I have composed a video about using firearms in a fantasy RPG. It can be found here. It is a little bit silly.

***

I employ firearms to protect myself from the death squirrels from beyond the moon my old game master is sending at me.

A reoccurring question in terms of fantasy gaming is whether to include firearms. Objections include: problems in terms of game mechanics, historical inaccuracy, thematic inaccuracy, dealing with general problems and matters of taste. The first three objections break down upon examination of the game, real world history and a determination to turn "problems" into advantages that permit greater game play. However, objections based upon issues of game taste are usually intractable. If then the objections, to permitting firearms as a part of game play, in a particular group arise from the first few issues, then it is something potentially negotiable. If the objection is one of aesthetics then it is in the best interests of the group to drop the issue (1).

Objections to including firearms based on game mechanic concerns should be a non-issue. The mechanics of a game are not the laws of physics; they do not operate on their own, but only to the extent that the players and the game master (2) employ them. The game mechanics are only as broken as they are allowed to be by the participants. Most editions of Dungeons and Dragons have provided rules for creating, developing and expanding weapons, and troubleshooting problems (3). There should be nothing about firearms that make them incompatible with the properly adjudicated mechanics of a game (4).

An objection to including firearms based on concerns of historical accuracy is nonsensical. There were no firearms in Europe in the 10th century and there was a paucity of elves and wizards (5) as well. Firearms appeared in China at the end of the 13th century (6) and in Europe during the 14th century (7). The Mongol and Turkish invasions of Europe and Asia did much to disseminate the weapon. Firearms did signal a sea change, albeit a gradual one, to the world but they did not stop the period from being dark, dangerous and violent - nor did they signal an immediate end to sword fights and the use of bows and arrows. And in any event, GMs and players should always feel free to rewrite history and worlds to suit themselves.

The issue of historical accuracy is probably actually an issue of thematic accuracy. When someone objects to including firearms, they are not objecting to their appearance in Europe in the 10th century, but in world like 10th century Europe, only with fantastic elements. A world where magic (for whatever reason) prohibits technological advancement. However, if one is going to be strict about this rule, then the setting should not include: beer with hops (, liquor (9), chess (10), buttons (11), trebuchets (12), combined arms tactics (13), steel crossbows (14), full plate mail 15 or the long sword (16). This is to say nothing of including scimitars, cutlasses, rapiers and katanas (17) in a game. There is no logical reason for magic to inhibit the development of firearms and not to inhibit other areas and to select firearms in particular is inconsistent and even hypocritical.

There is a business adage that states, "turn every disadvantage into an advantage." None of the problems above are unsolvable... and drama comes from tension. A bold player will ask for firearms (and a bold GM will allow it) because it is a game changer, something which will make people uncomfortable and "change things." This should be less problematic than introducing an artifact level item into a game, as firearms are not unique and do less damage to the world than any self-respecting artifact. Lastly, no weapon or item, no matter how powerful, is a replacement for being quick on one's feet and personal integrity and only the weak act as though this is not true.

However, all these objections and dealing with them leads to the issue of aesthetics, which is an intractable issue in terms of firearms in role-playing games. A magic wand in a fantasy setting, a blaster in a science fiction setting and a pistol are all ranged weapons that are relatively simple to use, though for some the firearm is the deal breaker. It is not an issue of chocolate and peanut butter (18), but chocolate and caviar (19). Dealing with game preferences is dealing with someone's personal tastes and thus dealing with someone's personality rather than something as easily addressed as rules mechanics or historical trivia. If the objection to including firearms in the game is one of aesthetics, then drop the issue rather than allow it to disrupt the group.

Firearms are perfectly adaptable to game mechanics and suitable, in those terms, to a role-playing game. Given the presence of elves and dragons in a game, it is silly to protest firearms as historically wrong. Thematically firearms may be wrong, but to exclude firearms while permitting many other anachronistic elements is being consistent only in hypocrisy. Firearms are indeed a game changer because their purpose is to be a game changer – the bold will grab this and run with it. However, role-playing games are about a group having fun and if including firearms becomes disruptive, because firearms offend someone's aesthetics sense of the game, then drop the subject. One more in-game knickknack is not worth damaging the group.

Now please excuse, I have got to lock and load because my old black-wearing-game master is still wants me eaten by death squirrels.

Footnotes;
1. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss good game etiquette and group dynamics.

2. This includes things as simple as forgetting rules and misinterpreting, therefore incorrectly applying, the rules.

3. In the current edition of the Dungeons Master's Guide, chapter two addresses trouble shooting, chapter three addresses tailoring combat encounters and chapter 10 provides a general toolkit.

4. The design and assignment of levels and damage capacity of the firearms in "Gunplay and Powder Weapons II" followed these rules.

5. Do I really need to offer proof for this statement?

6. The earliest verifiable firearm dates to approximately 1288 in the modern-day Acheng District of Heilongjiang, China.

7. The army of Edward III of England employed a ribauldequin, or a medieval volley gun with many small-caliber iron barrels set up parallel on a platform, in 1339 in France during the Hundred Years War. Muscovite forces used canon's in defense of the city during battles in 1382 against the invading forces of the Golden Horde.

8. The earliest verifiable inclusion of hops in beers is in the 11th century.

9. The earliest verifiable liquor in Europe, which got the technique from the Islamic world, was in the 12th century. Drinks like vodka, gin and brandy developed in the 14th century.

10. The game dates to 6th century Indian but did not develop into its contemporary form until the 15th century.

11. Buttons developed in Germany no earlier than the 13th century.

12. These weapons appeared in the 12th century.

13. This, as a military tactic, appeared in the 14th century.

14. These weapons, and the crossbows described in most role-playing games are closer to this model than previous versions, appeared in the 15th century.

15. This type of armor appeared in the 15th century, partly as a response to the longbow.

16. Longswords, as they are described in most role-playing games, did not appear until the 12th and 13th centuries and partly as a response to the development of armor.

17. None of which can be placed in the Middle Ages of Europe, so arguably they have no place in a game which attempts to be thematically true to a Middle Ages of Europe setting.

18. Two great tastes that, reputedly, go great together.

19. Two great tastes that no one would plausibly combine.

I think the inclusion of firearms into any fantasy setting should be up to the players and the GM in question as an option to their particular needs for the campaign in question.  I don't see why including firearms in a game of fantasy has to be a big deal, make it optional then decide on weather your game is going to settle on using them or not.  I would also point out that with the higher penetration power of certain firearms later on, armor becomes redundant an a non-factor anymore and the era of the Rapier & cloak should become more evident which would then push the game into more of a Swashbuckler style game than a D&D romp. IMO

tl;dr

But seriously, I do not generally come to a forum looking to read a novel. If we're having a discussion and you've already captured my attention, that's different. Otherwise, give me a summary of what you want to discuss along with a link to your blog (or whatever) post, and I'll refer to it as needed/at my leisure.

As to the content of your post, even after reading it I'm not sure what your point is. It reads like a blog post or manifesto, not so much a question to be used as a starting point for discussion.

I've used firearms in D&D (as my primary fantasy RPG) before, particularly under 3.x in the Iron Kingdoms setting. I tweaked the mechanics considerably, as I wanted them to be more deadly than HP initially allowed. It worked well, but that success never pushed me to using them elsewhere.

The only one of your listed "objections" that's really mattered to me is "taste." It's the DM's world, I'm (or you are) just living in it.

In Albion there's firearms but of course that's within historical context.