Where does this mindset come from?

[Desdan_Mervolam]

A few days ago I saw a post on Google Plus asking who was excited for Diablo 3*, to which I responded that I was more excited for Torchlight 2. Tonight I saw that the original poster had responded, stating "When I saw Torchlight had guns, I decided not to try it. I prefer fantasy settings.".

Now, let's ignore for a moment how superior and dismissive that response is, because I think that leads to a more interesting question: Where did the idea that guns, even primitive ones, cause fantasy settings to explode on contact come from? It's not as prevalant a stand as it once was but there's definately still an old guard that insists that guns, even over and above other questionable things, are the dealbreaker when it comes to fantasy gaming?

Is it an overdramatization of how firearms revolutionized combat after their introduction, leading to the idea that for guns to be represented properly, they must be unbalanced to the point of brokenness?

Is it a slavish devotion to the standards set by Tolkien and those like him, where 'fantasy' by necessity takes place in a caricature of medieval Europe, despite the fact that fantasy in different eras and settings existed both before and after Tolkien was an active writer?

Is it a backlash against a modern aesthetic where heroes can ride around on magically powered motorbikes to their magically powered airship where they work on building their robot (Powered with magic) and still get to call themselves fantasy despite the large number of Sci-Fi tropes they're employing?

Is it some combination thereof? Is it something else entirely? I'm asking because this viewpoint really baffles me.

*This post was a few weeks old. That I do not visit G+ often is besides the point.

[Fuchs]

It's not the flintlock I object to, but the gunpowder. Such explosives, especially cheaply produced ones (thanks to alchemy training or straight magic) change a setting.

If I want to play that I'll play Shadowrun.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

See, the problem there is that Shadowrun is still fantasy. The fact that they have guns and motorcycles and television and beer and that these are all roughly analogous to the things that have the same names in our world is irrelevant because this is also a setting that has trolls and wizards and dragons.

I don't object to the idea that fantasy shouldn't have guns. I object to the idea that fantasy CANNOT have guns.

[Ancient History]

Basically it's due to people getting locked into the "fantasy Medieval" mindset - and the Middle Ages basically ended with the spread of hand cannons from China (okay, yes, there was lots more, still). Probably more directly, Tolkein didn't have guns in The Lord of the Rings, even if he had fireworks.

Earlier fantasy literature - particularly science fantasy - was a lot more open to it.

[deaddmwalking]

Guns are an element of our modern society (like other aspects of ShadowRun). The poster in question probably didn't spend a lot of time explaining his objection to guns, but in this case he probably means 'high-fantasy' or 'traditional fantasy' when he says 'fantasy'.

If you compare Yojimbo and A Fistful of Dollars, you're forced to admit that you can tell the same story with melee weapons or pistols, but there's a certain element that will feel the use of guns is less heroic.

If you're interested in roleplaying to represent heroic fantasy, you'll be interested in a world that supports that. Guns and gunpowders lead more or less directly to the end of knights in shining armor so it's not unreasonable to assume that if you want a setting that focuses on one, the other, as a logical result, cannot have as important a place.

But like most opinions, it doesn't matter if it's stupid or not - it's a simple personal preference. It doesn't hurt anyone if he doesn't like guns in his game. And I can think of a lot of people that feel that way - not just because guns =/= fantasy, but because there are people that have been the victim of gun violence or otherwise object to a perceived 'encouragement' of gun violence.

Again, doesn't matter if they're right or wrong - if they're coming to that opinion from a position of principal, anything you can say to dismiss their opinion will be ignored.

[OgreBattle]

Is it a slavish devotion to the standards set by Tolkien and those like him, where 'fantasy' by necessity takes place in a caricature of medieval Europe, despite the fact that fantasy in different eras and settings existed both before and after Tolkien was an active writer?

