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

What? They made a comment about 'some sort of monopolizing, brain-washing demon' at the same time as posting a picture of people so adamantly invested in a title that they cannot even begin to accept the idea of a new edition being legitimate or acceptable, to the point of throwing all their toys out of the pram at the mere mention of it. That's a fucked up emotional relationship with a fucking RPG system.

OP is just posting copypasta to give you a chance to get upset and to shitpost.

> the same time as posting a picture of people so adamantly invested in a title that they cannot even begin to accept the idea of a new edition being legitimate or acceptable

None of that in anyway contradicts any of the text though. Really. Just because a few people from the paizo forum don't want a 2.0 doesn't really have any bearing on the copypasta.

But, I guess you don't care about making sense, you're just here to get upset and to shitpost.

I mean the picture is just pathfinder players being shitty, it's not exactly a good illustration of why some people don't like DnD

Bait thread is bait.
Sage away !

I'm just taking him at his word, and the example he posted.

i don't like gamist RPGs, so D&D doesn't get me very excited. i do play it, but rarely so, and it's kinda... eh, okayish.

>They've built it up as some sort of monopolizing, brain-washing demon in their minds.
i think you're constructing a boogeyman (or should I say strawman?) here

>If they admit that there's reasons why there's no real reason to get upset about people enjoying the game,
there are reasons why it's not good for any variied hobby to have a single household name product representing it in the public eye: it creates a very lopsided impression of the hobby.

>hatred for a roleplaying game that is a cornerstone of the industry.
love is as irrational as hatred.

Don't be naive, this thread will hit bump limit in three hours.

I've never met anyone in real life who played D&D and actually admitted those 'tiny' flaws. It's fine if they don't ruin the system for you or if you account for them, but pretending they don't exist helps absolutely nobody.

Yeah okay.

Sadly this is true, but that doen't mean i have to contribute by bumping it.

This is the big reason I like talking about the flaws in D&D. I don't hate the system, I've had a lot of good experiences in it, but the amount of whitewashing and apologism for it is maddening. Part of enjoying something is being aware of its flaws, understanding them and knowing how to work around them, and to their credit I know a lot of D&D fans who do just that.

I also know a lot of people who, through wilful ignorance, luck or simple forgetfulness, deny that any of the most well known issues exist, and will actively attack anyone claiming otherwise. It's not that their attitude makes them enjoying the game badwrongfun, but that it's harmful to the discourse around games, and that if allowed to go unchallenged could lead to games repeating the same mistakes rather than learning from them.

I actually doubt it. The text isn't as inflammatory as OP wished it was, and the picture is like an odd non sequitur rather than the contradiction he thought it was.

I doubt even OP would be dumb enough to keep bumping this thread, nor would our other resident contrarians when all it would do is highlight how silly they are.

I've never really understood the whole contrarian accusation. I mean, sure, I've seen shitposters who clearly are just shitting on D&D without any real argument. They do exist.

But they've always seemed a minority relative to the people who do have arguments or at least well formed opinions as to why they don't like it, and the term 'contrarian' doesn't feel appropriate in those cases. It dismisses any and all arguments or views they might present and instead assumes that the only reason someone could dislike D&D is because it's popular and that makes them mad, which only serves to dismiss any possibility of interesting or useful discussion.

Contrarian works because that's the major reason they get so upset and decide to shitpost. Its continued popularity is what makes them decide to shitpost about it, since there's plenty of worse games that don't get any attention that they could spend their time decrying, but instead they prefer the bigger target because it gives them more attention. Also, if they were as "well informed" as you'd like to pretend they were, they'd be able to see the good aspects of the game (rather than just repeating the same tired criticisms) and realize that it's not as bad as they pretend it is.

>which only serves to dismiss any possibility of interesting or useful discussion.

Exaggerating criticisms is not useful discussions, especially when the conclusion they're trying to reach is "Don't play this game." It creates nothing but pointless argument with insane, unreachable goals. It's just political wanking, and dismissing these contrarians is the best move.

That doesn't mean to dismiss any and all criticisms, but for fuck's sake to at least have enough sense and fairness to not try to act like it's an "objectively bad game" as these contrarians have been known to try and claim.

