Why does TG hate dnd?

>hey a thing is popular
>guess I'll piss off a lot of people if I shit on it
>yesss the sweet taste of (You)s
///
>fuck why no one is playing my Eternal Kikes in Sky Negatokyo RPG must be because D&D took all players fucking D&D
///
>literal autism, as depicted here

That's not very nice, nor is it constructive criticism.

First off it depends on the edition, 3.pf gets the biggest shit, people don't really think of 4E as DnD, and most people, even if they don't like 5E like it better than 3.pf, also people don't really talk about the earlier additions in these threads

Editions

Most of D&D hate I've seen here seems to come from people who say it's too crunchy (which I think is ridiculous), so they're definitely not GURPS guys.

>Poster count didn't go up, chief.
Whatever you say, friend!

If anything 5E needs more crunch, character creation and combat are very lacking

>If I shitpost enough, people will surely believe in it

I would play the shit out of Eternal Kikes in Sky Negatokyo RPG

>-The d20 is swingy as hell, and having critical 5% or more of the time is just silly. And folks using critical failures as if it is a real rule shits that up even further
different strokes for different folks, I too dislike crits doing anything but what's written in the book but eh
>- Levels are a disparity of quality between characters for player decision and classes; a level 20 wizard is not the same quality as a level 20 fighter by a huge margin (Unless it's 4e, but 4e has a terrible rep)
true but few people ever actually play at those levels, and 5e mitigated that somewhat
>- 3.0 began this concept of feats and features ... And to balance that; it takes 5 feats to take a shit and remember to wipe your ass afterwards.
only true in 3.5/pf, only complaint about 5e feats is how different in power they are
>- It is chock full of auxiliary rules that are usually only for one situation at a time, demanding that you know EVERY subsystem of rules if you want to do something neat, rather than having a simple resolution system. Because it's realistic that you roll 1d20+mod to speak to someone no matter what, but it's not realistic to roll 1d20+mod to jump high; here's a calculator.
have you tried not playing third edition?
>-Low levels are notoriously deadly in exchange for having nothing interesting to do except for revel in how difficult it is or exploit the above auxiliary rules for anything to do, the game evens out a few levels in, then becomes nigh unplayable after level 10-ish, unless you are VERY familiar with it.
have you tried not playing third edition?
>- No matter what you do, unless you 'cheat', your neat bbeg character will always be ganked in three rounds, but the party will die to a hoard of nose picking goblins, because of sheer action economy.
yes. Give buddies to the boss.

Usually the hate is directed to 3.x/PF which is far crunchier than 5e, but still it's not very crunchy. It's more like hopelessly bloated than crunchy.

You guys should give Fantasy Craft a go.

Veeky Forums loves D&D. It's literally the most played game on this board, and has been all the way back since the first Veeky Forums survey almost a decade ago. It's got two of the fastest generals, and is basically a must-play system in order to even begin to discuss RPGs due to the influence and popularity of mechanics it introduced. It's basically a cornerstone of Veeky Forums, and will be for decades if Veeky Forums even lasts that long.

We're just dealing with a few system war trolls who get real upset about people playing a game they don't like. Popular things tend to get the most haters, but they're still a tiny minority. Pay them no heed.

I really wish they weren't so obsessed though. They've probably just been kicked off of every other forum and now bitch here rather than just letting go.

Just play GURPS, guys.
The Dungeon Fantasy box finally came out.

I don't know what you're talking about, I love 4E

Your pointless and largely vapid bitching isn't constructive criticism either.

I actually enjoy 3.x and even PF if there's no "character optimizers" fucking around and GM doesn't try to kill players by throwing crazy monsters around. Bloat is pretty easy to ignore and while I don't think system is exactly good (armor class is kind of retarded for example), it gets the job done and is easy to understand (compared to stuff like GURPS that gives me headache), but still providing quite many options.

Having played other systems, I feel like D&D is too focused on mechanics. Everything is built around the dungeon crawl

Yeah, that's about right actually; perhaps I got a bit more learning to do before I call folks out myself. Thank you for your time.

That's not really my problem with it, if anything the mechanics are too lacking, martials just hit things and expend resources for more damage and minor utility effects

...

