Why Fantasy Avoids Gunpowder(warfantasy.wordpress.com)
warfantasy.wordpress.com
Why Fantasy Avoids Gunpowder
https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/08/20/why-fantasy-avoids-gunpowder/
113 comments
I always thought that scene from the first Indiana Jones movie where Indy is confronted with an expert swordsman and solves the situation by simply shooting him was a comment on exactly what this article describes...
[deleted]
That general issue is one reason (among many) why I have a hard time suspending my disbelief for the Star Wars movies.
You're going to use a sword when someone 100 meters away can plug you in the head with a gun? Umm... good luck with that.
They tried to paper over the issue by making the stormtroopers terrible marksmen, but that wasn't very successful (at least in my case).
You're going to use a sword when someone 100 meters away can plug you in the head with a gun? Umm... good luck with that.
They tried to paper over the issue by making the stormtroopers terrible marksmen, but that wasn't very successful (at least in my case).
AFAIK in the lore the stormtroopers have great aim, but they can't beat the Force, which allows Jedi to "gun kata"
That only happens in the film because Harrison Ford had the trots and couldn't shoot a longer scene.
That's true, but it actually made a huge improvement to the scene and changed how I perceived Indy as a character.
[deleted]
Why one specific narrow slice of fantasy avoids gunpowder. Steampunk fantasy, gunpowder fantasy, non-eurocentric fantasy, science fantasy etc don't have any issues with gunpowder.
I wouldn't call it narrow. I think the fantasy + gunpowder settings are the less common.
So narrow that it encompasses 90% of all fantasy in popular culture? Even science fantasy like Star Wars or Dune are all about swords.
Star Wars has guns. They shoot lasers/plasma instead of lead propeller by gun powder, though.
There's fantasies that incorporate various "{propellant}-powered projectile weapons" but your right that they're not common, though (and maybe not considered "classic" fantasy).
There's also alchemical way to work in guns into a fantasy setting not reliant on gun powder. Or why not have gun powder; alchemy+magic could be a superset of science even.
There's fantasies that incorporate various "{propellant}-powered projectile weapons" but your right that they're not common, though (and maybe not considered "classic" fantasy).
There's also alchemical way to work in guns into a fantasy setting not reliant on gun powder. Or why not have gun powder; alchemy+magic could be a superset of science even.
> Star Wars has guns. They shoot lasers/plasma instead of lead propeller by gun powder, though.
That's just because they're "more advanced" in Star Wars universe, it has nothing to do with gunpowder avoidance. Isolated societies like Tusken Raiders use firearms and that's clearly depicted as a crude tech, long obsolete in the rest of the galaxy.
That's just because they're "more advanced" in Star Wars universe, it has nothing to do with gunpowder avoidance. Isolated societies like Tusken Raiders use firearms and that's clearly depicted as a crude tech, long obsolete in the rest of the galaxy.
Yeah I agree with you, I probably muddied my point a bit, though.
I just meant to say that fire-arm style weapons (regardless of propellant or ammunition type) still have a place in fantasy settings
I just meant to say that fire-arm style weapons (regardless of propellant or ammunition type) still have a place in fantasy settings
> Even science fantasy like Star Wars or Dune are all about swords.
Shields, personal or larger, hamper many projectile weapons in Dune: the projectile has to 'burrow' through the shield.
Shields, personal or larger, hamper many projectile weapons in Dune: the projectile has to 'burrow' through the shield.
That's the justification, but not the reason.
Agreed. Still, said narrow slice of fantasy is often in love with plate armor, which coexisted with gunpowder.
Plate armor still coexists with gunpowder. It is just that the plates are armoring vehicles now rather than humans. (But I know what you mean.)
Breastplates are currently known as ballistic plates. They're just thicker, heavier and made of composites - because they have to take on high powered rifle bullets.
The modern fibre combat armor is better than gambeson and probably also many forms of plate. It's lighter and can take blades and even polearms better.
Chainmail is in use to protect against industrial equipment.
The modern fibre combat armor is better than gambeson and probably also many forms of plate. It's lighter and can take blades and even polearms better.
Chainmail is in use to protect against industrial equipment.
Good points!
Yes, the title on HN isn't the title in the article, which makes your point too:
"Why (High) Fantasy Avoids Gunpowder"
"Why (High) Fantasy Avoids Gunpowder"
The Powder Mage trilogy by Brian McClellan includes gunpowder as one of the magic system elements, and integrates it in a way which the author of the OP might be interested in :)
And also Gods of Blood and Powder of the same author. Fun read
See also Warhammer (Fantasy, not 40k - although 40k certainly mixes magic and technology too).
Came here to say this. I love the magic in that series.
Also guns are boring for character progression.
Sword users can learn new techniques. Wizards can learn new spells. Characters can become visibly stronger, or to learn to wield stronger arcane forces. But a guy with a gun can... what? Get a bigger gun?
You take somebody like Magneto and you can have lots of creative applications of the powers, interesting matchups and development. Or you can have Rob Liefeld hero #6, who charges in with big guns. And either the bad guy dies, or the bullets bounce off and there's little ground in between.
There's a whole comic book era of big dudes with guns and they're pretty much all pointless because there's nothing much interesting they can do.