If your issue is the fear that all people who dislike D&D are to be labeled contrarians, consider your fear assuaged. There's plenty of individual and personal reasons to not like D&D, and plenty of reasons to avoid discussions about the game if it's not your taste. But, let's not try to defend the contrarian shitposter when they're so blatant and obvious, and let's not try to keep bumping this thread like you just did.

But you're not actually making an argument as to why they're contrarians, or providing evidence as to why that's their primary motivation. You're just asserting it and expecting people to accept it, even if it directly contradicts the statements and arguments made by the people you're talking about.

The Trippyverse concept is stole from anime, it ain't anything Gaintitp invented.

What is the Tippyverse exactly?

It's literally just "the fourth wall doesn't exist, everybody knows there a character in a rpg."

...No?

Even just from the post above, you can see that the basic premise is taking 3.5 RAW and trying to build a setting which makes sense if you use those rules as the 'physics' of the world.

It's an interesting thought experiment, although not a setting I'd ever have any interest in running or playing a game in.

>I refuse to even make a character for D&D

>Pathfinder is literally D&D 3.75

>It's an interesting thought experiment, although not a setting I'd ever have any interest in running or playing a game in.
It's pretty fun if you don't take it too seriously.

>since there's plenty of worse games that don't get any attention
sure. but they don't get attention by any part of the public. for better or for worse, D&D is the face of the hobby, at least, in the US. so the shortcomings of it matter more.

You mean that people talk about it because it gets brought up more? What a surprise.

There's a reason people who play Yugioh and MtG bicker more about their two games rather than complaining about a dead card game nobody , even if that game was worse than either of theirs

That's still not what a Tippyverse is. A tippyverse isn't abusing common RPG logic. It's exploring the extent of some of the spells and magical effects that 3.5 makes available but ignores the implications of.

You can construct a trap of infinite fireballs or come across them in dungeons. Obviously, they were put in the game so that a dungeon could have a trap that wouldn't be bypassed by having a follower run into it. But you can use that for other spells as well, and as soon as someone in-universe thinks to use a beneficial spell rather than a harmful one, things break wide open.

This. Tippy Verse is when you acknowledge that a single wizard, cleric, or druid can very, very easily end world hunger and thirst. It's more efficient to outfit one guy with 10000000 Gold pieces worth of gear than 100000 soldiers with 100 pieces worth of gear each.

Are there lines of fence posts with saddles on them for instant transport across the kingdom?

DnD is in a really shitty middle ground. Too rules heavy to be light and fun, but too rules light to be mechanically interesting. It's not awful, just mediocre. I don't hate it, it's just boring.

And given the structure of the game its hard to make a compelling story. There's just no tension when your characters very quickly become unkillable demi-gods

I've never really seen any sense in your last point. Real world mythology shows plenty of examples of how to tell interesting and compelling stories despite the characters being immensely powerful, and a huge number of gods and divine heroes die. It's just a matter of raising the stakes.

How many mythological heroes could cast resurrect? Jesus Christ, but it wasn't so he could keep on kicking around. And the heroes of myth didn't have quadratic power levels. In fact only a handful had superpowers at all, and the ones that do didn't end their story being able to cast nukes and time travel.

Constantly raising the stakes just sails into comic book territory, which defaults to shit writing.

Modern DnD was never especially lethal in its mechanics. Its hard to kill players if they fuck up without it coming off as forced. Because the players are the focus of the setting, given enough time they will be fighting deities.

Compare to something like CoC, where there are enemies a player character simply cannot defeat, regardless of how many push ups he does.

You completely dismiss raising the stakes because one medium sometimes does it badly? That seems entirely irrational.

I've also never seen why resurrect is such a big issue. So many GMs seem to rely on death as the one and only meaningful consequence, which always just sounds so utterly boring to me. Then again, I might just be lucky to have players who actually get invested in the setting and care about things even when the threat of death isn't on the line.

You're playing a game about fighting things. What are some other meaningful consequences of failing on combat?

So, so many things?

Being too late to be involved in something, failing to kill a particular enemy, failing to protect something... I guess I should explicitly state that I almost always run objective focused combats. One side will be trying to achieve something, conflict is a means to an end rather than the goal itself.

Even when I do run fighting for the sake of fighting combats, losing can still mean a lot of different things, such as capture, but I generally weight my combat encounters so that it's not a matter of winning or losing, it's a matter of how much the victory costs the PC's, and how a non-ideal result might affect their long term goals.