I wluld gladly do that, but GURPS GMs are ridiculously rare and I'm too retarded for the crunch. Still, I enjoyed those few times I actually got to play even though I didn't understand shit about the rules (GM helped me).

It's the giant in the room.

It's not bad in and of itself, but it naturally is to blame for many other rpgs being pushed to the side in the current rpg zeitgeist

5e is popular and widely credited as the best edition so far so naturally a few "that guy"s have to make a post every day about how bad it is without having read the PHB

4E was better

>Massive numbers bloat
>Boring combat mechanics.
>Little punishment for fucking up.
>Terrible balance (3.pf is one of the least balanced games ever made).
>Huge focus on combat with little to do mechanically outside of it.
>Awful fanbase.

DnD is the Overwatch of RPGs. It's not unplayably bad or anything, just a bit basic. Game for casuals.

I blame r/DnD

No, it's widely credited as the second best edition so far, because it was designed to be so inoffensive as to seem better than [edition you hate], but in exchange doesn't quite measure up to [your favorite edition].

>all the idiots who got banned from shitposting in r/DnD now shitpost here
>we have to deal with the idiots that even Reddit rejected

Fuck.

keep on improving yourself

Why should I like it?

I have a rule to dislike things until I have a reason to like them.

Because it's not good at anything. It's too spread-eagled. You want dungeon crawling? Do some OSR or Torchlight. You want political intrigue? Do Song of Swords. You want an epic adventure/narrativist bullshit? Do Burning Wheel. But there's no reason to do D&D.

It's more that r/DnD represents everything wrong with DnD in a nutshel, seriously poke your head in there and even if you like DnD you'll be disappointed

Except that 5e now has achieved a full majority of all roleplayers. More than half of all people playing roleplaying games play 5e. Not D&D, 5e.

It's really become most people's favorite edition, and when it's not that, then it has a very good chance of being their second favorite.

5E is my least favorite edition though

As bad as it may be, it's still a hell of a lot better than the shitposters we have to deal with here.

/thread

After some time it does look boring, although it's not really.

No it isn't.

>all these D&D apologists
wtf I thought you were my circlejerk buddies

guess not

faggots

Other than that one guy who keeps posting the same picture the anti-DnD posters are sincere, I say this as an anti-DnD poster

Bad DnD apologists are part of the circle jerk, the only intelligent people that are pro DnD are hiding in the generals

I'll circlejerk you.
D&D sucks almost as hard as what I'm going to do to your penis.

Being sincere doesn't stop them from being shitposters, it actually makes them worse.

It's like you're saying "/pol/ would be better if it had more genuine stormfronters."

What we're dealing with is people who literally can't accept a game being popular, so they need to constantly shitpost about how much they hate it, to the point where most of them have lost any semblance of being able to fairly evaluate a system.

5e is really quite good, and That Guys and retards should really read the PHB and DMG before they start talking shit.

The only edition of D&D that I would be completely comfortable calling a "bad" game is 3.5/Pf. The rest range in quality (and scope), and are different enough from each other that condemning the entire lot is silly. I actually really like B/X and all the OSR clones it's spawned.

3.5/Pf, at its core, isn't even that terrible. Its problem is that it is a game that is boring but serviceable with core-only content and bloated to the point of being near-unplayable with all of its splatbooks, with huge swaths of material that are unplayably bad, trap options so inexplicably useless that they seem designed solely to make the game more player-unfriendly, massive stat-blocks for every monster with conditions and effects that last drastically varying degrees of time requiring a ridiculous amount of bookkeeping on the part of just about everyone involved, rules with either no identifiable point or--just as often--different rules with seemingly conflicting design philosophies, and balance issues so deeply fucked that they stretch the usefulness of "guys, it's a co-op game, remember?"

Even so, the system still does what it (apparently) wants to focus on: provides lots and lots of fiddly bits for players to make characters. I can absolutely understand why a player would want to play 3.5/Pf, even with all of those things above taken into account. It will forever baffle me, however, how a GM could be hoodwinked into running the damn thing.

I don't see that. I only see people who dislike a system, and talk about this. What? Did you think they were going to hide away their dislike?

Of course there are actual shitposters, but they are not sincere.

