# Guns in my Fantasy?! HERESY says my critics.



## AFistfulofBalderdash

Just a general discussion about the topic of firearms in fantasy. I've occasionally encountered the stigma from classical fantasy readers that the moment I mention guns in a fantasy setting that they write off any display of my talent or potential and say I should 'throw my world into the Generic Sea' and write sci-fi. Mostly because they can't take a world seriously that has projectile weapons a grade above a crossbow.

Now, disregarding that harsh statement, let's have a discussion on this. A survey of attitudes if you wish. And a statement on what you think about guns in fantasy. And let's assume the fantasy is classical enough that it has some form of magic(no matter how inefficient or powerful) with distinct cultural differences across a world of varying geography.

I'm also not limiting the range of weapons we're talking about either. From muskets to battle-rifles, all is fair game here. I tend to see that when the concept of guns are introduce, it tends to immediately color the person's perception and exceptions on what they'll see. Namely, they imagine the generic, snarky woman or man armed to the teeth with guns, doing trick shots as they kill orcs by the truck-load.
===================================================================================

Just to get the topic going, I'm using a *small* example from my world (no lore attached or anything). The reasons that firearms exist are tied deeply to the lore and because of that, one faction has advance 200 years ahead of anyone else. We're talking knights fighting against Napoleonic line formations with cannons in back and men carrying rifled muskets at the front. This of course should be a massacre in favor of gunners. But said knights are essentially super-human killing machines that can not only ignore most injuries that could kill a human instantly, but use "Hexerei" which for you uninitiated mates is "magic".

The reason why I do this is to keep an equal but contrasting struggle between these two factions. Either one can win in the right conditions, and when they meet it tends to be a colossal rumble on both ends.

This is one of the whole themes of my world "The clash of reality and myth". Guns are merely a symbol here, a symbol of the approaching industrial revolution that is encapsulating the world. The age of the knight is ending along with the Days of Yore. That time of mythic curses and ancient blades are fairy tales in this world quickly aging. Cold Wars and more modern issues take precedence over Dark Lords or marauding hordes. Even the knights who choose to use Hexerei are coupling it with guns instead of their crossbows.

It is a way to show the reader that the romanticized glory days of this world are passed. That though swords, bear cavalry, and catapults are still used, those times when these elements came together on massive open fields are nearly a thing of the past. Heroes who sloughed through entire armies are depicted as retired, stubborn men that fall to their hubris. And weapons that once held so much meaning are bitterly clung to over the thunderous muskets. 

All of my plot-treads have some of this flavoring in them. The whole 'discovery' of guns (from the prospective of this knightly faction) was basically thirty years back which is the first time these two faction met. Before then neither had an idea the other existed and now both of them have to adapt to the other side's unorthodox approach to warfare.

I use the gun as a symbol in this world, not just as a weapon. Wherever it is present in the hands of militia, the environment is safer, but far less mystifying. Those who carry these weapons deeply contrast their surroundings when they step into the unknown. The Gun (and by extension technology) is shown to be the death-note of myth but the cradle of a new civilization.

To me, I keep this idea in the reader's head. From the onset, this is still very much a fantasy world you're reading about, but you know what the musket became.

And funnily enough, the main plot has nothing to do with the struggle of technology and magic, it's just one of the many issues I use to color the world the main protagonist lives in. It's an issue I can write about later if I desire, but as a world-building element I think it adds a struggle into the very nature of the world.
===================================================================================

I'm keeping this as concise as possible since I do have a contest story I should be proof-reading . I just figured this topic would be interesting enough. Post whatever you think about guns in a fantasy world. Is there a limit where you no longer consider it fantasy. Or do you just hate the aspect of it in any form?


----------



## Steerpike

There are plenty of fantasy novels with guns in them. Look at the last two books of the Rigante series, by David Gemmell. Warhammer fantasy novels are another example in terms of the sort of traditional fantasy setting. When you get outside of that type of fantasy you've got all sorts of stories with firearms in them.

So I have no problem with it, personally.


----------



## Queshire

In real life guns were a game changer, they made just about everything that came before obsolete. The problem most people have with guns in fantasy is that it would likewise make a lot of the classic fantasy tropes obsolete. Of course, realistically, magic would likewise make everything that come for obsolete even more so then guns, but you don't see readers complaining about that so meh...

I personally don't see a problem with guns in fantasy, but you need to put a lot of thought into it.


----------



## Devor

Queshire said:


> In real life guns were a game changer, they made just about everything that came before obsolete.



They didn't at all.  They made armor obsolete, not anything else, not even the bow which was more accurate and could fire much more quickly.  It's true, penetration power was more important in Europe, as was the ability to use the weapon untrained.  But the bow would have been the preferred weapon in guerrilla warfare if Europe had ever engaged in it.  It was often preferred by Native Americans even when guns were available, and mounted archery remained a tremendously effective tactic.

I use guns in my worlds at key moments because I think they make the danger feel more real.  But they work differently and a single shot would be very expensive.  That way I can use them for the effect I want without even taking armor out of the world.


----------



## Amanita

I don't see a problem with guns in fantasy either. I'm having them myself but my world isn't medieval either, it's modern/late 19th level depending on the time, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Given the large amount of thought you have given to this, I wouldn't recommend to do away with it, just because some people think it doesn't belong into fantasy. I might not be the right person to ask, because I have no intention of pleasing those hardcore anti-technology and pro-specific cliche people myself.  
I don't think they're a majority among potential readers either though. Those who want glorified wars with swords might not like your kind of story, but they don't seem to be your target audience either, at least that's what your description sounds like.


----------



## TWErvin2

I'm obviously for it, as my fantasy novels do contain firearms.  And as was indicated, they've been around in fantasy for a long time. One novel that inspired, or provided the spark for my first novel (in addition to World War: Upsetting the Balance by Harry Turtledove--which was SF) was Roger Zelazny's The Guns of Avalon, second novel in the Chronicles of Amber.

If a fantasy work has firearms, it's going to appeal to a slightly different audience. And in the end, it's how the author tells the story--if the author can get the reader's to suspend disbelief. Shouldn't be a problem with firearms, one would think, if the reader buys into magic's existance in the author's created world.  

But there's a reason why there are so many different kinds of fantasy novels out there. Just like there are various types of mystery and romance novels. Sure, there is crossover in readership. No reason a reader of High Fantasy couldn't enjoy Urban Fantasy or some version of a Dark Fantasy.

That said, firearms will deter a segment of the fantasy reading population from giving a work (or author) a try.


----------



## BeigePalladin

I really feel people that put a book down because of guns are being incredibally judgemental/. Especially if they say not writing a LoTR clone is being generic 

all I have to say on the matter, TBH. I see them as just another tool, and so long as their not just added anachronisticly for the sake of it, then claiming they ruin fantasy is making guesses without reading or being petulant...


----------



## AFistfulofBalderdash

TWErvin2 said:


> I'm obviously for it, as my fantasy novels do contain firearms.  And as was indicated, they've been around in fantasy for a long time. One novel that inspired, or provided the spark for my first novel (in addition to World War: Upsetting the Balance by Harry Turtledove--which was SF) was Roger Zelazny's The Guns of Avalon, second novel in the Chronicles of Amber.
> 
> If a fantasy work has firearms, it's going to appeal to a slightly different audience. And in the end, it's how the author tells the story--if the author can get the reader's to suspend disbelief. Shouldn't be a problem with firearms, one would think, if the reader buys into magic's existance in the author's created world.
> 
> But there's a reason why there are so many different kinds of fantasy novels out there. Just like there are various types of mystery and romance novels. Sure, there is crossover in readership. No reason a reader of High Fantasy couldn't enjoy Urban Fantasy or some version of a Dark Fantasy.
> 
> That said, firearms will deter a segment of the fantasy reading population from giving a work (or author) a try.



Well I'm already writing a bit niche anyways. Firearms are present in the arms of most infantry but it's not like shooting dudes guarantees a kill. This is very true since most of the races in this work can eat individual bullets to the gut without a problem... And I have my readers believing in that so I've never been worried about breaking suspension of disbelief.