Sword users can learn new techniques. Wizards can learn new spells. Characters can become visibly stronger, or to learn to wield stronger arcane forces. But a guy with a gun can... what? Get a bigger gun?
You take somebody like Magneto and you can have lots of creative applications of the powers, interesting matchups and development. Or you can have Rob Liefeld hero #6, who charges in with big guns. And either the bad guy dies, or the bullets bounce off and there's little ground in between.
There's a whole comic book era of big dudes with guns and they're pretty much all pointless because there's nothing much interesting they can do.
> Sword users can learn new techniques. Wizards can learn new spells. Characters can become visibly stronger, or to learn to wield stronger arcane forces. But a guy with a gun can... what? Get a bigger gun?
A guy with a gun can learn skills for shooting better. He starts with Stormtrooper shooting skills, and ends like the Man with No Name.
Watch an old spaghetti Western, and there are clear themes that the protagonists are far more skilled at firearms than most people in that world. I'm reminded of a scene in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (I think) where the character Tuco escapes or something, goes to a frontier store to buy a gun, then disassembles all the guns at the store, quickly and carefully examines all the components, and reassembles all the best parts into the one he then steals, which shows his knowledge and skill. In those movies the characters' skills are taken as given, but I see no reason why you couldn't have a skill-building arc for them any less than for a swordfighter, a martial artist, or, a wizard.
A guy with a gun can learn skills for shooting better. He starts with Stormtrooper shooting skills, and ends like the Man with No Name.
Watch an old spaghetti Western, and there are clear themes that the protagonists are far more skilled at firearms than most people in that world. I'm reminded of a scene in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (I think) where the character Tuco escapes or something, goes to a frontier store to buy a gun, then disassembles all the guns at the store, quickly and carefully examines all the components, and reassembles all the best parts into the one he then steals, which shows his knowledge and skill. In those movies the characters' skills are taken as given, but I see no reason why you couldn't have a skill-building arc for them any less than for a swordfighter, a martial artist, or, a wizard.
Another case in point, a movie where the skill disparity is very explicit in the shooting scenes (especially the ending): Quigley Down Under.
> He starts with Stormtrooper shooting skills, and ends like the Man with No Name.
On the other hand, I imagine writing such a story without it seeming contrived could be rather hard. The problem with western style duels is that they often don't leave the loser with many opportunities to learn.
But, on second thought, it's not as if it hasn't been done: Django Unchained is a good example for such a plot.
> He starts with Stormtrooper shooting skills, and ends like the Man with No Name.
On the other hand, I imagine writing such a story without it seeming contrived could be rather hard. The problem with western style duels is that they often don't leave the loser with many opportunities to learn.
But, on second thought, it's not as if it hasn't been done: Django Unchained is a good example for such a plot.
JRPGs either solve this problem by giving the gun guy materia slots, new different colored guns, or giving everyone generic magic.
(They are very bad at integrating this into the story. In Tales of Vesperia one specific ultra-cool sword is plot relevant, you lose it at one point in the game, and then you find one with better stats in a chest. Also FF7, the #1 gun guy game, has a snowboarding minigame right after a main character death.)
(They are very bad at integrating this into the story. In Tales of Vesperia one specific ultra-cool sword is plot relevant, you lose it at one point in the game, and then you find one with better stats in a chest. Also FF7, the #1 gun guy game, has a snowboarding minigame right after a main character death.)
So focus the book on something other than pure fighting! Fantasy is so much more than campaign stories. There happened so much in the early industrialist era, supremacy of gunpowder is one part of that but there is so much more in how society is built and structured that changed in those times. There is so much opportunity for an author that is good at world building.
Guns turn things into an issue of preparedness and position instead of direct martial skill.
It's still skill to get into the situation but it's way harder to work into fictional warrior tropes of superior skill at arms winning.. the virtues wind up looking cowardly.
It's still skill to get into the situation but it's way harder to work into fictional warrior tropes of superior skill at arms winning.. the virtues wind up looking cowardly.
Compare and contrast with westerns, or any movie with an arming montage.
The boring answer is just that fantasy is about swords and westerns/crime dramas/action are about guns. "Why isn't historical fiction set in the future?" Well, some of them use that as a secret plot twist, but mostly it's just because anyone who writes about the future already has their own genre with better and more useful conventions.
If you put guns in your fantasy then you're breaking a convention, which is fun and profitable in moderation, but you can only break so many conventions before you end up in another genre.
The boring answer is just that fantasy is about swords and westerns/crime dramas/action are about guns. "Why isn't historical fiction set in the future?" Well, some of them use that as a secret plot twist, but mostly it's just because anyone who writes about the future already has their own genre with better and more useful conventions.
If you put guns in your fantasy then you're breaking a convention, which is fun and profitable in moderation, but you can only break so many conventions before you end up in another genre.
> Sword users can learn new techniques. Wizards can learn new spells. Characters can become visibly stronger, or to learn to wield stronger arcane forces. But a guy with a gun can... what? Get a bigger gun?
You can imagine wizards but you can't imagine more creative guns and guns-usage? For being into fantasy, you seemingly drop the ball on the whole "made up" stuff.
What's to say there aren't different techniques to using guns where one user is better than another? Or since we're in fantasy, that some characters can learn how to avoid getting shot better than others.
