Why do you choose D&D?

[warlord]

Because its the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I choose D&D for its epic simplicity. I can sit down with a copy of original D&D or the Moldvay/Cook edits of BASIC D&D or even AD&D (1st edition, without extraneous stuff) and be up and running in no time. Even just sticking to the core rules of the current ruleset, it isn't that hard to get up and go.

I choose D&D because it's fun. I choose it because it's about kicking down the door and taking the treasure. Kill first, experience later. Questions for when the DM is narrating after the fight.

D&D was (and is) for me, a living, breathing step in to Howards' Hyboria (fie on you who say it doesn't do S&S well), Tolkien's Middle Earth, Vance's Dying Earth, Leiber's Lankhmar.

Despite drawing from all of those things, it is its own. It never aimed at being a simulator for a specific fantasy literature. It took the best tropes from each and combined them in a way that no other game has really captured since then.

There has been a myriad of products that seem to me were created by folks who said "Oho! I can do better than this!" (and I think that's a good thing in the general sense) but ultimately fell flat because they felt compelled to make their D&D Heartbreaker (to steal a phrase from RPG.net) the one that Did It Right. Well, did what right? D&D is the generic fantasy game that GURPS Fantasy and FANTASY HERO and a load of other "generic fantasy games" wish they were. Don't like Vance-inspired memorized spell systems? Don't use it. The D&D ruleset as we know it does not break down if you don't. Use something you prefer. Same for just about any other elements of the game.

(Hell, I was told repeatedly in various fora years ago that "3rd edition" was the way folks had "actually been playing D&D all along". I find it anathema, but ultimately it apparently worked well enough to make it in to print and still be D&D, my own personal feelings aside.)

D&D may not please all of the people all of the time, but I think Gary and Frank and Rob and Dave and Tim and Steve and ... well, about anyone who has ever had their hands on the rules and been given the task of making them official in some way are smart enough to know that if they're writing for a million fans of D&D and 999,999 of them are fans of CONAN stories, if that one guy prefers THE LORD OF THE RINGS then there had better be enough balance between the two to bring that guy in to the fold as well.

That's what they did. That's why I love D&D and that's why I'll continue to play it until I drop.

 

[Gothmog]

Actually, 4e may bring be BACK to D&D, at least for a little while. I came to the realization a few years ago I REALLY disliked D&D 3.x, and dropped it completely in favor of other systems. It didn't feel or play like 1e or 2e AD&D, and wasn't even close to the same game for me. It seemed like 3.x was "more, bigger, better, extreme!" than the D&D I remember, and the rules played havoc with the kinds of games I like to run. 3.x D&D is also a pain to prep for and run for me- I like the rules of a system to be transparent, and to not have to refer to the books a ton during the game like 3.x requires with spell, skill, feat and monster descriptions. If I run D&D now (which I've done a couple times the last year or so) its 2nd edition- I won't run 3.x again.

4e sounds in tone and flavor likes its returning D&D to its roots- characters won't be as superpowered as they are in 3.x, magic items won't be KING like it is now, the changes in spellcasting, leveling, and transparency of the system sound encouraging, and going back to assuming multiple monsters per encounter rather than a few big bad ones is a plus to me. I also like the assumption of a "points of light" setting- something I use in my games all the time. It might turn out to be really cool, in which case I'll give it a shot. Or it might end up being 3.x with the serial numbers filed off and a few changes, in which case I'll happily go back to WHFRP2 and Savage Worlds for my gaming. Either way, its a win-win situation for me.

 

[dmccoy1693]

For a while, I didn't know of anything else. So I was nice and content playing in a 1E D&D game. But in college I played some Vampire and after college I played Exalted. But the increadible high powered-ness of Exalted burned me out. Around that time, some friends of some guys in my gaming group were starting up a D&D game and they invited me to join. I said, "sure, why not" and haven't looked back since.

D&D is fantasy the way I expect it to be. The players aren't demi-gods unless they earn it. There's no overarching plot of the player being hunted down by the rulers of the world. You can be a dumb fighter; you don't have to learn an entire magic system just to make a basic character that is easy for a noob to play. And best of all, there is ABSOLUTELY no asian influence unless I want there to be. The biggest downside to D&D over Exalted, at least IMHO, is that there is no god of oral sex. Granted, there is none in canon Exalted, but it is understood among the players that there is such a god.

 

[Jack99]

Because it's the best system imo, and because it is what we (been playing with the same group for nearly 20 years) always have played.

Because of the huge community that provides interesting debates and help.

Because of the huge amount of material available for inspiration.

 

[FireLance]

I'm going to throw in one reason which nobody has mentioned yet, and which I think several people will not actually see as a plus point: it keeps changing.

I've read and played a number of other systems, and the thing that made me lose interest in them eventually was that supplementary material was either nonexistant or came out at a glacial pace. On the other hand, there always seemed to be something new coming out for D&D to read and and to mine for ideas, especially in 2e and 3e. Even in 1e, you'd get a new Dragon magazine once per month. This kept the game fresh and interesting for me.

 

[Will]

For 3.5e, because it's flexible (with all the 3rd party support), flavorful (lots of options filled with fiddly details), evocative, and coherent (in terms of game design).

I didn't like previous editions due to the lack of design coherence.

I often like 'builder' systems, like Mutants and Masterminds or BESM, but such games often trade away flavor for their great flexibility. I found myself, recently, contemplating either a M&M campaign or modified D&D campaign to run next, and I just couldn't get thrilled about M&M; it lacked the details and 'meaningful' varied, flavorful choices.

 

[Wombat]

When I first came to D&D it was because it was the only game in town ... literally. Back in 1975, there weren't a lot of choices going around...