As for the deterred...meh this isn't a video game or movie, I'm not spending millions of dollars to write or to please anyone. I know I love my work and I know who to recommend it to.


----------



## Hans

Devor said:


> They didn't at all.  They made armor obsolete, not anything else,


Not even that. Firearms were invented after 1324, plate armor was in use until the 17th century. It became increasingly heavy to give adequate protection, until it became too heavy to wear.
So medieval knights were less armored than renaissance knights. The later are typical for lots of phantasy fiction.

For the question in the original post I'd say: change your critics.


----------



## AFistfulofBalderdash

Hans said:


> Not even that. Firearms were invented after 1324, plate armor was in use until the 17th century. It became increasingly heavy to give adequate protection, until it became too heavy to wear.
> So medieval knights were less armored than renaissance knights. The later are typical for lots of phantasy fiction.
> 
> For the question in the original post I'd say: change your critics.



Yep, this man is right. The Hussars of European military were still wearing plate breastplates until the invention of rifling. A pistol and rifle were deadly in close-combat which is why they became more effective than pikes. At a distance a shot was either inaccurate or wouldn't pierce a well-forged plate.

Rifling and improving munitions changed that, significantly.

As for my critics, I always like to get something from everyone. I know I can't please everyone, but prospectives are an amazing thing to have.


----------



## arbiter117

In real life, gunpowder was invented in the 9th century, firearms in the 12th (according to Wikipedia), so I see no reason why a "Medieval" world can't have them since it did.

In fantasy, silver bullets kill werewolves right? How do they have bullets without firearms to shoot them?

I think the big thing for me is the gun being used. If someone says they pulled a trick shot with a musket from 1 mile away I would think "what magic that person was using to make a musket ball fly that far and that accurately?" Also, if that gun is muzzle loaded, there should be no killing  millions of bad guys with it. I think a professional soldier could squeeze out maybe 3 shots a minute, inaccurate and very tiring. That's why the French added the bayonet so the firearm was also a spear.

Personally, I think the firearm only became popular because there wasn't much training necessary and because the boom was scary.

If you want to use firearms, do a bit of the reading, or watch some deadliest warrior (it shows some of the effectiveness of weapons that you may or may not know exist).


----------



## Reaver

Well, Balderdash...if anyone gives you any further grief about using firearms in fantasy, just use the greatest example of just such: *Army of Darkness*.

And I quote: _"Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up!  

You see this? *This... is my boomstick! 
*
The twelve-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department.

 That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. 

It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. 

That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?"


_'Nuff said.


----------



## Ophiucha

I'll see your guns and raise you a modern - but not Earth - setting. Seriously, it's tough explaining to someone that you're writing a story not just with guns, but cars, skyscrapers, and phones that _doesn't_ take place in our planet, let alone our universe.

Anyway, guns are becoming more accepted in fantasy, if not by the mainstream (which hardly accepts fantasy to begin with), then by the fandom. I think we can thank steampunk for smoothing the gap. Fewer and fewer people see fantasy as *just* medieval England, and indeed, an acceptance of anything up to the Victorian era has created some acceptance for guns. People expect an explanation for it, which is hardly fair. They'll say, "why use guns when you can shoot fireballs?", to which I say, "why use swords when you can shoot fireballs?" The idea that you don't need guns - which are better than swords - because we have something better than guns is asinine.

Of course, it won't fit every setting. The sort of person who is against firearms in fantasy is the sort of person who thinks "fantasy = Tolkien". And it's true. Guns wouldn't fit in to Middle Earth. They don't match the setting, they would have changed the story in several fundamental ways, and it probably would have ended with somebody trying to shove the One Ring down the barrel and firing it into Mt. Doom. But anyone who reads fantasy knows that it isn't all Tolkien, and it doesn't all need to follow his rules.


----------



## TWErvin2

Reaver said:


> Well, Balderdash...if anyone gives you any further grief about using firearms in fantasy, just use the greatest example of just such: *Army of Darkness*.
> 
> And I quote: _"Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up!
> 
> You see this? *This... is my boomstick!
> *
> The twelve-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department.
> 
> That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five.
> 
> It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger.
> 
> That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?"
> 
> 
> _'Nuff said.



Yep!    Sadly when Sears and KMart merged they had the chance to become S-Mart and didn't jump on it.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

It sounds to me like you need new critics.


----------



## Saigonnus

Instead of powder and ball (bullet) style weapons, you could always make them developed through magical means... perhaps a wizard enchants a rifle-like weapon with a compact fireball or something that could be equally devastating. Doing this could make it a twist to the regular "guns". Perhaps those hardcore "fantasy" fans would be more forgiving of their inclusion. I personally think it could make thing interesting, especially when you take into account the fact that early guns had the bad habit of jamming or even outright exploding when not kept clean... that risk of physically harming the gunman might make them less appealing than crossbows or other ranged weapons.


----------



## Queshire

dual-weilding wand-pistols for the win!!!1!


----------



## Saigonnus

Doing it that way could even limit the number of times it could be fired before it needs to be recharged. Even if it recharges itself over time (say one charge/hour) it would still limit the exposure of firearms in the world. I had a thought of doing something like that a long while back, but never really went anywhere with it considering you could just as easily make a crossbow with explosive tips.


----------



## Phin Scardaw

guns are just one more projectile weapon and shouldn't be seen any differently in the context of a fantasy story than a bow an arrow or a slingshot. some consideration are the other applications of gunpowder in society. 

i think the really fun part about introducing guns into fantasy stories is how one can use magic to alter or enhance them. for example: a spell that acts as a silencer. or perhaps magic bullets that never miss or can turn corners. or putting a curse on an enemy's gun so that it will backfire.


----------



## AFistfulofBalderdash

Phin Scardaw said:


> guns are just one more projectile weapon and shouldn't be seen any differently in the context of a fantasy story than a bow an arrow or a slingshot. some consideration are the other applications of gunpowder in society.
> 
> i think the really fun part about introducing guns into fantasy stories is how one can use magic to alter or enhance them. for example: a spell that acts as a silencer. or perhaps magic bullets that never miss or can turn corners. or putting a curse on an enemy's gun so that it will backfire.



Always good ideas, but I don't include magic sniping assassins since the period of technology I'm talking about is about 1873-1888 using our real world example.

A gatling-gun firing exploding fireballs of death that summon inferno snakes that constrict men and burn them alive sounds a little...overpowered(and fun). Nothing ever stops me from considering an idea (mad Elven scientist parody of Dr. Strangelove creating Dwarf-firing cannon), but I would prefer to keep the believeablity of the conflict between these two factions without turning things too grandiose.


----------



## gowph3ar

My Fantasy story has guns, they just use a different type of ammunition that we do not use so I think that gives them enough magical overtone, also, guns are good because if there is magic you have to give the commonfolk a way to compete! otherwise the mages will just rule everything.


----------



## Penpilot

I don't have a problem with guns in fantasy. As long as the story is written well, I don't care. But some of the key things I think should be thought out is how their existence impacts the world. What are the pros and cons of the weapon in this world? Match that up with the pros and cons of magic. What do people do in reaction to this new weapon in terms of arms and armor? (Some of this is addressed in the initial post). One FYI if you didn't know already, from my hazy memory, I recall, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, one of the reasons guns came into prominence even though bows were a better weapon at that inception point was because guns didn't require much training to use compared to archers. Just something to chew on.


----------



## Saigonnus

Well, many factors contributed to the apprearance and popularity of guns. Cannons for example had the capability of making many castle walls relatively worthless as it can propel the projectile faster than catapults or trebuchets and with a bit more accuracy and ease of use. Personal firearms came about in China (essentually rockets in a tube) and it was more for fear than for damage on the battle field. It did have the capability to set fire to enemies, but rarely happened. Later ball and powder weapons  were indeed made popular by the ease of training riflemen in comparison with archers, not to mention less maintenance on the weapons (cleaning as opposed to waxing the string, refletching arrows that get damaged, or finding replacement strings or materials for new arrows). An army would often have a small foundry with them for creating bullets and cannon balls. 

