Why DON'T people like guns in D&D?

[Tale]

How can anyone say Army of Darkness wasn't fantasy? It was bitching fantasy. So is Dark Tower, actually.

@Stoat:
Your points seem to revolve around ranged (#s 1 and 2). What about the numerous ranged classes/builds in D&D? Ranger, Wizard, Warlock, etc.

 

[Umbran]

Two words: Solomon. Kane.

Solomon Kane is set in the 16th century - post-Columbus. While to a historian the Medieval period carries just into the 16th century, in terms of genre and style, I'd call that well past the pseudo-Medieval period that's D&D's forte.

You do what you want, of course. But if I wanted to do 16th century, age of Cortés, Shakespearean-times kind of stuff, D&D would not be the system I'd choose.

 

[Stoat]

@Stoat:
Your points seem to revolve around ranged (#s 1 and 2). What about the numerous ranged classes/builds in D&D? Ranger, Wizard, Warlock, etc.

Generally speaking, ranged classes depend on having someone in melee to block for them. My 4E group is very ranged focused (wizard, feylock, laser cleric, ranger, paladin -- the ranger splits his time between ranged and melee combat). In a typical fight, the Paladin gets the hell beaten out of him holding the line, the ranger ducks in and out of melee, and everybody else stands back.

So yeah, if you have a melee tank, you're golden. But the idea of a melee tank seems strange to me when mixed with firearms.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think really it comes down to the rules for them always being stupid. For some reason, game designers always feel the need to make them different.

Really, they should probably just be treated the same as a crossbow.

 

[Tewligan]

I like my AD&D games to hew pretty closely to sword and sorcery-style fantasy, and guns just don't fit in.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Title says it all. I've heard scores of arguments FOR guns in D&D... now I'd like to hear from the other side of the fence. What is it about guns that just screams "NO!" in your campaign worlds?

D&D is about taking names and changing the world by sheer force of your personal mojo. The more tech you use, the more mojo you're borrowing from some nameless inventor, the less fantastically heroic you are. IMO, naturally.

If it were up to me, I probably wouldn't even include xbows in D&D for that reason. Although Final Fantasy has guns and all kinds of wacky magitech stuff, and it only bothers me a little. Probably because it's a video game.

 

[gamerprinter]

While I'm less of a grognard about it, as I get older - I never cared for Modern, Future, near-Modern, near-Future games. I did play some Traveller and Space Opera, as well as a short campaign with Twilight 2000, back in the 80's just to give them a try - but I didn't really care for it.

And though I'm more open-minded regarding later history, my primary historical interests, let alone gaming interests stops at the Rennaissance. Truth tell, I don't really even care for the Middle Ages, much preferring the Dark Ages (fall of Roman Empire up to the Norman Invasion) and earlier.

So guns? Too modern for my gaming interests.

I'll also agree with others that gun game mechanics, IME, never really worked well with D&D. I'm sure someone could figure out one that did work, but even still - I even cringe thinking of full plate armor as being too modern for my tastes, that's high middle ages too modern for me!

GP

 

[Afrodyte]

But if I wanted to do 16th century, age of Cortés, Shakespearean-times kind of stuff, D&D would not be the system I'd choose.

For my own selfish reasons, what system would you choose?

 

[frankthedm]

I want open ended damage for guns.

For my own selfish reasons, what system would you choose?

I'd recommend 2E WFRP for that era myself.

 

[Raven Crowking]

for my own selfish reasons, what system would you choose?

See my .sig.