why guns in such an epic time

[Walsingham]

Okay, in that case I concede the point. I don't give a sh1t about semantics.

 

Yet you seem keen as shot on using one specific word to describe your attitude.

[PrimeJunta]

What's that got to do with it?

[JFSOCC]

I thought you did care about semantics, what with the discussion earlier you made quite an effort to make sure that everyone was speaking from the same vocabulary, no? Anyway I too, would find it strange to see space age technology in stone age tribes. It either be magic, precursor tech, a "donation" from a culture far away around which the entire plot revolves, but there would have to be an explanation.

 

Of course with fantasy "magic" is one of those blanket excuses for everything.

 

That said, I'm not opposed to seeing space age technology in stone age tribes, just tread carefully. but game balance mechanics wise and narratively.

[PrimeJunta]

I care that people aren't talking past one another. That makes my caring about semantics a strictly local, contextual business. Discussions about semantics may be needed if it turns out that the people in a conversation understand the meaning of some term differently enough to cause misunderstanding, so that meaningful conversation can continue. However I find such discussions in and of themselves worthless and uninteresting.

 

I.e., I have zero interest in discussing what the term 'anachronistic' "really means." However if someone says that in his opinion firearms in a bronze-age tech-level fantasy are not anachronistic, I may be interested in finding out whether the disagreement is about substance (whether firearms belong in said fantasy world or not) or semantics (whether 'anachronistic' is a suitable word to express the way they do not fit). If it turns out to be the latter, I'm done. (And, should there be some meaningful conversation to be had, entirely willing to switch to some other word for the purposes of the conversation, should someone suggest one.)

[JFSOCC]

anachronistic simply means "out of time" (IE does not belong in this time period) If there alternative reasons why something would exist in that time period, it wouldn't be anachronistic.

 

I don't disagree btw.

[Failion]

Guns are no more stupid then magical slings that are so powerful that they can take down giant magical creatures that they might as well shoot laser beams. I like the style, A guy with a overcoat and matchlock rifle vising a knight. Plain old lord of the rings is very stale. 

[Eli]

For me the inclusion of guns does detract slightly for a couple of reasons:

 

1) They have been careful to downplay firearms as "complex curiosities" that are impractical in most situations. While this is a good thing, it strains plausibility slightly given what we know (in real history) of the extremely rapid advancement of gun technology because to it's dominance over prior weapons. Because of this we have to believe that we just happen to be exploring the Pillars world at a point in history just before guns take over.

 

2) For me, fantasy settings are appealing because they are largely absent modern or industrial-era technology. Things are hand-crafted. Using tools, yes, but the emphasis is on the craftsman, not advanced tools and technology. This is a pleasant escape from our modern real-world where individual craftsmanship has been more or less completely displaced by automation and the economics of industrial scale mass-manufacturing. Also, because of point (1) it may feel like the Pillars world is about to have its craftsmen similarly displaced.

 

3) Firearms carry a massive amount of conceptual and historical baggage with them which I'm concerned will constantly be tugging my imagination into assumptions and preconceptions that I carry due to knowledge of real-world history, pulling me out of the Pillars world slightly. One thing I loved about Planescape: Torment, for instance, was how utterly detached and original the world was, allowing for total immersion in the lore.

 

These are pretty minor grievances though. Just some thoughts.

[Kveldulf]

For me the inclusion of guns does detract slightly for a couple of reasons:

 

1) They have been careful to downplay firearms as "complex curiosities" that are impractical in most situations. While this is a good thing, it strains plausibility slightly given what we know (in real history) of the extremely rapid advancement of gun technology because to it's dominance over prior weapons. Because of this we have to believe that we just happen to be exploring the Pillars world at a point in history just before guns take over.

 

2) For me, fantasy settings are appealing because they are largely absent modern or industrial-era technology. Things are hand-crafted. Using tools, yes, but the emphasis is on the craftsman, not advanced tools and technology. This is a pleasant escape from our modern real-world where individual craftsmanship has been more or less completely displaced by automation and the economics of industrial scale mass-manufacturing. Also, because of point (1) it may feel like the Pillars world is about to have its craftsmen similarly displaced.

