. It took about a year for the Germans to adopt/ Modify the Mauser rifle to a smokeless standard, 

A game with nothing but the ill educated and superstitious all the time is not very interesting XD.

Drexl: This is a curious creature related to the porcupine.  Slow and clumsy, it seems easy prey, since its spines are fewer and not barbed like the porcupine, but it is left alone by most creatures.
 
When frightened or upset, the Drexl emits a strong stench that smells terrible to humans but is overwhelmingly awful to most animals, particularly predators such as cats and dogs.  Further, they give off a trilling shriek which is primarily outside the range of human hearing and will almost always drive predators fleeing from the awful sound in their ears.  Docile and slow, Drexl are fond of fruit and vegetables and can be coaxed into staying in an area with ready food.  Any camp with a Drexl in it is unlikely to be bothered by natural predators, who fear its defensive abilities.
 
Drexl are about two feet in length, including the hairless tail, and weigh around fifteen pounds as adults.  They are a reddish gray in color, with spines of black that are tipped in white.  These spines are useful for needles and similar applications, but are brittle.  They make fine quills for writing as well.
 
These creatures only live in forested areas.

Delesgal
In high hills and mountains lives a toad with cheek glands that contain an irritant poison which is itchy to humans and other predators, protecting it.  Concentrated, the venom has a much more powerful effect.  The Illness of Delesgal causes the character to recover Endurance half as fast, use double Endurance, and be unable to eat solid food.  While ill, any effect that requires a CON check is at -3 and nausea effects are twice as potent and last twice as long Effect: Drain Constitution 1d6, recover per week, Major Transform 3d6 (gives physical complication: sick Frequently/Slightly) fades equal to body recovery per week Stages: 3 Delay before effect: Segment Time Between Stages: Four Segments Origin: Mountains Rarity: -2 Preparation: cut out poison glands and heat contents in oil until blue crystals form at the bottom.  Crush crystals in oil for paste Form: Contact, stores 3d6 months prepared Resistance: Life support vs animal poisons, power defense Cost: 85 copper   Of course, the toad has a life of its own outside being carved up for poison.   This toad feeds on insects, and is up to 10cm in length, a uniformly light blue color, but misshapen and lumpy.  Deles Toads like to climb into dark places like packs, tents, bedrolls and other shelters, especially at night when some heat is there.    However, the skin of the Deles Toad emits a in irritant poison that is itchy to humans and elves, causing a -1 to all Dex and Magic Skill rolls for 3d6x5 minutes after direct skin exposure.

Chagrak: Although not a tree, this desert bush has wood of such durability and hardness it is used for some tribes and cultures as a substitute for iron.  The finished wood is grayish tan in color with streaks of white in it, and can be quite attractive.
 
Chagrak is quite heavy, and require very hard stone and great strength and patience to carve and work.  Since the bushes do not grow much larger than a man is tall, it cannot be used for something like a greataxe blade, but will function as iron for smaller structures like spearpoints, daggers, or maces.
 
Although hard and heavy as iron, Chagrak has a base PD of only 5, but ED of 7.  It also does not hold an edge as well, so edged weapons lose a damage class on an 11- chance per successful hit against any hard object (such as armor or a shield).  Chagrak takes a -3 roll to work.
 
Hey, desert dwelling beastmen and orc tribes need low tech alternatives.

Something a little different this time.
 
In studying tailoring, cloth, and historical techniques for the Jolrhos Field Guide, I came across silk armor. I knew that the silk that the mongols wore would help protect from arrows, and further would not tear off into wounds and increase chances of infection: you could twist the arrow back out with the silk.
 
But I didn't know that the first functioning bulletproof vest was made of silk. And it works. Silk's resilient stretchy material is actually very effective against projectiles, which is making me add a few concepts to my fantasy hero armor options.
 
Because you can wear one of these things under a suit of armor.
 

 
This article goes into the first bulletproof vest, invented in the late 1800s by a Polish scientist and how it might have changed history.  WWI was inevitable: too many forces in motion, too much animosity, etc.  But it might have been a little later in starting.