Warhammer Fantasy had guns "because Tolkein doesn't", Jes Goodwin (created Skaven, Space Marines, Eldar) says it's a big part of the WHF aesthetic and what initially set them apart from the pack in th' 80's.



So yeah, guns= no longer Tolkein fantasy, and to many folks thats what Fantasy is, even if their dungeon crawler is in plate armor invented as a response to guns.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

DeadDMWalking: Fantasy is defined entirely by the presence/absence of magic. A person can split hairs however they want (Declaring that Psionics, The Force or steampunk automatons are not magic, despite how unrealistic they are) but I think we all agree that when a person waggles their fingers, spouts some gibberish and throws a little bit of bat shit in the air and a guy explodes into fire, that was magic. And it continues to be magic whether or not the guy who just experienced spontaneous human combustion was holding a flintlock or a crossbow.

[hogarth]

So yeah, guns= no longer Tolkein fantasy, and to many folks thats what Fantasy is[..]

Or Conan, or Elric, or Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser. None of those involve firearms to any significant degree (even though they might have weird technology of other sorts).

[RobbyPants]

Is it an overdramatization of how firearms revolutionized combat after their introduction, leading to the idea that for guns to be represented properly, they must be unbalanced to the point of brokenness?

Is it a slavish devotion to the standards set by Tolkien and those like him, where 'fantasy' by necessity takes place in a caricature of medieval Europe, despite the fact that fantasy in different eras and settings existed both before and after Tolkien was an active writer?

Is it a backlash against a modern aesthetic where heroes can ride around on magically powered motorbikes to their magically powered airship where they work on building their robot (Powered with magic) and still get to call themselves fantasy despite the large number of Sci-Fi tropes they're employing?

All of these make sense. It could also be that he seriously hasn't put any real thought into why he feels a certain way and is just grabbing the most convenient excuse to explain his opinion.

Maybe he got a bad taste in his mouth from some other fantasy that had guns, regardless of whether or not the guns were the actual problem.

[deaddmwalking]

No, fantasy is not defined entirely by the presence/absence of magic.

A fantasy wherein a man engages in carnal acts with three or more attractive ladies is often just as much a fantasy as being a wizard with a pointy hat. Some fantasies are just a little more likely than others.

A fantasy setting doesn't have to have magic. Sci-Fi and Fantasy are often lumped in together. Star Trek only has pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to explain 'magical effects', so it would not be unreasonable to consider it a 'fantasy setting' with sci-fi elements - the fact that some people use 'Sci-Fi' to automatically imply 'scientific flavored fantasy' doesn't mean the term couldn't be used directly.

But this is immaterial. Some people don't like the flavor of guns. Some people do.

You quoted the statement of the person that you disagree with:

"When I saw Torchlight had guns, I decided not to try it. I prefer fantasy settings."

I have not seen the original post, but the implication here is 'I prefer fantasy settings that don't have guns'. You seem to want him to admit that guns can exist in fantasy settings. That's obviously true, but that has nothing to do with his preferences.

Fantasy is any situation that is unlikely or impossible to occur in reality. Alternate histories are just as much a fantasy, as are Tolkien-clones or Anime worlds. Since fantasy is a big tent, most people will have a preference for what they like included in their fantasy. If this person doesn't have room in his heart for a fantasy that includes guns, that's his perogative. It doesn't make him wrong to dislike it. If he is categorically stating that 'fantasy cannot have guns', then, yes, he would be an idiot, but that seems to be reading in a lot more to his argument than I see from your post.

[Username17]

So yeah, guns= no longer Tolkein fantasy, and to many folks thats what Fantasy is[..]

Or Conan, or Elric, or Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser. None of those involve firearms to any significant degree (even though they might have weird technology of other sorts).

M'v Okom Sebpt O'Riley, Gunholder of the Qui Lors Ventures, disagrees.

-Username17

[hogarth]

So yeah, guns= no longer Tolkein fantasy, and to many folks thats what Fantasy is[..]

