Not a d&d hate post

>I don't really get what you mean about it being tiresome though; I don't see why it would get old quicker than any other game.
It's the difference between a song you've heard 200 times and one you've twice. It's not that D&D necessarily gets old quicker; it's that people get exposed to it much more, so they're further down the road to "tiresome".

But you posted one of the good versions, which really is anything that isn't 3.x.

Not , but my first was Mentzer BECMI and I agree with much of what he says. For a long time the "Not 3.5; Not Interested" crowd ruled the roost for the reasons he mentioned. When I started the RPG crowd was much less calcified, everyone played multiple games and were willing to learn multiple games. During the d20 glut there was a large influx of players that would only play d20 based schlock. Getting a not d20 game became an exercise in futility. 4e's greatest accomplishment was breaking that block up and we've seen a revival of some systems, but Paizo is still pissing in the pool.

why is it garbage? bcz it seems like everyone who says that has a completely different and very specific reason and there isn't really a general consensus

>what was the first RPG you played?
AD&D 1e

"D&D is total garbage and you're a retard if you play it" is a song I've heard a hundred times, and it started getting old after the second.

don't hate it. it's a gamist RPG which isnt my cup of tea. wha I don't like is that it represents just a part of roleplaying but is the only housebold name.

what's a 'gamist' rpg? legit haven't heard that before

Half of the group did. Less than half of the group did, now that I think about it.
Two of the original players left quickly after we started playing and of the remaining and new players, half of them just went through the motions because we were friends and they enjoyed the company more than the game.

Those of us who did enjoy it were the ones who enjoyed learning new things for the sake of learning new things and because we enjoyed coming up with crazy mechanical concepts that ended up not actually being fun to play.

I think mostly because people expect it to do thing it were not meant to do.

You want gritty, realistic game? Don't play DnD.
You want over the top anime game? Don't play DnD.
You want political game? Don't play DnD.
You want to play horror game? Don't play DnD.
You want game, where magic is mysterious force out of our comprehension? Play anything but DnD.
...

You want play tactical miniature wargame with little RP? Go for DnD!

Contrarians. That is the big reason.

2nd largest, is because most groups only play a system, maybe two. And one of them is almost always D&D. Bitches got to whine when they can't get other games they want to play.

So in closing, because all Veeky Forums are whinny children.

I've played a bunch of games, as well as delved into DnD slightly, so I can at least answer why I don't like it.

1) The rulesystem is very 'gamey'. It feels like playing a board-game more than trying to play out a 'simulation of fictional heroics'. Nothing makes sense when scrutinized just one step beyond what's on the paper. Like the classic question, what is HP?

2) It feels VERY commercial. Now, all games are commercial, but DnD feels so corporate, clean and mishmashed. Whatever dark elements are there just feel edgy due to the general corporate-clean tone of the game

Can't think of more, the only positive thing I'll say for it is that due to its very long lifespan, there are a shit-ton of fluffed up possibilities, like different planes and stuff that allows for very 'epic' adventures with fantastical scenery.

But I've never been as bored with rpg's as when playing DnD honestly, Dark Heresy rivals it though. I really hate the rpg's that feel like they've taken inspiration from MMORPG's with gamey abilities that need to 'cool down' and so on.

>I don't see why it would get old quicker than any other game.
part of the hobby is:
a) trying different settings
b) trying different systems
it's like a wargamer who doesn't paint his own minis. can he be called a true wargamer if he doesn't? yes, he can. but he's still a wargamer who misses out on half the hobby.

I'm not going to try to force anyone into doing something they don't like but the whole thing seems so incredibly limiting. you just can't join in when other gamers talk about different games because all you know is D&D. you're not really part of the wider hobby.

and that's a shame from my pov.

Basically this. It's decent at what it's made for, but gets real old if all you ever hear about is D&D, especially when it's being used in place of a more fitting system. Pop song played to death is a very fitting analogy.