 

3) Firearms carry a massive amount of conceptual and historical baggage with them which I'm concerned will constantly be tugging my imagination into assumptions and preconceptions that I carry due to knowledge of real-world history, pulling me out of the Pillars world slightly. One thing I loved about Planescape: Torment, for instance, was how utterly detached and original the world was, allowing for total immersion in the lore.

 

These are pretty minor grievances though. Just some thoughts.

 

My thoughts to this:

 

1. I agree to some extent. However, in a fantasy setting, hypothetically there could be some materials, or simply 'magical' ways to manufacture armour - to stop even contemporary bullets; the question of how exotic these materials/means would then come in question. I think this could look contrived or tasteful: in the way of its implementation.

 

2. I believe you could mix this is in a setting: one culture over nyah is bent on manufacturing, the other over nyah being focused on craftsmen.

 

3. This is true. No matter how mutated firearms will be in a setting, there will always be the perceived connotation of firearm history and mechanics. This doesn't mean that an attempt to incorporate firearms will always look the same, rather it will always be a variable; like any other invention in human history.

 

The origin of most fantasy substance is rooted from some real world concept; it's application to a mythological setting is a matter of its synergy; the setting and the appearance of intent.

 

In the case of Pillars, it's obviously a bastardization of some recent history: contrasting a variety of anachronisms, for the sake of variety. You should ask yourself: Wouldn't it be interesting to see our world in such an diverse state: successful medieval kingdoms, rivaling industrial, technological and colonial era empires?

Edited January 3, 2014 by Kveldulf

[Elerond]

In real-world history it took 400 years for guns to advance in such level that they dominated over "prior" weapons that also advanced greatly during that 400 year period. Although in siege weapon side cannons replaced catapults and trebuchets much faster because they were easier to move and they were much reliable than their predecessors.

 

Advancement of metallurgy that made better guns a possibility also made possible to make better armors like full plates, ships that could cross oceans, long swords, heavy crossbows, better castles and fortresses, and also many level houses become more common, as tools advanced with warfare or maybe warfare advanced with tools. And all these things can be found in typical fantasy worlds,

 

Mass Production was not quite common thing during European Renaissance (14th-17th century) but also not unheard as Venetian Arsenal, which was upgraded to it mass production capacity in 1320s, shows as it was massive complex of shipyards and armories that could produce about one ship every day, which was also reason why Venice rise in such great power.

 

But it probably should also mention that craftsmanship was very valued thing during European Renaissance.

 

So in my mind typical fantasy settings can have guns and still keep that romantic simplicity vibe, but maybe that is just me.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

It's a gameplay change that stylistically reflects the different "era" this game will take place in. I look forward to both their mechanics and the many other Renaissance Era qualities P:E will wisely introduce.

[Kveldulf]

It's a gameplay change that stylistically reflects the different "era" this game will take place in. I look forward to both their mechanics and the many other Renaissance Era qualities P:E will wisely introduce.

 

Indeed

[Lephys]

A gun is essentially nothing more than a hand-held metal tube with an opening at one end to allow the exit of an explosion-propelled projectile. Heck... it's just a step up from a crossbow. "Hey, what if we used a tiny explosion instead of released string-tension to propel a small bullet instead of a bolt?"

 

It could even be considered a combustion-driven sling. There's hardly reason to treat the mere inclusion of firearms in the game as if it's the same thing as the introduction of lasers and circuitry or something. 8P

Edited January 3, 2014 by Lephys

[Tamerlane]

For me the inclusion of guns does detract slightly for a couple of reasons:

 

1) They have been careful to downplay firearms as "complex curiosities" that are impractical in most situations. While this is a good thing, it strains plausibility slightly given what we know (in real history) of the extremely rapid advancement of gun technology because to it's dominance over prior weapons. Because of this we have to believe that we just happen to be exploring the Pillars world at a point in history just before guns take over.

