PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Justifying Obsolete Combat in the Modern World



Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-18, 01:24 PM
I've recently joined a new 3.5 game with an interesting twist. It's set in the modern world, while using 3.5 rules. For the record, this is not d20 Modern, and the DM has officially turned down my offer to use things from it.

The way it works is that magic existed centuries ago, but it became abused, until finally the gods decided to remove it from the world and introduce it to a select few who would keep it secret, kind of like White Wolf's Mage games. We have all the races except halflings, and instead of real-world religions, we have either D&D gods or special exceptions (my character is British, and the DM and I formed England's state religion as worshiping King Arthur as a god, calling him the First Emperor and The Sword of Justice and the like. He's in fact a ripoff of Dragonlance's Kiri-Jolith.)

The thing is, in this modern world, supposedly 2009, we're still going to be using D&D 3.5 weaponry. Our DM has said that she doesn't like guns because then the game devolves into a competition to see who has the biggest gun. It's not a major problem for my character, who plans on taking the Knight of Solamnia prestige classes from Dragonlance (the DM agreed to let me use them). The thing is, knightly combat, like the kind my character would engage in, is somewhat obsolete in the modern world.

Plate armor, for all its coolness factor (we're using D&D armor as well, it is glamered to look like normal clothes or armor), shouldn't be able to stand up to a bullet, and most people in this day and age won't fight with a sword, like I am. Judging by what the DM is saying about the campaign we're mainly going to be fighting other magic users of opposing alignments, so that may explain the lack of guns, but the rest of the world would surely have guns, and they would certainly be dangerous.

Why I am I asking all this? My character is supposed to be an ex-military man who recieved a medal for preventing a terrorist attack in Northern Ireland. My first level is Fighter, and I've taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) because that's the weapon I want, and Mounted Combat, because it's required for the prestige classes I want. How do I justify using such obsolete weapons and tactics when I supposedly would have had a gun as part of the British Army? I'm having trouble reconciling background with modernism. This wouldn't be a problem at a medieval level of technology, but in the modern world, bastard swords aren't exactly standard issue for riot police.

Oh, and Rogues and Wizards also get a new skill called Knowledge (Computers).

Nightson
2009-02-18, 01:35 PM
Maybe all of the characters in the game are clinically insane and just don't know it yet.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-18, 01:37 PM
Maybe all of the characters in the game are clinically insane and just don't know it yet.

I beg your pardon?

Who_Da_Halfling
2009-02-18, 01:46 PM
Well I would say you could thematically explain it as magic having replaced gunpowder in historical terms (that is, the Chinese discovered it and introduced it to the Europeans, who refined its use and used it to effectively conquer the world). Then, the gods strip most people of their magic (probably as a direct result of this abuse). Additionally, since even in D&D worlds where magic is prevalent, not everyone uses it, so swords and the like are still around.

This does mean that things like cars are either going to be Priuses (electric cars) or magical, but it allows you to get to a close equivalent of the modern age without having to deal with actual guns.

That's DM perspective of course, if that's not how she actually did it, that's no help to you.

Really, reconciling it is up to the DM. If she is just going to say "there aren't guns, run with it" or, worse, "There are guns, but you can't have any," then there isn't much you can do. But you can raise your concerns to her and give her reasons why a) guns have to be in the setting for it to be modern (I certainly can't imagine how different history would have been if no one had invented gunpowder) or b) how guns might have been replaced in historical terms (Magic really is the easiest answer for this).

Additionally, you can point out that the 3.5 DMG has charts and rules on p 145-146 that indicate how guns work. They're effectively really good ranged weapons that require Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use and are much more limited in their range than bows. So you're sacrificing range for damage and somewhat easier use (which is what guns were vs. bows when they were first introduced, really). I'm not sure I see how the no guns argument works since they're just as bad as any other weapon in that context. Worse, actually, since there are numerous feats and class abilities which benefit bow users and few that offer similar benefits to those wielding guns.

-JM

Alleine
2009-02-18, 01:53 PM
the game devolves into a competition to see who has the biggest gun

As opposed to the older kind of warfare, where the game devolves into who has the biggest sword?

Guns won't be an issue if the DM just stops it. It IS possible to say, "Sorry, the guns don't get any bigger than that, or if they do the chances of them not exploding in your face/you being able to obtain them are veeeeery slim.

Neon Knight
2009-02-18, 01:57 PM
Our DM has said that she doesn't like guns because then the game devolves into a competition to see who has the biggest gun.

My first response to this was "And this is a bad thing how?" but that just shows how differently I think from your DM.

Your options, as I see them:

1) Ignore the pyhsics behind the curtain: Inexplicably, your anceint tactics and weapons work. Whether they just do or you pull crazy bullet time/deflecting bullets with your sword/your armor is made from BSium and can stop bullets/etc. doesn't matter. Just throw versimiltude the double deuce and leave it crying in the rain; it never did much for you anyway. (Well, it never did much for me. Maybe you like versimiltude. If so, obviously ignore this option.)

2) Something else. I guess. I can't think of anything.

pirateshow
2009-02-18, 01:58 PM
I can't find the quote just now, but Joss Whedon has addressed the issue of very few people using firearms in (contemporary-setting) Buffy and Angel. It's partially that melee combat looks cool if shot well, and also has much to do with the much older archetypes that he's referencing. There's an element of practicality, however: guns leave casings, and ballistics analysis can link a bullet to a specific gun. Guns are loud and flashy and make people call the police or the army. If you're operating in a covert sort of way, fighting an underground operation against things that the authorities aren't interested in admitting to the existence of, guns can leave you answering a lot of extremely awkward questions. With this approach, characters in your game can have guns- if they go through the tricky channels required to get one, or incur the risk of the black market- and the balance comes in the DM being realistic about the consequences of firearm usage that much contemporary media doesn't bother with.

Egiam
2009-02-18, 02:01 PM
3 ideas:

-Fashion

-EBERRON!!!!!

-Vampire the Requiem

WhiteHarness
2009-02-18, 02:11 PM
In order to justify their talent in outdated melee combat techniques, just say that all the PCs are into medieval re-enactment as a hobby. ;)

Re: plate armour vs. bullets--it depends on the thickness/hardness of the armour plate in question as well as the type/caliber of bullet. 2mm of even mild steel will resist a .22 all day long, even at lose range. It will shrug off 9mm rounds at longer range. Thicker steel will obviously have proportionately greater resistance to penetration. Some breastplates from the English Civil War period even reached 7-8mm in thickness through the center. Such armour resisted high-caliber musket fire on occasion, and would offer protection from most civilian firearms even in the modern world.

Temp.
2009-02-18, 02:25 PM
If I were doing this, I think I'd avoid explanation at all costs -- running around in mideval-style armor with a big sword as a part of a modern military is too absurd to plausibly get away with.

Plus it'd be vaguely surreal. I like that -- keeps players on their toes.

Neon Knight
2009-02-18, 03:23 PM
Such armour resisted high-caliber musket fire on occasion, and would offer protection from most civilian firearms even in the modern world.

...

Not really, since any rifle chambered for .30-06 or any similar caliber (7.62 NATO, 7.62x54mm R, etc.) will go right through that. Also note that the 7-8mm thickness is probably for the front, the thickest part. Other parts of the armor might be more vulnerable.

I mean, you can buy upper receiver for AR-15s chambered for .50 BMG (yes, the anti-material round) for about 1,000-2,000 dollars. Civilian firearms are often more formidable than people expect.

Bugbeartrap
2009-02-18, 03:30 PM
Seems like you should find out from your DM if there is guns at all. I understand DM rules all, but I'd feel alittle bummed if enemies could use guns on me and after I kill them, poof, the gun disappears or for some reason you are the only one who can't seem to pull a trigger.

In all likelyhood the bad guys won't be using guns if your DM doesn't like them, only nameless, faceless NPC's who you won't fight, if anyone uses them at all.

If you do absolutely need to justify it... swords were still a pretty useful weapon even in the civil war. Much more deadly and frightening than a musket during a charge. Closer to modern times, guns are still attached with bayonets and knives and other melee weapons were a must in trench warfare in WWI.

Personally, I like the image of the PCs using longswords and plate mail, wading through bullets, because they are too awesome to use guns. Gives the PCs a touch of destiny.

MCerberus
2009-02-18, 03:33 PM
Well early military gun powder was slow burning and often used just for fire. In a DnD setting, at this point the development of the stuff would be considered useless. Why go through the hassle to create the junk when you could throw a fireball or cheap combustive goop? I mean it eliminates the need to have drunks pee on stuff to make it work.

You could just say that the refinement into cannon and muskets never happened.

UserClone
2009-02-18, 03:45 PM
It would be very simple from my perspective. Either:


Guns don't exist.
Guns do exist, and players have access to them only as loot from enemies with guns, since they are so difficult to obtain for whatever reason.
Guns exist, but they work differently, and the way to activate them is based on something secret that only few people know about. This method is effectively impossible to just figure out on one's own without risk of killing oneself in the process, or simply impossible altogether. Therefore, players who recieve guns as loot cannot use them, since they don't have the mojo.

Now 3 seems to be the approach your DM is taking with it, which makes sense in its own way, but limits the players (and in fact the majority of non-BBEG NPCs) to medieval weaponry and lower. The high-tech stuff just won't work without the "magical whatever."

Thane of Fife
2009-02-18, 03:55 PM
The easiest way to do it would be to rule that magic has a bad effect on guns. So maybe it's impossible to fire a gun accurately when there's magic nearby, or something like that.

Since some of the PCs will most likely be magic-users, that should pretty much cover it.

Narmoth
2009-02-18, 03:55 PM
Well, in WW2, Japanese officers carried swords as a sign of rank
and Russian cavalry had sabers, which they used if they got in close combat
In the end of the 19th century, rapier dueling got popular again, and remained so until WW1

So, I suggest that you either:
- fluff it as a ceremonial weapon which you know how to use
- it's a weapon of nobility. Duels are fought with swords rather than guns. This of course implies having a powerful noble class
- it's a weapon used by the cavalry

Myou
2009-02-18, 04:01 PM
Well since your DM made the rules really he should explain it.

