D&D hate-circlejerk thread

Why do you dislike D&D?
Why is [system] better than it?
What are the main flaws of D&D?
What is the ideal amount of piss to pour onto Gygax's grave?


Post it here! Pic unrelated.

>Why do you dislike D&D?
I've grown sick of it. I've grown sick of the playerbase. I've grown sick of how head-up-ass it's lore is. I've grown sick of it defining the industry and choking out better ideas for years.

>Why is [system] better than it?
Doesn't fucking matter because nothing else has an actual playerbase, sadly.

>What are the main flaws of D&D?
Where to start? The fact that every problem in the game can be bypassed by a wizard throwing a level 3 or below spell at it and the fact that a whole third of the PHB is spells? The fact that martials have nothing to do outside of hitting stuff? The fact that the skills system is horribly underdevleoped and again you're better off just using spells? The HP bloat? How borked Challenge rating is? The retarded anime classes like psionic and retarded furfag races like Tabaxi and Dragonborn? The swinginess of d20 in general and how being proficient in a skill only makes you 5-10% better than someone with no training at all? The fct that players are demi-gods who are superior to all other mere mortals by level 5 and thus don't really live in the world? The fact that death is trivial as fuck and there a million ways to undo it?

Fuck, I could go on and on and on about why DnD is a dumpster fire of a game.
But it's still the only fucking game anyone ever plays, so like a total fucking hypocrite I put up with it because a bad game is more fun than no game.

I dislike WoTC. They rescued it from TSR Buck Rogers bullshit. But then the WoTC leadership changed hands, and ever since then, D&D has lurched all over the map. Every time they change direction they piss off the group that came together before. By the time we get some good ideas for games in the current system, they change all the rules and the adventures we made don't work right anymore, we have to buy a whole bunch of books and recon shit just to play, or else all our players attrition off. And since the new system's demographic is gratuitously different enough to match whatever focus group they went with, the new players we get are completely incompatible with the way we've been playing. The flaws go beyond the systems and into the corporate decisionmaking. They might not even be making money, but any other decision (forked development, acquisition, obsolescence, full OGL, etc.) would apparently lose them money. So maybe they do what they must, but I don't have to like it. I come to this board hoping to fill in the gaps that WoTC won't fill in, but there aren't many ideas, just memes.

So 3.5 was my first RPG. Then, after a long time of playing it, I discovered there’s a plethora of games like it that did things differently, namely Rogue Trader and the rest of the 40K RPGs. Then I found Pathfinder, which to this day I think is still superior to 3.5. Where 3.5 was more rigid but solid, PF was moldable and flexible. I never played 4E because of the wargame mindset of it. Now with 5E releases, I think this is THE definitive D&D experience you can have while having solid rule but flexible gameplay. Sure, there’s a certain lack of content and splats that will never surpass 3.PF, but what is there is pertinent for nearly anything medieval/renaissance fantasy you can want.

Can't say I dislike it, rather I dislike what it has become. It is strayed from it's origins

Better than DnD at what? DnD has one thing that no other RPG has: Market force. Not really sure it has much more to claim as being the best. Remember, just because mcdonalds is fucking everywhere, that doesn't mean it's the best food.

Players and GMs are limited by the system and how little agency it gives them over their actions. So many problems, both big and small, exist, yet solving them involves reworking the system from the ground up.

Ever since 3rd edition and onward, the drive for profits has been pissing on his grave. Must suck to know you're going to be buried in piss.

D&D has always been shit because it's not designed to support your character's actions, it tells you what macros your character is allowed to activate. 3E and up made this worse by making fairly mundane action moves near impossible to do without the right build and giving you stupid, soecific anime moves that are going to be more effective.

Let's say we're fighting an orc cult in their hidden death shrine. I'm near the leader, so I say, "I want to grab the leader and suplex him into the big statue of Glorksh."

In D&D: I don't have improved grapple, so he gets an attack of opportunity on me and I take a pretty big penalty, iirc. Then we roll to grapple, which is always cumbersome and tough to pull off. Next round, the GM is clever so he rules the suplex is allowed as moving the enemy, but then he's confused whether it's melee damage or statue damage when he hits the statue. If it's melee damage and I'm not a monk, the damage is garbage. I also don't have improved unarmed strike either, so there's confusion there too. I should've just used my Sword of Flying Phoenix Strikes ability which would've done way more damage and the description sounds cool the first time I read it out.

