D&D General In defence of Grognardism

[Bedrockgames]

You just described exactly why I consider the term problematic.

Mind you, I don't personally take issue with the term when used, although I'm able to comprehend why others do. It's why I use quotation marks when I refer to it (to denote that I am using terminology and distinguish it from the natural use of those words). I actually enjoy engaging in "skilled play", I just think that it's a bad, loaded term, and I would never refer to it that way outside of something like a D&D message board.

I don't know. I think it is just a handy term. Obviously you should use whatever terminology you are most comfortable with. I have never really encountered anyone taking issue with it outside a handful of discussions on this forum. To me it is just a positive descriptor. Lots of play styles use them because people are enthusiastic about their style and the terms they adopt early on usually reflect that. To me its only a problem if the people playing the style find it insulting. For example if people who like to optimize were adamant that power gaming was an insult and they didn't use it themselves I don't think I would use it to describe that style of play. However what I wouldn't do, is automatically a assume that a person who is describing their game as a 'power gaming style' in any way means my style must therefore be weak. I get that they are using the term to invoke a certain set of ideas and then they can explain specifically what they mean when they drill down. But power gaming, skilled play, optimization, people who play styles that place a premium on character agency, freedom to explore, etc, are just useful plain and simple English to describe a style. The advantage of them is they don't sound like overly academic or obtuse terms, which is why I prefer them. They just kind of cut to the heart of what the style is all about in a clear way (sometimes being playful with language----which I think there is nothing wrong with). I find what often happens when I enter these discussions is rather than even talk about the style we spend pages and pages dissecting the terms, and once those terms are dissected and taken away, I just personally feel it is a lot harder to even try to convey what I mean anymore.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think its easy to miss that there are absolutely people who use "Skilled Play" in the judgmental way some people are reading it. So to suggest that the reader should be able to distinguish them automatically from people using it as a term of art is, I think,a bit much. As I said, you can not like that words have a connotational meaning in addition to a denotational one, but if so you've at least partly asked for a communication breakdown.

 

[MichaelSomething]

How about using "Gygaxian skilled play"? Would that help? It's a bit more specific.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How about using "Gygaxian skilled play"? Would that help? It's a bit more specific.

Personally, yes; it makes it very clear its a term-of-art and contextualizes it.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

I utterly reject, and have rejected since its use in the hobby, the term Grognard as it relates to myself. As a designer I promote and recognize OD&D-tenants (and by extension other games & systems espousing its implicit philosophies) as a crucible for creative design trajectories far outstripping the games that preceded its advent, and that also allows, through its hands-on application, for manifesting Mastery paths. Thus, in hindsight and after many years of not caring to type "what I was in relation to design," I have since settled upon "Classicism" as a moniker cum "school", but this is hardly a holistic summary and I fear, due to persisting evolution, must remain so.

 

[Marc Radle]

I don't know. I think it is just a handy term. Obviously you should use whatever terminology you are most comfortable with. I have never really encountered anyone taking issue with it outside a handful of discussions on this forum. To me it is just a positive descriptor. Lots of play styles use them because people are enthusiastic about their style and the terms they adopt early on usually reflect that. To me its only a problem if the people playing the style find it insulting. For example if people who like to optimize were adamant that power gaming was an insult and they didn't use it themselves I don't think I would use it to describe that style of play. However what I wouldn't do, is automatically a assume that a person who is describing their game as a 'power gaming style' in any way means my style must therefore be weak. I get that they are using the term to invoke a certain set of ideas and then they can explain specifically what they mean when they drill down. But power gaming, skilled play, optimization, people who play styles that place a premium on character agency, freedom to explore, etc, are just useful plain and simple English to describe a style. The advantage of them is they don't sound like overly academic or obtuse terms, which is why I prefer them. They just kind of cut to the heart of what the style is all about in a clear way (sometimes being playful with language----which I think there is nothing wrong with). I find what often happens when I enter these discussions is rather than even talk about the style we spend pages and pages dissecting the terms, and once those terms are dissected and taken away, I just personally feel it is a lot harder to even try to convey what I mean anymore.

Just a friendly reminder … the return key is there to split long walls of text into paragraphs

 

[nedjer]

Old school, thou shalt make rulings.
New school, thou shalt apply rules.
College, rulings within the spirit of the rules.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

I have to say, the discourse around "player skill" turned me off to the OSR initially. Especially when conversations around what that means call the players "stupid" for doing something that results in character death. It's a condescending and not particularly descriptive way of talking about a playstyle (because other play styles also involve "skill" of one kind or another). When I try to sell OSR style games to my players, I don't say things like "if you do something stupid your character will die."

Now that I've gotten into the OSR and learned more about different games and different playstyles more generally, the phrase bothers me less because I have a context. I might say that it is a style of play where the story is "emergent," or if that's too jargony (it is), just say that it revolves more around strategy than tactics, more around the conversation at the table than any set of rules.

The term "skilled play" misses the mark because the alleged "player skill" relies almost entirely on the GM's subjective interpretation of the fictional world. Something that is "skillful" in the eyes of one GM might be considered foolhardy by another. As an example, let us say that a player wants to smoke out a goblin nest and drive the goblins out, so he purchases alchemist's fire, coal, and a hearty stash of logs. To one GM, this plan is brilliant; to another, the closed quarters of the cavern will quickly stifle the flames and could suffocate the players.

Rarely is "skilled play" discussed from the GM's perspective. "Skillful GMing" clarifies task/intent, telegraphs dangers and risks, and doesn't involve silly "gotcha!" traps that exist to instagib player characters. I recall reading one GM talking about a trap being a medusa's head in a chest and if the players were foolish enough to open the chest, they were instantly turned to stone without a save (as they could not avert their gaze in time). That's unskilled GMing and an example of badwrongfun OSR gaming, from my perspective. If the players are cool with it, fine, but I wouldn't play with a GM like that in the same way that I won't play with GMs who railroad or call for skill checks for every minor action the players take.

 

[Mallus]

The term "skilled play" misses the mark because the alleged "player skill" relies almost entirely on the GM's subjective interpretation of the fictional world. Something that is "skillful" in the eyes of one GM might be considered foolhardy by another.

"A bug to some. A feature to others!"

(say it out loud doing a Nicol Williamson impersonation)

 

[GuyBoy]

I utterly reject, and have rejected since its use in the hobby, the term Grognard as it relates to myself. As a designer I promote and recognize OD&D-tenants (and by extension other games & systems espousing its implicit philosophies) as a crucible for creative design trajectories far outstripping the games that preceded its advent, and that also allows, through its hands-on application, for manifesting Mastery paths. Thus, in hindsight and after many years of not caring to type "what I was in relation to design," I have since settled upon "Classicism" as a moniker cum "school", but this is hardly a holistic summary and I fear, due to persisting evolution, must remain so.

I’m not keen on the term either. Maybe I shouldn’t have used it in the original post, but I guess it carries recognition.
That said, I’m thinking back to 15 year old me, playing D&D in late 1970s and if someone had told me that 40 years on, I’d still be playing and communicating with Rob Kuntz in a discussion about that game, I’d be pretty enthralled.
Thanks for everything, Rob.