Grognard good...grognard bad

[Aegeri]

It's almost as bad as people who won't give something like 2nd edition a try because "It's too old". Actually one of the awesome things I got last year from my IRL group was they found a copy of the 1st edition red box. Once we get back together I intend to have 2-3 sessions where we play some 1st edition DnD. That was the first edition I played of DnD and I think it would be great for them to see some old style DnD.

The Tomb of Horrors seems very appropriate.

 

[ggroy]

One issue I want to take up, as it is a favorite of the self-professed grognard, is the 'play skill' mentioned in the quotes from the Tyranny of Fun thread. The position espoused there says that harsh play, where the GM kills, cripples, destroys items, or in other ways damages characters for the slightest miscalculation will have a Dungeons and Bootstraps effect, creating players who are highly skilled.

I disagree completely. I don't consider "Being paranoid and memorizing the Monster Manual" to be skilled play. In my game it would be dysfunctional play, as the properties of monsters would not be as published and certain death is not waiting around every corner. I don't think those things bring fun experiences. Nothing against those that do, but saying that this is 'skilled play' and my way is 'mediocrity' is explicitly saying 'my game is right and yours is wrong'.

Which also, is the heart of grognardism.

The first few D&D games I played in, were with DMs whom were very dictatorial and who enjoyed killing off characters repeatedly. At the time, these were individuals who were older than me, and had an extensive wargaming background. It was as if they were playing D&D/AD&D like a wargame, where one side was playing "god".

By the time I was DM'ing my own D&D/AD&D games, I was somewhat more lenient in comparison. After a few years of DM'ing, I was using more and more random tables for which I had the players doing the rolling to determine the outcome (ie. monsters, treasure, etc ...). The players knew what exactly were in the tables, since I allowed them to see the tables. (For a long time I didn't use a DM screen). They knew exactly what they were getting into.

 

[Imaro]

I have actually seen this.

I know three people offline whom have personally mentioned to me that they absolutely hate 4E because it is "new". These particular three people have not played 4E either. I got the impression these individuals are very proud of their ignorance about 4E, and have no shame about admitting it in public.

Hey, to each his own... but I've never seen that given as a reason on this board or on the other rpg boards I visit. If anything I've seen it used by 4e fans to discredit or dismiss the opinions of those who don't like some of the new things that have been added to D&D... sorta like the whole... "if you don't like 4e, you're just one of those people who don't like change."... Which is used as a broad grouping that allows fans of 4e to easily dismiss the opinions of those who have issues with parts or all of 4e.

 

[ggroy]

Hey, to each his own... but I've never seen that given as a reason on this board or on the other rpg boards I visit. If anything I've seen it used by 4e fans to discredit or dismiss the opinions of those who don't like some of the new things that have been added to D&D... sorta like the whole... "if you don't like 4e, you're just one of those people who don't like change."... Which is used as a broad grouping that allows fans of 4e to easily dismiss the opinions of those who have issues with parts or all of 4e.

For one person in question, I know for a fact this person does not acknowledge the existence of anything D&D/AD&D beyond 1983/1984. Dismissals of 2E, 3E/3.5E, 4E back when they were considered "new", is very consistent with this person's MO. (I've known this person for 20+ years).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah, that was inconsiderate and I should have worded it more tactfully. Then again, I hadn't the faintest idea people in 2010 would still be discussing a random edition wars post I made in 2008 on what bothered me at that time. So what? Should I apologise two years and a shitload of personal attacks later? To whom? ENWorld? Circvs Maximvs? Gleemax? Grognards.txt? You?

Get real. Nothing I said would ever stop the hypocrites looking for an excuse to play Internet judge, jury and executioner, while the people interested in actually considering what I had to say will be able to do just that irregardless of the style. I don't have the time or wish to stand in the way of either. So there.

Irregardless is not a word.

Carry on.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Guys guys guys....

Can't we all just get together over a huge pot of spaghetti?

Mixed with baked shrimp instead of meatballs?

 

[MichaelSomething]

Guys guys guys....

Can't we all just get together over a huge pot of spaghetti?

Mixed with baked shrimp instead of meatballs?

BLASPHEMY! How dare you mix spaghetti with baked shrimp instead of meatballs, which is the one true spaghetti meat addition.

 

[Ariosto]

Legacy
Supergame
Other Suns
Powers & Perils
Living Steel
SenZar
F.A.T.A.L.

Remember, kids, you've got to play it first. For 2-3 months? (That's a goal post I've previously seen moved, along with how many books you need, for 4e.)

Even going only through 1985, there are too many old RPGs to expect a 'grognard' to have played them all. With Internet publishing, new games probably match that in a year.

I think it's pretty reasonable to sort things into classes -- including "stinks to me just from reading a precis" -- without undertaking the unrealistic task of playing them all.

Where I have seen quite prominently an insistence on plain chronological superiority is among those fixated on the notion of "progress" in RPG design, confusing changes in fashion with objective improvement. Those who are familiar with the early scene, that of the 1970s-80s, are accustomed to there being a wide variety of things at once, different things for different tastes -- including the taste for one kind of thing on one occasion and another kind on another day.

 

[Aegeri]

Remember, kids, you've got to play it first.

Yes, to form an educated and coherent opinion on them I would. I have of that list only played FATAL and it is god awful in numerous ways. Nothing else takes my interest in the least though and as I don't ever feel to express an opinion on a game system I know nothing about why would I bother?

It's like you read my post, took random bits out of it and somewhere along the line completely failed to understand any of the points I made.

 

[Ariosto]

It's like you read my post, took random bits out of it and somewhere along the line completely failed to understand any of the points I made.

I could say the same thing of your post. However much time you have spent playing however many games you didn't like, there are orders of magnitude more that you have not played at all.

My post was about the fellows I have seen getting told, "Oh, no, you have to play it at least X months." And then, "Oh, no, you must get Books X, Y and Z and a DDI subscription." And then, "Well, maybe we could take your opinion seriously if you would only buy another $140 worth of books before passing judgment."

That's just obnoxious!

It's also damned hypocritical, coming from people who insist on principle that old games are just trash, because they are old.

That's what my post was about.