Or Conan, or Elric, or Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser. None of those involve firearms to any significant degree (even though they might have weird technology of other sorts).

M'v Okom Sebpt O'Riley, Gunholder of the Qui Lors Ventures, disagrees.

-Username17

What percentage of Elric stories involve this guy that I've never heard of? Less than 2%?

(Hint: I put the word "significant" in there for a reason.)

[virgil]

She was mentioned once in one of the comic books of Elric as someone that had existed. I think that fits under the canopy of "not to any significant degree."

[Desdan_Mervolam]

No, fantasy is not defined entirely by the presence/absence of magic.

A fantasy wherein a man engages in carnal acts with three or more attractive ladies is often just as much a fantasy as being a wizard with a pointy hat. Some fantasies are just a little more likely than others.

Touche. But this is even more damning to the idea that a fantasy world cannot have guns. By that rubric, a world exactly like ours except the sky is creamscicle orange is a fantasy world.

But this is immaterial. Some people don't like the flavor of guns. Some people do.

You quoted the statement of the person that you disagree with:

"When I saw Torchlight had guns, I decided not to try it. I prefer fantasy settings."

I have not seen the original post, but the implication here is 'I prefer fantasy settings that don't have guns'. You seem to want him to admit that guns can exist in fantasy settings. That's obviously true, but that has nothing to do with his preferences.

I think I have discovered the disconnect here. The anecdote at the beginning of my post was an illustration of the mindset I wanted to explore. I can (And did) ask him this very question. That's beside the point. It's not a matter of "I prefer my fantasy to not have guns" that I'm questioning. That's a setting design issue.

It's the idea that guns have no place in fantasy, period that I am wondering about. That once you introduce firearms into a setting, it is no longer fantasy. That's a bigger statement than "I don't like guns in fantasy". It states that wide chunks of fiction are not fantasy despite having people who can conjure fire, talk to ghosts turn invisible and teleport, it's all thrown away by the fact that somewhere out there is a guy holding a gun.

It's an idea I've encountered before, not just in reference to one person.

[K]

Guns create what is known as the "Grandma and Bruce Lee" Problem where a 98 .lb grandma can kill Bruce Lee if she had a gun.

That makes sword-fighting seem lot less impressive and people would have no logical reason to fight with swords. Fighting dragons at that point is a matter of luring the creature into the area with the charges and not fighting toe-to-toe.

Tech makes magic and skill a lot less impressive and levels human achievement, making heroes less special because their talents aren't as overwhelming when compared to regular people.

[Seerow]

Guns create what is known as the "Grandma and Bruce Lee" Problem where a 98 .lb grandma can kill Bruce Lee if she had a gun.

That makes sword-fighting seem lot less impressive and people would have no logical reason to fight with swords. Fighting dragons at that point is a matter of luring the creature into the area with the charges and not fighting toe-to-toe.

Tech makes magic and skill a lot less impressive and levels human achievement, making heroes less special because their talents aren't as overwhelming when compared to regular people.

I was going to say something along these lines. Guns feel less cool than other weapons, because just about anyone can use a gun to kill someone, and almost nobody can defend against a gun. Sure, people who are better with guns have better accuracy, but the difference between an amateur shooter and a master shooter visually isn't anywhere near the difference between an amateur swordsman and a master swordsman. I think that's where the main difference really lies.




As an aside, in the context of video games, most games that introduce guns quickly become some form of shooter, as opposed to an RPG. If you're not into shooter games, you're probably going to want to avoid games that have guns in them. For example it was years before I got around to trying mass effect, simply because everything I had seen about it made me think it was more of a third person shooter than an RPG. I was wrong, but it took me a long time to shake that perception and actually try it.

[Voss]

Guns create what is known as the "Grandma and Bruce Lee" Problem where a 98 .lb grandma can kill Bruce Lee if she had a gun.