When I came back to D&D, it was strictly because I was trying to set up a new gaming group and most people didn't know other systems and were, honestly, fearful to try them. 3e had just come out and there were people willing to try the new version of D&D (with all of its changes) rather than an entirely new system. So, the McDonald's factor comes in -- I like D&D strictly because I can game on short notice because everyone knows the brand.

Of course for a more satisfying meal, I still turn elsewhere...

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

So tell me...why D&D?

Because I've played a few other systems in the past and D&D is my fantasy game of choice. I've been with D&D since the basic set and I find it interesting that other posters might consider any of the other multitude of games from the past or present rather than THE go-to fantasy game (of past or present).

D&D is the most popular system. It is the best supported system (and in fact FINDING support for another system, such as, say, Runequest, is tedious and even pointless). D&D has always worked for the kind of games that I want to run and play in - certainly well enough that I feel no significant drive to DROP D&D, find another system, learn that system, convince all my players that they should like and INVEST in that system, and then run it to the exclusion of D&D.

D&D is not the most perfect system. Since I started DMing in 1E I have found in EVERY version of D&D failures of the system and dislikes I have with them. Each new version has solved at least some portions of those, if not many/most of them, and provided me with the interesting and exciting prospect of having "a new game" to play. I LIKE D&D. Each new version (of the few ever released) I have ALSO liked at least as well as a past version upon its initial release, if not having found it superior and liked it MORE.

Ultimately, I probably don't have a good reason to stick with D&D except tradition, popularity, and support. But those are probably insignificant reasons, aren't they? Still, I'd much rather have someone try to convince me why I should NOT stick with D&D than explain to them why I DO stick with it.

 

[Imaro]

Because I've played a few other systems in the past and D&D is my fantasy game of choice. I've been with D&D since the basic set and I find it interesting that other posters might consider any of the other multitude of games from the past or present rather than THE go-to fantasy game (of past or present).

I can understand this, but I will say different fantasy games have different rules...thus a different feel when played. It also can boil down to the rules being a better fit for other people. I honestly find it easier to create things on the fly with Mongoose's Runequest because my mind works with flat percentages better. I automatically know that if my players have attack/dodge/parry rolls in the 60-70% range a monster/NPC with a 20-30% range will be a pretty easy combat, 40-50% will slightly favor them, 60-70% is a 50/50 chanace of them winning or loosing and for a really hard fight 80%-100%.

D&D is the most popular system. It is the best supported system (and in fact FINDING support for another system, such as, say, Runequest, is tedious and even pointless). D&D has always worked for the kind of games that I want to run and play in - certainly well enough that I feel no significant drive to DROP D&D, find another system, learn that system, convince all my players that they should like and INVEST in that system, and then run it to the exclusion of D&D.

Well I don't know if it's tedious or pointless, that's a matter of oppinion, since I do most of my shopping online it's not really a factor for me. I can respect the fact that D&D does the kind of fantasy you want, but I can also see games that support other types better. I like swords and sorcery and yes, D&D can be twisted and modified and houseruled into a decent set of rules for this type of play...but I'd rather spend my money on something closer to the type of fantasy I like. Now if I want to play high fantasy then I'll go with D&D.

D&D is not the most perfect system. Since I started DMing in 1E I have found in EVERY version of D&D failures of the system and dislikes I have with them. Each new version has solved at least some portions of those, if not many/most of them, and provided me with the interesting and exciting prospect of having "a new game" to play. I LIKE D&D. Each new version (of the few ever released) I have ALSO liked at least as well as a past version upon its initial release, if not having found it superior and liked it MORE.

I'm not saying I don't like D&D anymore or will never play it. But I do have issues with it. Originally D&D was my go to game because of quick character generation, easily picked niches and it's overall simplicity for new players to grasp. However I don't think it really does this well anymore. It's become more of a hybrid game between totally customizable characters(skills, feats, easier multi-classing, etc.) and a class-based system(class abilities, BAB, HD, magic, etc.). This tends to frustrate me more than satisfy me because I can't make exactly the character I want, but it isn't really that quick to generate characters either.

Ultimately, I probably don't have a good reason to stick with D&D except tradition, popularity, and support. But those are probably insignificant reasons, aren't they? Still, I'd much rather have someone try to convince me why I should NOT stick with D&D than explain to them why I DO stick with it.

I don't think their insignificant reasons, and if I came off in any of my posts that way I apologize. I don't really want to convince you not to play D&D...I really don't know your tatses or interests well enough to even try. I could tell you why I feel Runequest is better for me but that's not the same as it being good for you. A few of my reasons are as follows...

1.) Better customization of characters yet still, IMHO, a little quicker than D&D 3.5, you rol up ability scores, choose a background(Peasant, Noble, Barbarian, etc.)...choose a profession(soldier, shaman,etc.) then distribute your extra skill points. You also choose what skills you want to go up in through the game rather than everything "leveling" up, and certain things being off-limits in D&D progression.

2.) It's easier to construct homebrew professions than classes in D&D. Every profession is just a number of skills whose modifiers add up to 50%(in increments of 5 or 10)

3.) Less abstract, and slightly grittier, combat with all the tactical choices that D&D offers.

4.) Magic systems that actually replicte many systems found in Sword and Sorcery literature...(Sorcery, Runes, Summonings, Divine Magic through cults, lost technology, etc.)

5.) Easier to create opponents on the fly. Everythings percentages so it's easier for me to grasp and judge

6.) Even has something very similar to feats called Legendary Abilities that allow PC's to do extraordinary things once they reach certain levels in their skills. Personally I like this approach, it keeps them feeling special and cuts down on character complexity in the beginning. If you want characters to start with them they have rules for starting the PC's off more experienced than beginners.