So they players kill enemies all the time, but are exempt from actually dying themselves? When the players cannot, within reason, actually die and be defeated there's no tension. Mission failure is just a setback, they can always regroup, gather more gold, level up, whatever. Unless they can die, there is no failure state.

The GMs job is to make encounters/conflicts that will put the party right on the razor's edge. Behind the screen you know that the players will win, unless they REALLY fuck up, but they shouldn't. They should think that they're walking a very thin line between death and glory, and you should remind them of this by using character death or injury in a dramatic way.

But you're wrong. There oh so many ways to have failure states that don't involve death, and even then the results of a conflict aren't necessarily a binary. The the aforementioned objective based battles. Sometimes you can kill every enemy and still lose what matters, sometimes you can be fighting a losing battle but still manage to achieve what you came for and get out before things get too bad.

I never said the players can never die, that's completely untrue. But my default position for a combat generally isn't 'If the players lose they die', because that just isn't very interesting. It can be, and I make use of it if and when it's appropriate, but the more it's used the less interesting and impactful it becomes.

Again, maybe I'm just lucky for have players who do enjoy stakes, tension and risk without the danger of death there, as they're invested enough in the setting to care about the other things at stake.

How many player characters have died in your campaigns?

You had me until you said that martial-caster disparity doesn't exist

Hmm... Three or four? A couple of them didn't stick.

>A couple of them didn't stick.
So only the characters people dislike died?

No? It's nothing to do with whether someone liked the character or not.

There were a couple of resurrections or divine interventions. Of the permadeaths, one was a tragedy that could have been prevented and the other was a heroic sacrifice. In both cases, the players and I agreed that letting the death stand was better for the story than finding a way to return them, even if it was RAW possible.

No. Because it's not about exploiting the rules system. It's about applying logic to the existence of spells and effects that demonstrably exist in-universe.

>one was a tragedy that could have been prevented
Why wasn't that character resurrected/deus ex'd?

Ugh. That chart is so trash.

Can't even bother listing all the things Psions can do.
Doesn't even bother listed grapple for the fighter which IS a OP 3.5 mechanic (Which is also something caster's can do better, and doesn't mention it.)

If only fighting monsters encounters was the only thing that made caster better there would be no martial-caster disparity.

I literally explained why. As a group, we decided the story worked better without it. IC I figured out a relatively good explanation for it, and we went from there.

I should also add that I generally use resurrection as a plot hook, rather than just a 'expend resources' thing. You need to go to certain locations, acquire certain resources or complete certain tasks to bring someone back from the dead, since that keeps the death as an interesting element and challenge rather than just a speed bump.

So player can only be killed if they consent? Also, going on an extra quest to bring a character back is just a wide speed bump.

Not as an established rule, but the only permanent deaths that have happened in my games have been cases where the whole group has considered it an appropriate end.

And no, not really. A speed bump just slows you down, it doesn't really add anything. An extra quest is a diversion, but it can still create some interesting experiences and cool scenarios along the way. The whole point of the game is experiencing fun things with your friends, so it's a perfectly natural addition to the game as a whole.

Not that guy but, characters can also be imprisoned, have their souls destroyed or corrupted, or have their mind wiped, the problem is that DnD can't have any stakes, it's just that it isn't conducive to traditional fantasy or really anything not specifically DnD

>Grappling
>Mattering
You can't grapple if the cleric or wizard already hit you with a save-or-die or save-or-disabled spell.

Also, wizards and clerics can be better at grappling just by virtue of having spells and summons for it. Casters are better both in and out of combat.

>You mean that people talk about it because it gets brought up more?

That would be the case if they didn't also start threads just to bitch about the game. But, here we are. And let's not go through any of the song and dance of pretending that OP didn't make this thread just in hopes of bitching about the game. It's one thing if it was just that copypasta, but the image and his subsequent posts in this thread are pretty obvious tells.

D&D itself is fine for what is is. My main complaints are about community around D&D.
In my experience a lot of people blatantly misuse system when they try to deviate from Forgotten Realms formula, project D&D play-style on other systems, afraid/not willing to try anything else. Because of that hobby suffers from a lot of D&Disms that are accepted as normal, which is quite infuriating to be honest.