That makes sword-fighting seem lot less impressive and people would have no logical reason to fight with swords. Fighting dragons at that point is a matter of luring the creature into the area with the charges and not fighting toe-to-toe.

Tech makes magic and skill a lot less impressive and levels human achievement, making heroes less special because their talents aren't as overwhelming when compared to regular people.

I was going to say something along these lines. Guns feel less cool than other weapons, because just about anyone can use a gun to kill someone, and almost nobody can defend against a gun. Sure, people who are better with guns have better accuracy, but the difference between an amateur shooter and a master shooter visually isn't anywhere near the difference between an amateur swordsman and a master swordsman. I think that's where the main difference really lies.

I have to agree with the above logic. Guns are cheap and easy, and the setting quickly moves away from skill of the hero, to the effectiveness of the toys. Even magic can get hit with the 'Indiana Jones' moment where someone just pulls out a gun and 'caps' the bad guy.

Guns also hit the same buttons that katanas do. There is a large chunk of the player base that wants to masturbate furiously about how guns (or katanas) are the most amazingly awesome things ever, and get quite pissy when the game rules don't make their weapon of choice the best thing ever.

As an aside, in the context of video games, most games that introduce guns quickly become some form of shooter, as opposed to an RPG. If you're not into shooter games, you're probably going to want to avoid games that have guns in them. For example it was years before I got around to trying mass effect, simply because everything I had seen about it made me think it was more of a third person shooter than an RPG. I was wrong, but it took me a long time to shake that perception and actually try it.

True. It was a bad third person shooter.

But this also raises another point- for me personally, I tend to sigh when I see guns in a fantasy setting. Not necessarily for the guns themselves, but because I am very tired of the 'everything and the kitchen sink' settings, and this is especially true in video games lately. Pick a theme and stick to it. The story and setting in a traditional sword and sorcery setup is usually more interesting because it isn't overwhelmed or watered down by all the bullshit justifications for random shit that has been shoved in.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think that the biggest objection of guns has to come from people who want Conan-level fantasy that stays at Conan-level. Once the power level of the setting gets enough so that people can easily block, dodge, or tank gunfire as easily as they would arrows or swords the Bruce Lee vs. Grandma thing ceases to become a problem. Guns just become another weapon of choice. Of course, the power level of a setting doesn't have to increase very much at all before gunfire becomes just another flavor of fireball or crossbow bolt, so people who scream that guns 'ruin' fantasy have a rather narrow scope in mind.

Not that there's anything wrong with a narrow scope.

[nockermensch]

"Guns" don't exist in a vacuum, of course. Some kinds of guns are perfectly acceptable in settings where you have a profession like "melee warrior". Lets remember that "cavalry" was a viable army role until the very end of XIX century.

Which means that seriously there was a 400 years interval in RL during which guns and melee weapons coexisted in warfare and personal combat. The whole genre of pirate fiction falls in this period, which makes me seriously wonder how little thought people put behind the "I don't like fantasy with guns" idea.

[Stubbazubba]

Well, see, yeah, when I envision "fantasy with guns" I can't take the Paladin in full plate seriously. No one in pirate fiction dresses up like that. Seems like it's a much better idea to be a Rogue with a belt full of pistols. While I know that they made plate armor very thick with the express purpose of protecting from early firearms, and that in a fantasy setting you can just say, "OUR PLATE IS BETTER" and that those would all work, there's just something in me that sees Paladin vs. Gunslinger and says, "The Paladin's SoL."

That being said, I've designed settings where firearms and melee were both equally valid, and shields of super-metal were common enough to take the edge off of guns' effectiveness, and it works just fine, but it has to be approached fairly carefully. It's easy to do wrong, so I'm leery of settings or games where it's assumed. Not opposed to them, I just want to see the justification of it, so that my mind can get around that knee-jerk reaction with something reasonable.

[Lago PARANOIA]

there's just something in me that sees Paladin vs. Gunslinger and says, "The Paladin's SoL."