You can imagine wizards but you can't imagine more creative guns and guns-usage? For being into fantasy, you seemingly drop the ball on the whole "made up" stuff.
What's to say there aren't different techniques to using guns where one user is better than another? Or since we're in fantasy, that some characters can learn how to avoid getting shot better than others.
Do you have examples of cool things a guy with a gun can do? As some kind of growth curve? That are on par with, for example, Ged growing to become archmage?
I've seen "Wanted" and it wasn't that compelling. Sam Sykes does a decent job in "Seven Blades of Black" ... but even that only works because the gun is a VERY magical device.
I've seen "Wanted" and it wasn't that compelling. Sam Sykes does a decent job in "Seven Blades of Black" ... but even that only works because the gun is a VERY magical device.
I'm no sci-fi writer, so surely someone who is could come up with something better. But basically the development of a wizard could be applied to a gunslinger as well.
In the beginning, character has zero skills, they miss shots and not able to succeed in any battles.
The character learns to control their breathing, emotions, posture, aiming and so on, to become more proficient. They learn how to "quick draw" in order to shot by instinct, learn how to do tactical reloads and so on. Different guns also have different strengths, some better in close combat and so on. Just like a wizard has different potions, the guns have different ammunition. Some ammunition could have "special" effects, like exploding on impact, EMPs or whatever.
Crucially, the character learns that patience, strategy, and emotional control is the most important, just like a wizard would.
This is just what I could come up with as I wrote the comment, so again, surely someone proficient in writing sci-fi/fantasy could come up with something much greater. But it's not hard to imagine it's not impossible to have character growth with someone who wields a pistol.
In the beginning, character has zero skills, they miss shots and not able to succeed in any battles.
The character learns to control their breathing, emotions, posture, aiming and so on, to become more proficient. They learn how to "quick draw" in order to shot by instinct, learn how to do tactical reloads and so on. Different guns also have different strengths, some better in close combat and so on. Just like a wizard has different potions, the guns have different ammunition. Some ammunition could have "special" effects, like exploding on impact, EMPs or whatever.
Crucially, the character learns that patience, strategy, and emotional control is the most important, just like a wizard would.
This is just what I could come up with as I wrote the comment, so again, surely someone proficient in writing sci-fi/fantasy could come up with something much greater. But it's not hard to imagine it's not impossible to have character growth with someone who wields a pistol.
But that's the thing ... that isn't realistic and, hence, not compelling story. I became very good with both a rifle and pistol pretty much on my own. It took years of training with masters of the craft to become proficient as a martial artist.
We're talking about wizards and stuff here, I don't think "realism" is as a hard constraint as you think.
And surely someone with real combat experience would have less chance of dying in combat compared to someone (like you) who have none nor have been trained by someone who have real combat experience.
Is it really that hard to imagine that one person with a gun could be more skilled because of training, knowledge and experience, than another person with a gun?
And surely someone with real combat experience would have less chance of dying in combat compared to someone (like you) who have none nor have been trained by someone who have real combat experience.
Is it really that hard to imagine that one person with a gun could be more skilled because of training, knowledge and experience, than another person with a gun?
Oh my god is that true. My son returned from Iraq mid-tour on a break. His younger brother had an airsoft game (stay with me) going on, after dark, with a dozen friends. They'd build an airsoft tower (small building, windows and a rooftop vantage) and were playing capture the tower.
He chatted, loaded an airsoft rifle, and we walked down the lane to the field. As he talked to me he was casting his gaze around, raising his rifle occasionally, firing off a shot.
We just walked to the tower, no attempt at concealment, no special gear. By the time we'd gotten there everybody was reloading at the reload station. He'd hit everybody, in the dark, in the grass or in the tower.
Proceeded to reorganize them into squads and play for an hour or two. Had a blast that night, lots of scenarios, everybody got to play a role.
Anyway yes, training makes all the difference. Holding the weapon, pointing it are the basics they teach the first day.
He chatted, loaded an airsoft rifle, and we walked down the lane to the field. As he talked to me he was casting his gaze around, raising his rifle occasionally, firing off a shot.
We just walked to the tower, no attempt at concealment, no special gear. By the time we'd gotten there everybody was reloading at the reload station. He'd hit everybody, in the dark, in the grass or in the tower.
Proceeded to reorganize them into squads and play for an hour or two. Had a blast that night, lots of scenarios, everybody got to play a role.
Anyway yes, training makes all the difference. Holding the weapon, pointing it are the basics they teach the first day.
Yes. Training is amazing. This whole “guns are average” argument completely ignores the huge range of gun-toting specialists from regular army grunt up to SpecOps, with side specialists like snipers.
Given how many sniper movies there are, we’re not suffering from “guns are boring and ruin stories”.
Similar story playing paintball. I went for my younger brothers birthday one time. A 3 person team of soldiers showed up. They moved across the maps as an obvious unit, covered each others angles, one reloading at a time, excellent aim. Trounced everyone. Three of them could have taken on dozens of civilians at once.
Given how many sniper movies there are, we’re not suffering from “guns are boring and ruin stories”.
Similar story playing paintball. I went for my younger brothers birthday one time. A 3 person team of soldiers showed up. They moved across the maps as an obvious unit, covered each others angles, one reloading at a time, excellent aim. Trounced everyone. Three of them could have taken on dozens of civilians at once.