We shitpost about DnD because it's boring. And shitting on it keeps the redditors out (partially)

Maybe it's because I don't like DnD but you just seem salty that people are criticizing something you like, if someone is bothering you either debate them if they're reasonable or ignore them, don't lose your cool

That's a shitload of projection (and everything is wrong)

It's the only edition that autists love, so that says a lot, they want to master the system and win D&D as a pure numbers game. It's autistic af.

he's still pissed off about the plague of "when did you realize DnD was shit?" threads which is honestly understandable

Not really.

That is, firstly, you shouldn't still be angry about something so small, and secondly, that anger should not be directed at people who genuinely dislike D&D.

>content is bad

3.5 did a surprisingly good job with the sheer scope of its material. When you compare it to other large systems, its actually impressive how much is compatible and how many different styles of play can all come together at the same table.

Some people don't like big games. But, for the people that do, using the term "bloat" is just being needlessly negative, especially because under no circumstance is all of it or even any of it mandatory. The game scales up and down according to how big you want it.

I knew a group that did nothing but the Psionics Handbook for classes. Some people do E6 core only. And I really doubt there's any group that has anyone that purchased every 3.5 book.

It's far from a perfect system, but getting upset because of its overall size is just getting upset about the concept of the system, rather than the actual game and how people played it.

Can you read?

He probably misquoted my dude.

Could you at least try empathize? The quality of conversation would be improved if you didn't piss him off

>I don't see that. I only see people who dislike a system, and talk about this. What? Did you think they were going to hide away their dislike?

Do you like Exalted? Do you daily make threads to complain about Exalted?
What about Fatal? Daily threads to complain about Fatal?

Whenever someone mentions 40k, do you pop into the thread in order to try to derail it by complaining about prices and obnoxious fans?

Everyone has games they don't like. But, you're trying to excuse a really sick sack of shitposters, and all because you think that unproveable sincerity is what separates them from other shitposters.

That's absolutely retarded.

This. D&D 5e works fairly well as an introduction to roleplaying games, and generally handles everything in a way that's good enough to keep a diverse group of players happy. If you've got a group of people who are all really into one particular thing, there's almost certainly a game or two out there that's designed to handle that and does it well.

D&D does enough stuff passably.

>If you've got a group of people who are all really into one particular thing,

Those groups are rather rare, and they still end up with people putting up with focusing on what other people like rather than focusing on what they like.

It's about lethargy. The simple fact is D&D doesn't scale well. It may be broad in scope, but it cannot be focused on any one thing, and nothing it does is done as well as specialised systems. It simply isn't as good as the competition. I understand why you'd like it -- it isn't *bad* -- but you have to understand why other people say they don't.
Empathy doesn't mean sympathy.
So, what, because you dislike a hardened core of (You) farmers who may be sincere (they probably aren't), all people who hate D&D are shitposters?

I have the opposite experience. If you know each other face-to-face, as friends, then it's easy to work something out. If you're recruiting online, well then, only the kind of person who finds your game appealing will apply.

It's a dungeon-crawling system hacked apart and squished into as many different types of campaign as it's possible to think of. It is a square peg, and it has broken the round hole. Damn I'm good.

> It simply isn't as good as the competition.

Only in your utterly-detached-from-reality hypothetical wanderings. You genuinely believed that "focused" games designed to appeal to as small a group as possible are better than games that try to allow a diverse group of players to enjoy a game together. Not everyone has managed to produce a cloning machine and has a group of people with identical tastes, and because of that games that cater to broad tastes allow everyone at the table to enjoy themselves.

Even the people I play with who I believe match my tastes closest end up going through phases of what they like, and the concept of switching systems to match everyone's temporary tastes exactly is borderline ridiculous. It's typically why I end up playing loose, broad systems that cater to wide tastes, and why 5e ends up being the common go-to because it has just such broad appeal.

And because 5e is actually genuinely good.

I believe so. I don't understand why a compromise-system would be considered better than specialised ones, even allowing that it might be easier in some situations to use one. That still means the specialised ones are better. They're just not best for your group (I'd disagree on that point; better to use a better system which you all agree on, and yes, you will agree on something).