Big announcement about the Jolrhos Field Guide.  I've gotten it about 90% rough writing done, and should have the first pass complete by the end of April.  There will be a lot of work to do after that, but I'm hoping for a Fall release.
 
However, the big news is that I'm working with someone to do a kickstarter for the book.  If this goes through I'll be able to reach a broader audience and maybe even get a nice painted cover from a major artist.  Hopefully with enough funding I can put out a version for Savage Worlds and even D&D.  I don't want to get ahead of myself, but keep an eye out for more news.

In all cases, the firearm is discharged by introducing sparks or  a burning coal into an open pan of powder welded to the side of the barrel of the firearm, a small hole, allows  the flames from the powder to travel within the barrel and ignite the main charge of the weapon.
 
 A Matchlock, is defined by having a "Slow Match" usually a length of rope, dipped in various chemicals to cause it to burn slowly and continuously.  In early models the match was held in a metal arm, called a "serpentine" which had no spring and was lowered  by the operator squeezing the tail of the serpentine against the stock of the musket, causing the head to dip the glowing part of the match into the pan. The early variants did not have any springs, and the serpentine was usually just a bent piece of metal with a loop at the head, and a pivot in the middle, similar to some cross bows. as time passes, the match burns down and must be continuously adjusted by the operator, so the the glowing coal will hit the pan when he wants it to. Match rope tends to burn at a rate of of an inch ever two minutes or so, and operators would stat a battle with several coils held in the off hand.  I've used one, and the "lock time" between when you decide you want it to fire, and it ignites and discharges the ball downrange calls for very steady nerves as you have to keep the barrel on target all through the firing sequence, including the near volcanic eruption of powder in the pan igniting not very far from one's face. This will effect accuracy, and modern shooters are strongly advised to wear glasses while shooting.
 
The Wheel lock came next  as a midification of the previous ignition system, in that  the previous "serpentine" was now used to hold a wedge of iron pyrite, against a finely toothed wheel. The difference now, is that there was a "frizzen", used to cover the pan, to prevent the priming powder from spilling out of it, and to cover the powder and touch hole in case of inclement weather. In operation, the wheel was given a quarter turn with a key, which tensioned an internal spring, held in place by the trigger mechanism.  In preparation for firing, the operator would Open the frizzen, and place the serpentine so that the flint was against the wheel. A pull of the trigger would produce a shower of sparks into the pan, igniting the powder as before.

Wheelocks are very expensive, and needed a lot of maintenance and care, compared to the matchlocks.
 
The Snaphaunce is essentially an early form of the Flintlock. In that the Serpentine was now spring loaded and released by the trigger. The Frizzen had an iron tail so the serpentine, striking it with a wedge of flint, would expose the pan, and shower the priming powder in the pan with sparks.  below is an exotic flintlock, in that it's a breech loading flintlock, which means it loads faster, and can be loaded prone (preserving one's cover or concealment or DCV)

 
Even More exotic was the Puckle Gun, which was a multi chambered flint lock weapon for use against  Pirates
 

Also Flintlocks can get fairly large

 
Hope this helps.
 

Resident gun nut, here.  The thing one is talking about, with Civil war era weapons is that those weapons (The Three Band Enfield and the Model 1861 Springfield, both in .58 cal. Minie Ball projectiles) were at the end of the development cycle for muzzle loaders and  the prepackaged paper cartridges invented by the British, and perfected by the Americans prefigured brass cartridge weaponry, very soon (like months) after the end of the Civil War. Loose powder and patched ball  could be reloaded by a trained infantryman to shoot 3 times a minute. paper cartridges added one more time per minute, or so.  The biggest effect on accuracy, were first, tight fitting ammunition, then Rifling, and then projectile shape, going from spheres of lead to pointed projectiles.  the Civil War era "Rifled Muskets", were very accurate, being mechanically capable to hit a 22 inch target at 300 yards or more. the problems with muzzle loaders were of course the slow reload times, as well as the fact one had to stand up, and stand still whioe reloading (Low to no DCV?), and it's sensitivity to weather conditions, or water immersion.
 