In Savage Worlds: GM says, yes, you can totally do that and I like it, so here's a benny to help you pull it off. We clear up what parts of the attack are important, pushing, grappling or damaging him, and while the GM could leave it at unarmed damage, he rules it as a grapple, then attack, based on my intention. I take a -2 penalty on each roll for multiaction in a round, but if I pull off the grapple, it's easier to hit the attack and I do bonus damage. I also have that extra benny to re-roll something if I need.

In Fate: The GM thinks this is a cool move and he gives me a Fate Point. I can spend a Fate Point to invoke a use of the Ugly Pointy Statue in my attack now or I can use create an advantage this round to put the enemy in position to invoke it for an attack next round. I spend the point to invoke the statue now, get a +2 bonus on my attack roll and the GM has the statue add weapon:2 damage, since it's Ugly and Pointy.

Eh, and just for shits and giggles...

In D&D 2E and prior: If you are not a fighter, the GM says, no, you can't do that. If you are a fighter, the GM looks at the d20 table of unarmed combat results and if it's listed there, you have a 5% chance of being able to do it, if not, he says, no, you can't do that.

You take no penalty for not having improved grapple, you just trigger the AOO. Having Improved Grapple gives a bonus.
The grapple rules are annoying if you don't know what you're doing, nobody ever does, and you're trying to do a full grapple, if it's just something basic like "push man into pillar" you really don't need the whole system.
It's obviously statue damage, but in the end up to the DM, any confusion has nothing to do with the system and is the DM's fault. If Dave punches me into a pool of lava, do I take punch or lava damage? I take both.
If you have a weird magical Sword that just has some anime super ability then I question what the DM is doing even further.

If your DM knew what he was doing this situation would have worked fine.

P.S. I don't like D&D that much, but your example is real shit.

Well, trying to suplex someone is retarded since you have a sword. But I’d allow it to do sword damage anyway.

Grapple, shove and unarmed strikes are all default options in 5e. Of course, there are always things you can do outside of these, and yes, the DM will have to adjudicate them. Isn’t this pretty much unavoidable in an RPG? Either you try to codify everything into a rule, or you have everything be ruled case bu case. Which is it you’re advocating for?

Fwiw, I think this line of criticism is very superficial, and you might find it more fruitful to talk about what kinds of things the game sets out to do, what kind of expectations it gives to the players, and how well it executes both of those things.

So objectively better games can't flourish? Face it user, dnd is doing enough things right to be on top

Why are you even trying to argue with a troll?
This is a sad troll thread, so let them be sad trolls.

>Why is [system] better than it?
Because Barbarians of Lemuria seems to be almost exactly what a person totally new to tabletop would think it's like, at least mechanically. Just replace the origins with your standard races, use a d20 instead of d6 dice (The BoL Hack does this), and fill the bestiary with standard monsters like goblins and owlbears.

However, I don't actually hate D&D. In fact, D&D does something right that I think gets glossed over way too often, and that's overland travel and exploration. The sad part is, those rules seem to get overlooked because nearly every campaign I've seen run never requires their usage or replaces every instance of it with a skill check. It makes barely any sense to me since the original D&D game used more pages for detailing travel and exploration than it did for its combat system, and yet people continue to assume and use D&D for combat-centric games where that kind of stuff is handwaved. It gets worse because nearly every other game copies that style, thinking that all you need is a working task resolution system and a combat system to be a complete game, leaving absolutely nothing on exploration other than "Just roll a skill check." It's a problem when Ryuutama is said to be a breath of fresh air due to its focus on exploration when the original D&D game had that focus as well!

>Literally the only posts in the topic where the poster number doesn't go up.

Hrmmm, DnDrones are really out in force for New Years, aren't they?