But in any case, D&D is NOT that compromise-system. It has not let go of its roots, and it still acts as a gamey turn-based fight-focused system -- as you would expect given its dungeon-crawler roots. But, these systems have been stretched to sort-of allow other campaigns.
>the concept of switching systems to match everyone's temporary tastes exactly is borderline ridiculous
Are you kidding? What do you do? Just play the same system over and over?

You should stop, I think I've seen this guy in these threads and if he's who I think it is you'll get nowhere

how can one man be so frustrated

Because it's tacky and autistic.

op, if you're still here, it might be best to format your own opinions. play a bit, pull the edition books from the Internet, compare them with each other and GURPs and such. Getting a consensus off of Veeky Forums is like herding Beholders. Every person here has their own views, so the conversation isn't going to go anywhere. Good Luck

>Getting a consensus off of Veeky Forums is like herding Beholders
I see what you did there.

In the meantime you seem reasonable, what's your opinion?

>all people who hate D&D are shitposters?

No one said this. What makes someone a shitposter is them spreading needless negativity, exaggerating for the sake of starting and causing arguments, and generally just trying to foster a sick atmosphere. The worst part is, some of these shitposters will gladly admit that their goal is to get people to stop playing D&D as if there was anything wrong with playing it.

It's system politics.

There's plenty of things I don't like about each edition of D&D. I would even genuinely recommend not playing some of them if it sounded like it would be a bad match for someone, like say advising 3.5 to brand new roleplayers. But, at the same time, I recognize the strengths of each edition, and how there's absolutely nothing wrong if a person decides that their group enjoys it.

If you hate D&D to the point where you genuinely believe that everyone should stop playing it, you are an extremist with a ridiculous and largely indefensible stance. While it's fine for you to personally choose other systems, it is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to actively try to stop people from playing it through methods such as spamming, exaggeration, and often outright lies.

D&D is not even close to the worst game available. In fact, it's all too easy to argue it's one of the best. It's a game that people largely don't even have to defend, because no matter what the shitposters say, they end up only complaining with arguments that anyone who's played the game won't be swayed by.

That doesn't stop these shitposters from being annoying, especially because they will actively try to derail any thread that even mentions D&D, and will even make threads if no one falls for their bait, bumping them for days if necessary.

They are sick, and defending them is just enabling them.

3.5's core was so bad that it either brain-damaged or totally traumatized anyone who touched it. These poor individuals came to either worship 3.x (now PF) as the god of systems, or they realized just how horrid it was and never looked at a d20 again, even when there are fine systems using it.

3.5 (again, currently called Pathfinder) still has a lot of the market share because it's both extremely accessible and not at all accessible at the same time. Sure, all the material you require to play a game is up on the SRD site for free, and it's pretty easy to navigate. On the other hand, the rules are a labyrinthine mess, especially when you take it out of book form. You can really only learn 3.PF well from someone who already knows how- And that grognard will either convince you it's the best shit ever, or the experience will turn you off of D&D and related systems for a long time.

>What makes someone a shitposter is them spreading needless negativity, exaggerating for the sake of starting and causing arguments, and generally just trying to foster a sick atmosphere
Yes, I agree. All of these people -- no matter their views on D&D -- are insincere in these posts. They must be; the posts are constructed to cause the effect you describe. Even if they hate the system, their post is still not a true representation of their beliefs. But that's not an important argument.

But you are mistaking genuine opinion for exaggeration and lies. I, myself, think the only reason anyone would/should play D&D is accessibility (everyone knows it, or at least of it; few people know about Song of Swords). And of course I've played the game -- nearly anyone talking about it will have.

Look at statements like
>It's a game that people largely don't even have to defend, because no matter what the shitposters say, they end up only complaining with arguments that anyone who's played the game won't be swayed by.
and you'll see why people say that people only play D&D because they don't know any better.

You might as well say all games have dungeon-crawler roots, or even all games have war game roots, because all games stem from D&D. And, D&D has come very, very far from those dungeon-crawler roots, to the point where it's really only relevant from a examination of the "default" game, a game most people branch out of rather quickly because the systems enable and encourage them to do so.

You really need to stop thinking about the game in the abstract, and to try and understand how people actually play the game.