> But that's the thing ... that isn't realistic and, hence, not compelling story.
Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS.
If it's not compelling it's only because the OP's precis went into far too much detail about actual technique for an actual story. The Princess Bride would not have been compelling if the movie actually showed Westley learning each of the fencing techniques he refers to in his duel with Inigo.
An actual character development arc would be something like this:
> In the beginning, character has zero skills, they miss shots and not able to succeed in any battles.... They learn how to "quick draw" in order to shot by instinct... [cue montage] ... [cue Yoda lecture] ... Crucially, the character learns that patience, strategy, and emotional control is the most important, just like a wizard would.
Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS.
If it's not compelling it's only because the OP's precis went into far too much detail about actual technique for an actual story. The Princess Bride would not have been compelling if the movie actually showed Westley learning each of the fencing techniques he refers to in his duel with Inigo.
An actual character development arc would be something like this:
> In the beginning, character has zero skills, they miss shots and not able to succeed in any battles.... They learn how to "quick draw" in order to shot by instinct... [cue montage] ... [cue Yoda lecture] ... Crucially, the character learns that patience, strategy, and emotional control is the most important, just like a wizard would.
> Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS.
That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible.
That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible.
> That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible.
Is it really, though? Have you heard about wire-fighting kung-fu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu)? Did the "5 point palm exploding heart technique" prevent people from suspending disbelief during Kill Bill, ruining the finale? (No, it did not.)
And does the guy with the mundane gun have to do something impossible, after his development arc? Why not just something impressively skilled?
IMHO, suspension of disbelief isn't really a function of the kind of thing depicted, but a function of how the storyteller makes that thing "fit" into the story.
Edit: I have some company in my view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief:
> J. R. R. Tolkien challenged this concept in "On Fairy-Stories", choosing instead the paradigm of secondary belief based on inner consistency of reality: in order for the narrative to work, the reader must believe that what they read is true within the secondary reality of the fictional world. By focusing on creating an internally consistent fictional world, the author makes secondary belief possible. Tolkien argued that suspension of disbelief is only necessary when the work has failed to create secondary belief, saying that from that point on, the reader ceases to be immersed in the story and so must make a conscious effort to suspend their disbelief or else give up on it entirely.[16]
Is it really, though? Have you heard about wire-fighting kung-fu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu)? Did the "5 point palm exploding heart technique" prevent people from suspending disbelief during Kill Bill, ruining the finale? (No, it did not.)
And does the guy with the mundane gun have to do something impossible, after his development arc? Why not just something impressively skilled?
IMHO, suspension of disbelief isn't really a function of the kind of thing depicted, but a function of how the storyteller makes that thing "fit" into the story.
Edit: I have some company in my view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief:
> J. R. R. Tolkien challenged this concept in "On Fairy-Stories", choosing instead the paradigm of secondary belief based on inner consistency of reality: in order for the narrative to work, the reader must believe that what they read is true within the secondary reality of the fictional world. By focusing on creating an internally consistent fictional world, the author makes secondary belief possible. Tolkien argued that suspension of disbelief is only necessary when the work has failed to create secondary belief, saying that from that point on, the reader ceases to be immersed in the story and so must make a conscious effort to suspend their disbelief or else give up on it entirely.[16]
You’d need some counter to bullets that is just as strong or interesting.
The real world doesn’t really have one. There’s very little a human or even a tank can do against a sufficiently large explosion.
Then when you have that you can have the hero evolve to work around those limits.
What I’ve mostly seen obsolete guns is generally a sort of shield.
The real world doesn’t really have one. There’s very little a human or even a tank can do against a sufficiently large explosion.
Then when you have that you can have the hero evolve to work around those limits.
What I’ve mostly seen obsolete guns is generally a sort of shield.
Ballistic shields are a thing really. Though the portable onea only do small calibre.
To have something interesting against explosions you need to go sci-fi or have some magic that can dampen them. We had a lot of sport having fire and alchemical powder be extremely overpowered in e.g. D&D.
Villain lair lacks an entrance? Blow up a hole. This castle has walls? Dig and mine it. Enemy has an army? Now they don't, it exploded...
To have something interesting against explosions you need to go sci-fi or have some magic that can dampen them. We had a lot of sport having fire and alchemical powder be extremely overpowered in e.g. D&D.
Villain lair lacks an entrance? Blow up a hole. This castle has walls? Dig and mine it. Enemy has an army? Now they don't, it exploded...
My players had a thing for flour explosions.
Lots of skills. Not just different ammo. Rapid fire, rapid reload, double wield, night vision, double tap. The list goes on.
Really these skills, while slightly useful are inferior to just crackshot aim, ambush and improvisation.
Yes but in a fantasy context, there is a lot to work with.
The only good example I know is the gun-kata from Equilibrium.
John Wick being the more recent example.
In fantasy the abilities of wizards and sword fighters are plausible within the constraints & difference with the real world. Eg magic isn't real and people don't fight with swords, so we're in an unknown territory where a large range of techniques are plausibly effective. You don't know a wizard so you can't really tell me this spell wouldn't work in this conflict, you know?
But people do fight with guns, and the abilities and techniques of guns and what advantages they offer are well understood, pressure tested in real conflict, and easy to find out about. The area of unknown is small, and so mostly the plausible techniques are the real ones.