Perhaps in this world humans are able to develop skills far beyond the norm (since you play D&D that's sort of implicit), making guns useless to most people since no matter how fast, strong or tough you are your gun still just spits little lumps of lead at people, whereas the stronger and faster you are the more armour you can wear, the heavier the sword you can swing, the faster you can attack, the more accurately you can strike and the easier you can dodge bullets. Thus elite warriors all use medievil weaponry.

You could also say that guns can't be magically enhanced or enchanted for some reason.

MickJay
2009-02-18, 04:04 PM
There can be lots of explanations why firearms are not popular/there at all:

- they don't work (just because; some tiny bit of laws of physics is different, and explosives are much weaker, thus making firearms useless, with few exceptions, like using most potent explosives for propellant). If you want realism, then internal combustion engines shouldn't work in this case either, but that's up to DM.

- spirit of chivalry was much stronger in the past, and "dishonourable" weapons like crossbows and guns never became popular

- metallurgy and armor making were more advanced, which made firearms (again, with few exceptions) generally impractical; you still get big guns, bombs and artillery, but hand-held guns are much less useful; but this would make also bows and crossbows less effective.

-etc

If it's just about you and justifying the obsolete weaponry, you can always claim serving in an honour guard unit or something like that, where you'd get trained in such techniques to the point where you're more efficient with a sword than with a gun. It's pushing it a little, but hey, it's D&D...

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-18, 04:06 PM
If I were doing this, I think I'd avoid explanation at all costs -- running around in mideval-style armor with a big sword as a part of a modern military is too absurd to plausibly get away with.

Plus it'd be vaguely surreal. I like that -- keeps players on their toes.

All armor in the setting is glamered to look like normal clothing. It's possible to buy things like bullet-proof vests and kevlar and the like, but that can't be enchanted. Anything that the DM deems "machine manufactured" doesn't absorb magic and thus can't be enchanted. There are no magic guns. Plus, all the guns are single-shot. It's not, "There are guns but you can't have them." It's "There are guns, and you can have them, but they're not that powerful." None of us could afford a gun at character creation anyway. They're like 200 GP for just a pistol.

RukiTanuki
2009-02-18, 04:20 PM
I use the following hand-wave in my steampunk setting:


However, experienced frontier folk consider it unwise to trust guns alone. Life on the frontiers is far more hazardous than the risk of mere bandit raids: dangerous creatures exist, and many do not succumb to a single well-placed shot. (A common warning to greenhorns is, "don't shoot a dragon ... it'll only make it angry." Hidden in the humor -- that an inexperienced person would expect to find dragons around every corner -- lies a useful piece of advice.) As a direct result of the frontier threats, melee weapons still enjoy significant use, and martial schools abound. A typical gunslinger has both gun and blade at his side.

My biggest takeaway here is that your initial premise (plate good, guns bad) is so far off from normality that you really require clarification from the DM regarding the role of guns in this game universe before you can attempt to make your character fit. Perhaps your character tries to keep combat up close and personal in the hopes that no one innocent is killed in your typical duck-and-cover crossfire?

Tyrmatt
2009-02-18, 04:20 PM
The easiest way to do it would be to rule that magic has a bad effect on guns. So maybe it's impossible to fire a gun accurately when there's magic nearby, or something like that.

Since some of the PCs will most likely be magic-users, that should pretty much cover it.

I like the idea of bullets becoming little copper and lead puddles are they fly through a magical field. Or to blatantly steal from Dr. Who, the Sontaran field that expands the copper casings inside the guns, making them highly impractical to use without specially designed "anti-magic" ammunition, which will be exceedingly rare, either through difficulty to produce or scarcity of materials.

As for the armour, I'd have it ruled that they're while considered the equivalent weights of chain, plate etc, they're simply made from a nifty kevlar-nomex weave that stops bullets far more effectively. The higher the density of the weave, the closer to plate armour you achieve. Chain is akin to standard kevlar of the day, full plate is basically like having suspension bridge cables weaved around your body into a vest. Flexible, strong and totally fitting with a modern world equivalent.
In the case of using a sword, I wouldn't worry. Melee combat is alive and well in a relatively urban environs. I'm not familiar with the prestige class you want to take but perhaps you can swap out an ability for something that puts you on even footing

e.g Honourless Dogs!
Feat - Prereq - KoS level 1(?)
Your knightly training has given you an almost supernatural contempt for unchivalrous combat. All opponents making ranged attacks with either spells or guns (not bows, crossbows or any non-gunpowder weapon) take a -4 penalty to hit you and you receive a -2 reduction to all damage taken from these attacks. Melee fighters can assault you with no penalty.

I have no idea how balanced that is but it's a concept you can build on I guess.

Heliomance
2009-02-18, 04:21 PM
Look up Jack Churchill. He was an officer in the second world war who carried into battle - and regularly used - a sword and a bow and arrows. He was also incredibly badass.

FinalJustice
2009-02-18, 04:23 PM
Simple bullets (pun intended):

1 - Bulletproof 'underarmor'. Like in ye good ol'times, when people wore chainmail under plate armor. Just instead of chainmail, they use kevlar. Don't know the physics or logistics, so it seems very acceptable to me.
2 - Magic. Magic armor works against bullets, arrows, crossbow bolts, etc...
3 - D&D Superheroes. At high levels, the speed of a bullet may not that big deal. People are able to pull 10ish attacks in six seconds, casting 2-3 spells, dodging rays and such. Dodging/deflecting a bullet might take the same inhuman reflex and quickness of fighting an ultra skilled swordsmaster ou completing the fine movement of an 8th level spell in one standard action.

AppleChips
2009-02-18, 10:55 PM
You could do it the Dune way. Some easily obtainable magic items block ranged weapons such as bullets, so you use a sword instead!

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-18, 11:39 PM
Except "easily obtainable magic items" don't exist in our world. Magic is only available to those in the know. Mundane people, the people likely to use guns, won't have access to magic items at all, and the ones who have magic aren't likely to bother with guns if they can fire missiles of pure kinetic energy and summon demons from the Plane of Darkness.

Innis Cabal
2009-02-18, 11:43 PM
So you don't get guns but everyone else that isn't a PC gets to run around with them? That dosn't really make sense if she dosn't like guns. It actually is a little silly.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-18, 11:55 PM
Oh, I don't know! We haven't actually fought anything yet!:smallannoyed:

Innis Cabal
2009-02-19, 12:00 AM
Well, basing it off what you've said that what it sounds like. So the very concept of the game is somewhat questionable. And whats more, whats to stop you from picking up a gun off a corpse and using it. After a point you'll qualify for exotic weapon proficancy.. Even then, the -4 is only a minor annoyance considering that not many people will have magical protection.

The only problem comes in fighting said mages. They will be far more powerful then anything else in the world, so some magical will probably surface.

Starscream
2009-02-19, 12:29 AM
I once did something like this. An evil magical god who had been banished from our universe was returning, and his mere presence was playing merry hell with the laws of physics. In particular the world was falling into chaos due to combustion failing to work. Nothing could burn or explode.

This meant no guns, no bombs, no cars. The sudden re-emergence of magic in the world was the only thing that kept the human race from being sent back to the stone age, as it could be used to provide heat (but not flame). Thus, you could build a steam powered vehicle because magic could cause water to boil, but you couldn't make a gun fire because explosives are needed to propel the bullet.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-19, 12:32 AM
Well, basing it off what you've said that what it sounds like. So the very concept of the game is somewhat questionable. And whats more, whats to stop you from picking up a gun off a corpse and using it. After a point you'll qualify for exotic weapon proficancy.. Even then, the -4 is only a minor annoyance considering that not many people will have magical protection.

The only problem comes in fighting said mages. They will be far more powerful then anything else in the world, so some magical will probably surface.

But I don't want to use a gun. My problem isn't how guns work. They're essentially re-skinned crossbows. No biggie. My biggest beef with all this isn't that guns are a danger to me or other PC's. It's that realtively primitive guns existing side-by-side with modern digital technology and the like really, really strains my willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. How would our world's version of WWII, or even WWI have been fought if the automatic rifle hadn't been invented? It's like weapons technology stopped in the pre-Colonial era. That poses VERY important questions as to how military strategy would have been different. As I've said, it's not that I want a gun, or that I'm scared of guns, or that I want guns to be more powerful. It's that I can't understand how the world, which is essentially identical to our own, but with elves, dwarves, half-orcs, half-elves and gnomes (halflings are banned), didn't develop firearms past their most basic incarnation, while the church I work for can issue me an iPhone. It just doesn't add up for me!

It's not a matter of game balance, but of narrative versimilitude.

valadil
2009-02-19, 12:36 AM
Posted this earlier but the lag monster ate it.

Justifying a sword for your character is easy. He's ex-military so what if it's got post traumatic fatigue aka shell shock. He occasionally gets flashbacks when guns are fired, so he tends to shy away from them.

Armor is a bit harder to explain. What if magical bonuses will block bullets, but plain armor doesn't?

Innis Cabal
2009-02-19, 12:38 AM
Ah, I understand. If it is a direct Earth, with all the history, then ya its a little silly to assume that the technology of weapons evolution stopped at the point you indicated.

But Firearms =/= other technological advancments like CD players or computers. The problem really comes from how the history of the world evolved. And no offense to the GM but it is lazy to not explain or even change the world. The simple fact that there is any other race save human is a point that would be somewhat problematic. Where did the other races live? How would they have changed the world by displacing a pre-existing culture.

The game itself seems to function on said suspension of disbelief. Its clearly only thought out to the point of "no guns" and the ramifications are left competly ignored. I'd personaly talk to the GM about this, as it clearly is an issue for you.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-19, 12:45 AM
As I've said, it's not the bullets that are the problem. They're affected by AC and hitpoints just like everything else, so my full-plate will likely block them.

Here's an overview of our campaign, from the mouth of the GM herself:


Once, in days gone by, magic flourished in the world. Elves and men, dwarves and gnomes fought for good or for evil with all the magical and martial prowess they could muster. Mighty deities aided or ruined the plans of mortals as suited their own designs. Good fought Evil; Chaos battled Law; everywhere Neutrality strove for balance. Creatures both magic and mortal lived in a world of battle and disaster, always a breathe away from one end becoming too powerful, from the destruction of so much that so many held dear. Civilization survived, but did not move forward. Too much was invested in too many struggles to allow for new creation.