>Are you kidding? What do you do? Just play the same system over and over?

No, we switch systems to match game themes, not to match attitudes and moods. We generally use flexible systems so that we can match the content of the game to fluctuations like mood, rather than having to switch systems from session to session in a campaign.

Sometimes people are in the mood for some dungeon crawling. Next session, they want to dabble in village politics. Next session, adventure on the high seas. Next, haunted castle, followed by investigating and discovering the secret of an ancient cult. Journeying through Hell, leading an army, and then hunting some outlaws. And, for some ungodly reason, they want to do all that with the same characters.

For some groups, that means D&D. Other groups prefer a more rules-lite system. Other groups like the taste of GURPS's mechanics more than D&D's. But, at a certain threshold of quality, it really just becomes a matter of taste, and D&D is really pretty high above that threshold.

> I, myself, think the only reason anyone would/should play D&D is accessibility

And you are wrong.

Flat out wrong. I can't even mince those words in an effort to try and be nice, because you are absolutely unwilling to accept that people have different tastes than you. There's hundreds of reasons people might enjoy D&D, and they can be as simple as enjoying the Drizzt books and wanting to play in the world of Faerun, or enjoying the tuned combat mechanics of 4e, or liking what's generally considered to be one of the better designed systems in 5e.

>and you'll see why people say that people only play D&D because they don't know any better.

And you should have enough class to understand that there are plenty of people with experience with many systems who still play D&D. I myself played games of 4e and 5e only a few months ago, and enjoyed them thoroughly.

What you just repeated is basically just a lie that is spread in the hopes of pretending that D&D's overwhelming popularity is some accident and that it is utterly undeserving of it. While I will be the first to rush in and say that the game is overrated, to try and act like the only people who play D&D are those who don't know any other games is absolutely ludicrous when you look at the sheer numbers of people who play D&D. Even if 90% of all D&D players never played any other game and they should be dismissed from any calculations, that would still mean that the most popular games would be editions of D&D.

>with huge swaths of material that are unplayably bad, trap options so inexplicably useless that they seem designed solely to make the game more player-unfriendly

My 2 cents on the matter is that some of that is things that are made as nerf and replace for core class's to change the way the game is played. Wu Jin and the other eastern casters are great examples of it. They are ass bad in a game that has the core full casters but are very playable in a game without those classes.

Or lets take the books like sandstorm or frost burn. If used fully they are great. If not there is like 7 useful feats and 3 Prestige Classes that are useable.

3.x was never made to be 'all books open' but people ran it that way.

D&D has certain built-in problems that it basically can never be rid of without changing so much that its fans will destroy it out of spite. The biggest one is that you pretty much can't emulate anything with it other than D&D. That may sound like a tautology, so I'll try to explain what I mean: Your characters can't be just "fantasy characters", they have to be specifically D&D characters and the things that happen in your game will resemble no fantasy book or movie ever, instead they'll resemble D&D. You can't run a game set in (for example) Middle Earth with D&D because it won't feel like LotR, it'll just feel like D&D. Same for Game or Thrones or whatever else you might feel like playing, it will all turn into D&D. Youll play D&D characters doing things that only make sense in a game of D&D and the events that transpire will only resemble a D&D module.

I'm trying to figure out which particular fallacy you are committing, but I can't figure out if it qualifies as an Appeal to Purity or largely just you failing to recognize that roleplaying games are their own medium.

Have you played the official ASoIF RPG? Your characters end up nothing like the ones in the books, which is funny because the ones in the books are inspired by D&D games and the RPG is likewise heavily influenced by D&D. The political system actually does a fair job of getting in the way of the deep intrigue and clever plotting and disastrous betrayals that take place in the books because they simplified the business into rough mechanics for the sake of making them more accessible to less than brilliant players.

Have you given the LoTR RPG a go? It definitely doesn't feel like the books or the movie. In fact, it feels a lot like playing a roleplaying game, something I think you've just started to call "feels like D&D".

Because every chucklefuck tries to play shit that isn't high fantasy heroics in DnD.