I love how one of the very first reasons cited for disliking 5e was the playerbase, and lo an behold not even 15 posts later we have them samefagging because someone talked bad about 5e in a vent topic specifically meant to vent about 5e. Like, I don't even vehemently hate 5e, but holy fuck are they the worst usergroup on Veeky Forums, that's for sure. Fuck off and stay in your containment generals.

Since it's new years', I'll level with you.

Our counters reset on 1 January. We have to get to a minimum of 350 posts (per platform) defending D&D before WotC will start paying us, and most everybody is strapped for cash after the holidays. You should probably expect a lot of such posting in the near future as we get our post counts up past the threshold.

>14 unique posters in this thread.
Really plausible, user. Really plausible.

>Why do you dislike D&D?
>Why is [system] better than it?
Because [system] might not be a derpy fantasy dawdle through a tepid world of trite garbage.
>What are the main flaws of D&D?
Overdone.
Nonsensical world or nonsensical mechanics, or complete divide between the two.
>What is the ideal amount of piss to pour onto Gygax's grave?
None, he actually contributed to the hobby. Those who followed him too closely are like remora fish.

I dislike AC, classes, and levels. Runequest does all that better. Armour reduces damage instead of making attacks miss. There are no classes and you level up individual skills instead of your whole character.

I dislike D&D but I hated every other system I've tried even more, most of them recommended to me on this very board.

Abstractions being abstract is a bad reason to hate them.

"My character who doesn't know how to grapple people etc tries to do it anyways... What do you mean I don't have a good chance of succeeding? I'm the hero!"

>Overdone.
T H I S .

>Why do you dislike D&D?
Too complex for being an orc-stabbing loot simulator and too primitive at anything but that. How can a system require seven different kinds of dice, a battlemat and half a fucking Mordheim box set for all but the simplest encounters but not have potion making rules? Are you telling me we need 5 different kinds of basically Wizard and none of them are interested in making potions?

>Why is [system] better than it?
Any system that uses fewer different kinds of dice for minimal statistical difference is better by default.

>What are the main flaws of D&D?
It's overly concerned with behaving like a wargame or Diablo rather than a roleplaying game. Seriously, give me a few players, a reasonable number of monsters and a Druid or other mook-maker and it feels more like a friggin' wargame than an actual RPG.

>What is the ideal amount of piss to pour onto Gygax's grave?
None, we should just be more open to other systems.

Most systems, a fighter type is going to know how to improvise a little without a couple layers of feats and having to avoid trap options.

If you're content with the options "I attack with my sword" or "I power attack with my sword" in melee, D&D is pretty fucking amazing, sure.

I hate D&D because of how much they shit on martials in the newer editions.

I mean, if you're not going to give Fighters as many options and the Wizard, at least make combat open-ended enough so that you're not forced into going "I attack" just to say relevant.

>n fact, D&D does something right that I think gets glossed over way too often, and that's overland travel and exploration. The sad part is, those rules seem to get overlooked because nearly every campaign I've seen run never requires their usage or replaces every instance of it with a skill check. It makes barely any sense to me since the original D&D game used more pages for detailing travel and exploration than it did for its combat system, and yet people continue to assume and use D&D for combat-centric games where that kind of stuff is handwaved.
This is really only true for Basic D&D (Holmes, Moldvay, Cook, or Mentzer). Gygax didn't care about it as much as he did having 20 different types of pike listed and statted out, so AD&D & 2e put less emphasis on travel, and by the time WOTC took over it was basically a tactical combat sim, and things haven't changed since then.

>I need my RPGs to blow powers up my ass or I can't forget about my pathetic life, why doesn't DnD do that REEEEEEE

You never played FATE

Sorry buddy. Bullying retards is our way of making this board better, so I'll just stay and keep rubbing it in how pathetic you are

I cut my teeth on 3.5 and I played it (and pathfinder) for many years. Eventually I started to broaden my horizons and stopped being satisfied with homebrewing and kitbashing everything to make the rules work. I wanted to play something else. Unfortunately, no one else did, in many many gaming groups. There are a lot of people who absolutely refuse to try anything that isn't Dungeons and Dragons, and generally anything other than their preferred edition. They'll hem and haw and insist that if you just stretch the rules a bit you could totally run that character driven space western campaign you all wanted to play. Some will eventually try something new, but a lot of my original playgroup are hardcore grogs-in-the-making who'll be playing pathfinder decades from now.