The world was dying. The struggles of gods and mortals over how to shape the world left no one time for invention or progress. Magic was most strongly focused in this struggle, and thus suffered the most. For a generation no new magic was created. The same spells, the same items, were used for the same, endless battles. Knowledge was being lost and not replaced by new. Three deities who loved magic looked upon the end of their art, and wept.

Boccob, the uncaring, the neutral god of magic, seeing the one thing he concerned himself with fading from the world grew concerned. He called together Corellon Larethian, the chaotic good lord of magic as art, Wee Jas, the lawful neutral goddess of the dark side of magic’s power, and Vecna the neutral evil ruler of magic’s secrets. Once he convinced the opposed deities to stop trying to destroy each other, he laid a solution to the end of magic before them. To be saved from ultimate destruction magic had to hide its face from the world. Civilization would have to find new ways to shape the world for good, or for evil, without arcane or divine powers and thus, it was hoped, the world would progress.

The four deities represented the full spectrum of alignments that the mortal and divine worlds followed. By combining their wills to bring about their new world the four deities created a greater power. This power was Eno. Eno was created from the essence of all alignments, so he is of all alignments, and yet he transcends them all. The four deities responsible for his creation convinced the newly created power to implement their solution to the problems the world faced. Being born from four gods, Eno found it a simple matter to bring all the other gods in line with this plan (though some followed more willingly than others.)

For a generation mortals were denied magic. Arcane power was blocked from the world. Clerics and other divine casters found their prayers went largely unanswered. Magic and direct divine intervention became grandfather stories. People still believed in the gods, and pointed to what they suspect was the handiwork of this deity or that. Yet divine power wielded through mortal hands was, as arcane magic, gone from all but myth in the mortal world. Yet it was not the intention of Eno or the gods of magic that magic be lost to the world. It was time for the second part of their plan.

Descendants of the sorcerers of ages past, those who held faithful to the gods, and those of great intelligence were watched. Those who were deemed worthy were sent a messenger from the deity who chose them. These rare individuals were told the truth about the fate of magic. They were also granted the power, in secret, to wield the ancient arcane and divine magics. As the chosen were watched by their own gods, so too were the chosen and their gods watched over by Eno. Those who threatened to expose the secret the gods worked to create were dealt with swiftly and effectively by the great power.

Creatures of magic, arcane and divine, good and evil, soon realized that they did not fit in this changing world. Two demi-planes were created off the material plane, one of darkness and one of light. On these planes magical creatures, and mortal creatures, which did not fit the new world were given refuge. Some mortal races, like the orcs, found the new world unsuitable. The majority of these races fled to the demi-planes. As time past they became as mythical as the magical world.

In small enclaves and secret schools magic returned to the world and flourished, though on a much smaller scale than in days gone by. The rest of the world developed technology and medicine to replace magic in their every day lives. The Evil gods realized the advantages their followers had in secret abilities and powers. As the force of Evil sought to control the new world the forces of Good were there to counter them, and the Neutral was there, as always, to help keep the balance. Thus the eternal struggle remained in the world, though most were unaware that it was being waged in a secret magic world as surely as it was in the world they could see.

Not only magical beings were brought in to this secret struggle. Realizing that as in days past defenders and guardians were needed, others with the right skills were called upon by the gods to take part in the battles of the hidden world. New skills and ideas from the now evolving mortal civilization were adapted by these defenders to aid their causes.

Generations passed, and the secret was preserved. (At times in history just barely.) In the modern age mortals are still tapped to wield great power and greater responsibility, secretly defending a world that does not believe in magic from the dangers of magic misused.

And here's a map of the world. My character's from Logres, which is essentially the British Isles.

https://mail.exchange.viterbo.edu/owa/attachment.ashx?attach=1&id=RgAAAAACrYHafX8ZRIoD035vu9eZBwDSZfYF9A2uTZh27AS LSuATAAAAvNB8AADmfJKrBOgNSYBseqiiTzNuAATsptVbAAAJ&attid0=EAD4BX1YwVziSayw5BZSWRtr&attcnt=1

Seonor
2009-02-19, 12:57 AM
Since you are asking why your character is not using a gun despite beeing trained by the army for it, there are two possibilitys right on top of my head:

1) Batman. Your character got a medal for preventing a terrorist attack? Well, they are not happy about that and some random mook got the mission to gun you down. Some day you and your best friend/fiancee/whatever walk down a street, there are some gunshots and the sound of a car making a swift exit.
Enraged that your friend was killed by such a coward who not even stayed long enough to make sure he killed the right person you swear over the grave of your friend to never use the weapon of a coward again and to only fight with honour and without deception.
Rather cliche, but it could work, especially since you want to become a knight.



2) On your first day working for one of the mages you were told that there is a simple spell to ignite explosives from afar. After contemplating over that mental picture for three seconds you decide to leave your guns at home. Usefull because it allows everone to use guns to great effect as long as they are not fighting against mages.


Edit: seriusly Ninja'd. The lag is awful.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-19, 12:59 AM
And from the sound of things, if we fight ordinary mundane people, we won't be using magic, as that would expose "the masquerade" so to speak.

elliott20
2009-02-19, 02:53 AM
I'm sorry but this background is still incredibly unclear and if that's all the GM gave you, it's incredibly poorly thought out. I know it's harsh to say this, but what your GM describes should have NOTHING to do with the our modern world as we know it. For one, different races? Are the races really just treated like different ethnic groups now (never mind the mine field issue of "what ethnic group matches to watch racial stereotype"), these races are not like say, a caucasian vs. an african. It's more like a donkey vs. horse vs. mule. They are so drastically different that the social dichotomy would be something completely unrecognizable to our society.

Then, let's examine the extremely questionable premise of "no guns, but we got iPods". Does anyone here feel like they are qualified to say how exactly did all of our modern technology comes from? the concept military weaponry not being developed (which, by the way, would probably be the pioneers of new technology in a turbulent and violent world) denotes that there is a lot of other technology missing. i.e. guns do not exist, is it because they couldn't produce a barrel that can withstand the force of the blast? is it because they couldn't create a chamber that gives it a good enough accuracy? is it because they couldn't refine the material used to cause the explosive force that propels the bullet? is it because the technology to carve out the properly shaped bullet to achieve maximum wind velocity doesn't exist? what exactly is the reason for this development not happening?

The why by itself is not really that important, but rather what that reasoning effects. If there is no modern firearms because say, the world's understanding aerodynamics is not really that sufficient: congrats, you just also provided a reason that decent air planes might not exist either.

You keep this up and eventually you'll end up at a point where you're not really in the modern era anymore, but rather live in some other historical period.

I'm sorry, but this setting sounds like it's going to stretch my suspension of disbelief too much. So, you need to take this up with her instead of wondering what you can do with your OWN character to make this work.

comicshorse
2009-02-19, 05:11 AM
The obvious answer is that swords can do something that guns can't.
If you are playing versus evil magical factions than they will undoubtedly be using spirits, demons, etc it is entuirely possible that as guns can't be enchancted they will simply do nothing at all against these foes. It requires either a magial weapon or ( to lift an idea from original Shadowrun) you actually strike at them with your Will which a gun is too divorced from actual combat to really help with.
As fro why you don't carry a gun for dealing with more mundane enemies well you are the good guys, guns miss and hit innocent civilians or richochet of bad guys armour and hit the innocent, with a sword you're damn sure you hit who needs hitting.
Or perhaps while ordinary shootings get investigated by the police,the strange sword attacks are investigated by a Special Unit you're group has infiltratd and can be covered up

Construct
2009-02-19, 05:25 AM
Try this: Magic is the imposition of one's will on the universe. As a prerequisite all magic users have a very strong sense of their physical selves and their will subconsciously eliminates or minimises changes from external influences. So bullets are a distraction at best. One magic user can inflict "normal" damage on another by using their will to nullify this protection, the catch being they can only project their will through a weapon if they provide the motion themselves. So no "enchantment" on anything more complex than a crossbow. They're still free to use modern weapons, but when a tank does no more damage than a sword and attracts unwanted attention, why bother?

TL;DR: Damage reduction on everything a magic user hasn't expressed their will through.

bosssmiley
2009-02-19, 08:26 AM
Maybe all of the characters in the game are clinically insane and just don't know it yet.

You mean like the delightful JAGS Wonderland (http://thefreerpgblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/like-mariah-carey-wonderland-by-marco.html)?
(I've heard it typified as: "Alice has adventures down the rabbit-hole, and leaves a screaming schizophrenic mirror-self in her place.")

As for the OP's idea. It sounds like a pretty typical weirdness-under-the-surface Buffy-verse to me. If you want to keep guns out of play, then just set the game somewhere where the carrying of firearms by private citizens is either strongly regulated, or a terrible social faux pas. That way you end up with the situation of people settling their fights with the close-up-and-personal expedients of knives, coshes, hammers and chains.

Blackfang108
2009-02-19, 09:36 AM
Take a Page from The Dresden Files.

This is a minor spoiler to book V: Death Masks
Michael Carpenter, Knight of The Cross, takes a bullet in the chest, while wearing nothing but a brestplate. Turns out, his wife, who made the brestplate, attached Kevlar to the inside of the plate.

That could keep you from getting killed by a single shot...

Just a thought.

In Fact, the entire Dresden Files series seems full of ideas for this, except that most of the good guys (and some of the less overpowered bad guys) do use guns. Still worth a look.

DiscipleofBob
2009-02-19, 10:06 AM
Some possibilities:

What about saying firearms exist, but are highly illegal? Where even holding a low-grade pistol could get you in serious trouble. The guys who wanted to repeal the second amendment won, and now not even law enforcement or the military are allowed to have guns (save, perhaps, some Black Ops-style agencies that are counter-terrorists to the people who do use guns.)

Also, gunpowder may not have ever been seriously considered as a weapon to replace others. Think about it. In D&D terms, a gun is unlikely to do enough HP damage to drop the standard adventurer, and early guns took forever to reload. Perhaps the materials required to produce gunpowder were also too expensive to use for consumable weaponry that could be duplicated with a bow or magic missile with much greater efficiency.

Telonius
2009-02-19, 10:57 AM
Alternate explanations

Watchdog groups. The government/illuminati/international religious leader/powerful corporate entity/whatever knows about some of these magic users. They're content to let the magic users battle it out among themselves, as long as they keep it to themselves. But if they start using magitech, they'll come down like a load of bricks.

