Grognard good...grognard bad

[Raven Crowking]

I'm quite happy that WotC kept the name "D&D" for their flagship game, because it helps make the game a financial success, and hence supported with new mechanical and flavour elements, in a way that a different name would probably not have.

I'm honestly pretty neutral about that, now that I am playing RCFG. I can convert a 4e module in about the same time as I can convert a 1e module, in about the same time as I can convert a MERP module, etc. The label no longer matters.

My point was that the position re: earlier vs. newer editions was inconsistent. There seems, to me, to be a great desire to be linked by name to the older game while disparaging both it and those who enjoy it. AFAICT, there is an unspoken argument in the undercurrent of this thread, in effect, "Prefering older editions is an implicit slam against 4e".

IMHO, what get known as the "sacred cows" are often what may be considered the "defining characteristics". When you remove the defining characteristics, but retain the name, at best you dilute what that name means.

My point was that it is this dilution of identity which, AFAICT and IMHO, is generally actually behind "edition wars". If 4e had been called WOTCFG, I doubt there would have been enough volleys to consitute even a minor "edition skirmish".

I don't know about you, but I also get tired of "It's new and improved! And also exactly the same!" If every discussion of editions devolves from "Look at all these exciting changes!" to "No, nothing has changed" if anyone at all suggests that they don't like some change, then how am I supposed to know what ideas are worth stealing?



RC

 

[Scribble]

The issue at hand is "grognard = bad". It is not really concerned with "old and new games". It is concerned with 'editions' of one particular game.

Personally I think it boils down to Gamers can never seem to even agree on basic definitions of words!

Is Groganrd defined as: Someone who prefers old versions of games to new ones (for whatever reason.)

or

Is Grognard defined as: Someone who deems new games as being wrongbadfun based solely on the fact that they are new.

We need to go visit The Great Owl.

I don't know about you, but I also get tired of "It's new and improved! And also exactly the same!" If every discussion of editions devolves from "Look at all these exciting changes!" to "No, nothing has changed" if anyone at all suggests that they don't like some change, then how am I supposed to know what ideas are worth stealing?

I think it's possible for the details to change while the fundamental ideas of what those details are trying to promote remains the same.

I think the disagreements happen when one person is talking fundamentals and the other is talking details.

As above though- The Great Owl should help.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"How many licks does it take to get to the centre of a tootsie-pop?"

That great owl?

EDIT: I also think a problem arises when one person is talking about the fundamental ideas not having changed, where the other person sees the fundamental ideas of the previous editions as being very different. I think that we have to be able to discuss the changes that have actually occured, and their game effects (good and bad, as all changes involve some form of tradeoff....as do the rules they changed from). What is "fundamental" and what is "detail" isn't always clear (or even often, I would hazard).


RC

 

[Scribble]

"How many licks does it take to get to the centre of a tootsie-pop?"

That great owl?

Nah (Although that one IS wise...) I'm refering to this one:

EDIT: I also think a problem arises when one person is talking about the fundamental ideas not having changed, where the other person sees the fundamental ideas of the previous editions as being very different. I think that we have to be able to discuss the changes that have actually occured, and their game effects (good and bad, as all changes involve some form of tradeoff....as do the rules they changed from). What is "fundamental" and what is "detail" isn't always clear (or even often, I would hazard).RC

I can agree with that. Trouble seems to start when people think the fundamentals and details relate in the same way universally I guess.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The Secret of NIMH?

 

[Scribble]

The Secret of NIMH?

Indeed!

 

[rogueattorney]

Personally I think it boils down to Gamers can never seem to even agree on basic definitions of words!

Is Groganrd defined as: Someone who prefers old versions of games to new ones (for whatever reason.)

or

Is Grognard defined as: Someone who deems new games as being wrongbadfun based solely on the fact that they are new.

We need to go visit The Great Owl.

Considering no one actually exists who falls under the second proposed definition, I propose we go with the first definition.

 

[Scribble]

Considering no one actually exists who falls under the second proposed definition, I propose we go with the first definition.

Shrug.

I'm not trying to say the word is a good word, or that it's appropriately used, or even that it ever really SHOULD be used, or could be used appropriately at all, nor am I seeking to actively apply it to anyone in the thread.

In my own travels I've seen the second use crop up most often. (Aside from some of the new websites using the term.)

Whether or not it really applied to the person it was being applied to?
Dunno- Probably not though.

But that just means the person using it was applying it inappropriately, as opposed to the word suddenly having a new meaning.


Also I think your use of the words no one is kind of strong. I'd be willing to bet that somewhere out there there's at least one guy who hates new stuff just because it's new.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Considering no one actually exists who falls under the second proposed definition, I propose we go with the first definition.

I like things purely because they are new so I don't see why those who have the exactly opposite view couldn't exist. Ggroy said upthread that he knows a number of people like that IRL. After all there are fans of antiques, and what is the one factor linking antiques?

People are way, way too concerned with giving a justification for their tastes in rpging. They feel that their tastes must be based on logic and reason and argument or they are worthless. Not so. Rpgs are entertainment. They only exist because we like them. And our likes, our loves, our passions are all based on emotion.

The emotion, positive or negative, comes first. The argument that comes after is merely a justification for the emotion, not a reason for it.

 

[maddman75]

Considering no one actually exists who falls under the second proposed definition, I propose we go with the first definition.

How I wish this were true.

Grognard literally means 'grumbler'. How is someone a grognard if they aren't grumbling?