Something I'm seeing more on the forums from some of my favorite types of RPs, Post Apocalyptic RPs, is this rule of "There are no guns or Ammo left" Or something along those lines that doesn't particularly make sense, being as, I saw in one instance, the Apocalypse happened due to a large epidemic, killing most of the population, and it occurred in the United States. As many may know, the United States is also a place popular for having the most guns in the world, as it would also have to have enough ammo as well.

I see that they dislike having RPs turned into everyone being a psuedo-Rambo, but do we really need to make it so restrictive? Of course, I don't join those RPs, as I showed interest in the Interest Checks and then promptly left after seeing the "If guns, no ammo" or something along those lines. I prefer to have firearms and use what is left of the ammo supplies in a Post-Apocalyptic RP.

Why not just do ammo caps, make people count rounds, and make logical restrictions on a combat loadout? That would be my personal preference.

Also blackpowder muzzleloaders are commonly neglected and no one seems to think of allowing anything like that in an RP.

As you might all agree, it is all up to the GM guiding the RP.

I bring this up to read other people's input on this subject. Please feel free to ask questions of me.

I think, for the most part, it's that people WILL try and be the psuedo-rambo gun-toting characters. The restrictions cut that chance, though people still try anyway.

Most people, from my experience, aren't a fan of numbers and having to count their rounds and whatnot, so it is usually ignored. again, my experience.

But to be fair, a lot tend to let you pick up guns down the line, as long as it's logical. Since most post-apoc things take place some months-years, guns aren't going to be all that common anyway, ammo included.

My response was to set the apocalypse so far in the past that all the surviving stockpiles of weapons/ammo that require a certain industrial infrastructure to manufacture and support would have long since broken down. Canticle for Leibowitz type stuff.

The RP never got off the ground, but it was better to set it up that way than to arbitrarily ban weaponry.

In my opinion, allowing the usage of guns in RPs leads to gross overuse (and abuse) of them, especially if an RP is geared specifically to the 'post-apocalyptic/survival' theme (leading to the whole 'pseudo-rambo' thing you were talking about). There are some other minor problems that I've seen to some extent - the ease of use of guns sometimes leads people to put in less effort into descriptions and so on.

However, agree with you that total restriction might not be necessary. Firearms in post-apocalyptic RPs and in writing in general can be used as tools to create incredible, indelible drama, tension, and soforth. Like, imo, Cormac McCarthy's 'The Road' (post-apocalyptic) wouldn't be as moving if not for scenes with tense drama created in part by the use of firearms. The main thing is creating an environment where gun usage is more limited / changing your pool of RPers to one that you know won't go pseudo-Rambo on you.

Also omg Canticle for Leibowitz, what a cool novel.

Depends on setting and the level of realism involved whether or not guns are appropriate, prolific, and powerful. My own post apocalypse setting for instance has lots of guns and ammo. On the flip side, its set in the near future with creatures and characters that can eat several bullets and remain standing. Ergo, guns are appropriate, setting was made with them in mind.

Versus, say, the extremely stereotypical zombie horde post apocalypse. Having lots of guns and ammo there defeats the fear of facing a horde of zombies. Now if all you had was a hand gun with a halfway depleted clip, that makes lots of noise, and a crowbar, and you + you buddies had to slip through an apartment with a couple hundred of the fuckers... Well... Suddenly it becomes a choice mechanic: Save your friend but attract the horde, or leave him to die as bait for the horde so you and the rest can escape.

Guns are always dependent on setting.

Completely banning guns in a roleplay in my opinion is a rather poor decision, it limits the possibilities of the decisions made by characters and the the writers themselves. I think the toss-up between conserving ammunition and conserving life forms a fundamental part of any post-apocalyptic as it's the strongest case of balancing scarce resources in order to try and get the best result. Unfortunately it does have a big potential to be abused and become overpowered, something which should be very carefully monitored by the GM and the players themselves. Whilst it's relatively easy to blame it on the GM, I think there's a strong case for player responsibility existing too. I think natural limitations are the best way to implement, the longer the roleplay goes on, the more scarce the bullets and guns get; especially with wear and tear.

It mainly revolves around the fundamental of choice, especially when it comes to that almost cliche notion of one bullet left in the clip, do you use that on yourself or the mindless creature about to devour you?

Warrior in the Shadows said Why not just do ammo caps, make people count rounds, and make logical restrictions on a combat loadout?

That just encourage's the badass gunslinger approach. Suddenly you want every bullet to hit or it's a waste and will harm you IC. Players get far more worked up being told they missed something if ammo is a limited resource rather than a narrative tool.

That being said though, like with all RP and system flaws. It can be ignored/avoided with a mature and skilled enough group of players.

There is a point where conventional fire-arms would break down and be incapable of use. As well, mass manufacturing would most likely restrict the availability of making ammo for assault weapons. There may be means in the world to certainly produce more, but I'd hazard that they're incredibly expensive and hardly worth using in general conventional warfare. You might use a repaired (hardly refurbished) AR16 when in a pinch, but given a lot of major automatic weapons are made for the purpose of expelling as many bullets as possible, using one for anything more than a few magazines or drums will eat into whatever resources you use for trade/bartering.

I've certainly used this excuse to produce a world with no guns. Though this often comes with raised exceptions where single-shot weapons may be the most practical fire-arm useful in that universe: they tend to eat through ammo slower, and their argument that they're a more accurate weapon means someone who can sight a good shot can more effectively use their weapon against many foes. In comparison to semi-automatic or automatic weapons where bullets may not travel reliability and their rate of fire makes them expensive to maintain.

And given the setting and the further you move away from the point that caused the apocalypse you run into matters where these become valid concerns in addressing the "material" plot-holes: more time means less goods and less parts to maintain existing weapons. The supply in finite and over time sustained use will eat through the existing supply, effecting the cost of the materials needed to effectively operate a fire-arm and making them more expensive. It's economics 101 really. Economics bred with survival.

Therefore in my mind it comes off as being both complimentary to the setting, and economically simpler on the character to use weapons that don't waste years-old ammunition. This usually transforms back to a world of crossbows and bows to supplement fire-arm usage. Or even makeshift swords. You might have communities that make makeshift fire-arms, but these would be comparable to old muskets and rudimentary, easy-to-use and build rifles. So now the actions are steered less from being Rambo to being Mel Gibson in The Patriot.

If the RP takes place immediately after I can see firearms being common as well as ammo. The stock of ammunition and parts needed to maintain a gun are all still at the level they were before with little noticeable tampering. But if the world is going to be all-out war all the time for resources I can see a lot of stockpiles being tore through very fast.

And let's take a minute to math on the numbers, for perspective. The AR-15 fire 800 rounds a minute. Because the AR15 is fairly popular as a privately-owned assault weapons, we'll assume it's the "average" of the roughly 1.5 million assault rifles out there (Drawn from here which draws from here [Even if the given statistic is 20 years old, but it's a rough start]). If all of there used at the same moment in one minute over 1,200,000,000 rounds would be fired at once.

I can't find numbers for the amount of rounds produced and sold. But considering that 2014 is the year we're just crawling out of an ammo shortage, I can't imagine there's enough pre-made factory rounds to be used for very long in a panicked situation.

So I see "no guns" as being less a rule against content (or an extreme form of balancing) but more a way of enforcing a rather absolute idea that there'd be such a level of extreme shortage in the world there's no point.