With the adoption of the cartridge fed breech loader (Taking the same 3 band Enfield, and turning it into the Snider conversion, and the same Sprinfield Rifled Musket, and turning it into a trapdoor springfield), boosted the rate of fire to once every  few seconds, or in Hero terms probably one reload and fire per phase, and yes one could now reload on the move, or reload from cover or prone positions. The difference was notable, only a few years after the Civil war, when Prussia adopted the Dreyse "Needle" rifle, and the Austrians still had the muzzle Loading Lorenz  rifled musket.  The Prussians won a decidedly one sided victory.
 
A few years after that, the Turks at the siege of Plevna, held off a numerically superior force using a mix of single shot Peabody Martini rifles, and American made Winchester Lever actions to resist attackers for a very long time, which started a run on Magazine rifles, so that by 1875, ten years after the Civil War ended, militaries in Europe were adopting magazine rifles, where the rate of fire climbed to one shot per action. by 25 years after the end of the Civil War, the first semi automatic pistols came on the market in Germany, and you have seen the rest in movies and television.
 
What prompted that explosion in technological  progress, similar to the  progress we have just seen with semi-conductor based technology in our lifetimes, was the industrial capabilities of the first world, first with consumer goods, and then military equipment, both falling into standardization and parts interchangeability, as well as the ability to communicate ideas through books and magazines, and by travel.

If you are talking about a high fantasy background, you will not have the  industrial capability (Except if you are from dwarven lands), and the communication. This is pre-enlightenment, and pre-industrial societies, where guilds controlled knowledge and crushed competition, and wondrous and nigh unto magical firearms may be available, but as single, or matched pairs, made one at a time by secretive craftsmen who value a Royal endorsement as much, if not more than money.  Any of the ides that followed the early matchlocks and flint locks might be available to various sages or guilds, but the production rate would be slow and there would be nothing in common between the various arms, except powder, and maybe shot size if you are lucky.  Even a run of simple flintlock, smoothbore, muzzle loaders would have a fair amount of variation among them, and a run of 100 might take  a smith  several months to make, even if he had jigs, dies and special tools to make them in batches. The more labor put into the weapon, the better it might be, but also a much higher cost, as it's made by a professional guildsman, rather than turned out by peasant labor. the highest achievement of the firearms art, before Eli Whitney, would have been the puckle Gun, and there were four made, and even if it was a multi shot weapon, there was still a delay between shots to line up the chambers to the single barrel, and crank them shut and fire them. It was not a machine gun. 

Good sources for early firearms technology can be had on YouTube these days, with Ian McCollum's "Forgotten Weapons" Channel, or "British Muzzle Loaders", and "Cap & Ball".
 
Damages for  early firearms firing a  ball of 1/2 in. or greater, may be around 2.5D6 RKA with them climbing up wards adding 0.5 D6 per pound of  weight of the shot so a 6 lb cannon ball would be around 5d6k. Loading and firing a cannon would take a crew of men one turn to fire.

Also remember that taking actions to set, brace, and aim, would increase accuracy, but also increase the time between the last shot and the next shot.  So unless the firearm has multiple barrels, it would be unlikely to get off more than one shot in a turn. (depending on the character's speed, though).

Hope this helps.

In all cases, the firearm is discharged by introducing sparks or  a burning coal into an open pan of powder welded to the side of the barrel of the firearm, a small hole, allows  the flames from the powder to travel within the barrel and ignite the main charge of the weapon.
 