Also it came from the concept to counter knights in full plate armor which was used into the 1700s. An arquebus (forerunner to the modern rifle or musket) was introduced in Europe in the 1600s and a ball from an arquebus at close range could penetrate full plate and kill the knight wearing it. Sure, at long range it would likely bounce off the breastplate, but lightly armored men (men-at-arms in chain mail) were still vulnerable and the army didn't even have to get close to them to take them out of the fight. Handheld weapons of the time; flintlocks or matchlock pistols were likewise used to counter melee opponants in armor or used in places where rifles were unrealistic (like aboard ships).


----------



## Caged Maiden

I use flintlock pistols in my books... the problems with them are that they take time, so one deadly close-range shot is not a game-changer, just a scene-changer.  I made weapons technology regional, with certain regions able to acquire certain things in trade, and others merely unable to.  So while guns exist, to most people they couldn't imagine what one looks like.


----------



## Phin Scardaw

I personally love how guns are handled by John Crowley in _The Deep._ Such a masterful writer!
You can easily accept their presence, but they are not just another weapon used in a melee. He infuses the Guns with a sort of holy purpose, and brings a fantasy quality to something that we take for granted as an everyday object - at least on those days we go to the firing range. 

So that single-shot quality to them gives them superb meaning, because those who wield the Guns, the assassins called the Just, draw cards and wait for destiny to bring them the singular opportunity they need to take their shot. 

The PorPor Books Blog: SF and Fantasy Books 1968 - 1988


----------



## Saigonnus

That one deadly close-range shot could change enough depending on the the situation... like a furious melee involving the Antagonist and the Protagonist and he brings it out just when the Antagonist thinks he's won.


----------



## Ice Spider

I say go for it! I love to see variety in the fantasy genre beyond the standard Northern Europe thing...isn't going to creative new worlds what fantasy is all about?

I think magic could work with guns, though you might be best to keep it subtle (like mind manipulation and things like that).


----------



## AFistfulofBalderdash

Penpilot said:


> I don't have a problem with guns in fantasy. As long as the story is written well, I don't care. But some of the key things I think should be thought out is how their existence impacts the world. What are the pros and cons of the weapon in this world? Match that up with the pros and cons of magic. What do people do in reaction to this new weapon in terms of arms and armor? (Some of this is addressed in the initial post). One FYI if you didn't know already, from my hazy memory, I recall, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, one of the reasons guns came into prominence even though bows were a better weapon at that inception point was because guns didn't require much training to use compared to archers. Just something to chew on.



Yes, that is the same reason why Crossbows came to power.

Nobody would have denied the superiority of an English Yoeman over a peasant with a crossbow, but I assure you that having to rely on a group of men that require a life-time of training isn't the same as just requisitioning an army of peasants and giving them two-weeks training with a crossbow.

I keep my military and social history at the forefront of writing. The primary faction that uses firearms has all the marks of industry blended with a Renassiance style of clothing, buildings, and art. However, since life is easier for them they are far weaker in fortitude, and training. When you compare them to the other faction, a super-powered Medieval army that knows no fear, and can shake off a full rifle volley- you have a quite a serious contender.

If we go with a faction by faction battle, cutting free all the variables, we'll have something like this.

One on one, the man with the gun will lose, I make that clear.

One on three, the man with the sorcery will win, I also make that clear.


----------



## Penpilot

One thing to think about if one on one the man with the gun loses. If that's always the case, it kind of takes away from the prelude of things to come feel. There should be a case where the gun becomes the great equalizer. A cowardly, weak man should be able to take down a knight with a well placed or lucky shot.


----------



## AFistfulofBalderdash

Penpilot said:


> One thing to think about if one on one the man with the gun loses. If that's always the case, it kind of takes away from the prelude of things to come feel. There should be a case where the gun becomes the great equalizer. A cowardly, weak man should be able to take down a knight with a well placed or lucky shot.



*If we go with a faction by faction battle, cutting free all the variables, we'll have something like this.
*

I never said the gun loses out everytime. I only said I have to keep a believable conflict between a late medieval power and an Industrial Revolution one.

On a biological level, the medieval faction is a species that can survive a full rifle volley and continue the march. On the physical level they are superior.

But you're not considering superior numbers, technological advancement to counter these biological strengths, or sheer skill in the riflemen to aim where it counts.  

Make no mistake, guns are presented as the future. They defeat the horrors of the world, be they demonic vampires in full-plate or dragons that have yet to fear the power of two hundred riflemen with three centuries of training. It's only currently these two super-powers are locked in a perpetual Cold War that has neither side willing to fully commit to open warfare. One has to deal with literal millions of copy-cut soldiers that are easily replaced and the other has to contend with supernaturally powered killing machines that flinch in the fact of injuries that outright kill a human in our world.


----------



## Mindfire

I disagree with your critics. Guns, work very well as a metaphor for "old world" vs "new world". A good idea would be to show the world being constantly evolving and dynamic. Your musketeers may not stand a chance against the spartan mages at first, but maybe over time their technology improves until its the old guard who become the underdogs. Maybe they figure out how to develop warships and flying machines as well to give them a tactical advantage. There's a lot you can do with this.


----------



## Saigonnus

Terry Brooks used airships somewhat for his "Jerle Shannara" series as the primary mode of long distance transportation. They were kept suspended in the air via magic, but steered just like a regular ship by shifting the angle of the sails. They were likewise designed to be sailing vessels also, in case they had no place to land on the ground or the magical device that kept them aloft failed.

L.E. Modesitt Jr. in his "Recluse" series incorporates certain "modern" aspects into his story, using steam powered warships for the first time to overcome the speed of the enemy empire's vessels, the steel for the boilers reinforced with magic to keep them from exploding or rupturing. 

Considering the first steam engines were invented in the late 1600s/early 1700s it isn't a far cry from having firearms in a fantasy setting, since they were invented MUCH earlier by the Chinese (1100s).


----------



## Godzilax99

In my opinion, guns are a welcome sight in the military mainly because it is easier to train a squad of gunners, than a squad of archer or swordsmen. As many of you will know, to be a knight, many years of rigorous training is required, from sword fighting, to horseback riding and combat, to using of lance and even wearing the armor is tough. The armor is heavy and not for the untrained. So to train a decent knight is expensive, not to mention the armor and sword and horse, which costs a lot in the medieval age. 

Archers are hard to train as well. Long years of training is required to pull the bow and loosing many arrows. Their back, arms and shoulders muscles will then developed to take the strain of such a feat. Accuracy is important as well in the battlefield, although some longbows men will shoot from a long long distance away and all they want is to rain down arrows to kill or injure advancing troops. 

So, with rifles and guns, all I need is anyone, who is strong enough to hold the rifle in the firing position, train them how to use and maintain their rifles, and how to shoot straight, then I can get a platoon of gunmen ready. Placed them on a hill or behind a steam, and I'll fire my rifles again and again. No need of long years of condition training and muscle straining experiences. just the trigger finger.


----------



## Godzilax99

Saigonnus said:


> Considering the first steam engines were invented in the late 1600s/early 1700s it isn't a far cry from having firearms in a fantasy setting, since they were invented MUCH earlier by the Chinese (1100s).



If my history lesson didn't go too wrong, I think the Chinese invented or rather discovered gunpowder first, but failed to use it as a weapon, but just a way to make fire. It's the European(can't remember who came first) who make use of gunpowder and make guns. When the Europeans had guns, Chinese army were still using swords and shield..


----------



## Zero Angel

So as far as the original post goes. I think that a lot of non-fantasy fans think of guns as being the "ultimate weapon" and cannot imagine anything being able to be on par with it. I've encountered this from laymen when I've described my world to them. Usually it only takes a little more description and they go, "Oh, I never thought of it that way."

If your critics are fantasy fans, then it sounds like they have a very narrow view and don't want anything outside of that. I don't really have anything to say to that. 

