Why do people play without increments?

I'd prefer Bronstein's increment, although I'd find it difficult to get used at this point.

All FIDE competitions are with increment: 90|30, 15|10, 5|3, 3|2.

I play without increments here because the quick pairing formats for the game lengths I like to play do not give me the option. On lichess I always play with increments.

Obviously, it's a matter of taste but I prefer to play chess, not 'fastest finger'. Some games end up being almost brainless arcade games when there's a dead draw  but you have to get to 50-move or 3 x repetition to prove it against the clock, or mate with K+R vs K in 20 seconds. 

Seven years later, I just realized that the difference between two GMs playing Games in 3/0 versus playing Games in 3/1 is about an extra 30 moves before the game reaches a conclusion on the clock.  Instead of a win in 60-80 moves, their games at 3/1 speed will often go over a hundred moves.  WOW, and lots of those extra moves are still excellent "killer moves"  Ha!

Because it's more fun.

Actually not all the time.

In my country, there are lots of no-increment rapid tournaments, four of which appeared last month (albeit it being the same tournament but having four different sessions) as FIDE rated 20 minutes per side with no increment.

Now that I think of it, I have only heard of 25-minute tournaments in my country but not 20-minute ones.

increments are for those who cant properly manage their game time.

Yep. Lots of excuses being made but I do not like playing with increments for this reason. If you don't want to risk losing on time, don't play blitz chess. If you have a winning position but you used 3 minutes to get it as opposed to your opponent's 2, then you should not be rewarded for taking more time to think in a BLITZ chess game.

I don't like to manage my time when it's fixed while the length of the game is not. I don't know how to play 10 minute games with consistent quality when the number of moves can be anywhere between 20 and 100. Increments solve this problem - longer games get more time.

I can really only play correspondence chess without a clock. I am not very good and can't think fast enough. I admire those who can play with one though.

The clock is a rook.

I preferred no increment when I was a faster player. I reckoned that those who prefer increments do so because they can't play blitz. Not fast enough. Now that I'm slower, I can play 5/5 and win a 70 move game after hitting 5 seconds on move 35. I've become one of the people I didn't like.

cause its fun but having increment definitely helps for a much more logical and less cheesy game

yeah

I prefer no increments because the absoluteness of a clear time limit appeals to me. Since I am more interested in chess as a puzzle and strategic/tactical competition than its own skill with incredibly chess-specific openings and positions and concepts to be learned, I like the fact that, with no increments, I have to manage time, mine and the opponents. It is an entirely finite resource, which adds an additional dimension to the game. Where games without any time limit can purely come down to a player's patience and willingness to search for the ideal move for as long as possible, games with a clearly defined one are a much more confined battle of wits. They are less of a demonstration of chess knowledge and skill than games with increments - and that is actually what I like about them.

5|2 and 5|5 are hidden in menus.

3|2 too short for most.

Increments is literally pointless and the games can last so long especially time scramble in endgames

I prefer to know the game is gonna end instead of getting into a stressful time scramble that might last for 20 or more moves.

but then again, I exclusively play 30 min anyway, so it's already very different than Blitz or Bullet.

I hate being flagged way more than I like flagging. That's why I prefer time controls with increment.