I saw the movie Deep Rising the other day. It didn't have much to recommend it, except for some nifty special effects - and some awesome guns. Here was a movie set in what appeared to be the modern era, with no science-fiction elements at all - except for these way-cool high-tech assault rifles the protagonists carried, personal gatling guns that spat a million rounds a second in a fury of spinning barrels. Why would a director decide to add such an element to a setting that was in all other ways based on real-world technology? In fact, when you look back over the history of genre film - Aliens with its pulse rifles; T2 with Arnie's massive gatling gun; even Star Trek and Babylon 5 with their phasers and PPGs - it seems that the gun is as important an element as the major characters themselves, in a way that no other piece of fictional technology is. And movies are hardly unique in this sense: God knows that RPGs lavish detailed attention on firearms, out of proportion to other in-game gear.

This fascination with guns has a long history. In fact, firearms may represent one of the oldest technologies still used in its more-or-less original form. The transistor has been arnnnrl for thirty years; the internal combustion engine onehundred or so. But guns have been around for five centuries, with very few essential changes Even today's examples are lon€ lived - the famous Colt .45 is still one of the world's most popular handguns; its U.S. Army designation is M1911 because it wa introduced in, you guessed it, 1911. 1 Name one other piece of military hardware - or civilian for that matter - still in regular service after eightyseven years!

That's not to say that there has been no evolution - certainly there has. The nineteenth century saw the introduction or widespread use of smokeless powder, breechloading weapons, cartridges, semi-automatic (and then automatic) mechanisms, and, most importantly, rifling. These advances dramatically changed the nature of warfare, from Napoleonicstyle tactics (which required dense, tightlycontrolled units with bright uniforms to exploit massed but inaccurate short-ranged fire on a smoky, low-visibility battlefield) to modern guerrilla warfare, which allows smaller, looser units to employ stealth and engage the enemy at great range.

More recent advances in firearms have not had such dramatic effects on the battlefield (although related technologies and larger weapons systems - such as the airplane, tank, and helicopter - certainly have). But the evolution has continued. Modern guns have traded heavy, slow bullets for fast, light ones, improving accuracy at range and allowing for much lighter weapons and ammo loads. Bullpup designs, which put a rifle's firing mechanism in the shoulder stock (behind the hand grip instead of in front of it) make weapons shorter and easier to handle. Caseless ammo has become a viable technology, not widely adopted yet, but sure to come. Weapons that fire multiple rounds at the same time (before recoil from the first round can disrupt the aim of those that follow) and highlyspecialized ammunition are being developed as well.

But these advances are incremental, and generally affect the efficiency of a soldier and his support requirements, not the actual "lethality" of an individual with a gun. Is anything more dramatic in the works?

Anyone who can foresee the next technological revolution has a fortune in the making, but the truth is that firearms are probably near the peak of their development. The technology is reliable and efficient, and will probably only be fine-tuned from this point forward. One-hundred years from now - two-hundred, even - guns will probably look more or less the same as they do now, and as they did one-hundred years ago.

A related technology that could influence the evolution of firearms is that of body armor. In the last two decades, the "bullet-proof vest" has evolved from a thick, heavy, stiff over-garment highly impractical for real tactical use, to a light, compact vest that can be worn under clothes with minimal discomfort or visibility.

The term "bullet proof' is, of course, deceptive. Ballistic armor is rated in Classes, which describe the magnitude of round the vest is designed to defeat, but no body armor is impervious to every firearm. And even the term "defeat" is slippery. A Class II vest might "defeat" a typical handgun (preventing the round from penetrating), but that doesn't mean that bullets just bounce off the target. The impact of a "defeated" bullet might still injure the victim, causing a nasty bruise or even breaking a few ribs. On the other hand, a more powerful bullet (that the vest isn't designed to defeat) might penetrate, but lose so much energy in doing so that the target is merely injured where he or she might otherwise be killed.

Interestingly, the advent of effective body armor has not really altered the design or use of firearms - but it has led to an evolution in ammunition design. Everyone's heard of tefloncoated "cop-killer" bullets designed to penetrate armor, but there are many other varieties out there. A recent trend in specialized ammo attempts to bridge the gap between good armor penetration and good energy transfer to the target (that is, maximum damage) - two goals that are just about mutually exclusive.