 A Matchlock, is defined by having a "Slow Match" usually a length of rope, dipped in various chemicals to cause it to burn slowly and continuously.  In early models the match was held in a metal arm, called a "serpentine" which had no spring and was lowered  by the operator squeezing the tail of the serpentine against the stock of the musket, causing the head to dip the glowing part of the match into the pan. The early variants did not have any springs, and the serpentine was usually just a bent piece of metal with a loop at the head, and a pivot in the middle, similar to some cross bows. as time passes, the match burns down and must be continuously adjusted by the operator, so the the glowing coal will hit the pan when he wants it to. Match rope tends to burn at a rate of of an inch ever two minutes or so, and operators would stat a battle with several coils held in the off hand.  I've used one, and the "lock time" between when you decide you want it to fire, and it ignites and discharges the ball downrange calls for very steady nerves as you have to keep the barrel on target all through the firing sequence, including the near volcanic eruption of powder in the pan igniting not very far from one's face. This will effect accuracy, and modern shooters are strongly advised to wear glasses while shooting.
 
The Wheel lock came next  as a midification of the previous ignition system, in that  the previous "serpentine" was now used to hold a wedge of iron pyrite, against a finely toothed wheel. The difference now, is that there was a "frizzen", used to cover the pan, to prevent the priming powder from spilling out of it, and to cover the powder and touch hole in case of inclement weather. In operation, the wheel was given a quarter turn with a key, which tensioned an internal spring, held in place by the trigger mechanism.  In preparation for firing, the operator would Open the frizzen, and place the serpentine so that the flint was against the wheel. A pull of the trigger would produce a shower of sparks into the pan, igniting the powder as before.

Wheelocks are very expensive, and needed a lot of maintenance and care, compared to the matchlocks.
 
The Snaphaunce is essentially an early form of the Flintlock. In that the Serpentine was now spring loaded and released by the trigger. The Frizzen had an iron tail so the serpentine, striking it with a wedge of flint, would expose the pan, and shower the priming powder in the pan with sparks.  below is an exotic flintlock, in that it's a breech loading flintlock, which means it loads faster, and can be loaded prone (preserving one's cover or concealment or DCV)

 
Even More exotic was the Puckle Gun, which was a multi chambered flint lock weapon for use against  Pirates
 

Also Flintlocks can get fairly large

 
Hope this helps.
 

In all cases, the firearm is discharged by introducing sparks or  a burning coal into an open pan of powder welded to the side of the barrel of the firearm, a small hole, allows  the flames from the powder to travel within the barrel and ignite the main charge of the weapon.
 
 A Matchlock, is defined by having a "Slow Match" usually a length of rope, dipped in various chemicals to cause it to burn slowly and continuously.  In early models the match was held in a metal arm, called a "serpentine" which had no spring and was lowered  by the operator squeezing the tail of the serpentine against the stock of the musket, causing the head to dip the glowing part of the match into the pan. The early variants did not have any springs, and the serpentine was usually just a bent piece of metal with a loop at the head, and a pivot in the middle, similar to some cross bows. as time passes, the match burns down and must be continuously adjusted by the operator, so the the glowing coal will hit the pan when he wants it to. Match rope tends to burn at a rate of of an inch ever two minutes or so, and operators would stat a battle with several coils held in the off hand.  I've used one, and the "lock time" between when you decide you want it to fire, and it ignites and discharges the ball downrange calls for very steady nerves as you have to keep the barrel on target all through the firing sequence, including the near volcanic eruption of powder in the pan igniting not very far from one's face. This will effect accuracy, and modern shooters are strongly advised to wear glasses while shooting.
 
The Wheel lock came next  as a midification of the previous ignition system, in that  the previous "serpentine" was now used to hold a wedge of iron pyrite, against a finely toothed wheel. The difference now, is that there was a "frizzen", used to cover the pan, to prevent the priming powder from spilling out of it, and to cover the powder and touch hole in case of inclement weather. In operation, the wheel was given a quarter turn with a key, which tensioned an internal spring, held in place by the trigger mechanism.  In preparation for firing, the operator would Open the frizzen, and place the serpentine so that the flint was against the wheel. A pull of the trigger would produce a shower of sparks into the pan, igniting the powder as before.

Wheelocks are very expensive, and needed a lot of maintenance and care, compared to the matchlocks.
 
