Guns in fantasy

 

I've decided to make a long article about matchlocks and cannons because it can be fun. I've invested a lot of thought on this already, why not share it altogether? 

Why early firearms are normally not a thing on a medieval fantasy world and what happens when they do? What are the implications on a given setting? 

1.  Though arquebuses redefined warfare in the great scale, combats at street level or "adventurer mode" are not very affected. Matches cannot be lit and cannons cannot be loaded in a hurry in the middle of a tavern fight: unless you do the whole dance hidden somewhere, it will be very obvious to everybody that you intend to cause violence. They are bad weapons outside open war, because they cannot be kept "readied": the match consumes, and the gunpowder is either dispersed or susceptible to explode. Keeping watch on a routine night with a loaded gun is not just inviable, but also will give your position by light and smell; only for having you exposed after the first shot. You might keep humans at bay with the threat of a single shot, but it won't work on wolves or other animals. Bandits may still use them on an ambush, though. 

 

2. More firearms means more room for swords, specially more scimitars. The logic on this is because plate armor is suddently not as worthy, and less plate armor means cutting weapons are not facing their great nerfer. On warfare mode this means lighter cavalry and cuirassiers; on adventurer mode this means a golden age for sword duels (see that the golden age of romantic swordsmen appears in both japan and europe after the guns have popularized: in tercios, musketeers and samurai)

3. The appeal of certain monsters is to engage them in melee. This is true specially for fantasy staples like dragons, ogres and other big things, but also mass mooks like orcs or goblins. It is inevitable that once guns exist, they lose part of their appeal. Monsters whose attacks are magical or spiritual are comparativelly not affected, such as vampires, witches, ghosts, etc. Monsters that attack deviously such as snakes, beasts or clever human are also equally interesting. On war mode, makes war be a more historical thing of human vs human instead of law vs chaos or human vs orc, unless you give orcs guns too, at which point they are not mooks anymore. On adventurer mode, this means less combat overall: is harder to pull out filler battles. When it happens, the combat is probably a named NPC or plot-driven henchmen. Knowing myself, monsters that give little aesthetic value in this new situation are not just out of the campaign, but out of the setting altogether. No Smaug type dragons has an upside: allows me to use the oriental ones; if not as physical creatures, as divine ones.

4. Just as arquebuses changed the value of plate armor, the existance of cannons changed the way castles and fortresses were built. Anachronisms can still be had, but they probably require a bit of the fantasy side of the fantasy setting. I am using plate armor made from a spiderweb alloy that is good against bullets, though very expensive and only used by nobles. This keeps cavalry charges somewhat viable in the setting´s near future. On the fortress side, bastion forts were the standard response through the renaissance so my plans to include fortress-based feudalism are still cool without using magic at all. The more aesthetic castles if needed can be placed inside said fortresses, in all their spectre of colorful clichés. There are many other points but atm I feel that I've layed out the main ones.