>Hey Veeky Forums I want to play a horror game, how do I start?
Well, gee user, maybe look into CoC or some other horror game for that. We've got whole articles on i-
>Oh but I want to play it in Pathfinder, because that's what my group knows

>well, then you'd want to check out Heroes of Horror, a 3.5 supplement that you can adapt to Pathfinder that gives rules and advice on playing Horror games with the system. You might also want to take a look at something like Lamentations of the Fire Princess, which is similar enough to Pathfinder that it wouldn't take your group very long to learn it, but it's definitely more geared towards horror fantasy and has some really great dark adventures written for it.

Now, that wasn't so hard.

Most of the problems with D&D aren't really with D&D itself, honestly.
It's with people trying to make it do things it's not supposed to be. It's with people refusing to try anything else because D&D is Good Enough for them (and/or because they don't want to be bothered with learning a new rules, depending on which version of D&D it is). Things of that nature.
Just because it's a fantasy setting doesn't mean you should run it with D&D necessarily. And you sure as hell shouldn't try running things other than fantasy with D&D.
And there are many, many games out there that are also enjoyable.

>I'm trying to figure out which particular fallacy you are committing

None, however you're committing the strawman fallacy with your
>it feels a lot like playing a roleplaying game, something I think you've just started to call "feels like D&D".

No, I'm not talking about feeling like an RPG. I'm talking about feeling specifically like D&D and no other RPG whatsoever. I have played plenty of other RPGs, unlike you it seems, so I know the fucking difference in basic overall logic and expectations in them. Thanks for being an arrogant shithead though, don't see enough of those online.

I wanna know where you got that data. Please post roll20 data so I can pick on you for not understanding how representative samples work or even what statistics mean.

Way ahead of you. I'll still be playing d&d, but GURPS dungeon crawls will be fun and probably take over when we're up for that kind of game.

The problem with your argument is that it's an argument people have been trying for years, and it doesn't work because D&D is more adaptable than fans of smaller systems are willing to admit.

Yes, people should learn and explore new games.
But, that's rather separate from this notion that D&D should only be used for a certain, specific type of fantasy, or that the underlying core systems of D&D aren't readily adaptable to other genres.
There's nothing fantasy specific about d20+modifiers vs target number.

Most of the problems with D&D? It really just sounds like what you're trying to say is "My main issue with D&D is its popularity," and from there "Most of the problems with D&D's popularity are that people like it and want to use it."

Yes, we all know about that hypothetical grumbler who only played 3.5 and never will play anything else, just like there's those grognards who still swear that AD&D is the best, or the GURPS guys who claim you should run GURPS for everything. But to try and act like those people are a significant issue or even a concern just can't be substantiated by anything except weak personal anecdotes. It's not like they're banging on your door and demanding everyone to play only their system.

What people are arguing are what people have known for decades, with that being that games can be adapted readily and easily. It doesn't require any advanced programming knowledge, it typically only involves the rudimentary math skills of a highschool freshman, and everything beyond that is adapting the game to your own personal needs.

GURPS gurus can be quite wise when they say the S is a misnomer, because it itself isn't really a system, but a toolbox for a GM to build a system out of it. In a similar fashion, D&D isn't just a fantasy system, but a set of rules that can adapted to fit many other genres.

Is it less work to use a prexisting system? Perhaps, but pre-existing systems are less likely to match a person's tastes quite so.

because it's a poorly designed system written by assholes and played by even shittier people who end up driving new blood away.

Makeup on a pig. DnD is not suited for horror. Plain and simple. DnD is not suited for sci-fi, modern, low magic, or high lethality combat.

DnD is fine at what it does. Its a really good tactical dungeon crawler, or high fantasy heroics. But people will continue to try and shoehorn it into things it doesn't do well.

You basically just proved my point. The fans of DnD won't consider a system that is better, and instead will contort into knots trying to make the system fit the genre. Its sad, and just makes other games that much more niche.

Veeky Forums is not a united community. It has no opinions on anything.

Personally I don't care for any edition of D&D I've played or ran, whether it was 2e 3.pf 4e or 5e, because I've always found them slow, clunky, a pain in the ass to prep for, and easy to derail and sidetrack. These problems rise up regardless of which group I'm playing with, problems that for whatever reason don't occur when we play Burning Wheel, OWoD, M&M, or Savage Worlds.