I played D&D, it was the first game i ever played a tabletop game. It was good and it was fun but around the 3rd campaign i started disliking some of the mechanics of the game, railroading, you are all in a party together, very little actual roleplaying, forced group cohesion etc, i especially grew to hate the flawed class and level system. After that i moved on exploring other game systems including BRP, Hero System/Champions, GURPS, Mutants & Masterminds etc. I will always remember D&D as the first tabletop RPG i ever played but i have grown to dislike it and grow weary of it. I might still use D&D as a system to introduce new players to tabletop gaming and swallow my dislike of the system for them but i don't think i'm otherwise willing to join a D&D group or play D&D for the sake of playing it.

>railroading, you are all in a party together, very little actual roleplaying, forced group cohesion etc
Not D&D fan, but that sounds more like combination of bad GMing with boring players. How is it related to system?

things like railroading and you are all working together as a group, including the lawful good and neutral evil PC to go on this adventure created by the DM (forced group cohesion) are generally accepted DMing tools that are a part of D&D. Think about it a party who has absolutely no reason to be together including PCs whose ideals would clash with one another are put together to go on a adventure together and work together because the story demands it. Railroading or the DM making the story happen (Whether the PC chooses door A or door B has a dragon behind it) are also part of D&D to make the story happen.

It still sounds like a bad/immature GMing. It all can be solved if GM will work together with players beforehand in order to make a cohesive setup.
Forced cohesion can be solved in a myriad of ways, for example restrict alignments to a certain specter and develop a personal motivation/part of backstory for each PC that makes a reason for party to work together. Not a lot of systems support narrative aspect, it's not exclusive to D&D.
Railroading is not exclusive to D&D either. GM can force his "story" in almost every system. It's a problem of attitude: instead of making story revolving around players GM makes players revolve around story. I know only a handful of systems, that force this concept through mechanics, but it doesn't mean, that it's not applicable in other systems.
Why most of problems you've mentioned are supposed to be related to D&D rather than GMing?

>Freedom of movement doesn't exist in my games
Even so grapple wouldn't be OP

The reasons i mentioned this is this seems to be more prevalent or at least in the D&D games i have played (i have played with different groups and different DMs but it still seems to happen a lot. I mentioned other problems already like the mechanics, class and level system, the magic system being absolutely broken, the alignment system where you have to fit a PC into one neat and simple alignment that can be defined like LG, CG, CE, LE rather than as a character who doesn't fit into a moral alignment category.

The problem of restricting players to You are all lawful good or any good aligned and you cannot play a chaotic neutral or neutral evil character also restricts players, what if someone wants to play a CN character but the GM says you can't be that because I need you to be ____.

I agree railroading is not exclusive to D&D but it does occur a lot and is encouraged. The idea that there is no story without it in D&D is prevalent. It also reduces player agency which is what if my PC or the PCs decide not to go on the quest what if they go down a different road that leads somewhere else? What if my PC decides he/she want to go to the gambling den instead of go on the quest with the others or go to ___ while the others are meeting at the local tavern?

railroading isnt as large a problem as you think it is, whats more likely is that you had a bad experience due to a bad DM, even if there are multiple different alignments they can have similar goals even if the motives are largely different, a lot of the narrative aspects in a good campaign should be organically discovered and make the players want to follow along the path set by the campaign, if your party is being railroaded its down to the DM rather than the system, unless its one of the premade campaigns, some of which do railroad players, others of which dont as much.

The problem of forced cohesion is that it's forced regardless of the way of working it in together is that it still makes it feel forced. The chaotic evil rogue has no reason to travel and work alongside or even save the LG paladin from danger and has absolutely no reason to cooperate with that character. If the paladin is falling to his/her death the rogue has no reason to save them besides the DM says so in order for the group to advance to fight the BBEG and no one being upset at player B for letting their character die. Therein lies the problem, these character have every reason to conflict with one another and one character may have no reason to save another character even kill another PC but the fact that they're all somehow working together as a group to achieve some goal together is kinda forced especially if it is only needed for the stoy to happen. Kinda like how Frodo has no choice but to take the One Ring and go on the Quest, it's forced he has no reason to do it besides the fact that it advances the story it's like saying "here take this ring, now off you go" and push him out the door.

So then the question becomes what if players don't want to follow the path set by the DM what if they decide hey let's just stay here in this town and do something else? Or the different PCs decide to each do something else from one another or one PC decides i'm going to work against the other PC?

Players usually don't do that tho.