 

2) For me, fantasy settings are appealing because they are largely absent modern or industrial-era technology. Things are hand-crafted. Using tools, yes, but the emphasis is on the craftsman, not advanced tools and technology. This is a pleasant escape from our modern real-world where individual craftsmanship has been more or less completely displaced by automation and the economics of industrial scale mass-manufacturing. Also, because of point (1) it may feel like the Pillars world is about to have its craftsmen similarly displaced.

It's hard to find a technology that developed slower than handheld gunpowder weapons. And what do firearms have to do with mass production and industrialization? Tell Orban of Brasov that his cannonss were the product of soulless automation rather than hard work and ingenuity (and also a ****load of Turkish cash).

[PrimeJunta]

Since nobody's posted an actual timeline... 

 

~800: Earliest known formula for gunpowder (China)

~1100: Earliest known depiction of hand cannon (metal gunpowder weapon firing projectiles, China)

~1200: Earliest surviving hand cannon (China)

~1250: First use of firearms in warfare in Europe (as siege artillery on the Iberian peninsula)

1300's: Hand cannon becomes widespread in Europe

1400's: Matchlocks replace hand cannon

1453: Constaninople falls to Mehmed the Conqueror; regarded by many by first major battle decided by gunpowder weapons (used to breach the walls)

~1500: Rifling invented

1500's: Wheellocks start to displace matchlocks, both used side by side. Infantry firearms used at beginning of engagements, most fighting still hand to hand. Crossbows largely displaced by firearms.

1600's: Flintlocks start to displace wheellocks; ranks of musketeers start to displace pike formations as base infantry organization

1683: Battle of Vienna. Beautiful mix of weaponry here, from Ottoman mounted archers (Sipahi), to ranks of musketeers on both sides, pikemen, heavy artillery, and of course cavalry. The engagement was decided by cavalry actions, including the biggest cavalry charge in European history. Very bloody and hand-to-hand.

1700-1721: Great Northern War. By now, firearms were the primary weapons in use, but Charles XII had lots of pikemen too and used them to great effect.

 

From there on out, firearms dominated. Pikemen were replaced by bayonetted muskets. Smoothbore weapons weren't fully displaced by rifled ones until the 19th century when manufacturing techniques had improved to the point that rifled barrels could be mass-produced. There were lots of wars fought where one side didn't have firearms, but those were rather one-sided affairs; as Belloc put it, "whatever happens, we have got / the Maxim gun, and they have not."

 

In other words, gunpowder weapons coexisted with bows, crossbows, swords, maces, and what have you, for about a thousand years, give or take a couple hundred years, depending on if you count the early part where they were curiosities and the late part which were more massacres than battles. That's a good deal longer than the part of the European Middle Ages where there weren't any gunpowder weapons.

[Eli]

Great responses all, thanks. Very interesting... I think my association of firearms with the industrial era is misguided, something I could address by reading a bit more pre 1800s warfare history.

 

 

 

In other words, gunpowder weapons coexisted with bows, crossbows, swords, maces, and what have you, for about a thousand years, give or take a couple hundred years, depending on if you count the early part where they were curiosities and the late part which were more massacres than battles. That's a good deal longer than the part of the European Middle Ages where there weren't any gunpowder weapons.

 

This is really interesting. But I guess 1000 years is the blink of an eye in the fantasy settings I've enjoyed in the past. I like the ancient, timeless sense of the DnD settings. I think maybe deep down what I'm uneasy about is the sense of modernity that firearms introduce, at least for me. However I like the interpretations suggested by Kveldulf, Elerond and  Mr. Magniloquent. I shouldn't be wanting PoT to conform to all my DnD / Infinity Engine etc. experiences. I mean a lot of us backed this out of nostalgia for that golden age of cRPGs, but something a bit different would be good, yeah... okay I'm convinced... firearms are not an issue. Great to discuss this stuff anyway with fellow enthusiasts.

