Every non-d20 game i've been in has died in less than three months

>Every non-d20 game i've been in has died in less than three months
>Even now, people are trying to plan pathfinder

I hate dungeons and dragons
I just want to escape
why is it so hard

I enjoy your self-inflicted torment, because you really care too much about what system you're playing.

Hey, there's the D&D defense force! You're earlier than usual. Go on champ, tell everyone why OP wanting to play different games is a bad thing.

Wow, you're a faggot.

>every non-asian car I've had has died on me in less than three months
>even now, everyone is trying to talk me into buying another asian car

I hate asian cars
I just want to escape
why is it so hard

>every non pasta post I've posted has garnered zero (you)s
>even now, I'm typing pasta into the window and pressing 'post'

I hate pasta
I just want to post original content
why is it so hard

>died in less than three months
Why the fuck are you playing games that are expected to last longer than three months?

I exclusively run and play games that are planned to last only 1-2 months. They actually have satisfying conclusions and actual stories instead of boring games where you just mindlessly play and expect anyone to care about it or get invested in it.

Just run shorter games OP, "epic" multi year campaigns are shit.

Inertia, mostly. I think even with the internet changing how a lot of people play tabletop RPGs, the majority of people still learn them by knowing someone who teaches them. D&D is the only RPG with any mainstream cultural presence, so of course it's the one everyone wants to play first. It's easy to find someone to teach it, and a group of people who all know the basic rules and are at least mostly okay with them. It's the lingua franca.

>every non-asian car I've had has been crashed by some stupid drunk friends
>even now, everyone is trying to talk me into buying a shitty asian car

I hate asian cars
I just want to escape
why is it so hard

fix'd it for you
His problem with DnD is system based, his problems with other systems are player based, don't mix that up otherwise you're just creating a really shitty strawman.

Because for as much shit as DnD gets, it actually does keep improving with every version and is a pretty stable, useable, set of rules that works.

Even though I'm going to get flamed to hell and back for saying that, it's true. Most of DnD's haters are people who think their indie system of choice is flawless (it never is) and re just shilling, or they're people who don't actually roleplay and fail to understand that every rules system in existence has problems and there's no magical "perfect system", but they shit on DnD because they don't realize this and make DnD out to be some big bad boogeyman that's ruining the hobby.

Not OP but I findon't the mechanics of D&D oppressive and boring, not fast enough to be ignored but not interesting enough to hold any fun.

Like a Goldilocks zone of boredom.

>findon't

Come on phone that's not a word, just ment to be "find".

fucking... get a new group.

>But geographical difficulties!

You very clearly have the inernet

>keeps improving with every version

Huh, first post is best post again.

D&D is good at what it does, I'll grant you, but other systems do other things better. I mainly dislike it because I'm not a fan of class based progression systems

go away reddit

Because people that sit and bitch about systems all day can't actually function in a game so they all inevitably fall apart.

Just focus on having a fun experience, don't pay attention to the pro/anti D20 crowd.

Start RUNNING other games.

If you're waiting for that marvelous ST or Referee that'll suddenly appear and take on the best WoD chronicle or Traveller adventure...no, there's no such thing.

If you're a player, you suck it up and play whatever there is. So, grab some core rulebooks and start RUNNING the games you want to see and play.

It's shit but that's how it works.

This.

Somewhat related, why do people GM Pathfinder or 3.5 games? Seriously, there is no other system I can think of that is less fun for a GM to run in any capacity.

The most fun I ever had DMing was a Pathfinder game, specifically my take on the Red Hand of Doom. Conversely, the least fun was World of Darkness. The player characters were just so damn frail...

>I hate dungeons and dragons
If you say this without having played every edition, you're being disingenuous or at least unintentionally misleading.

Every edition of D&D has been at least playable. Every TSR edition was straight up good, as is 5e.

D&D is a fun game, it was supposed to be about a party of adventurers exploring a fantasy world and overcoming obstacles together. The people you were playing with were bound to become comrades, friends, brothers. People in who you would trust, no matter the situation.

