This year was the first year that I've actually had to fight against the mercs and their guns'o'plenty.  Just some back ground info, I started out in a gun heavy mercenary group, and have nothing against rbg's.  Yes, it's annoying to get shot, but I don't take offence too it.; I'll take it as a compliment!

I recall being shot this past clinton while defending the castle, it was a good *TWAP!* and about the only thing I could think at the time was "BASTARD!  where the hell?!"  I was buggered.

It was a good shot.

Depending on the time period, fire arms were one of the main weapons of war.  I'm not very well versed in the history of firearms, but they were there.  Having said this, I also don't want too see rapier become paintball.  Paintball's fun, but it's a whole different game!

Ammo limits I'm not to concerned about, but I do however agree on trying out timed loading for future scenarios.  Gleaming I'm not fond of, but I know people will argue that.  If you fired a shot in real life, you wouldn't pick up whatever was left of the ball (if you could find it) and then jam the pieces back down into the barrel.

The only rbg I own is a yard arm I built a couple of years ago.  All things considered, I'd rather just go out in glory armed with a sword and a target charging madly into the gunfire!

When a gun runs out of shots or has been discharged, it's nothing more than a baton.  A sword doesn't run out of ammo!  With a few exceptions, most people can't shoot straight anyway.  In the end, it's all just a game.  A lot of people forget that.

Enoch - I rather say that you missed my point that nature and TRPs can do the required job far more effectively than an ammendment to the ABrC. When I spoke of people carrying around ungainly numbers of weapons, I was addressing concerns in the SCA context that were brought up earlier in the conversation. I agree that nobody in period was likely to be bristling with guns. They couldn't afford it, and carrying too many weapons is an impairment. In the SCA context, where people are not going to die for real, where RBGs are inexpensive, and where the occasional yahoo might want to game the system, it's much more likely to occur. My experience tells me that such a person is not near so big a threat as they appear to be. By the very fact that they're so well-armed, they become a target of preference.

In practical terms, one person (let's call him Mr. Happy Guncloset) with six guns is a threat to one or two people on the field. Ol' Happy will probably be dead by the time gun number three comes out of its holster. Now if Mr. Guncloset is smart, he'll start sharing his guns with his friends. Six people with one gun each are a threat to six people on the other side. That's a far bigger threat than a dead guy with four unfired guns, even if he did shoot two people before he fell. Making a rule to limit the number of RBGs a person can carry onto the field is no more necessary than legislating 9.8 meters/second/second. If you must make a rule, make one against gleaning RBGs from the fallen. That would apply some evolutionary pressure toward sharing out your guns instead of hoarding them. Eventually, everyone with experience would be telling the new fighters "Don't be an idiot - you'll never need more than one or two RBGs."

I'll admit that making an actual rule that limits the number of RBGs you can carry could simplify things. However, I disagree about the number proposed. If it's going to be a hard-and-fast rule, I'd rather place the limit at three. That gives the gun freaks enough room to be happy or stupid as the case may be, and it makes the gun freaks less of a percieved threat to the no-gun freaks. In most melees, everything pretty much looks the same, except the MIC doesn't have to make as many TRPs regarding Mr. Happy Guncloset. OTOH, any rule that limits the number of guns per person also limits the MIC's options for adjusting the TRPs to improve the game du juor. The more restrictive the rules, the fewer the possibilities the MIC has for game design.

As for the ABrC dealing with other weapons in detail, I fail to see the connection. The ABrC does not limit the number of swords or off-hand weapons you can carry. It does define the types of weapons allowed and some of their required characteristics. This argument would only apply if the proposal was to limit the length of a barrel or the number of barrels on an RBG. It does not apply to limiting the number of actual weapons a person can carry.

Regarding my third point, I was not in any way advocating some sort of OK Corral scene. In fact, I think my third point was actually two points sort of muddled together. I'll try stating both of them again, and I'll try to be more concise:

1. In combat, people will tend to eliminate the biggest threat first. To break it down:
   
   
   • In a scenario dominated by swords, with few missile weapons, the top swordsmen on the other team are the biggest threat. Therefore, if you have a gun, you will shoot the top swordsman on the other team.
     
     
   • In a scenario dominated by missile weapons, regardless of the number of guns, the top marksmen on the other team are the biggest threat. Therefore, you will shoot the top marksman on the other team.
     
     
     Axiom: In the same scenario, if all gunners are equal (or of unknown quality), the gunners on the other team are still the biggest threat. Therefore, you will shoot at gunners on the other team.
   
   Result: On a gun-heavy field, people with guns will shoot each other first, leaving the swordsmen to fight with swords.
   
   
2. I think that everyone should have an RBG because it's more fun to get shot when you have a gun in your hand than it is when you don't. Swordsmen can even shoot gunners instead of getting shot before they can play. Everyone can be happy.

As for introducing artificial restrictions and the faster rate of fire for RBGs, you might consider that our melee fields are much smaller than period battlefields. This difference in scale might already balance out the faster rate of fire. If your melee fighters only have to rush 10 yards or so instead of 50 or more, the effect of the fast rate of fire is reduced. However, that's just speaking from an effectiveness point of view. From a game play point of view, it needs quite a bit of tweaking. Just nit-picking here. I have no interest in unlimited-shot, fast-loading RBGs on the melee field!

I LOVE the idea of getting groups to drill and act as a unit! Doing so would address the number of guns issue, the rate of fire issue, and the period behavior issue all in one fell swoop. It would also be more effective, which in turn would encourage more people to try to do it right.

Regards,

W. Scott Simmons
aka Ruaidhri Mac Cuileann dal gCais
cadet to Don Tyrus of Misty Haven

There's no shame in coming from Texas. The only shame is in having to come back.
- Kinky Friedman (humorist, mystery writer, country musician, and Texas gubernatorial candidate)