Getting shot is an experience that is not wellrepresented in most role-playing games. For starters, guns generally aren't as lethal in games as they are in real life. That's understandable, perhaps, as otherwise character survival rates would probably be awfully low - and hospitalization down-times awfully long. But there's more to being shot than being killed or spending months in surgery and physical therapy. Few injuries are as brutally traumatic as gunshot wounds - the experience is more akin to a highspeed car wreck than to the everyday cuts, bruises and broken bones that most of us have experienced at one time or another. The shock and disorientation can be completely disabling, even if the wound itself isn't.

Sometimes, in crisis situations, gunshot victims are hardly affected by their wounds - but that's a result of their highly adrenalized (or drugged) state, and not something that can be counted on or consciously evoked. And we've all heard stories of people who were shot in the left elbow (or wherever) and had the bullet / pass harmlessly out behind their liver, having missed all critical organs, bones, and i blood vessels.

Such flukes do occur, but they're exceedingly rare, and of the millions of people who have been shot in the wars of the last 500 years, 99.99% have is received the brutal, massive wounds that one would expect.

So where does all this leave the gun in gaming? Obviously, that depends on your setting. In modern or near-future science fiction settings, guns are likely to get somewhat smaller and lighter (and cooler-looking, if you like), but not too much more lethal than they already are. Body armor will likely become more common and effective - but always a halfstep behind the development of ammunition to defeat it. Are we likely to see the personal gatling guns featured in Deep Rising?

Probably not, unless the futuristic soldier likes to carry around sixty or eighty pounds of ammunition and spend six hours instead of one swabbing barrels when the shooting is over, all for the dubious advantage of completely hosing down an area with thousands of unaimed bullets. Actually, current military trends go the other direction - one bullet can kill just as effectively as fifty, if the soldier bothers to take a half-second to aim it.

The current version of the U.S. Army's M-16, in fact, doesn't even have a full-auto setting. Look for future weapons to get smaller, lighter, simpler, and more accurate, perhaps incorporating better sighting systems such as the built-in scopes used in the British Army's SA-80 and the Australians' and Austrians' Steyr AUG. Built-in grenade launchers like those in Aliens are reasonable as well, but they add a lot of weight and their utility is limited - probably no more than one or two would ever be needed in a squad-sized (or PC-group-sized) combat unit.

If your game setting sends you in the other direction, into the past - well, you've got history as your guide. Remember that most older weapons were heavy and unwieldy compared to today's guns - affecting not just the use of the firearm, but also the amount of ammo that can be reasonably carried. And bolt- or lever-action weapons - and especially muzzle-loaders, like old muskets - dramatically change the nature of a firefight. The combatant that shoots first had better hit his target, because he's essentially unarmed for a second or two (or fifteen or twenty, in the case of muzzle-loaders), until he can get another round in the chamber.

All of this assumes that the firearms in your game were designed for military use, in combat against other humans. If you've got space marines squaring off against alien horrors, or big-game heading back to the Pleistocene for a little dinosaur safari, all bets are off. There's no good reason to assume that bullets will get dramatically more powerful (or less powerful) then they are in real life, and a single carefully-aimed shot is always superior in effect to a loose a red barrage, at least against targets of more or less the same build as a human being. Small, fast, powerful bullets are effective against heavily-armored targets like the bugs in Starship Troopers, while big, slow dumb ones have maximum effect against soft, squishy creatures.

Shotguns rule in tight spaces, where careful aim is impossible and reflexes are key. Beyond that, the unique requirements of your game setting may breed a completely different set of priorities. Perhaps the multi-barreled cannons of Deep Rising would really be a good choice in a world where close combat against huge tentacled horrors is the order of the day.

Guns are always going to figure prominently in modern or science-fiction movies and games, and well they should. They're an enormous extension of the characters' power, an indispensable tool for action-oriented adventures. From long, sleek and silenced to powerful and brutish, they can define the characters that carry them. And they look and feel, well, just darn cool. You can expect them to continue to be a central element in both film and games and with a little thought, you can make them into more than just eye candy in your campaign.