You can tweak the plausibility by fuzzing off from real world uses with things like laser guns or muzzle-loading black powder, though that's still much better understood than wizard magic. You see a similar thing with fantasy melee too. Fencing is well understood even in the modern world, but how many fantasy sword fighters are recognizably fencers?
But people do fight with guns, and the abilities and techniques of guns and what advantages they offer are well understood, pressure tested in real conflict, and easy to find out about. The area of unknown is small, and so mostly the plausible techniques are the real ones.
You can tweak the plausibility by fuzzing off from real world uses with things like laser guns or muzzle-loading black powder, though that's still much better understood than wizard magic. You see a similar thing with fantasy melee too. Fencing is well understood even in the modern world, but how many fantasy sword fighters are recognizably fencers?
> But a guy with a gun can... what? Get a bigger gun?
Watch a cowboy shooting competition some day, be it with pistols or rifles. As a recreational shooter myself, I sure don't have the techniques these people have.
Watch a cowboy shooting competition some day, be it with pistols or rifles. As a recreational shooter myself, I sure don't have the techniques these people have.
Still Arnie (and you) would mow them all down Predator-style, given "a bigger gun".
True. But hey... handling a bigger gun is also a skill ! You know... managing that recoil... :)
bad argument, imho. you can use you imagination and invent lots of new "skills" for guns the same way you can do for swords and bows: shrapnel shot, crippling shot, blinding shot, rapid fire, etc. Item wise I see absolutely no "logical" difference between guns and "sword A with 10 DMG" and "sword B with 250 DMG and ice damage". This is fantasy worlds we are talking about, cmon.
Lucky Luke shoots faster than his shadow, there's a skill you can learn as a gun guy in a fantasy world.
Lucky Luke is a parody of cowboy movies, upped to 11. He's as the very peak and there's nowhere else for him to go.
IMO it's one of those things that only works once, and only because it references other stuff to provide context.
IMO it's one of those things that only works once, and only because it references other stuff to provide context.
Pfft even I can shoot faster than my shadow.
> Or you can have Rob Liefeld hero #6, who charges in with big guns. And either the bad guy dies, or the bullets bounce off and there's little ground in between.
don't forget pouches. presumably, as the character levels up they get more and more pouches.
don't forget pouches. presumably, as the character levels up they get more and more pouches.
> But a guy with a gun can... what? Get a bigger gun?
Shoot ULR: https://youtu.be/7owwTz7Z0OE?t=11
Shoot ULR: https://youtu.be/7owwTz7Z0OE?t=11
[deleted]
>Tolkien, thus, gave explosives (“blasting fire”) to his bad guys, to goblins and orcs who represent the emerging forces of industrialization
Tolkien hated allegorical writing. It's doubtful goblins and orcs are supposed to represent industrialization.
Tolkien hated allegorical writing. It's doubtful goblins and orcs are supposed to represent industrialization.
Nevertheless, the allegory works well enough that there's a great book about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
"Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #186
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #186
Right, Scouring of the Shire represents industrialization.
(Not in an allegorical way; it's literally what happens.)
(Not in an allegorical way; it's literally what happens.)
He didn't. He was in fact quite clear that Lord of the Rings was inspired in large part by his experiences in the First World War: Dead Marshes especially, but also Sauron and Saruman and their forces of industrialization.
Inspired and allegorial are two very different things. Tolkien was very explicit that LOTR was not allegory.
It has been some years since I read LotR, but wasn’t there one very widespread edition that contained a foreword by Tolkien where he very clearly denied any allegory behind the story, and was obviously fed up by people claiming such?
Tolkien was against reading his works as allegory for any specific historical event, especially if that event related to the Second World War (Sauron is not an allegory for Hitler, for example). But he did mention in his letters that his writing was obviously influenced by his combat experience in the First World War.
Fantasy avoids gunpowder because there is no character develipment. This is the same reason why guns are the great equalizer:
Just about anyone can semi-competently wield a gun after a ten hour course.
What this means is that guns brought down the warrior casts of Europe, Japan, etc. Guns are the great democratizing force since taw raw numbers become the most important metric of battlefield success.
With a stub nose revolver in her purse, any 110 lb woman can walk at night and have a fighting chance against a 250 lb 6ft 5 monster.
Makes for boring fantasy for sure. Makes for a fair society though.
Just about anyone can semi-competently wield a gun after a ten hour course.
What this means is that guns brought down the warrior casts of Europe, Japan, etc. Guns are the great democratizing force since taw raw numbers become the most important metric of battlefield success.
With a stub nose revolver in her purse, any 110 lb woman can walk at night and have a fighting chance against a 250 lb 6ft 5 monster.
Makes for boring fantasy for sure. Makes for a fair society though.
Make the character an inventor/engineer and suddenly you have endless possibilities for progression and variation. Sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic.
Equalization is not a very convincing argument. You can twist the rules in any way, this is fantasy. Make the firearms less advanced than a revolver, less available, less preferred, countered by magic, or simply make your work not revolving around combat.
Equalization is not a very convincing argument. You can twist the rules in any way, this is fantasy. Make the firearms less advanced than a revolver, less available, less preferred, countered by magic, or simply make your work not revolving around combat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcanum:_Of_Steamworks_and_Mag... has an interesting solution to the magic vs. gunpowder problem: the use of magic makes nearby guns fail, and vice versa. Either can work, but your character must choose to specialize in one or the other.
