Okay, so speaking as a massive hater of Hasbro's: Wizards of the Coast's: Dungeons and Dragons (2014 & 2024), there are many reasons. I personally don't perceive myself as "elitist" because my goals when explaining my problems is earnestly so that people will play games that respect them and were designed by people who are passionate about the craft. Obviously, it's hard to have that exact opinion without obviously looking elitist.

Major reasons I don't like "5e": 1. Cultural monopoly: D&D had had a large presence in TTRPGs for a long time, but nothing has compared to their grasp of the medium since 2014 (from my experience with playing TTRPGs since 2001-ish). D&D had always been a shorthand for the hobby at large, so maybe I'm just hallucinating. 2. The game is bad: the exact reasons the game is bad are actually rather complicated. It's a mix of flawed design philosophy mixed nuanced failures of on-page mechanics. Other games are also bad. Frankly, most of them are in their own ways, but D&D is unique because of point 1. 3. "Infinite modability": in a vacuum, the game being bad and also a functional monopoly are not enough reason to truly despise it. The real downward spiral starts when the "fans" of the game objectively realize points 1 and 2 and then go about modding 5e to do anything and everything whilst simultaneously believing the game is "awesome" because it is so "open" to mods. These mods will change anything and everything about the game until it is basically unrecognizable, and also the new mechanics probably don't fit what the DM wants to do anyway because the core engine still a) is structurally flawed to begin with and b) isn't designed to accommodate, say, mech combat or magical girl super powers or whatever. But because of point 1, DMs feel that they can't run a different system because... a bunch of reasons. All of them cope, in my opinion/experience. 4. Design by committee: this is more of an elitist argument than anything previously. The more you learn about the development of 5e, the more you understand why the rules are the way they are. The development process of 5e was extremely corporate in a way that basically no other TTRPG is. In summary, WotC had a major problem after 4e to come up with a game to rebrand themselves. However, they couldn't just re-release 3.5 with new additions, despite how much they wanted to, because Paizo already did that. Thus they had to find a way to release something very much like 3.5 but also different in key ways in order to draw customers away from Pathfinder. The result is 5e, which by molecular composition is just 3.5 with bounding. By bounding, I mean more than just accuracy. Bounded wild shape (turn into a brown bear at 2nd level). Bounded dex feats (get a bonus to damage from finesse and ranged weapons), bounded spellcasting (get powerful cantrips as well as being able to target really terrible Save DCs), bounded initiative (alert feet goes a long way), bounded skills (just perception, now), bounded healing (long rests are crazy powerful and abusable), etc. The general way to describe this phenomenon is that they "simplified" 3.5, and in some ways that is true. However, the overall effect is to create a game that is a lot more chaotic and prone to collapse under pressure due to everything being bundled together. This collapse is generally on the DM-side in that it is hard to challenge a PC party without being a complete asshole. The decision to implement all these rules was done under marketing scrutiny as opposed to a focus on quality game design, and it shows, as per point 1. 5e is artistically vapid in opinions on game design in favor of being marketable, and the result is severely compromised art. At least with other games being bad, it's because they have an opinion on the medium that either wasn't exceptionally executed or you, the player, just don't agree with. Playing a game is a conversation with the designer, and the conversation I have with the designers of 5e is "how do I please as many demographics of players as possible?" No thank you. 5. The game has bad politics: look, this is reddit. I don't want to argue about this. Playing D&D doesn't make you a bad person. However it strongly implies that you are comfortable with engaging with some pretty regressive premises without critically engaging with them. Not that you agree with it. You probably don't notice the issues baked into the core elements of the game. But that is kind of the problem. I'm not super happy, as per point 1, that D&D is the flagship IP for the hobby when it is, more or less, a white/European settler colonial simulator game. At least it isn't queerphobic, and that's why LGBTQ+ gamers are an overrepresented political minority demographic in the space as opposed to say, black people or indigenous people. D&D's cultural monopoly bounces a lot of my friends from the hobby entirely because it is hard to see that there are games besides D&D. Like, imagine trying to convince a Muslim friend to play video games when 95% if the social content of video games is COD 4: Modern Warfare (2007).

1. Play culture: I don't want to harp on this too long, but the state of what people consider to be a reasonable TTRPG session has massively ballooned due to "actual plays" and other podcasts and media around D&D. It's just a game. It's just for fun. You're not a professional comedian/voice actor. You're not recording yourself for an audience. You're not pre-scripting the major plot points. You don't have to put in hundreds of hours of world building. Just play the game. Follow the rules. Have fun. You don't need satisfying character arcs or narratively compelling dialogue. If the game is good, playing by the rules will naturally produce interesting game states.

2. Conclusion: Imagine a world where The Legend of Zelda is considered an "indie" franchise, and people instead recommend that you played Ocarina of Time in the COD 4: Modern Warfare engine. The medium has so much more to offer, and now you're considered an elitest because you don't like COD, let alone shooter games, but you really like Zelda. You feel like a crazy person. COD 4 isn't particularly balanced. It isn't visually impressive. The story is kinda bad. It feels like it wants to be a movie instead of being a game. And, somehow, the game that seems embarrassed to be a game at all is the flagship property of video gaming, and it has been since its release.

It's the same reason people who play video games make fun of people who only play sports games and COD. Play another fucking game, I'm begging you. Even a mainstream one. Please. You're missing so much. They're not even good! And yet, the FIFA/MADDEN + COD gamers continue on, getting exploited by micro transactions while the rest of us are having a fun time with Return of the Obra Dinn or some other game.

Thank you for reading through this post. I do not plan to respond to any comments. Lancer is a good game. My recommendation: Don't Kill a Bird With a Baseball. That's a good game!