I had 3 separate groups try to play an "open world", "not railroaded" campaign to have them each fail because the players lost interest in fucking around without a clear goal in sight.

Alternatively gaymarriage.jpeg

I dunno i guess that's one of the things that only works in video games and not very often in tabletop games. Fiasco and Paranoia being among the exceptions. I love the idea of an open world where everyone can decide their PCs goals or even work either openly or covertly against one another, but it's left to the players to decide their own actions rather than you're all working together to go fight the BBEG five towns over and boot them out the door.

It uses teleportation circles instead. And there are no kingdoms, since there is no need for farming land or raw materials, the world runs on city states instead.
Literally read the posted picture.

A mixed approach is probably best in TTRPGs. I really like Dungeon World's "fronts" setup, where you roughly sketch the main power players of the campaign to give the players some direction, then simply refine the one they decide to go for/have the fronts they ignore start "pushing in".

So we need more quests to remove the shitposting is what you're saying?

In a way it's kinda sad that something like an open world and player having different goals aren't something that can work in TTRPGs as much as video games. I dunno maybe it's because it's the lack of the visual component that makes it hard or the overall layout of most TTRPGs that make it difficult to have players set different goals and have different choices with the exceptions i mentioned and a few others. It's something i would look forward to in a TTRPG.

It makes sense, if you think about it.

TTRPGS usually involve multiple players but just 1 GM. With players who have different goals, you'd have to split play time between them, which is just not optimal. An CRPG meanwhile is ran by a computer who can pay equal attention to all the players, if there's even multiple ones to begin with.

This about this bother me when i play D&D, thoughts like why is my character working with the group? Why should my character help this other PC? it shouldn't be just to advanced the plot. RPing a character should also mean being able to choose that character's motivation and goals not just i go with the group because the plot demands it. To me that's bad storytelling.

Okay, I understand where your points are coming from, but for me it still sounds like a matter of the way GM prepares for game. I personally don't GM D&D as a matter of principle. In fact, I often discourage people to play/run D&D because people start to accept certain D&Disms as a norm.
However, your points about forcing/railroading sound more like negligence of both players and GM. D&D is supposed to be a tool for wide arrange of things/settings, that's why there are a lot of options for alignments, races, etc. GM is supposed to support balance between player agency and cohesive narrative, and he is free to limit/modify certain aspects of system if party is on the same page as him. It's not about forcing, it's about consensus. And while a lot of immature GMs neglect it by accepting rulebook as some kind of holy scripture instead of tool, it doesn't mean that mentioned problems are universal.
It's not the matter of what tool can do, it's the matter of how you will use it.

You sit down to play accepting the assumptions of the game.

If you make a D&D character that has motivations that make you a terrible team player, well, guess what, you have made a character that does not adhere to the assumptions of the game.

You are allowed to do so, but you are basically that meme with the guy riding the bike.

I think they just resent D&D's monopoly on the tabletop games industry. It is difficult to get a game started with any other system, but honestly the more people who try D&D the more who are willing to try other systems, so I don't see the problem really.

A lot of guys tend to think of it as a boy's club as well, they don't really want to play with kids or women cause its their guys night out.

Not really i think it's important to understand why PC A would work with the group the motivations for a character to work with one another or to take up a quest is important, otherwise the reasons for a story become irrelevant. Think about it this way What is Riggs motivations for working with Mutaugh in Rush Hour or Daredevil's motivations for working with Luke Cage and Iron Fist in Defenders. Even from a RPing perspective it's important for PC a to have reason to work with a group.

men don't want to be pushed out of their little niche they carved out for themselves. Between their jobs and their family, d&d is really the only escape they have from their obligations.

There should be a lot more games that are 'men only', you know? Guys just generally don't want to play with ponies the same way girls don't generally want to play with robots or dinosaurs.

>Here, though, we just have the guys who'd get banned on the other sites
That's not really saying a whole lot, you can get banned from a lot of other RPG sites for simply disagreeing with a well-like regular's opinion.

Of course, and (in D&D) it's up to the player to supply that reason.