I see your guns and raise you robots, androids and living machines. How do we feel about that in fantasy?


----------



## CupofJoe

Zero Angel said:


> So as far as the original post goes. I think  that a lot of non-fantasy fans think of guns as being the "ultimate  weapon" and cannot imagine anything being able to be on par with it.  I've encountered this from laymen when I've described my world to them.  Usually it only takes a little more description and they go, "Oh, I  never thought of it that way."


Yes most people think of "gun" and think M16 or SA80 and not single shot dueling pistols.
Actually my main problem with guns in fantasy is not their effectiveness but the infrastructure they been to support / create them... Specialist metal workers, coke [not coal], mining and refining of ore to make steel, reliable sources of potassium nitrate, sulfur and charcoal...  For me it makes the "usual" fantasy world feel a little crowded.


Zero Angel said:


> I see your guns and raise you robots, androids and living machines. How do we feel about that in fantasy?


Is there a wall between SciFi and Fantasy?
I would love to blend the two... now i just have to think of a plot....


----------



## Zero Angel

CupofJoe said:


> Is there a wall between SciFi and Fantasy?
> I would love to blend the two... now i just have to think of a plot....


Some people I've spoke to (my fiancee comes to mind) HATE the mere idea of sci-fi elements in their fantasy. It just made sense for my world-build. Sorry.....well, I'm not really sorry. I love my galts.


----------



## TWErvin2

CupofJoe said:


> Yes most people think of "gun" and think M16 or SA80 and not single shot dueling pistols.
> Actually my main problem with guns in fantasy is not their effectiveness but the infrastructure they been to support / create them... Specialist metal workers, coke [not coal], mining and refining of ore to make steel, reliable sources of potassium nitrate, sulfur and charcoal...  For me it makes the "usual" fantasy world feel a little crowded.
> 
> Is there a wall between SciFi and Fantasy?
> I would love to blend the two... now i just have to think of a plot....



That was one thing that I considered and made sure was addressed in my novels that do have firearms and semi-other modern technology elements in a fantasy world where magic exists.  

But like *Zero Angel *indicated there are readers who do not care to see such combined. That's why there are so many subgenres of fantasy, because of varying reader preferences. The cover of my novels, hint at it, with a WW II era aircraft (Stuka) in the background in the sky along with a dragon. Sometimes at book signing events, it attracts reader interest. They'll stop, pick up the novel and look closer, read the back cover, and some inside, we'll converse. Sometimes they purchase a copy, other times politely put it back on the table. 

With others, they glance and sometimes scrunch up their nose, sometimes comment, saying that's not their thing. That's okay. A writer cannot please every potential reader. It's impossible.

*CupofJoe*, hope you come up with a solid plot


----------



## FireBird

From a military standpoint you can view guns as if they were crossbows. Both weapons took a very short time to learn how to use on a battlefield, although which is more effective depends on how advanced your guns are. The fact that gunpowder exists in your society changes things as well. If you have guns there is a good chance you have cannons as well. In Ancient China they had makeshift artillery but never managed to invent the gun. Think about what implications this has in your story.

I would LOVE to see more fantasy worlds with guns in a non-steampunk setting. It just adds an interesting element that you don't see very often.


----------



## a dreamy walker

Just a conceptual idea: what about repeating crossbows that fire arrows with explosive arrow-tips - (if the crossbow was in a sci-fi setting, for example, the arrows could be filled with sodium metal and, in a segmented space, water)


----------



## Jabrosky

I don't want to discourage anyone from writing guns in their fantasy, but I for one regard them as overrated, especially as a measure of personal machismo and toughness. The success of guns, or at least modern guns, stems largely from how easily people can use them. Not only do they possess a lot of destructive even when fired a safe distance from the target, but a lot of guns nowadays come with sophisticated scopes with crosshairs to help with marksmanship. Almost any slob could learn how to use a modern firearm, so owning one wouldn't really make you more badass or whatever.

Admittedly many of the aforementioned issues may not apply to old-school muskets or arquebuses, the kind of guns the OP probably had in mind, but modern conveniences in general make things too easy for my inner storyteller's taste.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

All I know is, Roger Zelazny got away with putting modern firearms in a fantasy book, as part of one of my favourite fantasy series of all time. So there is clearly there is a precedence for this.



Jabrosky said:


> I don't want to discourage anyone from writing guns in their fantasy, but I for one regard them as overrated, especially as a measure of personal machismo and toughness. The success of guns, or at least modern guns, stems largely from how easily people can use them. Not only do they possess a lot of destructive even when fired a safe distance from the target, but a lot of guns nowadays come with sophisticated scopes with crosshairs to help with marksmanship. Almost any slob could learn how to use a modern firearm, so owning one wouldn't really make you more badass or whatever.
> 
> Admittedly many of the aforementioned issues may not apply to old-school muskets or arquebuses, the kind of guns the OP probably had in mind, but modern conveniences in general make things too easy for my inner storyteller's taste.



I dunno. Sure, anyone can learn how to fire a gun, but anyone can learn how to use a sword as well. Not every gunman is going to be a quickdraw or a sharpshooter, though, the same way not every swordsman will be a fencing master.

Plus, mix in magic and guns may not be especially useful after all. The better mages in one of my settings are practically immune to firearms.


----------



## Zero Angel

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I dunno. Sure, anyone can learn how to fire a gun, but anyone can learn how to use a sword as well. Not every gunman is going to be a quickdraw or a sharpshooter, though, the same way not every swordsman will be a fencing master.
> 
> Plus, mix in magic and guns may not be especially useful after all. The better mages in one of my settings are practically immune to firearms.



As someone that has practiced sword fighting for the last five years, let me tell you that I feel like a bloody tank when I go up against people that have only been doing it for a short while. 

There are very few people that are naturally good at sword-fighting; you barely feel like you are defending against them and it is like shooting fish in a barrel. A lot of people assume that it is just swinging and being fast, but that is not the case at all. Speed helps, don't get me wrong, but I cannot tell you how many people we have to disabuse of the notion that sword fighting is easy. 

On the other hand, a gun or a crossbow would kill me no matter how skilled I was at shooting them at others. Could I kill them first if I was prepared and had the opportunity and the skill? Probably.

That said, I definitely do agree that there is a skill to guns, crossbows and marksmanship as well, I just think that the starters start much higher.

And good point about magick! Not having guns but having magick is like saying you're not going to have guns but will have missiles.


----------



## Steerpike

Fantasy works with firearms, off the top of my head:

Chronicle of Amber, Roger Zelazny (great series)
Rigante books, David Gemmell (great series)
L.E. Modesitt, Jr., Recluse books (and other series?)
Warhammer series has firearms, I believe

There are a few others but I can't think of the names. Then there are books like King's Dark Tower series, but that's not set in a traditional fantasy world.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Zero Angel said:


> And good point about magick! Not having guns but having magick is like saying you're not going to have guns but will have missiles.



Well, _Exalted_ had mini-flamethrowers before it had guns. (According to TV Tropes, the guns it eventually introduced fire "golden bullets propelled by the faith contained in miniature shrines engraved on the barrel.")

To get back on-topic, I think you should just give your characters whatever fits the tech level of the setting, whether it's crossbows, flintlocks, or RAYYYY GUNS!

P.S. I feel like I should address Jabrosky's comment about guns not being "badass"--how is that a bad thing? Most of my characters have no weapons training or, indeed, combat skill.


----------



## Zero Angel

Feo Takahari said:


> P.S. I feel like I should address Jabrosky's comment about guns not being "badass"--how is that a bad thing? Most of my characters have no weapons training or, indeed, combat skill.



Good point there! There was no mention of guns being "badass", just about using them. It might be that your character is one of these peasants that doesn't know their right from left, but somehow is able to utilize this weapon to cause a regime change.


----------



## Asheiel

This is kinda a side note but not really. What do you think about the worlds that are created in the Final Fantasy video games? You have ones like X and XII that have a steampunkish world with guns and the like, and then you have VII and XIII that are more modern, almost sci-fi like worlds. Do you guys consider them fantasy or hyrbid or what? I'm interested cause i'm working on a book that was a world similar to VII in particular and I'm not really sure what to draw inspiration from in most fantasy novels.