Bad vibrations. Unfortunately modern explosives do funky things with arcane power. The last time a wizard tried to cast while he was holding a gun, the whole thing exploded with ten times the force it should have, killing the wizard instantly. His raven familiar was found five miles from the site of the blast, muttering something about tachyon pulses and superstring malfunctions.

pirateshow
2009-02-19, 11:49 AM
I think I've found the best possible solution. Sometimes we overlook the obvious...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

Rasilak
2009-02-19, 03:48 PM
@pirateshow: Yeah, like IG Farben not being split up after WW2, eating most of the world's chemistry industry, and now having a monopoly on explosives....

I like the (shadowrun-inspired) idea best that guns just aren't a useful tool against magical enemies - the ones your group fights most of the time. We once had a shadowrun campaign with a very mystical background, and nobody used guns - ok, everyone packed a Predator or Manhunter because they were cheap and easy to get, but they were hardly ever used.

The easiest way to make guns pretty useless is to say nobody ever discovered rifling. Range and accuracy of muskets and the like just plain sucked - even so much that I still wonder why anybody put much effort in further development when they coud've just continued to use crossbows.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-19, 04:30 PM
It's that realtively primitive guns existing side-by-side with modern digital technology and the like really, really strains my willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. How would our world's version of WWII, or even WWI have been fought if the automatic rifle hadn't been invented?

Same way the Revolutionary war was fought in the Americas. Using ball bullets so they can't pierce armor, but sure sting and cause infection if wounds not kept clean.


It's like weapons technology stopped in the pre-Colonial era. That poses VERY important questions as to how military strategy would have been different. As I've said, it's not that I want a gun, or that I'm scared of guns, or that I want guns to be more powerful. It's that I can't understand how the world, which is essentially identical to our own, but with elves, dwarves, half-orcs, half-elves and gnomes (halflings are banned), didn't develop firearms past their most basic incarnation, while the church I work for can issue me an iPhone. It just doesn't add up for me!

It's not a matter of game balance, but of narrative versimilitude.


Why are halfings banned? Does they DM hate/fear midgets?

Just because guns aren't invented doesn't other technology can't be. Look to the Chinese.
They built many things using gunpower without making guns. (fireworks, etc)

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-19, 05:06 PM
Same way the Revolutionary war was fought in the Americas. Using ball bullets so they can't pierce armor, but sure sting and cause infection if wounds not kept clean.
But again, there's the changes in tactics to consider. If they don't have automatic rifles, the trenches probably wouldn't exist.

Why are halfings banned? Does they DM hate/fear midgets?
If that were true she would've banned gnomes too. I think in her opinion halflings and gnomes are too similar to both be in the setting. I'll have to ask next time.

Just because guns aren't invented doesn't other technology can't be. Look to the Chinese.
They built many things using gunpower without making guns. (fireworks, etc)
Yeah, but the reason many major technologies we know and love today were developed was for use by the army, and the most important piece of technology to the army was the gun.

Knaight
2009-02-19, 05:09 PM
But I don't want to use a gun. My problem isn't how guns work. They're essentially re-skinned crossbows. No biggie. My biggest beef with all this isn't that guns are a danger to me or other PC's. It's that realtively primitive guns existing side-by-side with modern digital technology and the like really, really strains my willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point...It's that I can't understand how the world, which is essentially identical to our own, but with elves, dwarves, half-orcs, half-elves and gnomes (halflings are banned), didn't develop firearms past their most basic incarnation, while the church I work for can issue me an iPhone. It just doesn't add up for me!

It's not a matter of game balance, but of narrative versimilitude.

By the time we had automatic weapons in common military use, our most sophisticated lighting in common use was running a thin wire through a glass bulb, which heated up until it glowed. We still used all sorts of ridiculous "medicinal" oils and such, many of which didn't work. Today, we have automatic computer assisted weaponry capable of throwing out millions of rounds of ammunition(a few of them anyways). We still haven't figured the way a lot of food works in relation to dieting and such, and have new absurd fads coming up every so often because of it. Weapons developed extremely quickly compared to other technologies here, and if the world was suddenly more peaceful following magic being taken out, and people still wanted to replicate day to day things they could do with magic with technology, things would advance much faster. Lets take lighting as an example. Lighting would be developed a lot faster if some people already had light that glowed consistently, forever, without a fire like flicker, and all the luxuries that came with it (like being less trapped by the day night cycle), lighting would get a much bigger focus. Where people were known to teleport across the world, and even relatively normal, albeit upper class people had really fast transportation, transportation would get more work on it, leading to stuff like planes, blimps, and the like coming about much faster. Technologies would develop faster when they were used in day to day life, and suddenly vanished, because people were accustomed to them, and they seemed more like necessities than luxuries. When people could regenerate limbs, and that was lost, medical developments would be faster, since the idea that stuff just happens and is a part of life that one just has to deal with isn't there. Warfare is the last concern, and guns wouldn't be developed highly simply because they weren't as highly demanded as they were in our world.

They might be developed at the same speed, if things didn't get peaceful, but just about everything else is going to be developed faster, simply because it is more wanted, and there are more people trying to get civilization back towards where it was with different methods.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-19, 05:17 PM
I really need to talk with my DM about this on Sunday.

RukiTanuki
2009-02-19, 06:03 PM
As I've said, it's not the bullets that are the problem. They're affected by AC and hitpoints just like everything else, so my full-plate will likely block them.

Here's an overview of our campaign, from the mouth of the GM herself:



And here's a map of the world. My character's from Logres, which is essentially the British Isles.

https://mail.exchange.viterbo.edu/owa/attachment.ashx?attach=1&id=RgAAAAACrYHafX8ZRIoD035vu9eZBwDSZfYF9A2uTZh27AS LSuATAAAAvNB8AADmfJKrBOgNSYBseqiiTzNuAATsptVbAAAJ&attid0=EAD4BX1YwVziSayw5BZSWRtr&attcnt=1

That link requires the username and password to your email account. (I'm not suggesting you give it to me.) :smalltongue:

fusilier
2009-02-19, 06:04 PM
There was a good idea up there earlier that seems to have been missed. I will expand a little on it:

1. Guns are closely regulated, making them hard to get a hold of outside of the military (the police could primarily use hand-weapons as they did in England for so long).

2. Swords could still be used for historical/traditional/ritualistic purposes. Japanese sword forms are still very popular, if not nearly completely useless in modern combat. Europeans (being much less isolated) ditched combat oriented swordplay long ago, leading to academic and sport fencing, but in an alternate setting maybe they kept those traditions alive.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-19, 06:34 PM
That link requires the username and password to your email account. (I'm not suggesting you give it to me.) :smalltongue:

Crap. I don't know how to load the picture then.:smallfrown:

Occasional Sage
2009-02-19, 07:59 PM
Why I am I asking all this? My character is supposed to be an ex-military man who received a medal for preventing a terrorist attack in Northern Ireland.

If guns don't exist in a modern form, what does the military use? Flintlocks and bayonets?

If gunpowder never developed, were other explosives developed for non-weapon use? I can't picture a modern setting without the ability to blast clear construction sites or use precision demolitions to remove urban buildings safely. If they were, does that make combat a competition between grenadiers?

I'm in your corner here; there are too many holes in this for the narrative to hold together under its own weight. The only thing I can think of to keep the whole world unchanged while removing guns is to create some strong intercultural taboo which for some reason doesn't apply to other weapons.

Also, find ways to drive semis through the DM's plots using this. Just sayin'.

ETA: If all guns are single-shot, that suggests fairly low velocity rounds (unless, of course, all guns are sniper rifles or some equally-absurd explanation). Why, then, develop Kevlar?

Lapak
2009-02-19, 09:09 PM
I suppose if I were your DM and I wanted to have this kind of setting, I'd install ARDNEH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Swords#ARDNEH) as one of the more significant gods, possibly as the Overgod figure.

Now if, on the other hand, I was running the actual setting that he or she is running, I'd assume guns were a standard part of the kit. If I wanted to de-emphasize their use, I'd do so in two ways: first, I'd attach a Buffy-RPG style damage penalty to the use of guns against supernatural creatures only. Dragons and gryphons and trolls are just resistant to such mundane assaults, and suffer half/quarter/whatever damage; there's half a dozen mystical explanations for such. Maybe only weapons wielded directly by a human hand, with a human will empowering them, can disperse the magical energies that sustain them. (Which also lets out arrows, now that I think about it. You'd BETTER armor up if melee is your only option.)

The natural response to this is to get the bigger guns your DM fears; a quarter of the damage that twelve pounds of C4 produces is still enough to put most anything down. I'd avoid THIS by strictly limiting access to said bigger guns. You're a secret warrior group, and running around with man-portable machine guns and flamethrowers is, shall we say, indiscreet. Maybe I'd let you beg, borrow or steal the occasional anti-tank rocket once or twice to deal with a threat, but by and large you'd be limited to the smaller end of the small arms scale.

Against normal humans, cultists, and even unprepared wizards, guns will still be the weapon of choice, and if you're otherwise equivalent-tech, having only primitive guns assumes a massive alteration in human psychology. So yeah, I can't see any in-game rationale for it. That's the way it would pretty much have to be in setting as described without major fudging.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-19, 11:47 PM
If guns don't exist in a modern form, what does the military use? Flintlocks and bayonets?

If gunpowder never developed, were other explosives developed for non-weapon use? I can't picture a modern setting without the ability to blast clear construction sites or use precision demolitions to remove urban buildings safely. If they were, does that make combat a competition between grenadiers?

I'm in your corner here; there are too many holes in this for the narrative to hold together under its own weight. The only thing I can think of to keep the whole world unchanged while removing guns is to create some strong intercultural taboo which for some reason doesn't apply to other weapons.

Also, find ways to drive semis through the DM's plots using this. Just sayin'.

ETA: If all guns are single-shot, that suggests fairly low velocity rounds (unless, of course, all guns are sniper rifles or some equally-absurd explanation). Why, then, develop Kevlar?

You've hit the nail on the head here. This is why I'm having my trouble wrapping my head around the setting.

elliott20
2009-02-19, 11:57 PM
that's pretty much the same concerns I have. And really, this is a serious setting problem, not a player issue. Your GM needs to figure out how to make all of this still hang together and make sense.

