D&D General In defence of Grognardism

[Sacrosanct]

I guess maybe I was also still a bit sore about the damage Ernie Gygax et al did to how older gamers are often perceived. It was certainly interesting ( in a sad way) that at least one respondent chose to use “boomer” in a pejorative manner as part of their response.

I think we're all a bit sore over that. And to add insult to injury, apparently LaNassa and crew are abandoning the TSR logos they celebrated so hard about acquiring in the first place. They literally took a classic logo, wiped their bottoms with it making it toxic and disgusting, and then threw it away. The fact that they keep hollering about how they are the true OSR and grognards while destroying the very thing they claim to view as sacrosanct (no pun intended) has to be one of the more ironic things to happen this year.

 

[Nefermandias]

As long as you realize "familiar and comfortable" does not mean "more challenging and intellectual and whatever other positive value judgments I'm going to assign to my personal preferences", I'm good with this.

Speaking as a late Cold War -- "The Day After" era -- kid myself.

If we consider the continued survival of one's PC as a win state, then I'd say yes, older editions were more challenging. That's just plain fact.

 

[Mercurius]

"Grognard" seems like just another label of identification that is used to justify a particular style of play and/or set of assumptions and approaches. And there's nothing wrong with that. For those who take issue with it, I would simply ask to compare it to other self-chosen identifications that you might defend, and recognize that all such "counter to the norm" or mainstream identities require some degree of "circling the wagons" or protectionism.

A grognard is someone who identifies as a grognard and, because it is no longer the dominant or mainstream approach to play, often feels they have to defend or justify it. They shouldn't have to. As a general rule, people shouldn't have to justify their identity or personal preferences, at least insofar as they do no harm to others.

Anyhow, I am reminded of vinyl fans and wonder where the line is between "I like vinyl because it sounds better, with a warmer tone" and "I like vinyl because it's old and cool." In some sense it doesn't matter, but the former is interesting in terms of asking: Which elements of grognardism are unique or beneficial to a more syncretic or post-traditional approach to gaming?

Meaning, vinyl has something that cassettes, CDs, and mp3s don't: an actual physical, auditory difference that some audiophiles (vinyl enthusiasts) enjoy. Some music listeners, such as myself, aren't tied to one particular medium, but have vinyl collections because of the whole experience: the tactile nature of the record, the crackle, the warm tone, the covers. I'm not a "vinyl purist" by any means and mostly listen to music online, but I incorporate it into my overall listening experience.

So back to the question: what is the "warm tone" of grognardism, or even simply the "tactile experience" that is unique to that style and era of play, and has been "digitized" or left behind in later eras? And can it be ported over? I think so; in fact, I think that's what "old school" is about. And why, for instance, many people like Dyson Logos's maps, or even actual polyhedral dice to random number generators. It wasn't old school back then, but it is now, and one can incorporate old school elements within a broader context that includes elements of everything that came after, and even be frame in a contemporary game structure.

 

[CleverNickName]

I guess if I were forced to define it in my own words, I would say: A Grognard is someone who loudly prefers an older set of rules.

Which would mean I'm only mostly a grognard. My love of the BECM rules is no secret, but I don't hammer on about it constantly the way some folks do with other editions, trying to insert it into every forum discussion I can find.

 

[TheSword]

I guess if I were forced to define it in my own words, I would say: A Grognard is someone who loudly prefers an older set of rules.

Which would mean I'm only mostly a grognard. My love of the BECM rules is no secret, but I don't hammer on about it constantly the way some folks do with other editions, trying to insert it into every forum discussion I can find.

I don’t think you have to be loud to be a grognard. The point is that these old soldiers were experienced and their long and faithful service had earned the right to complain even in front of Napoleon.

They can have opinions but it doesn’t been they are on a recruitment drive. I also feel the same way about people who don’t clean up after their dog messes, parents who let their children have TVs in their rooms, and the general poor quality of reality TV.

I’m a grumbler, not a spiritual leader. I don’t expect things to change… in fact that’s just another reason to grumble.

 

[Marc_C]

Gronardism is so year 2000...

 

[Marc_C]

I guess if I were forced to define it in my own words, I would say: A Grognard is someone who loudly prefers an older set of rules.

Which would mean I'm only mostly a grognard. My love of the BECM rules is no secret, but I don't hammer on about it constantly the way some folks do with other editions, trying to insert it into every forum discussion I can find.

Do we have a name for those you hammer constantly about FATE & PTBA in any D&D EnWorld thread?

 

[Mallus]

If we consider the continued survival of one's PC as a win state, then I'd say yes, older editions were more challenging. That's just plain fact.

What if we generally assume survival and consider creation of amusing fictional characters (and their exploits) as the win state?

It's more or less what every group I've been in has done, and I started with AD&D.

 

[Marc_C]

What if we generally assume survival and consider creation of amusing fictional characters (and their exploits) as the win state?

It's more or less what every group I've been in has done, and I started with AD&D.

Indeed. I agree with this. I started with Basic and we really didn't like random deaths all the time. It defeated the purpose of having levels up to 14 (with Expert) so we 'fixed' the game and introduced a soft win state. You didn't die unless you did a 'Wisdom 3 Action'. That was in 1982.

 

[Nefermandias]

What if we generally assume survival and consider creation of amusing fictional characters (and their exploits) as the win state?

It's more or less what every group I've been in has done, and I started with AD&D.

That would still make older editions more challenging compared to the current one, since your amusing fictional character have to be alive in order to have any development.

But that's beside the point. I was just responding to the guy who implied older editions weren't challenging. That's just not the case.