The Snaphaunce is essentially an early form of the Flintlock. In that the Serpentine was now spring loaded and released by the trigger. The Frizzen had an iron tail so the serpentine, striking it with a wedge of flint, would expose the pan, and shower the priming powder in the pan with sparks.  below is an exotic flintlock, in that it's a breech loading flintlock, which means it loads faster, and can be loaded prone (preserving one's cover or concealment or DCV)

 
Even More exotic was the Puckle Gun, which was a multi chambered flint lock weapon for use against  Pirates
 

Also Flintlocks can get fairly large

 
Hope this helps.
 

In all cases, the firearm is discharged by introducing sparks or  a burning coal into an open pan of powder welded to the side of the barrel of the firearm, a small hole, allows  the flames from the powder to travel within the barrel and ignite the main charge of the weapon.
 
 A Matchlock, is defined by having a "Slow Match" usually a length of rope, dipped in various chemicals to cause it to burn slowly and continuously.  In early models the match was held in a metal arm, called a "serpentine" which had no spring and was lowered  by the operator squeezing the tail of the serpentine against the stock of the musket, causing the head to dip the glowing part of the match into the pan. The early variants did not have any springs, and the serpentine was usually just a bent piece of metal with a loop at the head, and a pivot in the middle, similar to some cross bows. as time passes, the match burns down and must be continuously adjusted by the operator, so the the glowing coal will hit the pan when he wants it to. Match rope tends to burn at a rate of of an inch ever two minutes or so, and operators would stat a battle with several coils held in the off hand.  I've used one, and the "lock time" between when you decide you want it to fire, and it ignites and discharges the ball downrange calls for very steady nerves as you have to keep the barrel on target all through the firing sequence, including the near volcanic eruption of powder in the pan igniting not very far from one's face. This will effect accuracy, and modern shooters are strongly advised to wear glasses while shooting.
 
The Wheel lock came next  as a midification of the previous ignition system, in that  the previous "serpentine" was now used to hold a wedge of iron pyrite, against a finely toothed wheel. The difference now, is that there was a "frizzen", used to cover the pan, to prevent the priming powder from spilling out of it, and to cover the powder and touch hole in case of inclement weather. In operation, the wheel was given a quarter turn with a key, which tensioned an internal spring, held in place by the trigger mechanism.  In preparation for firing, the operator would Open the frizzen, and place the serpentine so that the flint was against the wheel. A pull of the trigger would produce a shower of sparks into the pan, igniting the powder as before.

Wheelocks are very expensive, and needed a lot of maintenance and care, compared to the matchlocks.
 
The Snaphaunce is essentially an early form of the Flintlock. In that the Serpentine was now spring loaded and released by the trigger. The Frizzen had an iron tail so the serpentine, striking it with a wedge of flint, would expose the pan, and shower the priming powder in the pan with sparks.  below is an exotic flintlock, in that it's a breech loading flintlock, which means it loads faster, and can be loaded prone (preserving one's cover or concealment or DCV)

 
Even More exotic was the Puckle Gun, which was a multi chambered flint lock weapon for use against  Pirates
 

Also Flintlocks can get fairly large

 
Hope this helps.
 

Resident gun nut, here.  The thing one is talking about, with Civil war era weapons is that those weapons (The Three Band Enfield and the Model 1861 Springfield, both in .58 cal. Minie Ball projectiles) were at the end of the development cycle for muzzle loaders and  the prepackaged paper cartridges invented by the British, and perfected by the Americans prefigured brass cartridge weaponry, very soon (like months) after the end of the Civil War. Loose powder and patched ball  could be reloaded by a trained infantryman to shoot 3 times a minute. paper cartridges added one more time per minute, or so.  The biggest effect on accuracy, were first, tight fitting ammunition, then Rifling, and then projectile shape, going from spheres of lead to pointed projectiles.  the Civil War era "Rifled Muskets", were very accurate, being mechanically capable to hit a 22 inch target at 300 yards or more. the problems with muzzle loaders were of course the slow reload times, as well as the fact one had to stand up, and stand still whioe reloading (Low to no DCV?), and it's sensitivity to weather conditions, or water immersion.
 