Vexxation
2009-02-20, 12:00 AM
Hm... Magic was dangerous, is all-but-gone now. secretive group of magic-wielders, keeping the power responsibly. I like it.

Boy, I hope Kefka doesn't come along and push some statues out of line...:smallbiggrin:

Anyhoo, regarding guns, it's probably best to just assume that the breakthrough never reached weaponry. Perhaps there's an understanding that it's "dishonorable" or something to use such crude weapons, when the elegance of melee combat should take its place. To throw hot lead at each other from across a distance is so... cowardly.

Knaight
2009-02-20, 12:01 AM
The lack of explosives for demolitions and such actually is a pretty big hole. While guns never developing far in regards to rate of fire and such is reasonable, there would still need to be explosives, for all sorts of things. Grenades and the like may never have been developed, but industrial explosives would have been. They could be allowed without sophisticated guns, but they present their own problems. In many cases, introducing guns isn't an issue, but introducing gunpowder is. It could all come together fine, but the GM is going to have to put a lot of thought into it for it to do that.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-02-20, 12:02 AM
To the OP:

Cultural reasons.

The reason the Yakuza are stereotyped as blade-wielders is because guns are illegal for civilians to possess in Japan. Weapons are adapted to the needs and requirements of whoever needs them. If guns are illegal then you use blades and clubs.

As far as I'm aware, in most countries, aside from law-enforcement or military, only hunters are allowed guns, and that's well-accounted for and locked-up when they're not in use.

Knives are also easier to make than guns, and probably far harder to regulate. However, swords are very distinct in their method of production, so I fail to see it as a good economy-of-scale weapon. You need a specialist to make these things, and there are only so many of those.

===
In the manga, Battle Angel Alita, the existence for all the exotic martial arts is justified by the simple fact that the Scrapyard has an authoritarian-yet-parasitic government that breathes down the neck of the population. Owning a gun is cause for an execution because guns threaten their power.

This law is so blindly adhered to the point where the bureaucrats don't really care what the extenuating circumstance are (using the gun to protect the Scrapyard that you depend on). So everybody either depends on their hands and feet or on knives, powered melee devices or other improvised weapons. (Or the occasional disposable zip gun where somebody is tempted to break the law.)
===

The comic Fables, involves fairy tale figures being exiled from their homelands into our reality because of the predations of an unknown tyrant and his army. Even though Fables are functionally immortal, and have had more than enough time to get to know guns, swords are a part of a respected tradition. On occasion, those weapons are magical, and worth keeping around in their own right. (i.e. The Vorpal Sword of Jabberwocky) Dueling is also a manly way of resolving disputes.

elliott20
2009-02-20, 12:12 AM
yeah, but battle angel alita is ostensibly a splatterpunk... er.... cyberpunk setting rather than modern. And Zousha is not asking for justification to just USE a sword himself. (He's more than capable of coming up with that himself) He's talking about the entirely world itself falling in to all use more primitive weapons.

and the Fables in question while they might use swords due to simple proficiency and area, the are arcs of the story where the Fable community actually does arm it's citizens with firearms to fight incoming threats. Not using guns is more of the exception rather than the rule. In fact, the whole "animal farm" arc was written specifically around the idea of the community trying to arm itself.

Even in authoritarian countries where gun control is extensive, the existence of such weapons means that at SOME point, they WILL come into contact with it, and at that point, the game world will change drastically. Now, if the GM is okay with dealing with guns in this fashion, okay, that will work and it won't change the assumptions about the world too much. But thus far, we simply don't know enough about the whole "guns don't exist" thing. Because even in your scenario here, guns STILL exist. They're just illegal and hard to come by. But c'mon, do you think a group of adventurers are going to have a problem tracking these things down if they REALLY want to?

chiasaur11
2009-02-20, 12:19 AM
Yeah, Fables is really bad for justifying not using guns. I mean, that's the series where the Big Bad Wolf makes use of C4, and it's flat out stated a modern sniper could drop even a really top notch wizard. Not ideal for downplaying guns.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-02-20, 12:23 AM
yeah, but battle angel alita is ostensibly a splatterpunk... er.... cyberpunk setting rather than modern. And Zousha is not asking for justification to just USE a sword himself. (He's more than capable of coming up with that himself) He's talking about the entirely world itself falling in to all use more primitive weapons.

and the Fables in question while they might use swords due to simple proficiency and area, the are arcs of the story where the Fable community actually does arm it's citizens with firearms to fight incoming threats. Not using guns is more of the exception rather than the rule. In fact, the whole "animal farm" arc was written specifically around the idea of the community trying to arm itself.

Even in authoritarian countries where gun control is extensive, the existence of such weapons means that at SOME point, they WILL come into contact with it, and at that point, the game world will change drastically. Now, if the GM is okay with dealing with guns in this fashion, okay, that will work and it won't change the assumptions about the world too much. But thus far, we simply don't know enough about the whole "guns don't exist" thing. Because even in your scenario here, guns STILL exist. They're just illegal and hard to come by. But c'mon, do you think a group of adventurers are going to have a problem tracking these things down if they REALLY want to?
I'm also not sure what Alita being "splatterpunk" has to do with anything. They could have just shown the splatter being caused by guns . . . which they do, on several occasions by both the Tiphareans and the rebel army. The point was that it handwaved the existence of exotic martial arts. Guns are relatively rare -- so most people learn to fight in melee instead.

The stretch to fantasy occurs when martial arts are functionally capable of what might as well be magic. But we're well past that point when you're talking about D&D in the modern day.

I also stated that sword usage in Fables was more an issue of tradition or familiarity than anything else, and that's still a valid reason why you might use swords.

This also doesn't change my point that there was at least one Uber-magical sword floating about. Keeping in mind that most magical items in Fables are generally on par with D&D's minor artifacts.

Only the swords are magical because the world only had swords when magic was still around. Makes sense to me.

And if the authorities have guns and the PC's still carve them up. . .whatever man. This is D&D set in the modern era . . . so why not? The point is that it offers up an explanation as to why guns and swords still exist side-by-side. And that overall gun monopoly is still enough to hold sway over the majority of the unruly non-heroic populace.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-20, 12:56 AM
As I've said, I need to speak with my DM about this. Hoepfully this train wreck won't get too far. Our regular DM seems to be feeling up to a game this week.

Kristoss
2009-02-20, 12:57 AM
Reading your DM's Background description of her world a explanation came to mind.

You might suggest to her that since war was a major factor in the lose of magic many nations simply want to avoid the same thing happening to tech. Which may explain why things like assault rifles are not in production, they simply aren't allowed to be produced.

Occasional Sage
2009-02-20, 01:15 AM
Reading your DM's Background description of her world a explanation came to mind.

You might suggest to her that since war was a major factor in the lose of magic many nations simply want to avoid the same thing happening to tech. Which may explain why things like assault rifles are not in production, they simply aren't allowed to be produced.

Every government in the world prohibits it? Not so much, no. So SOMEbody would make them. Nobody smuggles? Not so much, no. So they'd be available everywhere, for a price. That's not what the DM said, though.

Even setting aside recalcitrant countries and opportunist traders, nobody has figured out how to modify their existing single-shot gun? Again, baffling.

It's just an untenable setting as it stands. Some actual thought needs to be put into it, rather than just a handwave.

Xuincherguixe
2009-02-20, 01:16 AM
Seems like you aren't too fond of the idea yourself. And frankly neither am I.
The fact of the matter is, why do a modern game if you aren't going to use guns? It's such a strong symbol of the times.

There are good reasons why one might not want to use a gun. Shadowrun (again it comes!) has a few of them. They might set off various scanners. They can be loud. And they might not even be legal (especially considering what Shadowrunners are likely to do with them). To that end, you could end up with some pretty Ninja like characters. PCs armed with plastic knives.

Having seen a lot of fantasy in my day, I can say safely that guns do not ruin it. There isn't that much of a difference between it and a sword. Or maybe a bow is a better comparison. It's just more effective.

Mostly though, why run a modern setting where some of the stuff is strangely missing? One of the reasons I find that it works so well for setting stories in, is that there's so many potential ways to go with it. And while some of those are portable, they make more sense in the context of modern times. Especially when compounded with others.

It's why Dark Urban Fantasy is my favorite setting.

And it doesn't work nearly as well when suddenly guns are missing.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-20, 01:23 AM
I think it's because she's frankly trying to shoehorn a D&D style world into the Modern one. And I honestly believe that's a load of horse-pucky. D&D is meant to be medieval style.

Xuincherguixe
2009-02-20, 01:31 AM
D&D really only works in a very narrow range.

Fuedal China or Japan is probably doable, with some tweaking. Streets of Montreal? Not really.

elliott20
2009-02-20, 04:48 AM
I'm also not sure what Alita being "splatterpunk" has to do with anything. They could have just shown the splatter being caused by guns . . . which they do, on several occasions by both the Tiphareans and the rebel army. The point was that it handwaved the existence of exotic martial arts. Guns are relatively rare -- so most people learn to fight in melee instead.

The stretch to fantasy occurs when martial arts are functionally capable of what might as well be magic. But we're well past that point when you're talking about D&D in the modern day.

I also stated that sword usage in Fables was more an issue of tradition or familiarity than anything else, and that's still a valid reason why you might use swords.

This also doesn't change my point that there was at least one Uber-magical sword floating about. Keeping in mind that most magical items in Fables are generally on par with D&D's minor artifacts.

Only the swords are magical because the world only had swords when magic was still around. Makes sense to me.

And if the authorities have guns and the PC's still carve them up. . .whatever man. This is D&D set in the modern era . . . so why not? The point is that it offers up an explanation as to why guns and swords still exist side-by-side. And that overall gun monopoly is still enough to hold sway over the majority of the unruly non-heroic populace.
alright, Alita is cyberpunk. My point stands: not a modern era setting.

