Why such an aversion to it? The default technological setting of most D&D fantasy settings is actually late medieval/ early renaissance; by which time Gunpowder definitely was around.
Also, there are some settings that go way beyond that in terms of the fantastical, clearly, and yet for some reason refuse to have gunpowder as part of the world; living statues and crazy alchemical concoctions and trains that run off magic energy and flying ships, sure... but cannons? That's just crazy talk!

Why?

RPGPundit

Because lots of people have trouble reconciling a world where people stab each other with swords with a world where people shoot each other with guns.  

See the Satsuma Rebellion - in a world where every peasant can be taught to shoot a rifle in formation, there's no need for a samurai.

I think the attraction of the fantasy genre is in someway tied to a romantic notion of a simple, pure, pre-industrial world with knights and princesses, fairies and unicorns - the term "fantasy was your first clue. Guns are thematically part of the cold, industrial modern world and as such don't fit.  

Unless of course its Warhammer. Nothing pure about Warhammer. Even the unicorns there are playing an angle and it ain't a pretty one.

It does kinda step on the toes of the wizards.

I agree that it has a lot to do with the aesthetics. If you want people to use swords, they have to be a more attractive option than gunpowder. And no two geeks seem to be able to agree on what the gunpowder rules should be, even within a single system.

That being said, gunpowder and fantasy is not unheard of. The Fantasy Trip had  firearms and explosives. Dragon articles on adding firearms to D&D appeared very early on.

I think people have unrealistic perceptions of the stopping power of firearms in general, and archaic early firearms in particular; there's a perception that a well-placed musket ball should manage to bring down a big bad monster like a dragon or giant with a lucky shot. See also the myth about armor-piercing 16th-Century gunfire as the cause of death of armored combatants (plate armor managed to hold off gunshot for quite a few decades, maybe a century).

Hence exploding dice for firearms in D&D, and similar "nonsense". A sword thrust to the heart or a lucky hammer blow to the head will kill you just as dead as a bullet to either place (and most gamers would be surprised to learn how usual it is to survive a GSW to the head -- even from modern firearms), and I see no one advocating exploding damage dice to voulge-guisarmes and bearded axes.

Now bring in the matter of "game balance" -- firearms are easy to use (there's a reason gunpowder has been called "The Great Equalizer", and helped bring down the notion of a dominant warrior caste that dated back to the Proto-Indo-European people, paving the way for modern professional armies). So suddenly every character, regardless of race or class, has access to a mini-fireball dispenser (which is how people tend to treat guns in D&D), potentially at 1st level, and suddenly DMs are loathe to have this sort of firepower on the PCs' hands right out of the gate.

Nowadays I'm partial to treating firearms as decent damage, but occasionally unwieldly weapons. No xploding damage or crazy crits or anything. In BECMI/RC terms, a pistol might do 1d6 or 1d8 damage, an arquebus or dragoon carbine 1d10, a blunderbuss 1d10 with some scatter, and a musket or rifle a whopping 1d12; but carrying, loading and caring for ammunition (don't get your powder wet while you cross the Black River over to the City of Gold), not to mention a small but ever-present chance of catastrophic misfire of the explodey kind, should offset these benefits.

Quote from: The Butcher;579480See also the myth about armor-piercing 16th-Century gunfire as the cause of death of armored combatants (plate armor managed to hold off gunshot for quite a few decades, maybe a century).

Ned Kelly and company managed to hold it off right into the age of revolvers, at least for civil conflicts. There were a variety of factors leading to the dominance of powder weapons on the battlefield, not least of which was sheer intimidation, as The King proved to those primitive screwheads with his boomstick.

Quote from: The Traveller;579465It does kinda step on the toes of the wizards.

Only if your wizards are nothing but artillery!

I use firearms in my setting - to the point where every class can use 'em - and haven't really had an issue yet.  It's just another weapon.  However, I don't use 'exploding damage' or 'penetration' or any of that crap, they're just reskinned bows.

EDIT: The Butcher pretty much described my firearms house-rules in that final paragraph; although I don't use misfire for firearms any more than I use "snapped bowstring" rules for longbows.

I am fine with it. Makes campaigns more interesting IMO.

I haven't used gunpowder weapons in my "classic" campaigns, but also I haven't used the techno-gnome trope either. I can't remember if it was Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance that did that first.

In a magic rich world, I think wizards would also go out of their way to discourage or hinder their invention or use. Putting extra murder power into the hands of common folk wouldn't be to their benefit.

Now if I was specifically running a post apocalyptic campaign (like Anomalous Subsurface Environment or something along the lines of Thundarr the Barbarian), yeah, Id go for it.

I actually prefer it if I am going to be doing much in the way of seafaring. Too many assumptions ingrained in our conscious about ship, sailing, and pirates that go into swashbuckling fantasy come from an age when you could have cannons on ships.

Otherwise, it's just a setting decision for me. I am more likely to allow it in age of reason sorts of settings, otherwise probably not. It all has to do with the feel I am trying to build.

LotFP will be putting out a gun supplement soon. I'm looking forward to it.

Quote from: The Traveller;579465It does kinda step on the toes of the wizards.

Not really. Its nowhere near the same level of power as magic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;579480I think people have unrealistic perceptions of the stopping power of firearms in general, and archaic early firearms in particular; there's a perception that a well-placed musket ball should manage to bring down a big bad monster like a dragon or giant with a lucky shot. See also the myth about armor-piercing 16th-Century gunfire as the cause of death of armored combatants (plate armor managed to hold off gunshot for quite a few decades, maybe a century).

Hence exploding dice for firearms in D&D, and similar "nonsense". A sword thrust to the heart or a lucky hammer blow to the head will kill you just as dead as a bullet to either place (and most gamers would be surprised to learn how usual it is to survive a GSW to the head -- even from modern firearms), and I see no one advocating exploding damage dice to voulge-guisarmes and bearded axes.

Now bring in the matter of "game balance" -- firearms are easy to use (there's a reason gunpowder has been called "The Great Equalizer", and helped bring down the notion of a dominant warrior caste that dated back to the Proto-Indo-European people, paving the way for modern professional armies). So suddenly every character, regardless of race or class, has access to a mini-fireball dispenser (which is how people tend to treat guns in D&D), potentially at 1st level, and suddenly DMs are loathe to have this sort of firepower on the PCs' hands right out of the gate.

Nowadays I'm partial to treating firearms as decent damage, but occasionally unwieldly weapons. No xploding damage or crazy crits or anything. In BECMI/RC terms, a pistol might do 1d6 or 1d8 damage, an arquebus or dragoon carbine 1d10, a blunderbuss 1d10 with some scatter, and a musket or rifle a whopping 1d12; but carrying, loading and caring for ammunition (don't get your powder wet while you cross the Black River over to the City of Gold), not to mention a small but ever-present chance of catastrophic misfire of the explodey kind, should offset these benefits.

That's pretty well exactly how I run firearms; I do a d6 for pistols, a d8 for rifles, though I do allow them to "explode" (only to make them worth bothering with).  They have the worst reload time of any weapon, and you have to bother with gunpowder etc.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;579480See also the myth about armor-piercing 16th-Century gunfire as the cause of death of armored combatants (plate armor managed to hold off gunshot for quite a few decades, maybe a century).

I am soooo glad you brought this up.  You are absolutely correct, and it's a myth that needs to go away.  Plate armor was being used 100 years after the first gun saw the battlefield.  The cause for the elimination of plate mail wearing knights was economics.  It was damned expensive to be a knight, and it just wasn't cost effective anymore, especially with the way wars were beginning to be fought.