[PrimeJunta]

Quite, but if you're willing to accept a world permanently frozen at a 1000 CE level of technology, why is a world permanently frozen at 1400 CE or 1500 CE level of technology harder to accept?

 

(Personally, I actively dislike "timeless" fantasy. I much prefer fantasy that incorporates change.)

[milczyciel]

I must concur - since I first gave a second thought to Star Wars and Middlearth universes all those years ago, a setting locked on a specific era, unable to change and develop throughout all those millennia was a problem for my (seemingly) limited imagination. It made me wonder even more in cases of technologically inclined dwarves / gnomes / insert_your_favourite_trope_here happily existing in those seemingly stagnant worlds, doing effectively nothing to justify narrators' claims about their ingenuity.

 

I feel that not many pulled off such polarized premise/setting successfully... or at least sufficiently.

Hmm... I may be an Arcanum fanboy you know?

 

BTW while I agree that it's quite a challenge to explain existence of firearms in primarily bronze age setting, I'd like to support JFSOCC point that It's not an effort doomed from the start when we are discussing a fantasy. I strongly believe it's merely hard to pull of with class

Plus it's also even more than valid in terms of "historical accuracy".* I'm thinking here about the clash of Mesoamerican and European culture and arrival of western explorers/colonists in Australia (even more extreme example I might add).

 

 

* Yeah, the very same I don't want to see as an ultimate point of reference to the fantasy setting.... don't call me hypocrite

[Adhin]

@PrimeJunta: I know I wasn't going to post in here, again, but PrimeJunta i don't think Colonial age is the '18th c America', I never said that. Nor was I ever trying to get people to think that's the 'era' it was. I said I 'THINK' about the colonization of the AMERICAS and you just felt the need to yell at me like a goddamn madman. It was what I initially thought of, I acknowledged the 1600-1800 wasn't the 'only time period' in that era nor was British and french the only ones colonizing ****.

 

Just please stop mentioning me incorrectly, It's getting aggravating.

[PrimeJunta]

@Adhin, you said: 
 

Oh and I don't like thinking of it as 'colonial era' but that's mostly cause America. I know 'colonial era' is kinda all over the place and hard to pin down but it just brings up thoughts of the start of America for me which is extremely far from high fantasy in so many ways. Also Wheellocks are a lot older then that, 1500's roughly. Flintlocks came after, hundred years or so after. And again when I think 'Colonial' I think more around the 1700-1800's.

 
After which I politely corrected you. You, for some reason, refused to admit your mistake but instead tried to weasel out of it by arguing that what 'the colonial era' means is somehow a matter of opinion.

 

If you no longer think of the 18th century when someone mentions the colonial age, then that's great, you've learned something from this. I don't see why you're pretending you never thought it to start with, when it's right there in the above quote. Nor do I see why you're accusing me of yelling at you, when anyone can read this thread and note that the bluntest I got was "bluntly put, you're wrong."

Edited January 4, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Adhin]

See this is where your problem is. I said, in what you quoted even, I 'think' of when someone mentions Colonial Era is the 1700's America. I don't THINK that's the entire Colonial era, nor did I ever say it. You've decided, for me I may point out, that I think of the 1800 only (which I think of the Oregon trail and subsequently the wild west). So no, I don't think of the '1800s', I think of the 1700 TO the 1800 (not the 1800s them selves).

 

I also point out in that thread that the colonial era is broader then just that but its what I think of. That's the part I take issue with and its the one you keep bringing up. I 'think' of the 1700 America up to the 1800-ish. I don't think of the 1800s. I have not tried to 'weasel' out of what I think about, it hasn't changed, nor have I 'learned' anything that I didn't already know (as I've stated before). I'm sorry but what I 'think' about when someone mentions the colonial era isn't wrong, its a small portion of it and it's just the first to pop into my brain.

 

If you want to keep twisting that, go ahead. All I'm asking, ultimately, is you don't use me as another example. Leave it be, let it go, and most certainly leave me the crap outa anymore of your examples when your arguing with other people.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Adhin

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I feel like many people are missing the root here.