----------



## grimreaper

I haven't read any other fantasy books or series that contain firearms. However , I have to say , I like the idea very much . I , for one , would certainly love a story containing such ideas.

On a sidenote, I have to disagree with Davor here. While handheld guns(muskets , flintlocks and such) were not sufficiently developed in the early stages of history to make much of an effect on the outcome of a large battle, cannons did make a lot of difference . It was the use of cannons that helped Babur , the first Mughal emperor, defeat the Lodis(the ruling dynasty in India at that time ) in the first battle of Panipat , although Ibrahim Lodi had a far bigger army and war elephants as well.

P.S:- I do remember reading of some battle in medieval Europe , where the party with the cannons lost it against enemy longbowmen,  but I forget the specifics . Obviously a lot depends upon the ingenuity of the commanders as well.


----------



## Zero Angel

Great point there grimreaper. Cannons were a game changer in and of themselves, and ultimately is one of the reasons why we don't wall up towns and have gigantic castles/keeps anymore.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Zero Angel said:


> As someone that has practiced sword fighting for the last five years, let me tell you that I feel like a bloody tank when I go up against people that have only been doing it for a short while.



Well, almost nobody is good at stuff they've only been doing for a short while.



> On the other hand, a gun or a crossbow would kill me no matter how skilled I was at shooting them at others. Could I kill them first if I was prepared and had the opportunity and the skill? Probably.



This sounds like an assumption. Do you actually have any experience with firearms? Are you trained to kill people with a gun?

It's also a generalization. "Being prepared and having the opportunity and the skill" works just a well for swords. It's the same as saying "If I have all the advantages, I can probably win." But if you are up against someone who is faster, more skilled and generally more talented, you are still going to lose.



> That said, I definitely do agree that there is a skill to guns, crossbows and marksmanship as well, I just think that the starters start much higher.



I don't see how. As far as I'm concerned, the main differance between a gunfight and a swordfight is that the gunfight tends to be quicker.



> And good point about magick! Not having guns but having magick is like saying you're not going to have guns but will have missiles.



That isn't really what I meant, but whatever.

Another thing I've done is to actually reduce the speed of which gunpowder burns, which means the bullets fired simply do not have the energy to penetrate heavy armor. In that setting, firearms where too inefficient to make up for the cost of producing them, making them mostly curiosities which meant the technology never got off the ground.


----------



## Zero Angel

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Well, almost nobody is good at stuff they've only been doing for a short while.


My point was that newbies think they are going to be good, but I feel invincible.



> This sounds like an assumption. Do you actually have any experience with firearms? Are you trained to kill people with a gun?


I am not "trained to kill people with a gun", but I know how to use a gun and shoot one. My point was that as a sword fighter, I can stop someone else from killing me with a sword, but as a gunfighter, my only option is to kill them first. 



> It's also a generalization. "Being prepared and having the opportunity and the skill" works just a well for swords. It's the same as saying "If I have all the advantages, I can probably win." But if you are up against someone who is faster, more skilled and generally more talented, you are still going to lose.


-_- I guess I am condensing too much when I type here. My point was (as I wrote in the sentence before your quote) that I needed to be able to kill them first. It doesn't matter how good I am at shooting a gun or a crossbow if someone is shooting one at me. 

The only thing I can hope for is for them 
to miss (the opportunity) 
and be able (being prepared) 
to return fire (and here is where the skill would come in). ​


> I don't see how. As far as I'm concerned, the main differance between a gunfight and a swordfight is that the gunfight tends to be quicker.


The difference is a lot. There is a trick to holding a sword and swinging it. It's not the same as picking up a stick off the ground and swinging it (I'm not comparing it to bo-staff fighting or kendo or something like that, just saying that it's not just picking it up and swinging it). There's a LOT of subtleties in fighting that is NOT natural. And there's really nothing that we do in our lives that prepare us for sword-fighting (although other martial arts do help with the basic principles). 

On the other hand, ANYONE can pick up a loaded gun and pull a trigger in the direction of someone else. This is *mostly* hand-eye coordination at the basic level. No matter how talented that person is that you are shooting at, they have no options after you pull the trigger. Where does skill come in? Well you have to maintain your firearms and ammo; if you are talking about gunslingers there is drawing and rate-of-fire, managing recoil, reloading, etc. For snipers there is managing the drop of the bullet, wind, and I am sure a lot of other stuff that I am not trained for because I am not a sniper. But if you are just asking someone to pull a trigger (the "starter"), then I think that person is about 1000 times more powerful against other gunfighters than the "starter" swordfighter is against veteran swordfighters.

There's a lot of skill involved at the higher ends, but that gunslinger has no option once the bullet is coming at them unless their opponent messed up or has body armor that can stop the shot.  Their skill really needs to come into play *before* someone else is firing at them. 

It is very "unfair".




> That isn't really what I meant, but whatever.


You did not mean that magick was a great equalizer in your series? My response was just saying that if you have something else super-powerful, why not have guns too. I took this as your point. Please let me know what your point actually was.


----------



## Galbatroth

So long as used properly within the context of your story, I think guns are are perfectly acceptable in a fantasy story. My favorite author uses dragons in a modern setting. And he also uses some some si-fi elements, such as portals to other worlds.


----------



## Oaken

Personally I don't have anything against this, because I'm totally with breaking the genre's borders. Fantasy with swords and magic has been written since long, and adding new elements actually makes it less repetitive, more daring and innovative. 
But you can lessen your critics' "anger" by infusing magical elements in your guns. Like shooting magical bolts or stuff.


----------



## Saigonnus

Godzilax99 said:


> If my history lesson didn't go too wrong, I think the Chinese invented or rather discovered gunpowder first, but failed to use it as a weapon, but just a way to make fire. It's the European(can't remember who came first) who make use of gunpowder and make guns. When the Europeans had guns, Chinese army were still using swords and shield..



Actually they had rockets and even employed them in combat, but truthfully they weren't that effective as a weapon; probably the reason they didn't pursue the use of it. It was the Europeans who created the guns as we know them today, well cannons initially, then hand held weapons.


----------



## dangit

Yeah I don't care about guns overmuch but than again I haven't actually _found_ any fantasy with guns.


----------



## Wanara009

Saigonnus said:


> Actually they had rockets and even employed them in combat, but truthfully they weren't that effective as a weapon; probably the reason they didn't pursue the use of it. It was the Europeans who created the guns as we know them today, well cannons initially, then hand held weapons.



However, the ancient Chinese uses mines, incendiaries, flamethrower, and grenades that _is_ effective. There's also the three-barreled guns that isn't very effective but has a lot psychological value. Then again, why need guns when you have the first semi-automatic weapon.



dangit said:


> Yeah I don't care about guns overmuch but than again I haven't actually _found_ any fantasy with guns.



What about Monster Hunter (tm)? It has crossbow/gun, sniper-rifles and Tommy-gun look-alike alongside swords taller than a man. 

EDIT: Also, Rise of Legends: Magic Arab-based civilization with dragon and glass golems vs. Steam-Clockpunk Venice dopplegangers with muskets and mechs vs. Space-faring mayan aliens with laser.

In opinion though, you have to explain why people don't go all the way magic or the way guns if you want to employ firearms. It also help to think of it in term of an arms race: better guns will be followed by better counter like barrier spell or armour.


----------



## Zero Angel

dangit said:


> Yeah I don't care about guns overmuch but than again I haven't actually _found_ any fantasy with guns.



If you mean fantasy in general and not just literature, then video games regularly have guns (I blame Final Fantasy). Final Fantasy and Warcraft are two series that strongly feature guns, but I am sure that there are many fantasies with guns. 

Plus, my book has guns. Although I also have a mix of sci-fi in the world, this is not apparent to readers of the first few books and not why there are guns. 

Oh, there are also books based on Warcraft, so there's fantasy literature with guns as well. 