When any product dominates the market, expect it to get some criticism. There will be plenty of people who don't like the way it does things, shortcomings will become obvious through repeated exposures, and folks will complain about it on purely on grounds that the field needs more diversity. I personally think D&D has it's place, but its saturation shouldn't far exceed all other games combined. It's like if 2/3 of all songs ever played were off of the same Billy Joel album. I mean, Billy Joel is cool and all, but two thirds?

It's inelegant, unfocused, unwieldy and... duplicitous? Except replace intention with incompetence.

Some people think RPGs are supposed to be community theater and super serious story telling time, and they'll decry anything that reminds them that they're supposed to be having fun as "gamist," because god forbid they play a game and enjoy themselves for once.

I've been playing D&D without miniatures since I was 14, and though it hasn't always been perfect, I've had a heck of a lot of fun and gotten into a heck of a lot of other good RPGs as a result. I think that calling it a tactical wargame is a little bit of a reach.

>being tiresome
A lot of what said, with the exposure, combo'd with games honestly tiring out. The longer you play a game, the more obvious its flaws become. I grew up on 3.5, and by the time I left, I was absolutely sick of it due to its myriad flaws. Other games tire as well, but other games tend to be played more for the specific set of campaigns they were made for, and as such the cracks don't show as much. D&D is just very limited in what it can effectively run.

Look up GNS theory.

But it's okay as part of a healthy, balanced diet, right?

He probably means 'boardgamey'.

"Roll 2D6 for damage, you hit, apply 5 damage to HP, the end" is gamist as fuck. Abilities with arbitrary cooldowns are also gamist as fuck. Moving figures around a grid is extremely gamist.

Contrast with other games, the only example I know personally is the Swedish rpg Eon which has you hit, then it specifies where you hit, then it specifies damage, then it specifies if you damaged any organs/arteries etc. That's an attempt to be not gamey, but more try to simulate a fantasy world (this thinking extends to more than just combat).

Personally I feel that if you are going to play DnD, you might as well just save everybody the trouble and play a boardgame like Descent instead. Same shit but less work and pretense.

>Fans of other systems resent it because their own games are eclipsed in the eyes of the general public.
no, i don't think that's the problem. i don't think most people mind that it's the most popular game. the legacy of D&D is part of our hobby and I, for one, am incredibly sympathetic to D&D because of it - even though it's absolutely not my cup of tea.

the problem is that it's the only household name and if that's all normies ever learn about RPGing, they will get a very one-sided impression of the hobby. slash monsters, get loot, level up. there's worlds to be discovered beyond D&D, beyond fantasy, beyond common genres even.

>the game is carried only by its cultural inertia and by WoTC having all of Hasbro's toy money to advertise and make their books all pretty
while that is true, it wouldn't be much of a problem if the public was ALSO aware of CoC, Shadowrun and GURPS (or whatever you prefer).

>Some people have a beef with the fanbase, seeing them as fanatics that try cram the system down everyone's throat
while this is true, it's only part of the fanbase, undoubtedly incentivized by the singular standing of D&D - making the insufferable. there's only a handful of these assholes on Veeky Forums. most other deendeefags are probably pretty normal.

>You want gritty, realistic game? Don't play DnD.
No disagreement. But there aren't a lot of really good systems that do gritty realism.
>You want over the top anime game? Don't play DnD.
Fucking good.
>You want political game? Don't play DnD.
What? Literally any system can introduce politics. No system does politic particularly well mechanically because good politics is the product of creative GM and Players interacting.
>You want to play horror game? Don't play DnD.
This is a lot like politics. There's nothing about DnD to preclude horror.
>You want game, where magic is mysterious force out of our comprehension? Play anything but DnD.
Of course this is true. But few systems do magic really well.

Or you can just stop being butthurt and try to understand what he means, which is obvious if you've played more games than just DnD.

It's a few contrarian idiots. Ignore them.

Or, laugh at their bullshit attempts to justify their hatred. This thread is filled with their insanity. It's always "this minor flaw ENRAGES me" or "everyone who plays it hates me, and it's not because I'm a contrarian idiot who can't emphasize with the majority of roleplayers, it must be the game they play's fault!"

Comic Sans

>they will get a very one-sided impression of the hobby. slash monsters, get loot, level up.