 

Mechanically, guns provide a counter balance to magic. They allow non-magical characters to matter in the long term. This is not the most important impact.

 

What is important, is that it pushes P:E out of the Dark Ages. It brings to P:E what made Arcanum so special among settings. Old vs. New, Technology vs. Magic, Superstition & Tradition vs. Rationality and Modernality. A merchant with a flint-lock versus a superbly trained swordsman of "the Gentry". It introduces, alternatives. It introduces conflict. As creators, it gives them license to try new things without having to worry a great deal about constructing a massive history to the world. Pillars of Eternity is going to happen at a golden age. You won't be slaying the risen spectre of an ancient necromancer; you'll be living next door to him--in his prime!

 

That's what guns are in Pillars of Eternity. It's a paradigm shift. It allows them to innovate and break new ground while drawing people in the the proven and familiar. Embrace it!

[JFSOCC]

guns provide a counter to a wizard specific ability, that doesn't preclude guns frm getting magical enhancement themselves.

 

And technology vs magic is the oldest and most tired fantasy cliché EVER. It's like Tolkienesque whaah technology is evil, whaaah so only orcs and goblins will use furnaces and gunpowder and warmachines.

Ugh.

 

Guns are a natural progression of the technology in this world and there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't be upgraded and enhanced by magic themselves. Hell, I imagine many wizards would carry such a gun. They're not stupid, after all.

[milczyciel]

Ok, that may be plain stupid but I can't stop myself 

 

Above post from JFSOCC and the time frame provided by PrimeJunta made me wonder how different the gun's history would be in a  world with abundance of mithril-esque ore and at least one trope-fitting race of ingenious engineers

 

First of all it's a material superior to those used by "our" gunsmiths - i.e. it's lighter and have far greater stress resistance.

Secondly It can be easily enchanted, thus providing magically evoked properties like: pseudo- sniping, noctovision and laser sight, magical ammo (duh!), bullet time (yeah probably overkill), or hell even making a bullet itself magically levitate and spin inside a gun!

...at least until they discover that every stupid orc/goblin/whatever can get a similar effect by simply grooving insides of a barrel

 

Har, har! Good riddance you snotty elves!

 

edited typho

Edited January 5, 2014 by milczyciel

[Mr. Magniloquent]

guns provide a counter to a wizard specific ability, that doesn't preclude guns frm getting magical enhancement themselves.

 

And technology vs magic is the oldest and most tired fantasy cliché EVER. It's like Tolkienesque whaah technology is evil, whaaah so only orcs and goblins will use furnaces and gunpowder and warmachines.

Ugh.

 

Guns are a natural progression of the technology in this world and there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't be upgraded and enhanced by magic themselves. Hell, I imagine many wizards would carry such a gun. They're not stupid, after all.

 

So what's your point? Would you rather not have technology? For that matter, there is no established lore saying that technology & magic couldn't exit within P:E. I feel like you read a single line, and missed the entire post. My point was that by pushing P:E's setting up towards a more Renaissance level, more dynamics can be explored than the same worn-out Dark Ages fantasy. The gun itself is immaterial. It's the level of advancement that it represents which matters.

 

It will be a golden age. You'll be raiding a laboratory in its prime and glory rather than spelunking through its forgotten ashes. This is what matters. I look forward to the change of pace and setting.

[Scottfree6000]

Think of the sengoku era, which is common theme for many games. Matchlock guns are just starting to spread and majority are still using katanas, spears and bows. At the battle of Nagashino Nobunaga's matchlock corps turned the tide by a annihilating Tokugawa cavalery (which held the reputation of undefeatable), but majority of the battle was still fought was with steel wepons, since the matchlocks were not as reliable yet. There was still plenty of demand for samurai heroism on the field of battle.

 

So as long as they are in moderation, guns do not harm the gameworld, but rather add to it.

Sorry, but Takada Cavalry at were annihilating, and Tokugawa and Nobunaga Oda were ally in that battle.