Oh! And these are epic/sword&sorcery fantasies too, not things like urban fantasy or even Lovecraftian horror or steampunk fantasies that I am sure feature guns as a matter of principle.


----------



## Jess A

Bollocks. Put guns in if you want guns. They aren't exactly new technology. Nor are they 'science fiction'.


----------



## Gurkhal

If you want guns in your fantasy setting, run with it. I probably won't enjoy the story but there are others who no doubt will.


----------



## Zero Angel

Gurkhal said:


> If you want guns in your fantasy setting, run with it. I probably won't enjoy the story but there are others who no doubt will.



Why won't you enjoy it? As a matter of principal? Or because you think fantasy needs to fit in a specific box and not break out of that box? Or just that you really enjoy swords and don't want guns? Just looking for some clarification here.


----------



## Weaver

It's been mentioned before, but... _The Guns of Avalon_, by Roger Zelazny.  As one would guess from the title, there are guns in this novel.  It's also part of a series that is generally seen as the swords-and-magic kind of fantasy.

[lengthy fanboy blather-fest deleted as irrelevant to discussion at hand]


----------



## Caged Maiden

I think one of the points that's really missing in this discussion is how widespread the guns are in the novel setting.  As I mentioned before, I have guns in a few of my novels.  The fact is, in history, many people didn't use or own guns, just as today.  Look how many people don't own or even know how to shoot a gun.. yet there they are, in the local sporting goods store, just waiting to be purchased.

I could see it becoming distracting, if everyone in your medieval world has a six-shooter or tommy gun.  But what's the harm in having the earliest guns?  There ws a reason flintlock pistols weren't in every man's hand, and I don't think the introduction of a few guns necessitates arming your armies with them, or assuming every rogue, scoundrel, or mercenary would be so armed.  

Pistols were used in conjunction with blades for a long time, because the firearm could be fired, then holstered or dropped, and a sword drawn for close combat.  I love that concept, so that's how I portray skirmishes in my later novels.

I do think I would enjoy reading about something more involved, where technology is more like FF.  I mean, there was a reason I loved those games enough to spend hundreds of hours of my life on them.  The worlds were interesting, anything went, and for whatever reason, we never questioned how Yuffie, with that weird boomerang thing, could possibly do as much damage as her allies who were much better equipped


----------



## Zero Angel

Caged Maiden said:


> I do think I would enjoy reading about something more involved, where technology is more like FF.  I mean, there was a reason I loved those games enough to spend hundreds of hours of my life on them.  The worlds were interesting, anything went, and for whatever reason, we never questioned how Yuffie, with that weird boomerang thing, could possibly do as much damage as her allies who were much better equipped



 my head just exploded.


----------



## Leif Notae

Meh. If someone is worked up over guns being in a fantasy setting, they aren't developed enough to understand the complexities of a world or what it stands for. They can also hide behind the fortress walls while cannons bombard them, get all bristly, and declare the whole act of gunpowder "improper" and "untoward".

If you can use your imagination, you can use guns. Spell guns, spirit guns, gun guns... Whatever. It isn't the limit of tech, it's the idea.


----------



## johnsonjoshuak

Gunpowder Fantasy seems to be increasing in popularity. I just saw a blurb the other day for a book that has mages who get stronger with the use of gunpowder.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

In my current WIP I have cannon alongside elves and zombies (though I didn't call them that). I don't see a great conflict even though a cannon is basically a big gun.

If I actually went to hand guns and rifles etc, I'd think I'd be upgrading the technology quotient of the world a bit, and be heading into steampunk. I think steampunk works well enough with magic, but it jars a little with elves and trolls etc. Having said that if someone wrote it well I probably wouldn't mind.

Maybe you could just call the whole area Medieval urban fantasy!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Weaver

psychotick said:


> I think steampunk works well enough with magic, but it jars a little with elves and trolls etc. Having said that if someone wrote it well I probably wouldn't mind.



Depends on how you define your elves and trolls, doesn't it?


----------



## Shadow Fox

Well, What i think is odd is how guns are immediately displayed as an instant kill method of attack, is is horrendously untrue even with modern guns. The only attribution of deadliness that can be realistically attributed to guns during the middle ages is that they fired lead balls, which are highly toxic, and lodging them into the body causing the person to die of lead poisoning rather than from the wound itself. Medical practice at the time was notably horrid and ineffective with most people relying on home-brewed remedies and natural immune response to take care of most problems. However, in a fantasy setting, the inclusion of healing magic kind of mitigates this issue and so firearms become drastically less of a game changer than they would otherwise be. 

Now don't get me wrong, guns are machines designed with the specific function of killing people, and I'm not saying they don't, I'm just saying that guns don't kill every time, and if you consider factors like a moving target, battlefield distractions and the like, hitting someone in the vitals every time just doesn't happen and someone who can kill with every shot has obviously devoted an extensive degree of time to building that level of precision and patience. Obviously this disadvantage can be mitigated by lining the gunmen up in a volley, but the same can be said of bowmen. 

As for the actual topic discussion, I don't think those critics fit your target audience dude.


----------



## FatCat

Agreed with Shadow, the quality of gunpowder was pretty bad back in the day. While early firearms had really large calibers (.65+) the velocity of these rounds wasn't that impressive when compared to modern firearms. The monetary expense of creating gunpowder and crafting the guns themselves would inhibit everyone carrying one; guns can exist without 'changing the game'. Also, accuracy pre-rifling is pretty abysmal, theres a reason why early tacticians lined soldiers in rows and fired in volleys. Unless you have an incredibly long smooth-bore musket then, even with years of training, hitting targets farther than 100 yards would be luck.


----------



## Christopher Wright

I have a WIP where depending on their specialty, some wizards prefer using firearms to magic because it's faster. Sure, there are times when nothing but a fireball will do, but some days you just want to empty your revolver into a ghoul and then go have tea.


----------



## Shadow Fox

Christopher Wright said:


> I have a WIP where depending on their specialty, some wizards prefer using firearms to magic because it's faster. Sure, there are times when nothing but a fireball will do, but some days you just want to empty your revolver into a ghoul and then go have tea.



Isn't that precisely why mages had wands and staves and rods and the like. Regardless i would think a rapid fire spell or a quick cast spell would be more viable depending on how magic and mages function in your world.


----------



## Christopher Wright

Ummm... yeah. "Depending on how magic and mages function in my world." That's sort of my call, isn't it?


----------



## Zero Angel

Shadow Fox said:


> Isn't that precisely why mages had wands and staves and rods and the like. Regardless i would think a rapid fire spell or a quick cast spell would be more viable depending on how magic and mages function in your world.



Hmm, maybe if you are in D&D? But pulling a trigger a couple of times seems much easier than much of the process that goes into magick in most systems. There's usually at least an incantation or somatic component. Even Yoda has to gesture.


----------



## Shockley

Firearms invented in 1324? You're about two hundred years too late, chaps. Either way, swords, spears, cavalry, armor, continued to dominate the battlefield well into the early 18th Century, and most of those items phased out at different times - horses maintaining an active role in the military into the early 20th century. 

 Personally, I prefer medieval fantasy (and pre-medieval fantasy). Because of my studies, it's one of the areas I feel really comfortable in. That said, it was an arbitrary decision - all fantasy timelines are arbitrary decisions. If you want guns, it's your right as an author.


----------



## Mindfire

Shockley said:


> Firearms invented in 1324? You're about two hundred years too late, chaps. Either way, swords, spears, cavalry, armor, continued to dominate the battlefield well into the early 18th Century, and most of those items phased out at different times - horses maintaining an active role in the military into the early 20th century.
> 
> Personally, I prefer medieval fantasy (and pre-medieval fantasy). Because of my studies, it's one of the areas I feel really comfortable in. That said, it was an arbitrary decision - all fantasy timelines are arbitrary decisions. If you want guns, it's your right as an author.



Likewise if you want chewing gum, it's your right as an author. "Historical accuracy" is a near meaningless term when applied to fantasy- which is entirely the point.