How, when that's not even true for D&D?

You idiots are your mental gymnastics, I swear.

Because it's just unthinkable that a lot of people don't like DnD, right? Or that a lot of people defend DnD just because it is their first and only rpg experience, right?

By your thinking Justin Bieber is the pinnacle of modern music, anyone who doesnt' like him is just a contrarian, I mean look at his success!

>D&D is just very limited in what it can effectively run.
I think this is true, but I'd argue that it isn't, in and of itself, a flaw. D&D is built for a particular dungeon crawling and exploration niche. So it's a rather specialized tool. And that's great. Having a tool that's specialized for a task usually means it's better at that particular task. The problem comes when you're trying to use that specialized tool for fucking everything. D&D is a hex key that has gotten so famous that people are trying to use it to hammer in nails and shit.

>everyone who says that has a completely different and very specific reason

Because the consensus is that there are a whole lotta reasons. It doesn't know if it wants to be high or low magic, gamey or simulationist, and so it tries to be everything. The rules are a bloated mess that skip over some important things while drowning others in pointless minutiae. It clings for its life to sacred cows like attribute scores and alignment not because it makes the game mroe enjoyable but because if they removed them the collective autistic screeching of all neckbearded fanatics would drown out every other sound on the planet. Balance is an absolute joke and of the tons and tons of options only a handful aren't garbage or intentional traps.

>Politics
D&D is absolutely awful social mechanics. Pump Bluff, Sense Motive and/or Diplomacy high enough and you get absurd results. The Diplomancer was an infamous example, capable of making gods your best friends. Pretty sure 5e took the edge off those problems, but they're still simplistic and will crumple under actual play. That's before all the divinations and enchantments that mess with any sort of normal politics, unless you go full-blown tippyverse.

>Horror
Horror games are fundamentally about helplessness. D&D is about hacking, slashing and looting. Tonally, they're awful matches for one another. "If it has a stat block, it can be killed". Compare and contrast to an actual horror game like CoC.

>the problem is that it's the only household name and if that's all normies ever learn about RPGing, they will get a very one-sided impression of the hobby. slash monsters, get loot, level up. there's worlds to be discovered beyond D&D, beyond fantasy, beyond common genres even.

This is a nonsense statement. Of course D&D has its own flavor. But there's literally nothing stopping people from exploring other systems/genres. In fact, I would venture to guess that most of the participants of these other games started with D&D and, if they hadn't had that experience, they may have not played a RPG to begin with.

This argument absolutely is a "I wish my favorite game was more mainstream".

>while that is true, it wouldn't be much of a problem if the public was ALSO aware of CoC, Shadowrun and GURPS (or whatever you prefer).

So people who are interested in a different gaming experience move to those systems. But let's be honest with ourselves, the setting itself is more desired by players compared to a cyberpunk retro-futurism and lovecraftian horror. More people are going to go watch Lord of the Rings than they will go to watch Blade Runner.

I could be upset by it, but why waste my time.

I wasn't meaning to imply that D&D is abnormally narrow in its scope among non-generic systems, only that it is not immune to this issue, while many people use it for way more than it was meant for.

I'll echo this. Exact same situation I had. I just wanted to play Shadowrun or GURPS or something and it was damn near impossible to do so because everyone was obsessed with playing some d20 variant. Even had someone try to push a shit Shadowrun d20 on me when I suggested Shadowrun.

>During the d20 glut there was a large influx of players that would only play d20 based schlock. Getting a not d20 game became an exercise in futility
i would point out that it's probably just a US phenomenon. at least here in germany that was at no point the case.

there are more or less 3 main aspects of RPGing (and mechanics that cater to them). ever player has their own preferences when it comes to them.
they are gamism (being interested the game aspects of the hobby, sacrificing realism if necessary: optimizing character builds and munchkinism go here), simulationism (hard sci-fi RPGs stress this aspect for example or RPGs that try to emulate kung-fu flicks) and narrativism (creativity about emerging story, FATE's fate point mechanic is an often mentioned example).

D&D is a gamist/simulationist RPG by design, with priority given to gamism over simulationism in a number of key aspects - starting with classes in chargen.