There's a vast gulf of a difference between a plausible modern setting that has strict gun control and a setting where guns simply don't exist. The first one you can simply say, "okay, I can probably find a gun, it's just probably really expensive and totally not worth the effort". The latter you end up in a world where somehow it never occurred to anyone to apply ballistics theory to wepaonry, but we somehow still have airplanes, factory pistons, etc, which is outright ludicrous.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-20, 06:04 AM
How about a world where duelling, with swords and other melee anyway, was never outlawed? Where honour still holds sway, with carefully coded laws for vengeance and such, who can challenge, who but the use of firearms instantly brands one as a criminal? Oh, they would be used by the military, but not by police officers, like how the old English bobbies were restricted to clubs. Hunting rifles and shotguns would not exist, though one could get a bow and arrow, and possibly a crossbow, but the licensing restrictions were tighter.
With a CEO with ornate basket kilted rapiers, Hostile Takeover takes on a significantly different meaning.
On a serious note, one of the rights the civil rights movement would have worked for would have been the right for black people and woman to wield swords. A sword would be a common graduation present, proof that one has become an adult. Fencing would be part of PE. The NSA would be the National Swordsmen Association.
It would be an intriguing world, but much more closer to ours then one without guns being possible.

DisgruntledFrog
2009-02-20, 06:16 AM
If I understand correctly, the gods removed magic becuase it got too dangerous. Lets take that idea and follow it through, and say that the game world follows our world failry closely from there. Right up until the end of WWII. Millions of deaths from guns and then to top it off nuclear bombs. The gods say that enough is enough, and from then on all kinds of explosivies based weapons (from nukes to grenades to guns to whatever) stop working. Doesn't have to make physical sense, it's "magic" and the will of the gods, the laws of physics just change. Maybe there's a new kind of "gun" now that works differently, but its slow and clumsy in comparison, doesn't really matter.

If you think 1940s level tech base isn't workable, run the parallel up to the end of the cold war except this time the nukes were actually launched and thats when the gods stepped in. Only problem is explaining how the population just accepted it, but you could just blame it on "quantum" and move on.

Quincunx
2009-02-20, 06:47 AM
I liked the lack of rifling idea, but that only solved one facet of the problem. DisgruntledFrog's fission-bomb reset idea covers it all. Zousha's lad survived a Troubles that was punctuated with slow-burning toxic chemical bombs and pit traps dug into the border roads, instead of improvised explosives. Violence against beings is still possible; it's delayed violence against buildings which isn't, and for the sake of giving your DM slightly less of a headache, you can concede the point that you won't be destroying the scenery--it'll be a counter-offer to soften the blow of "your world sucks and was poorly thought through".

Muad'dib
2009-02-20, 07:43 PM
If I understand correctly, the gods removed magic becuase it got too dangerous. Lets take that idea and follow it through, and say that the game world follows our world failry closely from there. Right up until the end of WWII. Millions of deaths from guns and then to top it off nuclear bombs. The gods say that enough is enough, and from then on all kinds of explosivies based weapons (from nukes to grenades to guns to whatever) stop working. Doesn't have to make physical sense, it's "magic" and the will of the gods, the laws of physics just change. Maybe there's a new kind of "gun" now that works differently, but its slow and clumsy in comparison, doesn't really matter.

If you think 1940s level tech base isn't workable, run the parallel up to the end of the cold war except this time the nukes were actually launched and thats when the gods stepped in. Only problem is explaining how the population just accepted it, but you could just blame it on "quantum" and move on.

Then you still have the problem of internal combustion engines failing as well as mining on a modern scale being impossible. We don't have to sacrifice physical sense for the sake of cool swords, there are a bunch of reasonable paths that would lead to swords, knives, bows being a better choice, and the outlaw/regulation approach is the only one that makes sense.

Roog
2009-02-21, 02:11 AM
Then you still have the problem of internal combustion engines failing as well as mining on a modern scale being impossible. We don't have to sacrifice physical sense for the sake of cool swords, there are a bunch of reasonable paths that would lead to swords, knives, bows being a better choice, and the outlaw/regulation approach is the only one that makes sense.

The Gods don't need to ban explosives, only the use of explosives as weapons.

Once you bring the Gods into it, you can add any arbitary rule. So, in that case, it's best to add the simplest arbitary rule that would achive your objectives.

Dervag
2009-02-21, 02:29 AM
If I understand correctly, the gods removed magic becuase it got too dangerous. Lets take that idea and follow it through, and say that the game world follows our world failry closely from there. Right up until the end of WWII. Millions of deaths from guns and then to top it off nuclear bombs. The gods say that enough is enough, and from then on all kinds of explosivies based weapons (from nukes to grenades to guns to whatever) stop working. Doesn't have to make physical sense, it's "magic" and the will of the gods, the laws of physics just change. Maybe there's a new kind of "gun" now that works differently, but its slow and clumsy in comparison, doesn't really matter.I like it.

The gods simply declare "That is it, no more cordite, no more gunpowder, no more C4. We are done letting you humans play with explosives. Look at what a mess you made! This is why we can't have nice things! Aaargh!"

Everything else stays the same, just... no explosives. No explosives, no guns and no nukes.

Belial_the_Leveler
2009-02-21, 04:17 AM
Why no guns? Well, to put it simply; guns don't work vs supernatural targets. They're nonmagical.

1) Protection from Arrows also works against bullets and it's a low-level spell.
2) Wind Wall stops ranged attacks cold.
3) Starmantle. All nonmagical weapons are useless.
4) Go ahead. Throw a nuke on the ghost to see what happens. Shoot the shadow. Throw a grenade at the spectre or wraithformed wizard. Waste of ammo.
5) Ironguard. Nonmagical metal weapons simply pass through you with no effect.
6) Vampires/Liches/Demons/Devils/Angels/Elementals with thick skin feats. Go ahead. Try your silly 4d8 (av dmg 18) magnum or even your 7d6 assault rifle (av dmg 24) vs DR 20-25.
7) Weaponbreaking ring. Automatically breaks nonmagic projectiles.
8) Repel Metal or Stone. Doesn't matter if you got a peashooter or a tank cannon. As long as the projectile is lighter than 500 pounds it gets automatically repelled.


Wait, you're still here? Oh well. Let's see how guns react with magic;
1) Fireballs. Flammable stuff automatically ignited. Your bullet clips go kaboom.
2) Acid Fog. What's the HP of a fine-sized soft metal nonmagical object? Only 1. Acid Fog automatically deals damage to all objects in AoE too. 1d6 of it-and it ignores hardness. So one acid fog and all bullets melt automatically.
3) Transmute Metal to Wood. Turns tanks into firewood with no save.
4) Heat Metal. Nice 2nd level druid spell. Overheats metal objects. That probably means bullets explode.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-21, 04:53 AM
As I've said, I need to speak with my DM about this. Hoepfully this train wreck won't get too far. Our regular DM seems to be feeling up to a game this week.

Seriously, talk about horrible setting design.

It doesn't even make sense from the reasoning you relayed. How could guns possibly affect play balance and turn it into a big-gun contest, when the DM gets to decide their stats? If rifles deal, say, 1d12/x3 damage with 150 ft. range increments and require a proficiency feat, how are they overpowered? Why would any weapon need to deal more damage than that? Being hit with a battle axe or longsword causes way more trauma and shock than a bullet, and bullets (unless they're .50 BMG) don't sever limbs, decapitate people, or split bones. Having a spear shoved through your stomach is definitely no less lethal than having a bullet shot through it. The only difference IRL is range and ease-of-use; the crossbow beat the bow because it was easier to fire (that whole point-and-click interface), and the rifle beat the crossbow because it was easier to load.


You might suggest to her that since war was a major factor in the lose of magic many nations simply want to avoid the same thing happening to tech. Which may explain why things like assault rifles are not in production, they simply aren't allowed to be produced.

You can build an assault rifle or SMG in your garage. No, seriously, people do that. You can also load your own rounds - people do that, too! Once someone's come up with the technology, it's really easy to repeat with machining tools.

And seriously, consider nuclear weapons. Worst thing for the world, pretty much. Definitely prohibited. But it's the countries that have them who prohibit others from developing them. The same thing would apply here.

You're essentially applying an argument some Pope or other made about crossbows hundreds of years ago - "They're so terrible they will end wars!" Yeah, right. That's going to happen.


The gods simply declare "That is it, no more cordite, no more gunpowder, no more C4. We are done letting you humans play with explosives. Look at what a mess you made! This is why we can't have nice things! Aaargh!"

The gods sound suspiciously like Alfred Nobel.

Muad'dib
2009-02-21, 06:19 AM
The Gods don't need to ban explosives, only the use of explosives as weapons.

Once you bring the Gods into it, you can add any arbitary rule. So, in that case, it's best to add the simplest arbitary rule that would achive your objectives.

That's just lazy hand waving and completely beyond just arbitrary. The only difference between TNT as a mining tool and TNT as a building destroying weapon is intent. Again, there are many more ways to make guns unavailable without hand waving.The gods decreed it is so is just as bad as saying a wizard did it and it leaves the sour taste of laziness behind.

DisgruntledFrog
2009-02-21, 10:46 AM
@Mua'Dib: Yeah, you are totally right that it makes no sense but the modern world without explosives or guns can't make sense, they're far too entwined into our society. But this world isn't the modern world, its fantasy, so that's ok. There are gods, there is magic. Magic and active gods require a certain amount of "hand waving" to begin with and I don't believe any less so than a culture where guns exist but are unavailable no matter how hard you try to get one.

Honestly, the biggest problem I see with my suggestion is the sudden switch from explosives work to explosive don't work. The societal impact of that is too big to overlook. Unless that can be explained away, its no good at all.

That aside, to get part of the way closer to a solution, lets take away high explosives but leave behind low explosives (eg petroleum). Put the classification line wherever, just so that it gives us combustion engines and not guns. As to the mining aspects, sure, it can't resemble what we have now but I think that unless the game is going to have the players actually going to a mine site, it's not going to matter really.


@Belial_The_Leveler: Good points but not enough on its own I think. For that to work, every supernatural entity would need to be immune, but I guess that's not a big hurdle as it's probably safe to assume that anything dangerous that wasn't immune got shot a long time ago. The problem is that non-supernatural minions would carry guns and would be vulnerable to them and any PC who doesn't have a method of protection could be shot. It also raises the question of why guns have been around for centuries but no one has managed to invent a magic bullet.

ArchaeologyHat
2009-02-21, 11:17 AM
The reason the gun superceded the long-bow as a weapon was not a matter of efficiency. The longbow was not improved on by a fire-arm untill 19th century rifles. The reason the gun was favoured by generals and armies is a matter of training.