By Paladin, do you mean Charlemange's praetorian, yet mundane underlings or do you mean warrior who gets rewarded for their faith and goodness with real superpowers? Because if you mean the latter it seems like it's the gunslinger who's completely and utterly fucked. It's piss-easy to find artwork of paladins casually holding up a shield and tanking fire dragon breath -- how the hell is a dinky little pistol or musket supposed to make a paladin even flinch?

[Avoraciopoctules]

As someone with over 5 years of experience volunteering at an Oakland library, I'd like to weigh in on the "Can fantasy have guns?" angle.

Public libraries want to be friendly and accessible. It is important that stacks be organized and divided along lines that intuitively make sense to the average user and make it easy for people to find things that fit into their individual interests. The official or most accurate name for something is less important than the name

The 2 largest categories of fictional material in the Oakland Library system are "Science Fiction / Fantasy" and "Fiction". There are others, but those can be disregarded for our purposes.

http://catalog.oaklandlibrary.org/searc ... =n&SORT=DX

The Alloy of Law, by Brandon Sanderson, is a jump far into the future of his earlier-established fantasy series where some people have metal-based superpowers. Now things have a distinct "Wild West" aesthetic, with trains, newspapers, electric lights, and, yes, guns, all being important and distinct parts of the new world. The protagonists (2 former sheriffs from the lawless wastes, both with lots of experience. One is a high-ranking nobleman and the other is a master of disguise. One can telekinetically manipulate metal to fly and shield himself from bullets, one has super-speed from creating bubbles of accelerated time and heals super-fast) discover that there is a conspiracy people and robbing trains, but local law enforcement seems useless. The two set out to stop the bad guys themselves, and are eventually successful. Then they learn the bad guys they stopped were just pawns of a greater evil.

This book is classified as "Science Fiction / Fantasy"


http://catalog.oaklandlibrary.org/searc ... &6%2C%2C32

Children of the Night, by Dan Simmons, is a story set in roughly modern times here on Earth. There is a conspiracy among people with a very special genetic disorder which lets them break down ingested human blood and use it to heal super-fast, not age, and protect themselves from a disease they are otherwise super-susceptible too. The vampire myth is about them. Their "clan leader" is the historical Dracula. The protagonists (a scientist and a priest) get embroiled in this conspiracy's plots, but eventually manage to escape with both their objective and their lives.

This story is classified as "Fiction"

EDIT: Oh hey, it looks like Sanderson has a blog on this very subject:
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/11/my-14- ... loy-of-law
EDIT 2: he says the 2 things that make Fantasy are magic and worldbuilding.

[virgil]

there's just something in me that sees Paladin vs. Gunslinger and says, "The Paladin's SoL."

By Paladin, do you mean Charlemange's praetorian, yet mundane underlings or do you mean warrior who gets rewarded for their faith and goodness with real superpowers? Because if you mean the latter it seems like it's the gunslinger who's completely and utterly fucked. It's piss-easy to find artwork of paladins casually holding up a shield and tanking fire dragon breath -- how the hell is a dinky little pistol or musket supposed to make a paladin even flinch?

Have you seen the volume of gun rules players make? Touch attacks, exploding damage dice, extreme critical hits, save or dies; the presence of Instant Death Bullets is a very prevalent trope. The only time bringing a sword to a gunfight isn't a bad idea is when that sword is a katana, which already offends the anti-weeabo crowd.

Go right ahead and cite all of the historical and literary sources you want backing up the viewpoint that primitive guns aren't death rays in the ren-faire fantasy world. That doesn't change the perception.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Go right ahead and cite all of the historical and literary sources you want backing up the viewpoint that primitive guns aren't death rays in the ren-faire fantasy world. That doesn't change the perception.

Bully for them. Why are we wanking to grognard denial?

[Stubbazubba]

Because that's what the OP is specifically asking about, Lago.