Everyone's suggestions of works that use gunpowder in interesting ways (thank you!) reminded me of David Weber's "Safehold" series[0].
It's not really fantasy, though it does hold to a few tropes, but it explores what happens when you speed-run the introduction of gunpowder (and other technological advancements) in a world that has severe technological restrictions placed upon it.
I really enjoyed it, but I'm someone who enjoys reading in depth about how improvements in cannons changes the shape of naval battles (for example).
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/series/58713-safehold
It's not really fantasy, though it does hold to a few tropes, but it explores what happens when you speed-run the introduction of gunpowder (and other technological advancements) in a world that has severe technological restrictions placed upon it.
I really enjoyed it, but I'm someone who enjoys reading in depth about how improvements in cannons changes the shape of naval battles (for example).
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/series/58713-safehold
I think the author needs to read a little more widely before making such sweeping statements. Just off the top of my head I can think of several series that either involve gunpowder as a major plot point (Glen Cook's "Instrumentalities of the Night" series, and the "Sword of Knowledge" trilogy by C.J.Cherryh and coauthors), and more that have it as just part of the background ("Point of Hopes" and sequels by Melissa Scott and Lisa Barnett).
Roger Zelazny's Amber Chronicles had the gamut of modern technology, and why gunpowder didn't work when you got to Shadows closer to Amber (the physics was different).
There were guns, and tanks, and in one surprise battle, the protagonist devises gunpowder that does work in Amber and lands rifleman atop sword-and-sandals fighters to cause a huge upset.
If author hasn't read Zelazney, then he doesn't know fantasy.
There were guns, and tanks, and in one surprise battle, the protagonist devises gunpowder that does work in Amber and lands rifleman atop sword-and-sandals fighters to cause a huge upset.
If author hasn't read Zelazney, then he doesn't know fantasy.
Nothing says fantasy like being called "Something of Something".
(For YA series it's "The Something Something".)
(For YA series it's "The Something Something".)
Yes, how can we forget such exemplars of the genre such as "Heart of Darkness", "Anne of Greene Gables", and "Remembrance of Things Past".
To be specific, the first word has to be a noun, preferably a physical object. Heart of Darkness would work if it was a real heart.
There are some in-universe laws or facts that fictional genres cannot give up (Edit:typo) easily - one in scifi is the small crewed spaceship or even space fighter.
Even if guns exist, there is an arguable thrill to reading about a character infiltrating a castle with a saber and two pistols that cannot be reloaded easily. Long ago, those were pirate or naval pulp fiction.
Imo any setting can produce great stories, it's in how they're told not in how the world works. Established genres of fantasy are just attractive to some people, since analogues of the laws and structure of the world are already partially known - and it's possible to subvert expectations while not alienating people.
Even if guns exist, there is an arguable thrill to reading about a character infiltrating a castle with a saber and two pistols that cannot be reloaded easily. Long ago, those were pirate or naval pulp fiction.
Imo any setting can produce great stories, it's in how they're told not in how the world works. Established genres of fantasy are just attractive to some people, since analogues of the laws and structure of the world are already partially known - and it's possible to subvert expectations while not alienating people.
Surprisingly the "fighter" may be much more powerful than expected, since space is wast and weapons delivered up close and personal have a good chance to land, as opposed to being dodged or intercepted like missiles.
Though I'd expect one of those to be more like a tank, with 4 people inside. Bigger though.
It's the same reason carriers tend to be more effective than battleships, even ones loaded with cruise missiles.
Even light takes a bunch of time to reach places at astronomical distances. It would look nothing like dogfighting, much closer to modern airborne missile exchanges.
Any non-moving object would be extremely vulnerable, if even to a thrown rock at orbital speeds.
Though I'd expect one of those to be more like a tank, with 4 people inside. Bigger though.
It's the same reason carriers tend to be more effective than battleships, even ones loaded with cruise missiles.
Even light takes a bunch of time to reach places at astronomical distances. It would look nothing like dogfighting, much closer to modern airborne missile exchanges.
Any non-moving object would be extremely vulnerable, if even to a thrown rock at orbital speeds.
It entirely depends on where you see the role of a "fighter" but I think we both already agree that it won't be anything like naval battle on Earth.
Maybe you're familiar with Atomic Rockets, the collection of engineering and science discussions about hard scifi? If not, I may have got a rabbit hole for you that will eat an entire week, easily: [0]
(Edit: while the page starts off dismissing fighters for many reasons, there are discussions of many concepts with their merits and possible defenses of the concept)
[0] https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fighter.php
Maybe you're familiar with Atomic Rockets, the collection of engineering and science discussions about hard scifi? If not, I may have got a rabbit hole for you that will eat an entire week, easily: [0]
(Edit: while the page starts off dismissing fighters for many reasons, there are discussions of many concepts with their merits and possible defenses of the concept)
[0] https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fighter.php
Given the discussion on abilities of historic archers, ACOUP has some good discussion, with links to testing videos:
Armor vs Archers: https://acoup.blog/2019/06/21/collections-punching-through-s...
Archery Distances: https://acoup.blog/2019/07/04/collections-archery-distance-a...