It takes the best part of a lifetime to train a good archer to use a longbow. A soldier can be taught to use a gun in a matter of weeks or months. Hours if youre willing to rely on mass conscript armies.

Indeed one of the american leaders in the war of independance stated that if the rebels had had trained longbowmen, the war would have been over much faster.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-21, 12:57 PM
That aside, to get part of the way closer to a solution, lets take away high explosives but leave behind low explosives (eg petroleum). Put the classification line wherever, just so that it gives us combustion engines and not guns. As to the mining aspects, sure, it can't resemble what we have now but I think that unless the game is going to have the players actually going to a mine site, it's not going to matter really.

I...

What?

That makes even less sense.

For one thing, petroleum is not an explosive, it's a liquid that's flammable. Secondly, gunpowder, cordite, etc. are low explosives, and do give you guns. And gunpowder can be used to blow things up fairly effectively.

Gods banning things doesn't make any sense at all either. Why would they ban something as irrelevant as explosives, but not the (literally) infinitely more destructive magic? Why would everyone (or anyone) obey this divine ban?


Seriously, there is no way to escape idiocy here. No matter how it's twisted or justified, it's stupid and completely unnecessary, because there's no possible reason to ban guns.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-21, 01:13 PM
Yeah, I really need to talk to the DM about this tommorow.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-21, 04:50 PM
I...

What?

That makes even less sense.

For one thing, petroleum is not an explosive, it's a liquid that's flammable. Secondly, gunpowder, cordite, etc. are low explosives, and do give you guns. And gunpowder can be used to blow things up fairly effectively.

Gods banning things doesn't make any sense at all either. Why would they ban something as irrelevant as explosives, but not the (literally) infinitely more destructive magic? Why would everyone (or anyone) obey this divine ban?


Seriously, there is no way to escape idiocy here. No matter how it's twisted or justified, it's stupid and completely unnecessary, because there's no possible reason to ban guns.
Gasoline can be an explosive, but in the way flour can be. Mix it with enough air, add spark, and BOOM, explosion. There is an article on wikipedia about Air Guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun), they have an interesting history. They actually were much better then gunpowder guns for a significant portion of the history of both. And if you deny that, well, it get's even sillier. Suddenly an aqualung or freaking bicycle pump won't work. I am on the side of, it's possible, but it's cultural. Because banning them for physical reasons, just gets silly. In fact the idea of men going to work in business suits and sword belts, rappers rhyming about I shanked his abs with my dirk, I tell you why, cuz' he's a jerk, actually appeals to me. I think I am going to write my own campaign in such a world. But banning guns for physical reasons has far too many repercussions to simply say 'no guns, but modern'.

Beleriphon
2009-02-21, 04:59 PM
II'm having trouble reconciling background with modernism. This wouldn't be a problem at a medieval level of technology, but in the modern world, bastard swords aren't exactly standard issue for riot police.p

British Royal Marine/SAS that has an interest in medival warfare, and after his honorable discharge he took to being a mounted police officer. We have them in Canada in most major cities, and our national police force is called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for a reason. Its not unheard of for police officer to learn hour to ride, and ride extremely well. Its not unheard for a person, especially special military personnel, to learn close combat techniques. There is a valid interest in heavy weapons combat from the middle ages, so say you character learned it that way and learned to ride from being a mounted cop.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-21, 05:06 PM
You know, that was actually an idea I had when I was first creating the character.

The Glyphstone
2009-02-21, 05:20 PM
People are suggesting that a divine ban be the reason for combustible-based weapons not working....but has anyone mentioned the repercussions of a world where religion and the active presence of gods simply can't be denied, ignored, or debated anymore? Modernized Faerun?:smallbiggrin:

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-21, 05:33 PM
Ah ah ah! That won't work. In this campaign world, the servants of magic are servants of the gods, regardless of class or race. The actual existence of the gods is not proven to average mortals, but there is no atheism either. Everyone in the world, and I mean EVERYONE worships a god, but the gods dont' go parading around and throwing miracles left and right like Faerun's pantheon does.

That said, I've often wondered what a modernized Faerun would be like. It can't stay in Medieval Stasis forever!:smallbiggrin:

Starbuck_II
2009-02-21, 05:36 PM
Wait, you're still here? Oh well. Let's see how guns react with magic;
1) Fireballs. Flammable stuff automatically ignited. Your bullet clips go kaboom.
2) Acid Fog. What's the HP of a fine-sized soft metal nonmagical object? Only 1. Acid Fog automatically deals damage to all objects in AoE too. 1d6 of it-and it ignores hardness. So one acid fog and all bullets melt automatically.
3) Transmute Metal to Wood. Turns tanks into firewood with no save.
4) Heat Metal. Nice 2nd level druid spell. Overheats metal objects. That probably means bullets explode.

Actually, Acid does not ignore hardness. It is just not reduce by Hardness. See Fire is cut 1/2 but hardness than you subtract hardness.
Cold is 1/3 then Hardness applies.
Acid is 1/1 than hardness applies.

Sonic does usually ignore hardness. But there is no Sonic Fog.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-21, 05:58 PM
People are suggesting that a divine ban be the reason for combustible-based weapons not working....but has anyone mentioned the repercussions of a world where religion and the active presence of gods simply can't be denied, ignored, or debated anymore? Modernized Faerun?:smallbiggrin:
Maybe because people realize that inches way too close to discussing religion in the real world for comfort.

Occasional Sage
2009-02-21, 11:35 PM
Zousha, your conversation with the DM is coming up in a few hours. Keep us posted, please!

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-22, 08:24 AM
It's gonna take a few more hours. It's about 7:30 AM here, and I can't meet with her before 4:00 PM. :smallsigh:

elliott20
2009-02-22, 09:11 AM
modernized Faerun? it's called the Tippy Verse.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-22, 09:14 AM
The what? :smallconfused:

elliott20
2009-02-22, 09:28 AM
err.. every once in a while, a thread will pop up on the boards talking about what happens when you have a magical society carried to it's logical conclusion. It is usually at this point where Emperor Tippy (one of the posters here) will show up, and talk about the social model of his creation that basically comes down to abusing teleportation circles to create super highways, using said super highways to raise funds and create a shadesteel golem army, and from there on out use trap abuse to create means of sustaining humanity without having anyone having to work again. Oh yeah, and every cop you run into now is probably a 20th level caster.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-22, 10:12 AM
I see. Well, there certainly isn't anything of that sort in my DM's verse. Magic's only available to a select few, and they are not allowed to reveal the truth about magic on pain of being erased from existence.

Belial_the_Leveler
2009-02-22, 11:11 AM
*casts Balefire on Zousha Omenohu*

What? You did reveal your world's magic to us, did you not? :smalltongue:

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-22, 11:18 AM
*rolls eyes* There's a difference between IC and OOC.

The Glyphstone
2009-02-22, 11:30 AM
*rolls eyes* There's a difference between IC and OOC.

A difference that you don't have the clearance to be discussing, citizen. Discussion of topics above your clearance level is treason.

*blasts Zousha Omenohu with Blue Anti-time Laser, Experimental Ray Mark .5"

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-22, 11:36 AM
Uh, this is D&D, not Paranoia...:smallconfused:

chiasaur11
2009-02-22, 12:00 PM
Uh, this is D&D, not Paranoia...:smallconfused:

The identity of the game being played is above your clearance citizen! Your Pal and Mine, Friend Computer, has decided you'd be happier not knowing. And happiness is mandatory.

pendell
2009-02-22, 07:02 PM
Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way round.

Instead of starting with a modern world and tweaking it with fantasy elements, Start with a really high magic fantasy world -- with lightning-powered trains -- and tweak it until it's more modern.

Seriously, look at OOTS. Take away the robes and put on street clothing, it could easily pass for a modern story. The way people talk, the attitudes, the in-jokes, the ease of transport between cities, including mass-transit aircraft -- it's a modern world.

Or build an entire new world from the ground up -- a low-magic world where magic exists but where gunpowder was simply never invented. Perhaps sulfur combined with saltpeter and the other stuff simply doesn't go 'boom'.

This world would have a very different history than ours... unless you make the power behind the mass colonization of the 1500s-1700s powered by the magicians rather than by gunpowder.

The advantage of this approach is that you can steal as many elements as you want from the modern world while throwing away those bits of the modern world you'd really rather not deal with.

I think you need a brand new world with different assumptions rather than simply trying to retrofit a no-guns assumption into the existing world. Instead, make a brand-new world from scratch, steal as much of the existing technology and history from the real world as you can. I think you will find it far easier to stick modern elements onto a fantasy world than to introduce such a radical assumption into the modern world.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

Xuincherguixe
2009-02-22, 08:08 PM
I agree, that's probably a better approach. And, one that probably makes more sense than most fantasy worlds.

If you think about it for a bit, if there are these super powerful wizards around, why is the world stuck in the dark ages? Not every wizard would be a selfish bastard interested in preserving their power.

What is more effective, throwing a fireball at a goblin, or digging out an irrigation system?

With all these advanced ways of killing people, and leading people into situations in which they can be killed easier, it stands to reason that there would also be spells that enhance society.

Magic becomes a substitute for technology, in more ways than one. With advanced spells and such, people wouldn't feel a need to say, design a mechanical printing press. (You could just put it in some chest, yell at it, and somehow the words appear on it. Magically). But also, in a symbolic sense.

Of course, when you do this, magic becomes technology.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-22, 10:47 PM
Okay, I'm back, and boy do I have answers!

First off, machine guns and the like DO exist in this world. They are merely restricted from civilian use. My character, as ex-military, would have had one while IN the army, but now that he's been honorably discharged, he's considered a civilian for all intents and purposes.

Secondly, despite the presence of such weapons, EVERYONE carries swords and stuff around. Since the best guns a civilian can get their hands on is basically a reskinned heavy crossbow, they use older weaponry because it's more efficient and easier to obtain. Sure, swords aren't as much use in large-scale military engagements where there ARE machine guns, but our campaign isn't about large-scale military engagements.

Thirdly, it's an alternate world with alternate history and I really should just relax and not worry about the versimilitude. Assume everything you know is wrong.