With the adoption of the cartridge fed breech loader (Taking the same 3 band Enfield, and turning it into the Snider conversion, and the same Sprinfield Rifled Musket, and turning it into a trapdoor springfield), boosted the rate of fire to once every  few seconds, or in Hero terms probably one reload and fire per phase, and yes one could now reload on the move, or reload from cover or prone positions. The difference was notable, only a few years after the Civil war, when Prussia adopted the Dreyse "Needle" rifle, and the Austrians still had the muzzle Loading Lorenz  rifled musket.  The Prussians won a decidedly one sided victory.
 
A few years after that, the Turks at the siege of Plevna, held off a numerically superior force using a mix of single shot Peabody Martini rifles, and American made Winchester Lever actions to resist attackers for a very long time, which started a run on Magazine rifles, so that by 1875, ten years after the Civil War ended, militaries in Europe were adopting magazine rifles, where the rate of fire climbed to one shot per action. by 25 years after the end of the Civil War, the first semi automatic pistols came on the market in Germany, and you have seen the rest in movies and television.
 
What prompted that explosion in technological  progress, similar to the  progress we have just seen with semi-conductor based technology in our lifetimes, was the industrial capabilities of the first world, first with consumer goods, and then military equipment, both falling into standardization and parts interchangeability, as well as the ability to communicate ideas through books and magazines, and by travel.

If you are talking about a high fantasy background, you will not have the  industrial capability (Except if you are from dwarven lands), and the communication. This is pre-enlightenment, and pre-industrial societies, where guilds controlled knowledge and crushed competition, and wondrous and nigh unto magical firearms may be available, but as single, or matched pairs, made one at a time by secretive craftsmen who value a Royal endorsement as much, if not more than money.  Any of the ides that followed the early matchlocks and flint locks might be available to various sages or guilds, but the production rate would be slow and there would be nothing in common between the various arms, except powder, and maybe shot size if you are lucky.  Even a run of simple flintlock, smoothbore, muzzle loaders would have a fair amount of variation among them, and a run of 100 might take  a smith  several months to make, even if he had jigs, dies and special tools to make them in batches. The more labor put into the weapon, the better it might be, but also a much higher cost, as it's made by a professional guildsman, rather than turned out by peasant labor. the highest achievement of the firearms art, before Eli Whitney, would have been the puckle Gun, and there were four made, and even if it was a multi shot weapon, there was still a delay between shots to line up the chambers to the single barrel, and crank them shut and fire them. It was not a machine gun. 

Good sources for early firearms technology can be had on YouTube these days, with Ian McCollum's "Forgotten Weapons" Channel, or "British Muzzle Loaders", and "Cap & Ball".
 
Damages for  early firearms firing a  ball of 1/2 in. or greater, may be around 2.5D6 RKA with them climbing up wards adding 0.5 D6 per pound of  weight of the shot so a 6 lb cannon ball would be around 5d6k. Loading and firing a cannon would take a crew of men one turn to fire.

Also remember that taking actions to set, brace, and aim, would increase accuracy, but also increase the time between the last shot and the next shot.  So unless the firearm has multiple barrels, it would be unlikely to get off more than one shot in a turn. (depending on the character's speed, though).

Hope this helps.

How did you come up with your 'handle' (forum name)?
Mom gave it to me.

What was the first tabletop RPG you played?
Three Book Dungeons & dragons in 1976

What was the first tabletop RPG you GMed?
Dungeons & Dragons

What are you currently playing/GMing?
Playing Pathfinder, Interested in possibly GM'ming Fantasy Hero (Home brew World).

 

I was one of the original "Doug's Thugs" for the Fantasy Hero playtest,  Also was one of the early Hero Games artist, back in the pre-5th edition days. Inow the system fairly well and would like to get back into it.