No it's not, as far as I'm concerned.
A grognard is somebody who does not play new rpgs.
A grognard is somebody who does not play new rpgs.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Grognard good...grognard bad
- Thread starter Silverblade The Ench
- Start date
Odhanan
Adventurer
Your definition is thus specific to your opinion, as far as you're concerned. I daresay that in this instance, your opinion does not reflect a consensus on the question of what a Grognard is, and is not. Far from it.
maddman75 said:
Before getting into those specifics, let us note that you are committing an error that one might have hoped would be too obvious by now. The notion that it is sensible to judge on the basis of chronology has been pretty soundly deprecated, precisely as the supposedly defining and damning flaw of the 'grognard'!
What, like "toss a coin to settle any question"? Yes, obviously it could not be the case that people considered and rejected it in favor of tailoring 'resolution mechanics' to the situation at hand, could it?
That's more intuitive?? Yeah, it's a real shame nobody thought of that before Mark Rein*Hagen. (Or was it part of the Ghostbusters game?)
Rolling a handful of dice? T&T, 1975. Counting "successes"? Tons of wargames rules-sets before then (including D&D-progenitor Chainmail). 'Exploding' dice? T&T, 1975.
I would say that the great recent advances have actually been in making things even more counter-intuitive. It's pretty easy to figure odds in OD&D, even for combinations of rolls. Nowadays, designers seem to consider it not complicated enough if it doesn't require advanced maths -- of which they tend then to demonstrate the tenuousness of their own grasp!
I don't see this at all, I am afraid, in terms of what "people have thought of". Good design principles tend to go back a long time. Whether people can afford to apply them is another matter. Heck, computer and printing technology has facilitated publication of a lot of horrible design!
Do you mean to insist that, say, the sometimes nearly illegible style of 3e D&D was better than all prior graphic art? How does that fit in with WotC dumping it and going back to an old-fashioned use of type and white space with 4e?
What has this to do with the fact that many of the people who produce or enjoy, e.g., OSRIC and Knockspell call themselves 'grognards'? What has it to do with the fact that James Maliszewski, co-proprietor of Rogue Games and creator of, e.g., The Cursed Chateau and Thousand Suns, also writes the 'Grognardia' blog?
How does, e.g., Greg Bell fit into this scheme of "every day, in every way ..."? Do you think Gygax never thought of replacing him before TSR had the budget for folks such as those who illustrated Supplement III? Is the Thomas Kinkade-ish work of Larry Elmore superior to the phantasmagoria of Erol Otus except as a matter of personal preference?
Is Wayne Reynolds a 'better' artist than Peter Mullen? Is he even better than Frank Frazetta, better still than Howard Pyle, and ever so much more better than Michelangelo?
The Blackmoor dungeon campaign began in late 1970, and D&D was published in 1974. The first DMG was released in 1979, Gygax having continued revision of the same basic framework along with additions and revisions that had been published in the Supplements and The Strategic Review/The Dragon. TSR-D&D continued to refer back to that work in later editions, rather than "reinvent the wheel". Millions of people played the games.
Maybe some p&p RPGs get more playtesting today, and if so then good on that. On the other hand, I have seen an awful lot of errata.
In any case, it is just incredible naïveté to suppose that more extensive playtesting is something "no one had thought of" prior to whatever it is you have in mind!
"The game" lacks volition. It is the designer who wants to deliver something -- and focus on that is what design is. This claim of yours is just total nonsense.
Last edited:
Nope, that only applies to you, not to me. The consensus is a grognard is is somebody who doesn't play new rpgs.
And your statement is entirely ironic concerning a very recent post about tolerance and being right is serious business.
Odhanan
Adventurer
Nope. Your definition is specific to your own bias, sorry to say.
I really don't care much about "serious business" memes that make geeks somehow claim they're "less geek" than "these geeks, you know, the ones who are really geeks, you know?". Whatever. I'm not "normal", whatever "normal" is supposed to be. Sue me.
Last edited:
Nope. Your definition is specific to your own bias, sorry to say.
I really don't care much about "serious business" memes that make geeks somehow claim they're "less geek" than "these geeks, you know, the ones who are really geeks, you know?". Whatever. I'm not "normal", whatever "normal" is supposed to be. Sue me.
Nope, it's just your opinion that is specific to your own bias, sorry to say. This is fun.
Your name is now Sue. Since your name was changed to Sue, you have been Sued.
Ummm, NO!
Have you learned nothing from EnWorld? The red sauce is mixed with ANCHOVIES!
Sheesh!
Except "your" opinion is not relevent to that group though and should be dismissed, henced avoiding conflict and/or "feeding the trolls". Trying to impress one's opinion on that group is what some say is the mark of a grognard. Yes, one's negative, irrelevant opinion (forcibly) interjected in to a discussion about the positive aspects of the topic at hand is the heart of grognardia. (regardless of the topic at-hand)
Obryn
Hero
This thread is pleasing to the Ebon Dragon.
Similar Threads