----------



## Shockley

Furthermore: As a historian (in training, natch), I'd like to throw it out there that most fantasy novels are terrible about keeping consistent timelines (not that it matters.

 For instance, the Lord of the Rings. The Hobbits, at least in their own homes, seem to have a lifestyle that I would associate with Victorian England. Not really that they were on that level, but the accoutrements of Bilbo's house point in that direction. Once you're out of the Shire, it seems that the timeline regresses even further. The use of taverns, for instance, would point to a more medieval setting. It regresses even further when you meet the men of Rohan and the men of Gondor - they seem one step above what I would call late Migration Era peoples. 

 90% of these purists wouldn't be able to tell the difference between what we call Medieval and Renaissance, so I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## Mindfire

Shockley said:


> Furthermore: As a historian (in training, natch), I'd like to throw it out there that most fantasy novels are terrible about keeping consistent timelines (not that it matters.
> 
> For instance, the Lord of the Rings. The Hobbits, at least in their own homes, seem to have a lifestyle that I would associate with Victorian England. Not really that they were on that level, but the accoutrements of Bilbo's house point in that direction. Once you're out of the Shire, it seems that the timeline regresses even further. The use of taverns, for instance, would point to a more medieval setting. It regresses even further when you meet the men of Rohan and the men of Gondor - they seem one step above what I would call late Migration Era peoples.
> 
> 90% of these purists wouldn't be able to tell the difference between what we call Medieval and Renaissance, so I wouldn't worry about it.



I deliberately mix things together from different historical periods to get a unique feel for my world. Renaissance, Imperial Russia, Ottoman Empire, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Roman Empire, and the Japanese Shogunate (all of them?), and 1800s America are a likely incomplete list of historical periods and societies I have borrowed from. "Anachronism"? What's that?


----------



## Shockley

That's a good policy, actually, and more accurate than most people would think. Certainly not to the level you're talking about, but a lot of people just hear the term 'Middle Ages' and assume that the Middle Ages in the Italian states, the Holy Roman Empire and Spain were remotely similar.


----------



## Shadow Fox

Zero Angel said:


> Hmm, maybe if you are in D&D? But pulling a trigger a couple of times seems much easier than much of the process that goes into magick in most systems. There's usually at least an incantation or somatic component. Even Yoda has to gesture.



Incantation and somatic components only exists if the magic specifically requires them. and pulling the trigger is quintessentially a somatic component. It really depends on how magic works. I'm not quoting D&D, if I was I would have mentioned it. Heck some fantasy concepts have magic activation as a force of will, as quick to perform as a thought.


----------



## Zero Angel

Shadow Fox said:


> Incantation and somatic components only exists if the magic specifically requires them. and pulling the trigger is quintessentially a somatic component. It really depends on how magic works. I'm not quoting D&D, if I was I would have mentioned it. Heck some fantasy concepts have magic activation as a force of will, as quick to perform as a thought.



That's why I said most magick systems. My point was that there was no way for us to know if gunplay or spells were faster in Christopher Wright's magick system. If he says it is faster to empty a revolver into the ghoul in his world, then I would take his word for it. In fact, I am also assuming that ghouls in his world are able to be killed successfully by a revolver, when they might not be able to be killed that way in an alternate universe.


----------



## Christopher Wright

Yeah, Shadow Fox, I'd like to know why you feel so confident you know how the magic system in my world works better than I do. I think this would be a fascinating topic of conversation.


----------



## Shadow Fox

and that's why I started by saying "depending on -" I was stressing that i was not assuming his magic did or did not work that way, i was simply making the point that it could.


----------



## Geldor

Maybe instead of muskets and rifles, use hand guns, fire arms of the Renaissance, if you insist on having rifles, how about having a very small number though the men using them are veterans and expert marksmen.


----------



## Regrix

Hi. 

Thinking from a historical mindset guns were coming into the equation at the end of the dark ages/beginning of the Renaissance, admittedly their accuracy was terrible unless the target was fairly close but anything they hit was messed up significantly. I too see no problem with early guns showing up in fantasy works.   I don't think a S.A.W. would be appropriate but flintlocks and muskets absolutely.


----------



## Saigonnus

I think in a fantasy setting incorporating both magic and technology; it would be a great idea to incorporate magic into the construction and usage of firearms. I could see a rifle magically fortified so they don't explode, the hammer using a "spark" spell to set off the oil of impact or flash powder (alchemical creations of course). Perhaps the simple bullet enchanted is with a haste spell to have greater range and the rifle with a limited clairvoyance spell or "far seer glass" to emulate a scope. When you are talking fantasy, ANYTHING is possible.


----------



## crash

I'm okay with guns in fantasy and I think you can use them and describe how they work like you would in contemporary settings. It all depends on what level of tech you want to use, what era your most drawing from, etc. At the end of the day, it's your work and you have the ultimate control and final say about what gets put in and what gets left out


----------



## Regrix

Saigonnus, Those are some excellent ideas...   imagine a pistol that shoots fireballs...  or lightning bolts....  of (Dear God!!!) a Disintegration spell.   You're quite correct that absolutely ANYTHING is possible.


----------



## Zero Angel

Regrix said:


> Saigonnus, Those are some excellent ideas...   imagine a pistol that shoots fireballs...  or lightning bolts....  of (Dear God!!!) a Disintegration spell.   You're quite correct that absolutely ANYTHING is possible.



It's been done, but I never get tired of it.


----------



## Addison

First off, ignore the critic. It's your story, your tech, your choice. And if they can't take guns in fantasy then they haven't seen how they can kick butt against a fantasy antagonist. (Check out Hansel & Gretel, Witch Hunters.)  If it's set in a contemporary or urban setting then good. But if it's more medieval or something then describe it as different from guns in this world. Hansel had a rifle with a muzzle that folded up and out when he needed.  And besides, it's good to have something in the world to balance out the magic and fantastic things in it.


----------



## Regrix

I would say that all critics exist for a single purpose, to inspire the creation of characters to use such weapons on. 

It's always been a favorite tactic to use those who were annoying to me as game NPCs or background characters in stories, typically the ones that the horrible things happen to...  Vindictive?  Perhaps.  Petty?  I suppose. In my defense though it is fun.


----------



## SeverinR

I didn't like firearms in Fantasy, until I played WOW. Now I am more open to them, but they limit the need for armor, and reduce the power of low level mages.
Why study magic if you can just practice with a firearm?
Why study melee weapons if you can simply shoot a foe?
With firearms, it usually means there is also explosives, feudal systems build around the castle, explosives quickly limit the usefulness of castles, thus castles central society is limited.
When people can get firearms, they can defend themselves, so why allow the noble to control everything needed in society? Merchants earn wealth, wealth becomes power, nobles lose power, economy is more based on goods and services, rather then just food production and supporting the noblemans army.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

SeverinR said:


> Why study magic if you can just practice with a firearm?


This depends entirely on the magic and an assumption that it needs to be studied. Magic doesn't have to be mages tossing around flaming projectiles. It can be much more subtle or it can be far more overpowered when compared to a firearm.



SeverinR said:


> Why study melee weapons if you can simply shoot a foe?


If this logic is true then why did arms and armor remain on the battlefield for hundreds of years after firearms came into use? It can bring a balance of power between men, that's true. It's the old adage "God created men. Sam Colt made them equal." That  type of upheaval can be great for a story.



SeverinR said:


> With firearms, it usually means there is also explosives, feudal systems build around the castle, explosives quickly limit the usefulness of castles, thus castles central society is limited.


Modern explosive rendered medieval fortifications obsolete. However, forts did not just go poof the minute explosives appeared in warfare. Fortifications have morphed and evolved for centuries to keep pace with advancements in warfare.



SeverinR said:


> When people can get firearms, they can defend themselves, so why allow the noble to control everything needed in society?


Great point.... Again, does this have to be a bad thing for story telling? Furthermore, there are a multitude of reasons people might accept leadership other than protection.