D&D creates and caters to people who really, really don't like change. It's a tarpit that lures you in with name recognition and media buzz, but traps you once you've taken the bait. Even if you get out you never really get out, because it fosters a very specific style of play that D&Ders will insist is the only right way to do stuff.

Sorry buddy, it's not DnD's fault people don't want to play your gay cowboy shit

They were interested, when they thought I'd be running it in Pathfinder.

>Why do you dislike D&D?
Because it doesn't appeal to my sensibilities at all. It's as if at every turn the designers decided to go the complete opposite direction of where I'd want them to go.

>Why is [system] better than it?
Depends on what you want. As far as generic systems I'm partial to BRP.

>What are the main flaws of D&D?
It's over-simplified and too abstract at the same time as it manages to be over-complex and too number-crunchy. It's designed like a video game about killing monsters with the limitation that all calculations have to be made by humans. Despite WotC insisting on reinventing the system every damn edition they still never get rid of actual archaisms -- like the ability scores -- that don't actually serve any purpose as the rules are written. Playing the system feels limiting in a way that no other system does to me. In combat characters move on grids and have a set of abilities to use. The rules just aren't very modular and don't leave room for improvisation unless you ignore the rulebook completely at which point you have to ask, why even use the system at all? Characters are defined by their classes in the worst possible way where all their abilities are defined by whatever their purpose in the party is and character growth comes in linear, predefined packages at every level.

>Why do you dislike D&D?
The system just started getting in the way in what me and my group wanted to do. I still join D&D games as a player, but we use anything else now.

>Why is [system] better than it?
We don't stick to just one system, but it's either due to mechanics or genre, usually both.

>What are the main flaws of D&D?
It's not really flawed, it's just a simple system that has a game-like ethos. It's definitely not a terrible system, it's just that the game might become a bore unless you spend a lot of time homebrewing monsters and other things to it, like what I did to keep my players challenged until I grew tired of it.

D&D isn't the antichrist, it's just fine to try multiple other systems.

I love D&D, as long as it's 4e or BECMI.

I can still tolerate the rest though.

D&D just doesn't really fit my style. I've never liked rigid class systems, especially those that come with so much built in flavor to them. Too often, it feels like class is the biggest influence on character. I just like more freedom to mix up abilities and flavor.
I also dislike bloated hp. It feels like tactics and planning stop mattering once you hit level five or so, because at that point, ambushing someone provides such a small advantage compared to hp numbers and damage numbers combat loses any dynamic feeling. I like tactical combat, where things like cover, flanking, ambushes, and traps can massively change the course of a fight. If Bonelord Tim Dickcock, King of the Wasteland, gets shot in the back of the head with a sniper rifle because the players had a good plan and worked their asses off to assassinate him, i dont want to say "He takes 25 damage, but he's level 20 so thats like 10% of his health, prepare to die nerds."
I've been leaning towards systems without a built in setting because i like the freedom that gives me. D&D has enough built in details that i feel restricted whenever i use it. I like being able to use one system to run sci fi/noir/post apoc/fantasy/etc.
I don't think D&D is inherently bad, it just doesn't line up with what I want. But i play savage worlds, so my taste is probably shit anyways.

It sounds like you specifically have a problem with 3.x.
4e was better, but very "gamey", 5e is just simplistic. I was surprised, coming from previous editions, that there isn't even such a simple thing as charging the enemy covered by the rules. They embraced their role as entry-level RPG (though the use of miniatures is still wonky with that, as new people rarely want to draw maps and spend money on them), perhaps a little too much.

But D&D is the only game I got going right now. When I read rules for Infinity RPG I may start GMing for it, but I feel a bit like in pic related.

>D&D isn't a game about blowing powers up my ass.

Miniatures are optional in 5e. They're relegated to 'variant' status.

My problem with 5E is there are too many places where i feel like they didn't streamline as much as they just removed components and left a hole in place. Inspiration could have been used as a catch-all for edge rulings, but then that's a little too specific.

Also, anyone who digs D&D must have been afflicted with Gaes a few too many times.