Armor vs Archers: https://acoup.blog/2019/06/21/collections-punching-through-s...
Archery Distances: https://acoup.blog/2019/07/04/collections-archery-distance-a...
> guns are egalitarian
AKA “God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal.”
AKA “God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal.”
Warhammer Fantasy has plenty of firearms, after all, what makes the Empire great?
Faith, steel and gunpowder.
And let's not forget about skaven, those have sniper rifles and gatling guns.
Faith, steel and gunpowder.
And let's not forget about skaven, those have sniper rifles and gatling guns.
Summary: classic high fantasy avoids gunpowder
Speaking of fantasy and books (I assume most people on HN have read the greats like Tolkien), how will the next generation see these worlds? One can hardly find a teenager these days willing to read a single page in a book without browsing on their iPhone. We're yet to see the consequences, I am afraid.
Tolkien was pretty much a niche read until it blew up from the screen adaptations, and maybe a little from the earlier hobbit adaptation. Fantasy has never had a better time than right now. So it will inevitably decline, I think, but should remain more popular than historically because of video games, etc.
Look at baulders gate 3 success. We may have read more, but when our kids, neighbors, nieces, classmates, etc, say they're enjoying it, we'll have a long list of suggestions. If we the nerdiest can't keep the momentum going, that's on us.
But if you want to blame anyone else, blame film industry for churning out crap instead of scouring literature for new stories worth telling.
Look at baulders gate 3 success. We may have read more, but when our kids, neighbors, nieces, classmates, etc, say they're enjoying it, we'll have a long list of suggestions. If we the nerdiest can't keep the momentum going, that's on us.
But if you want to blame anyone else, blame film industry for churning out crap instead of scouring literature for new stories worth telling.
Web novels. Cut them up to small enough chapters and have hundreds or thousands of them. Only requires slightly more attention span than social media thread.
> And unlike muskets, bows and crossbows never were a primary weapon.
What about the English longbow? Or Mongolian horse bows?
What about the English longbow? Or Mongolian horse bows?
English longbow and most of the archery is more akin to MANPADs, useful and game changers in many scenarios, but not the "Primary" weapons.
Mongolian complex bows though are an exception, all horse nomads were expected to wield them out of hunting and warring needs.
If all of your main force is expected to wield it, it becomes a primary weapon.
Mongolian complex bows though are an exception, all horse nomads were expected to wield them out of hunting and warring needs.
If all of your main force is expected to wield it, it becomes a primary weapon.
> If all of your main force is expected to wield it, it becomes a primary weapon.
There was a period of time when all Englishmen were required to train with a longbow.
I guess also it depends on what you mean by "primary" if it means the primary weapon of an individual soldier, it's obviously false, because archers primarily used their bows, in many armies. But if it means the main weapon used by the builk of the soldiers, then in most cases it probably wasn't a bow. But that isn't because of the ineffectiveness of the weapon. It's really just part of the "egalitarian" point. Shooting a bow effectively requires considerably more skill than say using spear, or even hacking with a sword.
There was a period of time when all Englishmen were required to train with a longbow.
I guess also it depends on what you mean by "primary" if it means the primary weapon of an individual soldier, it's obviously false, because archers primarily used their bows, in many armies. But if it means the main weapon used by the builk of the soldiers, then in most cases it probably wasn't a bow. But that isn't because of the ineffectiveness of the weapon. It's really just part of the "egalitarian" point. Shooting a bow effectively requires considerably more skill than say using spear, or even hacking with a sword.
> There was a period of time when all Englishmen were required to train with a longbow
I was under the impression that English Archery was a very specialized discipline, given its very skill intensive. The English did use the Longbowmen, but as a specialized unit in specialized situations.
I was under the impression that English Archery was a very specialized discipline, given its very skill intensive. The English did use the Longbowmen, but as a specialized unit in specialized situations.
Not to mention the early samurai, who were primarily horse archers aswell.
Fun essay.
I agree that guns remove the escapist aspect, but not that it foretells an impending industrial revolution.
The world simply won’t have coal nor petroleum; and schools of magic are competing with and dwarfing chemistry and science, and that’s enough to kill any momentum on industry.
It’s a world where industry can only be at a small scale.
I agree that guns remove the escapist aspect, but not that it foretells an impending industrial revolution.
The world simply won’t have coal nor petroleum; and schools of magic are competing with and dwarfing chemistry and science, and that’s enough to kill any momentum on industry.
It’s a world where industry can only be at a small scale.
[deleted]
Djarhun - fantasy board game similar to Talisman - has a separate Technomancer "race" which have guns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Flame
Makes the introduction of gunpowder into a fantasy / magic based world a central part of the plot.
I love the "magician's gunpowder"; live steam + stasis spells. They come up with it to compete with the twinks using (and teaching others to make) real gunpowder and weapons.
Makes the introduction of gunpowder into a fantasy / magic based world a central part of the plot.
I love the "magician's gunpowder"; live steam + stasis spells. They come up with it to compete with the twinks using (and teaching others to make) real gunpowder and weapons.
Good article in general, but I have some hairs to split.
First, since my D&D party's skin was saved in their last adventure by a lucky critical hit from our party's arqebus, I don't agree that (high) fantasy avoids gunpowder altogether. And we're the good guys, right? But on to more serious things.