I'm just saying that it's sorta pointless to rag on the game when you don't follow some of its assumptions.

i agree it's not about the tool, there are a few other systems that run open worlds and have more player agency than D&D. However There is a fine line between player agency and cohesive narrative, the player's ability to choose to do something or not to and effect the in-game world is also just as important as the story otherwise you might as well be writing a novel. Consensus is not a justification for limiting players and a PC. Just because let's say other people agree to say play a good aligned PC doesn't mean by consensus the guy who decides he wants to play say a CN or CE PC shouldn't be allowed to, there'a line between saying we all agree we're all gonna play as such and we agree to play agree as such and you should also do the same.

Its like, "alright, i'm 30-40 years old, i've gone about as far as I'm going to go in life, either I have a job or I don't, either I have a family or I don't, but I have enough discretionary income to have a hobby and I don't want to spend the one night I get to hang out with friends playing some silly faerie quest where the goal is to save the princess or rescue the kingdom.

I want a game filled with guts, blood and violence, I want to make money and exercise power I don't have in the real world. I want to discuss morality and religion and politics, I want to make hard choices and really rub the grit into the wounds of my imaginary enemies.

I'm not here to make macreme', I'm here for football!

fuck off, nobody wants to play your imaginary unicorn kingdom. We came here to wreck shit.

The problem is the need for the game to have those assumption and the need for players to have to follow them to the point where the plot overtakes the player's actions. Let's say i've made a PC maybe he/she doesn't have a reason to work with that group but has opposing motivations like his/her job is to kill them all after they achieved their goals on the orders of the person sending them on said quest or his job is to stop them from finding the cult because he/she is a member of the cult?

D&D is so fucking patronizing to its players. It assumes they are these namby pamby little faggots who run around rescuing villagers and saving princesses.

We came for blood, we came cause we wanted to imagine hunting and killing something. We want to kill the bad guys, we want to fight and we want to win cause we are tired of getting our ass kicked in real life.

If you don't all share the same goals then you aren't part of the party, you're there to wreck the game and everybody fucking knows it.

>Let's say i've made a PC maybe he/she doesn't have a reason to work with that group but has opposing motivations like his/her job is to kill them all after they achieved their goals on the orders of the person sending them on said quest

Assuming the character changes his mind, or everyone's okay with a short campaign, this is totally fine.

>or his job is to stop them from finding the cult because he/she is a member of the cult?

D&D is simply not the sort of game that encourages this sort of play. You CAN use it for it, but it's just not fitting with what the game is made for.

This is my feeling as well. It really sounds like you are there to be the most specialest person who is totally a double agent with a deep story, unlike these 2 bit heroes (played by players who just want to sit down and fucking play and not have to worry about all this complicated character relationship shit).

It could still work with a group that1s down for this, but you are better off playing some other game that doesn't have mechanics 90% focused on killing orcs.

Otherwise you would have agreed beforehand you were all playing murder mystery theater and could all backstab each other until your hearts were content.

You come to the group under the explicit assumption that you are there to work towards our goals and promote our agenda, and that any action which runs contrary to the parties interest isn't just a betrayal of the characters, but the players as well.

This is what i mean.
> I want to discuss morality and religion and politics, I want to make hard choices.
I'm not advocating some kind of fairy unicorn utopia i'm just saying one of the "assumptions" as someone put it in D&D is that you're all adventurers working together to follow a plot/storyline and fight the BBEG. I think it should be more than just you are adventurers go kill the dragon and should have more depth like character motivations and PCs being able to have differing goals and maybe work against the party and for player agency to be more important than "the story is going to happen to your characters whether you like it or not".

We all came here to hear a good story and watch how it all plays out. If you decide your going to shitcan the story because you want attention, nobody is going to play with you.

When you create a character whose motivations run contrary to the parties best interest, you are hijacking the narrative to focus on your character so you can get more screentime.

Or roleplaying a character with a different motivation, like if a PC is a double agent and whose goals are to finish off the party after they've finish their quest so no one knows who sent them or they don't want anyone to find out from said cult that their character is a member of their cult.

If you like freeform games, then by all means, put 5 players in a Tavern and watch what happens. Nine times out of ten they kill half the town guard and light the Bar on fire.

The DM has to provide them with a goal or they will just go around wrecking shit.

or maybe the character is in exile to claim the BBEG's throne after the other PCs help overthrow the BBEG.

Thats currying for the DM's favor. You're basically playing a teachers pet so you get special treatment at the expense of everybody elses fun.

>90% of that shit
>working on a dragon

Almost had me

Your using your background to hijack the story. It comes back to wanting special treatment and not being recognized for your characters own merits.