I agree that DnD won't hinder politics and horror - but at the same time it won't help you.

>There's nothing about DnD to preclude horror.
Pathfinder: Horror Adventures and Ravenloft prove otherwise.

>Like the classic question, what is HP?
a mish-mash of luck and meatpoints. which presents a problem for simulationist types like you and me: you never know whether the HP loss you just incured means you got hit or you dodged, consuming some of your luck. gamists will not understand why it matters to us though.

why sure! i have been playing D&D 1 or 2 years ago last time. not my cup of tea, as mentioned but my friends are mostly gamists, so i am occasionally caught along the ride.

Exactly, and that is just... bad. It takes me out of the game immediately and just makes it a boardgame for me.

The troll hit me for 15 hp. Ok... so he obviously hit me with a tree-trunk or something, or did he? Why could I take that kind of punishment in the first place if he hit me, is this a wu-shian story or medieval fantasy? I just can't picture it. And if it is 'luck' or 'advantage in battle', why can a health potion fix anything if he actually missed me 'in game reality'? It's just... bad.

>D&D is absolutely awful social mechanics. Pump Bluff, Sense Motive and/or Diplomacy high enough and you get absurd results.

You're pissing in an ocean of piss. What system has good social mechanics? A discerning DM realizes that difficulty is situational. Yeah, you might be a master of intimidation. Yeah, you might be a terrifying force to reckon with among your average bandit troop. But intimidating the Prince in his own Court? You can roll. You'll fail. But you can roll.

>Horror games are fundamentally about helplessness. D&D is about hacking, slashing and looting. Tonally, they're awful matches for one another. "If it has a stat block, it can be killed". Compare and contrast to an actual horror game like CoC.

That's an awfully autistic way to reduce horror. Sure, Horror could be about helplesness. Horror might also be the unseen, the unknowable, the predator that hunts you, the unconscious fear. Good horror comes down to a receptive audience (willing to be scared) and a good storyteller who can pace, raise tension, choose tempo, etc.

Welcome to my D20 horror game. Oh, you want to know the stat block on this creature? You can't. Maybe the creature can't be killed. Maybe, you thought you killed it already. Maybe it killed something you thought couldn't be killed.

(Another simulationist here)
Injury poisons require HP damage to proc a save, and 100% of HP-damaging attacks with an injury poison applied will require that save, implying it made it to your bloodstream. Wouldn't that imply that all HP loss are actual hits, and in the case of slashing/piercing, draw blood?

It only makes sense if you view it as a board-game, you literally can't picture it or explain it 'realistically' without fucking diamond-platinum levels of mental gymnastics.

I hear this complaint and I don't disagree. D&D doesn't have excellent social mechanics.

Follow up question: what system does?

Bad examples of concept aren't proof that the concept can't be applied successfully.

HP is actually one of my few MAJOR complaints with the system. I split it into Grit/Flesh pools.

>A discerning DM realizes that difficulty is situational.
Sorry, but no, that's not how the rules work. You'd have to throw penalties twice the size of a d20 to make that work the way you want it to, and at that point you've now removed the ability for anyone who's not a hyperspecialized social bot to do anything worthwhile.

Veeky Forums is like /v/, in the sense that it hates popular games but shills obscure or old games as being the second coming of christ
sometimes they're right
usually they aren't

REIGN

In the modern era both /v/ and (probably) Veeky Forums are absolutely right though. Modern videogames re 99.9% shit due to hyperinflated budgets, 'cinematic storytelling' and other corporate bullshit that objectively makes the games worse than they were in the 90's.

>slash monsters, get loot, level up.
>not typical for D&D
ok

> It doesn't know if it wants to be high or low magic, gamey or simulationist, and so it tries to be everything.
if any game out there knows what it wants to be, it's fucking D and D. it is and will forever will be Pen & Paper Baldur's Gate. (ignore that the game came much later, it's only for illustrative purposes.)

