Are Gognards killing D&D?

First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. Why is this bad? Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old. There is a generational gap (or two) between the majority of players and people who are just now playing the game for the first time. Since it seems that have the greatest numbers, and greatest disposable income to spend on the game, they have the most say within the gaming community on how the game advances (or doesn’t). If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.

There has been a lot of hate concerning 4E. I would say that the sides stand at about 50/50. Why has this divided our community? Because WOC is changing things to appeal to new gamers? Guess what? If you want there to be a game in 20 years, then they have to attract new gamers.

So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game. Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?

Not everyone who played 1e played it when it first came out.

I will say that yes, grognards are a potential problem. They may be a part of the Greyhawk problems, by example.

Grognards are in the stereotypical sense, of course.

Victim said:

Not everyone who played 1e played it when it first came out.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but i wasn't even alive when it came out. It seems like most of the forum members here have wives, kids and steady careers. I would say that the market for D&D should try to be 13+. The younger you get them the better.

Antonlowe said:

First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps it means that there is a large, strong, loyal fan base for the game.

Just because I played 1e doesn't mean that I won't like 4e. Conversely, if I didn't play 1e, that doesn't mean that I will like 4e.

The Ubbergeek said:

They may be a part of the Greyhawk problems, by example.

Grognards are in the stereotypical sense, of course.

Click to expand...

May be? The stereotypical grognard complains about how the Realms killed their beloved Greyhawk, and then when WotC does bother to publish something Greyhawk, they complain, "But that's not the way I took my Greyhawk campaign 15 years ago! I'm not getting it!". It's like they want to sweep away everything that was published for the game since 1986 and bring back Gary and restore the old 1e.

My group's a little strange. We range from 43 to 24 and have had people younger than that. We once had an 18 year old player, but that didn't last very long.

So, the OP has a point, though I'd probably word it a little differently. It seems like as you get older you have to get a lot less choosy about the age ranges you're willing to play with, since on the whole the number of players your own age is inevitably going to decrease.

And yeah, from my own experience, telling younger people about how great things were in the old days and how bad they are now generally tends to make those younger folks start looking for the door. I mean, young folks can barely tolerate it when their grandparents start doing that, much less some random on a message board or in a gaming group.

On the other hand, the first thing I thought when I read the OP was, "FLAME ON!!!"

Antonlowe said:

Are grognards killing D&D?

Click to expand...

Yes, but we're getting XP for it.

I'm 26. I played 1e. I don't consider myself a grognard- to me, that word denotes attitude rather than age.

1e came in a single compendium instead of in a huge pile of expansion books, and it was actively supported in a bunch of magazines I couldn't afford. It seemed a better choice than 2e at the time, and in retrospect, it probably was. The single Rules Cyclopedia was a lot better for me in terms of affordability and in terms of scope.

I don't think grognards are ruining D&D. For the most part, in real life, they can go off and play their grognard games on their own. For example, I know some people locally who play a 2e game. The fact that I cannot even comprehend why someone would want to play 2e when 3e is available for free in SRD form online doesn't matter- I don't play in their game, so they're not bothering me.

Grognards ARE annoying the crap out of me online. But that's very different from "ruining D&D."

Nice Sock Puppet.
4/10