> With a bow, or even a crossbow, skill and personal investment requirements are significant; by contrast, musket drill could be learned in weeks. > ... > Likewise, short bow, long bow and crossbow are tactically extremely similar.
Nonononono.
Longbows required extensive training (quoth one King Edward, "If you want to train a good longbowman, start with his grandfather."). Crossbows, once manufactured, could be taught to your average vassal in a day or so. This is one reason that the Catholic Church tried to ban them in 1096 [1], as an untrained peasant could take down a noble armoured knight (at least in mail rather than plate armor). While there were highly trained crossbow armies, such as Genoese mercenaries, the crossbow could greatly increase the deadliness of your average conscript - in less time than it takes to train someone on the musket. Whether you had the resources to outfit a large unit of crossbowmen was another matter, but if you could, training was not the bottleneck.
The average crossbow these days shoots something in the range of 60 yards, with high-end models getting "up to 100 yards" according to one manufacturer. If we allow for past war crossbows being beefier constructs - they had windlasses to help load them, after all - then maybe we can add a bit to the maximum and say 200 yards shooting in an arc, but the Book of the Crossbow [2] suggests an effective range of medieval crossbows of around 40 yards. After all, you want your shots to kill, not just go "plink" on someone's helmet.
Longbow range is generally given as something like 500-1000 feet, so 160 to 320 yards approximately - Encyclopaedia Britannica [3] gives an effective range of around 200 yards for the longbow (but this was presumably against massed targets, in the "rain arrows from the sky" style). That's more than double what you're getting from the crossbow.
So tactically, longbow and crossbow are very much not the same thing.
[1] https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/catholic-churc... (Note that I don't agree with the article's claim that crossbows had a greater _range_ than longbows. They generally had more kinetic energy on discharge (what we would today call "muzzle" energy) but _shorter_ effective range due to higher air resistance from thicker bolts. They were more handgun than sniper rifle, siege ballistas excepted. But they were very deadly at close distances.)
[2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Crossbow-Military-History-Weap...
[3] https://www.britannica.com/technology/English-longbow
First, since my D&D party's skin was saved in their last adventure by a lucky critical hit from our party's arqebus, I don't agree that (high) fantasy avoids gunpowder altogether. And we're the good guys, right? But on to more serious things.
> With a bow, or even a crossbow, skill and personal investment requirements are significant; by contrast, musket drill could be learned in weeks. > ... > Likewise, short bow, long bow and crossbow are tactically extremely similar.
Nonononono.
Longbows required extensive training (quoth one King Edward, "If you want to train a good longbowman, start with his grandfather."). Crossbows, once manufactured, could be taught to your average vassal in a day or so. This is one reason that the Catholic Church tried to ban them in 1096 [1], as an untrained peasant could take down a noble armoured knight (at least in mail rather than plate armor). While there were highly trained crossbow armies, such as Genoese mercenaries, the crossbow could greatly increase the deadliness of your average conscript - in less time than it takes to train someone on the musket. Whether you had the resources to outfit a large unit of crossbowmen was another matter, but if you could, training was not the bottleneck.
The average crossbow these days shoots something in the range of 60 yards, with high-end models getting "up to 100 yards" according to one manufacturer. If we allow for past war crossbows being beefier constructs - they had windlasses to help load them, after all - then maybe we can add a bit to the maximum and say 200 yards shooting in an arc, but the Book of the Crossbow [2] suggests an effective range of medieval crossbows of around 40 yards. After all, you want your shots to kill, not just go "plink" on someone's helmet.
Longbow range is generally given as something like 500-1000 feet, so 160 to 320 yards approximately - Encyclopaedia Britannica [3] gives an effective range of around 200 yards for the longbow (but this was presumably against massed targets, in the "rain arrows from the sky" style). That's more than double what you're getting from the crossbow.
So tactically, longbow and crossbow are very much not the same thing.
[1] https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/catholic-churc... (Note that I don't agree with the article's claim that crossbows had a greater _range_ than longbows. They generally had more kinetic energy on discharge (what we would today call "muzzle" energy) but _shorter_ effective range due to higher air resistance from thicker bolts. They were more handgun than sniper rifle, siege ballistas excepted. But they were very deadly at close distances.)
[2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Crossbow-Military-History-Weap...
[3] https://www.britannica.com/technology/English-longbow
Just to add, there are seemingly a few loose ends in Lord of the rings, like galadriels mirror and so on... "the last ringbearer" ties those up. Lord of the rings is portraied as a work of propaganda, in which the orcs and sauron are all evil but are just normal people. Can recommend.
Obviously not canon but very enjoyable. I also recommend reading it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
"First I thought: The advent of the iron age made the elongation of the male sex unavoidable, its main aim, the penetration--the knife, the sword, the spear. Second I thought: Gunpowder, firearms--the main aim shifted to ejaculation and bombs--the mystification of the orgasm. Third I think: Simulation--through screen or helmet--makes this pornography." - Einsturzende Neubauten, Three thoughts
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
-Sigmund Freud
-Sigmund Freud
While the sentiment is an appropriate response to the parent post, there is, fyi, no evidence that Freud ever actually said this.
But he really ought to have.
Terry Pratchett's Discworld series Men at Arms
https://wiki.lspace.org/Gonne