>This argument absolutely is a "I wish my favorite game was more mainstream".
but i don't need CoC to be more mainstream by all means. i even mentioned GURPS even though I am not a GURPS fan. I could also have mentioned FATE because it's a very different play experience from D&D. or world of darkness. or 40K roleplaying (although it's more close to D&D in style than the others mentioned). i really don't care which games. let CoC be obscure by all means and let some other games that play differently from D&D and are set in different genres arise.

>More people are going to go watch Lord of the Rings than they will go to watch Blade Runner.
Yeah, this makes no sense. The people who watched LotR in cinema aren't just watching fantasy movies after all. People do want variety.

I'll give you one reason why peopel stick to fantasy: a fair number of GMs who have run fantasy are intimidated by running a nodern campaign in a more setting, likely a huge city, because the additional complexity is intimidating at first.

A lot of people don't like a lot of games. D&D just gets people voicing their hate because of you being both an idiot and a contrarian.

Understand? It's not because the game is actually bad, but because you are stupid enough to enjoy being an idiot and wasting your time complaining about a game that is only increasing in market dominance as each day passes despite all your best effort.

You'd be better off talking about games you do like, but you're way too busy with your hate fueled crusade, telling lies that anyone who's played or will get a chance to play D&D will summarily dismiss, undoing all your efforts.

Want to prove me wrong? Don't reply.

>no CoDzilla is totally a lie that never happened trust me guys

This is Veeky Forums, complaining is 50% of what this board is built on. It is not being a contrarian when you have legitimate complaints. I don't give a shit if DnD gets a triple marketshare of what it has now, the game is still as shit.

Also, you are also telling lies and fueled by hate, also you are a pre-op transexual, oh, want to prove me wrong? Then don't reply :^)

well, hit points are a legacy mechanic. you must realize that a few years before D&D (well, chainmail) was conceived there was no hit points even in wargames. the only game that had something like hitpoints was a naval wargame. but if you want fantasy heroes in a fantasy wargame, they need to be able to withstand more than one hit and so hit points were born and then transferred to D&D.

so it was the first mechanic to model elite units/characters. it's a simple way to do so as well and has found its way into countless video games with their health bar.

in 1974 i would have called it a simulationist mechanic. but in 2017? not really.

The problem is that people defend things like HP without understanding the nature of the complaint, like mr 'Dont reply' above.

>gamists will not understand why it matters to us though.
I think it is more that they don't care

But Shadowrun is pretty shit too.

shadowrun is fucking garbage

It's a subpar game that dominates the hobby because of legacry rather than merit.

yeah, i know the dude. he always shows up in these threads, he's kinda paranoid. he has accused me a couple times of creating D&D hate threads although i don't hate D&D and have never created a D&D thread in my life.

although his paranoia is probably feigned for the sake of dishing out against anyone who dares to criticize D&D.

Yeah, but I wanted to play Shadowrun and deal with Shadowrun's problems, not play yet another d20 game that had the exact same issues as 3.5 with new ones piled on top because of shitty, lazy devs.

Saves are just as much an abstraction as hit points. Why should you be making a saving throw to resist the sting of a tarantula hawk? The human reaction to being stung by one is pretty universal and pretty well documented. So the save itself can only be assumed to likewise incorporate an element of luck.

The big mistake with saves was adding an ability modifier to it, because it becomes impossible to accept as such an abstraction.

I'd laugh if it turned out that he was actually someone on the dev team at one point like SKR. He does post like him.

This. Familiarity breeds contempt.

One factor in this is the lowest common denominator effect, where everybody wants to play a different system, but you can't agree on which one, so you just end up grudgingly playing D&D. This encourages nitpicking along the lines of "if we played MY system we wouldn't have to deal with stupid stuff like X."

Another is how the system gets played so much that its flaws become noticeable. Every system has its honeymoon period where it's new and fresh and you're so excited you gloss over various problems, but then as you settle in and that rush fades, you begin to notice where things don't work right. Most of the "better than D&D" systems don't get held up to the same level of scrutiny simply because they don't get played as often, and the people who are playing them are enamored of them and not looking so hard for flaws as they do at D&D.

