So my players and I have been discussing the possibility of using the SWRPG rules to run a game in a different setting, specifically a fantasy "sword and flintlock" world. How would you suggest adjusting damage, if at all, of melee weapons to make them viable?

I planned to use the stats for slugthrowers for the gunpowder weapons available, and then simply treat vibro-weapons as normal, including their ranks in Pierce and Vicious, since pretty much all the melee weapons are vibro-whatevers. Does this seem like a good balance, or is there another approach I'm overlooking?

I'd remove the Pierce and Vicious qualities from the melee weapons, unless the swords in your fantasy campaign are vibroweapons. Maybe add them as magical enchantments for weapons where that might apply.

I'd remove the Pierce and Vicious qualities from the melee weapons, unless the swords in your fantasy campaign are vibroweapons. Maybe add them as magical enchantments for weapons where that might apply.

I actually meant Pierce, but Vicious also applies. My question then is, how do these weapons become viable? The view the group seems to have is an emphasis on sword fighting over musketry, so Errol Flynn/Musketeers stuff, but if the average sword only deals a damage of Brawn+1 or Brawn+2 (so at the start of the game, likely only 4 or 5 damage+Successes) then they won't be dealing much damage past Soak, even if the most common Armor they'll encounter is Padded. Should the weapon damage be increased, or should I just shortchange enemies on Soak?

And here you have a decision to make: historical accuracy that complicates the game, or fudge the details for fun? I wouldn't worry about removing pierce and vicious, because 1: weapons and armor were developed to counter each other, like a convulted game of rock-paper-scissors, and 2: weapons were designed to deal the most damage to enemies as possible. So pierce and vicious are easily justifiable.

As for muskets, well, them being more effective than swords is kind of why they replaced swords eventually (a long eventually).

I'd remove the Pierce and Vicious qualities from the melee weapons, unless the swords in your fantasy campaign are vibroweapons. Maybe add them as magical enchantments for weapons where that might apply.

I actually meant Pierce, but Vicious also applies. My question then is, how do these weapons become viable? The view the group seems to have is an emphasis on sword fighting over musketry, so Errol Flynn/Musketeers stuff, but if the average sword only deals a damage of Brawn+1 or Brawn+2 (so at the start of the game, likely only 4 or 5 damage+Successes) then they won't be dealing much damage past Soak, even if the most common Armor they'll encounter is Padded. Should the weapon damage be increased, or should I just shortchange enemies on Soak?

You should definitely not increase weapon damage. Damage will automatically go up as the PCs get higher skill ranks and as a consequence, roll more successes. Any damage boosts should come from talents like Feral Strength, Soft Spot, Anatomy Lesson, Deadly Accuracy, and so on.

For the Firearms I would require a Maneuver to load (It's a complicated process) and add the Pierce Quality if the weapon doesn't already have it. For melee weapons I agree with Kriger and would remove all the qualities like Pierce, Viscous etc., saving these qualities for "Magical" add ons.

Kriger is right about not increasing base damage as well.

Check out this thread here . It is a FFG high fantasy conversion.

Save qualities to differentiate weapon types. Warhammer FFG used the 1.0 version of EotE's narrative system and they grouped all melee weapons into broad categories such as One-Handed (longsword, mace, club, 1h axe, etc) and Two-Handed (claymore, poleaxe, spear, etc). For a swords, sorcery, and muskets game that was way too broad in my opinion so I added qualities to make them different. Translating from FFG Narrative 1.0 to 2.0 for One-Handed you might get something like Defensive for Swords, Vicious for Axes, Piercing for a spike Mace, etc.