SeverinR said:


> Merchants earn wealth, wealth becomes power, nobles lose power, economy is more based on goods and services, rather then just food production and supporting the noblemans army.


I don't see a point here.... Wealth has always equaled power.


----------



## Zero Angel

SeverinR said:


> I didn't like firearms in Fantasy, until I played WOW. Now I am more open to them, but they limit the need for armor, and reduce the power of low level mages.
> Why study magic if you can just practice with a firearm?
> Why study melee weapons if you can simply shoot a foe?
> With firearms, it usually means there is also explosives, feudal systems build around the castle, explosives quickly limit the usefulness of castles, thus castles central society is limited.
> When people can get firearms, they can defend themselves, so why allow the noble to control everything needed in society? Merchants earn wealth, wealth becomes power, nobles lose power, economy is more based on goods and services, rather then just food production and supporting the noblemans army.



It really depends on how you handle them for your story. If you're going along with fantasy, then it is reasonable that guns (especially "basic" guns) are not the game changer they became in our world. In WotA, every species has their own magickal ability that really makes it a level playing field no matter what. In fact, this goes beyond even "basic" guns, and I have a race of sentient robots that use (what they call) plasma weaponry. Although in the year 2013, being shot with one of these would eviscerate a human, "humes" in the 10,000+ can survive blasts from these if they have "leveled up". 

I'm not going to address most of your other points because they seem to be "why study art if you can study science" type questions, but for castles, how is gunpowder that much different than magick? If a mage can summon fire to blast castle doors, that's going to cause a significant reworking.

I think we are missing a key thing that is frequently found in fantasy that would make castles obsolete — fliers. Having a gryphon or hippogriff or pegasus or zeppelin or magic carpet or whatever can take away a drastic portion of the benefit of a castle. Now, does this mean that you can't have castles? No, it means that you should probably redesign them though. 

As far as forts and encampments go, it makes sense that forts would still be walled because it is unlikely the average people that would come across a fort or encampment would be prepared to lay siege to it.


----------



## wordwalker

Zero Angel said:


> I'm not going to address most of your other points because they seem to be "why study art if you can study science" type questions, but for castles, how is gunpowder that much different than magick? If a mage can summon fire to blast castle doors, that's going to cause a significant reworking.
> 
> I think we are missing a key thing that is frequently found in fantasy that would make castles obsolete – fliers. Having a gryphon or hippogriff or pegasus or zeppelin or magic carpet or whatever can take away a drastic portion of the benefit of a castle. Now, does this mean that you can't have castles? No, it means that you should probably redesign them though.
> 
> As far as forts and encampments go, it makes sense that forts would still be walled because it is unlikely the average people that would come across a fort or encampment would be prepared to lay siege to it.



A valid point. The thing about guns is the same as it is about battle wizards, or plate armor, or siege-equipped armies: saying some threats out there have it doesn't mean most will. Planning and action start finding their own balance of how much you have to be ready for, where the biggest threats are and when they're fully prepped to strike, and so on.

And I agree, fliers are a bit different from the others because so many worlds have whole species of winged mounts (or squads of flying carpets). Gunpowder and mages might be tricky, but you _know_ it only takes five griffin riders on a night raid to do terrible things to your battlements, let alone bribing a dragon to drop boulders from 1000 feet up.

Of course, (Lord of the Rings) - (Nazgul Air Force) = 5-page book and some very smug eagles.


----------



## Ayaka Di'rutia

To me, the concept of "anachronism" in fantasy is a huge joke.  Our real world has anachronisms galore; we're sending ships into space, and there's undiscovered tribes in the Amazon.  I've included guns in my own fantasy, as well as electricity and machinery, as well as sword and sorcery.  To me, the concept of having advanced technology along with more "middle ages" type and what naught simply makes the world more realistic.


----------



## Jabrosky

I'm in the process of outlining a new story, and it will probably feature guns in the bad guys' hands. I have two main villains, a Greek pirate and an Asian crime lady whom he serves. The crime lady gives the pirate and his cronies Song/Ming Dynasty-style firearms so he can plunder for her. However, the Asians (or, more properly, equivalent thereof) are the only people in the world who manufacture any gunpowder technology; everyone else uses good ol' swords, spears, or bows.

The challenging part is that my two protagonists are in the no-guns lot, yet they have to defeat both the pirate and crime lady. Would it be possible to defeat an enemy with guns without any guns yourself?


----------



## saellys

The third act of _The Stone Front_ will include a company of gunwomen in the protagonists' army. There are only fifty of them; the time necessary for reloading and their relative vulnerability during that time mean that their use in battle has to be coordinated very precisely. 

One of the protagonists also tried to convince a nearby province to contribute some battle mages to the war effort, but they declined. If they'd said yes, there would have been a whole different slew of advantages and disadvantages. Asking "why study magic when you can use a firearm" is only applicable if both are omnipotent, and I've never found omnipotence very interesting.



Jabrosky said:


> Would it be possible to defeat an enemy with guns without any guns yourself?



Insert Ewoks GIF here. 

Seriously though, of course you can. As my kung fu black belt parents would tell you, any weapon can be bypassed, and once you're in arm's reach (or sword's reach), the fight gets a lot simpler. In the moments leading up to that, the people without guns can act while the people with guns are reloading. Or they can employ a diversion to draw gunfire and get up nice and close to the shooters that way. Just gotta be smarter than the gun, and guns are pretty dumb.


----------



## Lucas

Then I guess my 20th century fantasy world would be considered ultimate satanic blasphemy by purists...


----------



## Lucas

Queshire said:


> In real life guns were a game changer, they made just about everything that came before obsolete. The problem most people have with guns in fantasy is that it would likewise make a lot of the classic fantasy tropes obsolete. Of course, realistically, magic would likewise make everything that come for obsolete even more so then guns, but you don't see readers complaining about that so meh...
> 
> I personally don't see a problem with guns in fantasy, but you need to put a lot of thought into it.



Disagreed.

Early 14th century firearms were worthless in comparison to good crossbows. They took an eternity to reload, exploded quite easily (thus maiming the rifleman). It was first in the 17th century, during the Thirty Years War, that the pike became obsolete. The pike was actually more of a game-changer during the late middle ages imho.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Lucas said:


> Disagreed.
> 
> Early 14th century firearms were worthless in comparison to good crossbows. They took an eternity to reload, exploded quite easily (thus maiming the rifleman). It was first in the 17th century, during the Thirty Years War, that the pike became obsolete. The pike was actually more of a game-changer during the late middle ages imho.



He didn't state "guns made everything obsolete immediately". Although it took several hundred years before the firearm dominated the battlefield, they did eventually render other weaponry obsolete.

Unless you're writing historical fiction, these sorts of timelines can be altered any way you please. You may want to keep somewhat close to our real timeline, to maintain believability, but it certainly isn't required in fantasy.


----------



## Lucas

T.Allen.Smith said:


> He didn't state "guns made everything obsolete immediately". Although it took several hundred years before the firearm dominated the battlefield, they did eventually render other weaponry obsolete.
> 
> Unless you're writing historical fiction, these sorts of timelines can be altered any way you please. You may want to keep somewhat close to our real timeline, to maintain believability, but it certainly isn't required in fantasy.



There was rather a gradual transition. Early musketeers were extremely expensive units. In the year 1500 for example, the Spaniards could mobilise less than 100 men with firearms. 

As for fantasy, it is stuck in medieval Europe. It is sadly a strange thing that a genre with such a name displays so little of what it is called. 90-95% of all fantasy is basically the same story with alterations. Even the environments are near identical.

The point however is the following: You can theoretically have firearms that are pretty crappy and still have medieval weapons like pikes, swords and similar.

Moreover, the 17th century is underutilised as an inspirational foundation for fantasy. Especially dark fantasy. The middle ages were bright and warm in comparison with the 17th century. The 17th century was the Little Ice Age, religious wars, alchemic secret societies, the formation of modern nation-states, mercenaries raping and burning their way through Europe, overcrowded, filthy cities and constant wars were entire generations were mowed down.

Just check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War


----------