Somewhere along the line (some say as early as when the Hickmans got into the business), people started to play D&D as a way to "tell a story". This isn't bad, but there wasn't supposed to be a story, it would flow naturally out of hex crawling and random tables, that's why Gygax didn't want to publish his Greyhawk setting at first. So now the campaigns had to have an intriguing story from the start, the characters had to come up with complex backgrounds and felt entitled to have benefits according to it (instead of just being low-life adventurers who could change the world with their actions) and then came 3e with its complex rules, and feats, and builds and min-max (i'm pretty sure there was min-max in other editions, but 3e made it too explicit)...

And then people just lost focus.

D&D was different.

>it actually does keep improving with every version
>D&D

Pick one

Maybe because most people aren't faggots like you?

5e is better than 3.5, and 3.5 is slightly better than 3.0.

That's the only case of it getting better over time that I can think of.

I mean, there are some things about newer editions of D&D that are better than old ones, like not having to consult a chart for every attack, but these are things that can be and have been incorporated into older editions of D&D via OSR games.

Your post is absolutely wrong. It's literally just you talking out your ass.

For god's sake, just stop. Stop trying to tell people what D&D is, or what people used it for, or what it's good for, or really ever opening your mouth ever.

Gygax and Arneson designed it from the start to tell a story. That's what made it a departure from war games, that's why they explicitly told people to read fantasy novels. That was Arneson's bread and butter, and even Gygax's first campaign was first concerned with the story and plot well before anything else.

What is wrong with you? Seriously, where do you come up with all your bullshit? Where? You're here, acting like you know something, when you don't even know the very basics, allowing your opinions to color in your own history and to let your mouth run about shit you ain't got a clue about.

>run a game of not-dnd
>"okay guys this is going to be a lot more dangerous than 5e, partly because we're all learning a new game"
>one guy says he's 100% okay with this
>game time comes
>his character gets knocked out, not even killed
>immediately tantrums, runs out to get stoned, and comes back to roll up a character specifically to troll me

People are terrible and regardless of what they say or how much they posture, they want to be pampered with baby-mode games that never let anything bad happen to them.

If so, then why B1 is just a featureless dungeon the DM is supposed to fill out?

Why is B2 just a series of caves with monsters with no overeaching plot or story?

Why wasn't there any kind of setting details in the first Greyhawk supplement?

And yes, they made a departure from wargames, but Arneson first game was about EXPLORING castle Blackmoor, and Gygax would go hours on end about how Castle Greyhawk was full of wacky traps and weird features and even a fucking tunnel that dropped you down to China.

I'm not saying there's "a way to play D&D", but that the main focus was to create and inspire a sense of wonder and discovery, of a living world meant to be explored and tinkered with. You weren't supposed to come with a novel or a literary story arc...shit, a lot of things came up at random, goddamit.

I got a chuckle out of the fact you skipped 4e when bringing up 5e.

Because the recognition was that the DM would work out a plot for themselves, hence the reading recommendations, hence all the other story advice. Also, random tables have more function beyond just random generation, and work more like ordered lists of ideas. A famous Gygax quote is "A DM rolls dice only for the noise they make."

The game aspect was always there, including tournaments held in every edition (with "builds" and "min-maxing" being always explicit), but you shouldn't hold any delusions that the only thing they made it for was for putting a group through a castle or dungeon. Different groups liked different things, and used it to different ends.

4e got skipped because it wasn't worth mentioning in the first place.

>D&D gets better and better every edition
>But 5e was worse than 4e
>4e doesn't count

Some people want traditional style D&D gameplay, but they also want more world simulating. Other people just do it because that's what they learned first and learning more games is more work. Still other people do it because it's the second most popular RPG and all their friends are playing it already.

Personally I think you're right that GMing d20 games is a huge pain in the ass, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do it.

This is the real solution. If you want a game to be a certain way, you have to be willing to run it yourself.

Pretty much this. If you don't want to play D&D then offer to run something else. This is how I introduced my group to various game systems as well as OSR retroclones. Offer to run mini-campaigns for people, no more than seven sessions. If they like it, ask if they want to continue or even try prodding them into taking on the mantle of GM.