Fourthly, oh First Emperor are we in for a wild ride! Our party consists of:

Arthur Eld, now a 2nd level human fighter, and a devotee of Arthur, The First Emperor, the Sword of Justice. In our campaign, King Arthur ascended to godhood, and apparently I'm the group's leader. My spiritual Guide is Lancel Brightsword, an armor-clad knight who speaks the word of Arthur directly to me.

"G" (his full name is George), a half-elf monk of St. Cuthbert, who's essentially a street fighter type. He had ridiculously bad luck in combat. He only hit an opponent once, and even then, he only dealt one point of damage. It's not that he was built wrong, but the dice really seemed to hate him. We haven't actually seen his Guide.

Dacda, an "angry" gnome mercenary (fighter) of Kord. He takes a fight-first-ask-questions-later approach. He wound up getting turned into a cat during our first fight. His guide is Spike, a representative of Kord who likes to hang with the wenches.

Dacda's brother (I forget his name), an "angry" gnome wizard of Boccob. He was rolling well tonight, and making cutting barbs at every turn. His guide is Joseph, a gnome representing Boccob that he never wastes an opportunity exchange snide insults with. Joseph is clearly irritated by his stubbornness and impudence.

"Gary" (Again, I forget his name), a dwarf rogue of Sehanine. He is a complete wackjob. While we were bleeding on the floor, he was distracted by a shiny stone and didn't bother to look at the note next to the healing potions that said "Give these to your friends." His patron is named Berich (I'm not certain of gender or race), who is constantly frustrated by his looney antics. Berich also covers Gary's mouth when he starts to say something stupid. He plans on multiclassing into both a wizard and a druid later. Almost everyone is annoyed by him.

We gathered the party on this session, at the request of the guides, and we were given our holy mission. Find Merlin, no matter the cost. Capture him if possible, but if not, kill him.

It seems that after Arthur ascended to godhood, or possibly before, he and Merlin had a falling-out. Merlin began to go insane, and finally, his actions got bad enough that Sehanine sent her servant, Morgan le Fay, who in turn sent Nimue to cast a spell on Merlin that has caused him to age backwards. He now appears in the form of an eight-year old boy. He calls Sehanine the Queen of the *itches and says that Arthur and his faithful are full of sh*t.

We managed to track him to an apartment in the Spaghetti District on the Gnome Isles (modern-day Taiwan). After awkward talks with both him, and our guides, Dacda tried to talk with him. Unfortunately, he asked too many pointed questions and was turned into a cat for his trouble. When the rest of us confronted him, he vanished and animated his furniture to attack us. After almost all of us were unconcious and near death, the DM threw up her hands and decided to deus ex machina it, saying that the furniture had orders to incapacitate, but not kill. The furniture vanished, and we found a magic table and stone. Our Guides took these.

Then a gnome girl showed up and gave us a note that listed an address and was signed M. We went to the location and were met by a bunch of orcs, which we managed to dispatch. Then we found another note, wedged between the crates in the warehouse. It contained a riddle from Merlin. We're currently recovering at the hospitals from our fight, and trying to decipher the riddle.

Also, Arthur (my character) is starting to have the beginnings of a crisis of faith, since Merlin claims that Arthur (my god) rode Merlin's coat-tails to divinity and then dropped him like a hot potato. Lancel, my guide, vehemenently denies this, claiming that Arthur is currently in a bad mood, and apparently Guenevere is or was somehow involved in the separation of teacher and student.

And Dacda has issued an ultimatum to the party. We have one chance to try and capture Merlin alive. If we blow that one chance, he WILL kill Merlin.

Hawriel
2009-02-23, 01:52 AM
OK your GMs game world is totaly borked. Guns are banned because she doesnt like them, but you can walk around with a sword in public? :smallconfused::smallmad:. Then you can use said sword. Last time I checked swords dont have a 'stun setting'. By what legal right does your character have to carry such a leathal weapon? A weapon that deals brutaly painful mutilating wounds.

Khanderas
2009-02-23, 02:54 AM
I'm with those who points out that this world has class levels.
For a person without class levels, a gun greatly improves their ability to do damage (much like in real life, where the first guns did not do more damage then a longbow, its only advantage was you didnt need to train for ages, a 2 day training camp was enough to load and shoot a gun with some kind of proficiency).

I have not looked up how much damage a gun does in that setting... but when there is no powerattack, sneakattack (unless sniper rifles are available) or enchantments possible (due to composite nature) it is not a viable weapon after a few class levels. Armies would still use them. An ex-army guy would still have proficiency in it.

Against the things PC's hunt, guns would be useless almost by default (hard armor, alien physiology, DR and shield spells. Against a level 1 commoner. Super effective still.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-23, 03:18 AM
OK your GMs game world is totaly borked. Guns are banned because she doesnt like them, but you can walk around with a sword in public? :smallconfused::smallmad:. Then you can use said sword. Last time I checked swords dont have a 'stun setting'. By what legal right does your character have to carry such a leathal weapon? A weapon that deals brutaly painful mutilating wounds.
At one time in the not too distant past, gentlemen kept them around as an honour thing. Let's say you had a democracy, but kept the swords and honour? Besides, swords wounds,especially slashes, though nasty, and nasty to look at, are easier to treat then bullet wounds, which have bullets that have to be removed and do nasty damage from the shock wave on the inside, despite the smaller entry wound. Besides, with a gun you can be some distance away. With a sword you have to be right in their face, it's called a melee weapon for a reason, and if they have a sword too, unless your a complete idiot and/or had a major grudge against them, your not going to just go up and stab them.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-23, 01:30 PM
Besides, if last night's game was any indication, I can't really expect anything to make sense. Judging by the DM's current attitude, she seems to be implying that I'm thinking about this too much and I should just relax and go with the flow.

pendell
2009-02-23, 01:55 PM
Well; it's your game. I hope you enjoy it. I will say, however, that a game which had neither consistency nor sense is not a game I would choose to play.

Refusing to question the logic behind the world pretty much means it's impossible to predict courses of action or make logical plans. Unless the DM is giving you lots of help and info in order to function in her world, this is a recipe for party failure over arbitrary rules you won't even know about until the DM hits you with them.

Of course, if she can pull it off and you folks all enjoy the game, well, that's all to the good.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-02-23, 03:02 PM
My campaign setting is in a 16th C. version of the Roman Empire, with pike-and-shot-tech Marian Legions supported by chainguns and long-distance howitzers. Nobility tend to dress in a mix of Tudor and English Civil War-era costume, while common folk look like they're on the set of Robin Hood. Blatantly anachronistic elements like a cowboy hat or aviator sunglasses will appear for no reason. For some reason the allied kingdom of Wahfferpache (our go-to German/Norse culture) has none of these things and still looks a lot like ancient Rhineland.

Also, at my players' requests I've worked the Nine Divines from The Elder Scrolls, Pai-Mei from Kill Bill and an arctic kingdom of Ogre Samurai into all of this.

Trust me when I say you could have it worse. :V

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-23, 03:56 PM
Well; it's your game. I hope you enjoy it. I will say, however, that a game which had neither consistency nor sense is not a game I would choose to play.

Refusing to question the logic behind the world pretty much means it's impossible to predict courses of action or make logical plans. Unless the DM is giving you lots of help and info in order to function in her world, this is a recipe for party failure over arbitrary rules you won't even know about until the DM hits you with them.

Of course, if she can pull it off and you folks all enjoy the game, well, that's all to the good.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

At least she's doing that much. Before the game, she gave each of us a card with our character's name on it, detailing what that particular character knows about Merlin and Morgaine.

My card, for instance, said the following:

Merlin: A great and wise teacher, who taught Arthur that Justice was the highest good.

Morgaine: Arthur's evil half-sister, a heathen sorceress of no consquence. Correctly called "Morgan Le Fay."

G's card, which he happened to leave the wrong way up, said this:

Merlin: An old advisor to a king who tried to do good in the world.

Morgaine: A sorceress who opposed him.

Dacda's, which we found out later, said this:

Can we just skip all this blabbering and get going?!

The DM is tailoring the campaign to our characters, and for the moment, it seems I'm taking center stage, so she's doing her best to keep me informed. She has warned me however that my knowledge of Arthurian legend (which is considerable) shouldn't be relied on for this, since her world's version of the King Arthur story turned out slightly different from ours, and it's metagaming anyway.

ArchaeologyHat
2009-02-23, 06:07 PM
At one time in the not too distant past, gentlemen kept them around as an honour thing. Let's say you had a democracy, but kept the swords and honour? Besides, swords wounds,especially slashes, though nasty, and nasty to look at, are easier to treat then bullet wounds, which have bullets that have to be removed and do nasty damage from the shock wave on the inside, despite the smaller entry wound.

Assuming the person inflicting the wound isnt set on killing you or in some maddened rage. Archaeologically, many skeletons from medieval battles seem to have suffered injuries far beyond what would have killed them. Melee is nasty, far nastier than firefights. Forget the romantic notions of fencing knights in old movies, medieval melee fights were probably much closer to bludgeoning your opponant to death with a sharp object.

Of course, this is ignoring the whole "fighting for ransom", but that philosophy of warfare died at around agincourt or crecy. It also assumes all involved are nobility.

Quincunx
2009-02-24, 07:16 AM
Besides, if last night's game was any indication, I can't really expect anything to make sense. Judging by the DM's current attitude, she seems to be implying that I'm thinking about this too much and I should just relax and go with the flow.

. . .You. . .didn't understand this previously?

Or (I hope) you understood it and just weren't willing to accept it without a guarantee of good story?

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-24, 08:45 AM
Hey, I never watched MST3K when I was younger. :smalltongue:

And I am a very strong proponent of versimilitude. I have a very logos-based pattern of thought.

Another_Poet
2009-02-24, 01:15 PM
Plus, all the guns are single-shot. It's not, "There are guns but you can't have them." It's "There are guns, and you can have them, but they're not that powerful." None of us could afford a gun at character creation anyway. They're like 200 GP for just a pistol.

I think you answered your own question. If a primitive one-shot gun costs more than a D&D commoner makes in 5 years, your character would've had to turn in his government-issued gun when he retired from the military.

If you want something more, why not pull a Jedi knight explanation? You worship King Arthur, right? How about this: "King Arthur's knights do not use guns. Guns are noisy and barbaric. Swords are elegant weapons fit for a British knight."