(This is not to say there are no systems that do something better than D&D, or that trying to improve on D&D is a lost cause or anything. Just that it's not as easy as people think, hence decades of the Fantasy Heartbreaker.)

Not sorry, and yes. This is exactly rules as written.

Literally the "DC" is described by situational variables. An very hard to nearly impossible DC would be something like 25-30.

So, intimidating a thug might be 15 whereas intimidating this incredibly powerful, say, a king in his court (who has no fucking clue who you are) might be 25-30

>you've now removed the ability for anyone who's not a hyperspecialized social bot to do anything worthwhile.

Being able to do everything doesn't prevent somebody from being worthwhile.

That's like saying the level 5 barbarian who can't kill a green dragon has had his hyperspecialization into combat neutered because there is a combatant beyond his league.

I'll take a look at it!

>Yeah, this makes no sense. The people who watched LotR in cinema aren't just watching fantasy movies after all. People do want variety.

Every FLGS I have been too has Call of Cthulu, GURPS, and WoD. Every single one. Sure, they might not be at your average Barnes and Nobles, but that's okay.

Yes, people enjoy variety. But an RPG is a much bigger time commitment than a 90 minute flick (which, for a lot of people is a fairly large amount of time). And when people roleplay, they tend to prefer a fantasy medieval setting more than not.

Yes, are there people who enjoy something like a modern setting or gritty horror setting? Of course. Yes. But I think the reason people pick DnD and Pathfinder over every other system added together is because of the setting.

No, I don't think it's GM anxiety necessarily. From my own experience, it's disinterest. Hell, it's my own disinterest. I have no interest in, for instance, running a Cthulu game. The mythos and setting doesn't interest me.

Listen, I get why you want variety. But variety exists already. There are other games out there.
People choose not to buy them. They choose to enjoy D&D. If that leads to other games, awesome! Either way, more people are gaming.

*Not being able to do everything

>Literally the "DC" is described by situational variables.
WRONG

>Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear)

>Adding an ability modifier to it
Reading the first part of your post, this was my first thought. The various bonuses to saves seems to imply there's something beyond luck going on.

I understand all of this is somewhat of a hold-over of earlier days, and it works well enough as a game mechanic. Just a pain in the butt to figure out what is actually happening.

What edition are you sourcing?

Straight from 3.5.

3.5 also had Diplomacy and Bluff rules that were very clear as to how they worked.

Why are you sourcing 3.5?

So you understand how autistic this makes you look, right? You are either ignorant of the most popular version played (by far) or are being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to win an internet argument.

People treat it like a generic and universal system.
They are conflating D&D with literally any and every d20 based system.
>inb4 that user who says D&D 5e us great for a horror game

>The big mistake with saves was adding an ability modifier to it, because it becomes impossible to accept as such an abstraction.

Please explain. A individual/race resistant to a poison not dying so much as another changes what about your abstraction?

D&D doesn't really get all that much hate.

No, seriously. If you go anywhere else that games are discussed, D&D is either celebrated, or at worst, it is grudgingly accepted as a game that matches a broad range of tastes, with the latest edition being the most accommodating.

Here, though, we just have the guys who'd get banned on the other sites, but are tolerated here because Veeky Forums is a little more free-spirited. They're inflammatory and single-minded, and genuinely HATE the concept of the game. Not the game itself, mind you, because it's next to impossible to hate what's largely a harmless activity with fun at its center. It's got flaws, but even if you listened to their complaints about the game, they still would have no real reason to hate it as much as they do.

They've built it up as some sort of monopolizing, brain-washing demon in their minds. They take the tiniest flaws and magnify them, and do everything they can to cover, hide, and mindlessly debate against any and all good aspects of the game.

It's almost like this whole board is a game to them. If they admit that there's reasons why there's no real reason to get upset about people enjoying the game, they lose any and all momentum they have. That's why they push so hard in trying to pretend that it's an "objectively" terrible game, and not simply a question of taste, because that would mean they're just really passionate trolls, instead of valiant vanquishers of the evil dragon that plagues the hobby.

