Grognard good...grognard bad

[Raven Crowking]

Speaking of resisting change....I very much doubt that those mean old grognards who are resisting change would have said "Boo" about 4e had it been named "Wizard of the Coast's Fantasy Game" instead of "Dungeons & Dragons".

They certainly haven't said "Boo" about Cubicle 7's Doctor Who game, or RCFG.

So why not fully embrace change, and change the name of the game? Solves everyone's problems, right? Right?

Oh, it doesn't? Oh, you think WotC needs the value generated by the games those grognards play? Maybe 4e would sell less without the cachet of earlier editions? Those same games that focus on the things that are now "unfun"?



The problem is that this game can be -- and often is -- played in both directions. So much better, IMHO, to just accept that some people aren't going to like the same games you like. And are, sometimes, going to be vocal about it.

Feel free to slag RCFG.

It could use the attention.



RC



--

 

[Desdichado]

I was responding to the idea that grognards want to play games that are not "fun". IMHO the set of people who want to play "unfun" games is either 0 or so close to 0 as to make no practical difference.

And that Melan's post was not an example of someone wanting "unfun" games, as was claimed upthread.

Fair enough. I was never arguing that, and I agree that the Tyranny of Fun manifesto isn't an example of playing unfun games, despite the title.

It is, rather ironically though, a strikingly potent example of badwrongfun argumentation.

Apparently, the purpose of this thread has become turning 'grognard' into an insult.

There is of course a clear and present need for such a rhetorical weapon in the noble project of waging 'edition war'.

It's a bit disingenious to pretend that this thread is turning some word into an insult that never was one before. Talking about french soldiers during the Napoleonic war is all well and good, but in the context of the gaming community grognard has been around for a long time, and has had consistent negative undertones for well over 15-20 years at least; since the beginning of the internet. Again, at least. I'm being conservative to be cautious.

It's also had plenty of folks turn around, wear the label like a badge of honor and "reclaim" the label, to a certain extent, but this thread isn't doing anything except retreading discussions on Usenet from 1993.

 

[Ourph]

TYRANT!

How can you not mention the importance of The Cure!?!

Pffftt! Joy Division is the one true post-punk band. All other bands are just pale imitations of the real thing.

Ou-the bad kind of grognard-rph

 

[Mallus]

Pffftt! Joy Division is the one true post-punk band. All other bands are just pale imitations of the real thing.

You know, I kinda like New Order better...

Mal -thought's from above hit the people down below- lus.

 

[Ariosto]

Raven Crowking, it was necessary for WotC's designers to trash-talk D&D as "not fun". Not to have done so would have marked them as the sort of craven surrender monkeys who might even shirk from going into someone's house and putting down the decor and cooking, then calling the hostess's baby an ugly monkey.

Not only is aesthetics the moral equivalent of morals, but failure would have given aid and comfort to the enemies of the root of all good that is capitalism.

The signal difference between capitalism and communism, of course, is that capitalism depends on consumers making choices on the basis of blind brand loyalty.

Where would we be if the brand name "D&D" had such a reliable referent that people could like or dislike the product on the same basis as characterized previous batches of product released under that label? What if something could be distinguished as something different by being called something different?

Why, then people would be able to choose products on the basis of their particular merits. That would be some sort of "demand-side" economics, obviously disastrous!

 

[Mallus]

Raven Crowking, it was necessary for WotC's designers to trash-talk D&D as "not fun".

Neither was it necessary for some people to be so thin-skinned and blow that completely and obscenely out of proportion.

I mean, so long as we're talking about unnecessary things...

 

[Desdichado]

(Shrug)

Pick two bands -- one you really like, one you really do not like.

Imagine that I buy the rights to the band you really like, decide that from now on the band you do not like is going to go by the name of the band that you liked. And I am going to market it as the same band. Moreover, I am going to cease sales of the material of the band you really liked. You know, the early stuff.

Then I am going to write in the liner notes of the new CDs that the stuff the old band didn't do well is "good music" and the stuff that it did do well is "ungood music".

If you honestly examine your response to that, you should understand why some folks are upset with what is happening to D&D now.

(Shrug)

I'm not upset -- I have the OGL and RCFG -- but I certainly understand why some people are.

Not unlike Island Records vs. Virgin Records era Ultravox, really.

Of course, later, it all got rereleased on remastered CD, so it all worked out in the end.

Maybe that's the moral of the story after all.

 

[Scribble]

So why not fully embrace change, and change the name of the game? Solves everyone's problems, right? Right?

They did... They called it Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.

 

[Desdichado]

They did... They called it Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.

I hear they wanted to call it Dungeons and Dragons Vista, but Microsoft beat them to the punch.

 

[billd91]

It's a bit disingenious to pretend that this thread is turning some word into an insult that never was one before. Talking about french soldiers during the Napoleonic war is all well and good, but in the context of the gaming community grognard has been around for a long time, and has had consistent negative undertones for well over 15-20 years at least; since the beginning of the internet. Again, at least. I'm being conservative to be cautious.

It's also had plenty of folks turn around, wear the label like a badge of honor and "reclaim" the label, to a certain extent, but this thread isn't doing anything except retreading discussions on Usenet from 1993.

Hmmm. I must be on the wrong internet. It's only been comparatively recently (the last 10 years and particularly during edition wars) that I've been hearing grognard used negatively. Most often, I had been hearing it as a generally positive term to indicate being a gaming hobbiest for a long time (particularly in wargaming, but also in RPGs too).