Here, we have the angry contrarians. And, just like you shouldn't listen to music opinions from /mu/ or television opinions from /tv/ without recognizing that those are basically the shitting grounds of the mentally ill, it would be good to recognize if that someone doesn't just dislike D&D or merely thinks it doesn't suit their tastes, but genuinely HATES it, remember you are talking to a person professing hatred for a roleplaying game that is a cornerstone of the industry.

That's an impressive strawman you built there. Must've taken a lot of work.

>GITP
>for years, weekly Monk threads where posters explained to newbies who didn't know any better exactly why Monks are a shit class and why you're not going to have fun if you roll one in a typical party
>celebrating 3.5

>D&D doesn't really get all that much hate.
This. You don't know the internet hate machine if you think the dragging D&D gets here even registers. The Veeky Forums lynch mob amounts to suggesting "there are better ways to do what you are trying to do."

> It is not being a contrarian when you have legitimate complaints.

You can conjure "legitimate" complaints about anything. That doesn't stop you from being a contrarian, especially when your "legitimate" complaints are exaggerated and you never provide a fair assessment of the game by also detailing what it does well except in a back-handed compliment manner.

Contrarians are just people who hate things primarily because they are popular. You might dislike D&D because of some flaws or designs concepts you disagree with, but what's brought you here to complain about it is its popularity.

There's a thousand worse games than D&D. But, here you are.

I guess I've been having fun wrong this whole time

>Strawman

You do not know what this word means.

It's just one of Veeky Forums's resident contrarians trying to perform damage control. Pay him no heed.

In fact, this entire thread seems just like a magnet for them, despite OP's tagline. Might be best to just let them fester here like they always end up doing.

>There's a thousand worse games than D&D. But, here you are.
Hold up.

Those other games don't get much "bashing" because nobody plays them, so why would you try to convince others of their "badness"? Nobody is making threads about them, or suggesting that they play them or "just use this and refluff it a bit" or whatever.

Does anybody actually complain about FATAL? No, because nobody actually plays it. There aren't threads of "FATAL can totally handle sci-fi space opera, just make this small change" so nobody has reason to go "the fuck? that's a dumb idea." Or whatever people do with DnD.

DnD gets more apparent hate than other things because it gets the most chatter just in general. It comes up more in discussion, it's more present in everybody's ...world/culture/view, etc.

Proportions. Efficiency of effort. Just because you have a negative opinion on the most discussed thing doesn't mean you're merely a contrarian, or that you're being unfair on it. Although, yes, some people are probably just that.

You built a whole army of DnD-hating strawmen, you tard

>D&D is built for a particular dungeon crawling and exploration niche.
This meme needs to end. This has almost never been true except in the earliest of early days back in maybe 1975-76, and the only thing that made it true is the GP for XP rule, which could be applied to any GP from any dangerous situation. By the time that the second version of Basic was released in 1981, AD&D had been out for some time, as well as several modules that used wilderness and town adventures such. That second version of basic also had the Expert set which included rules for wilderness and town adventures. Not only that, but all of those rulesets encouraged the DM to award bonus XP for good roleplaying. And even then, by the time 2e came out, that GP=XP rule changed into a more abstract "If you do something related to your job, you get XP rule" which sadly got fucked up by 3rd edition, but 3rd and above still encourage you to award roleplay XP and even encourage using milestone.

The window of "D&D is only a dungeon crawl robby robby" was incredibly short lived and I frankly don't know why people still insist this is true.

>Those other games don't get much "bashing" because nobody plays them, so why would you try to convince others of their "badness"?
And even if no one is playing it and the system is sufficiently bad, people will still bash the shit out of it all the time
See: FATAL and MYFAROG

Savage Worlds gets more hate per post than D&D does and for far pettier reasons. Go look at the general for it.

it's shilled against pretty hard

fact is, lots of people still love it, but the internet has a very vocal contrarian minority

You are replying to the wrong person. I don't hate D&D.

Honestly the best is to have multiple systems that you are comfortable with. If you're a GM and your party insists on one system, learn to steal mechanics and adapt

>This argument absolutely is a "I wish my favorite game was more mainstream".
This cunt again? Note the Reddit spacing.