D&D General Why grognards still matter

I’ve been RPing for a long, long time. Since the late 90s. I bought one book: phb 3.5.

If purchasing power is the only thing that matters to the hobby, I practically don’t exist.
After many years of playing D&D, I once bought the 1989 players handbook and the Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide. This purchase was so powerful it tore a hole through the fabric of time, bringing me here, where people hurl insults like ‘Grognard’ and ‘boomer’. To add insult to injury, my 1989 money can barely buy me a box of raisins. Soon my fellow ‘grognards’ will follow me and we will overtake the hobby with our late 80s D&D art sensibilities. Aqua net hairdos will reign supreme !
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Your hot take on a Star Wars forum isn’t gonna change the franchise, even if that take gets hundreds of up votes. not how the world works.
Generally, I agree. However, when you look at Star Wars in particular, the fan base really raised Hell after Rian Johnson made changes to things. I clearly remember the uproar because of a random stablehand used the Force to grab a broom. And so we went back and had to have Palps return, and under Abrams, SW became all about playing the greatest hit.
 

By this definition, Grognards of some level clearly still matter, unless everyone working D&D at WotC is just 11 years old or younger. It seems highly unlikely to me that a large successful game company would be uninterested in any particular market segment. They might have to make choices that favor one over the other, and they clearly have. PDM has an interview with Mike Mearls from a week ago where Mearls notes that WotC should have paid more attention to existing players when designing 4e. The fact that a designer of 4e is aware of that reminded me that many of the folks who have worked on D&D and are still working on D&D today are gamers who love both the brand and the concept. They all fall somewhere on this Grognard spectrum.
 

Generally, I agree. However, when you look at Star Wars in particular, the fan base really raised Hell after Rian Johnson made changes to things. I clearly remember the uproar because of a random stablehand used the Force to grab a broom. And so we went back and had to have Palps return, and under Abrams, SW became all about playing the greatest hit.
Honestly, 5e is that same problem exemplified. A major shakeup of the property (4e/TLJ and the sequels in general) lead to a greatest hits mentality (5e/Mandoverse) that caters to fan service and memberberries. The old fans are placated but not appeased and every attempt to change or expand the property is met with scorn and derision. D&D 2024 is absolutely getting the same vitriol that The Acolyte did. And as long as the fandom demands the hits (and only the hits) be played, the property remains caught in a time warp.
 

Honestly, 5e is that same problem exemplified. A major shakeup of the property (4e/TLJ and the sequels in general) lead to a greatest hits mentality (5e/Mandoverse) that caters to fan service and memberberries. The old fans are placated but not appeased and every attempt to change or expand the property is met with scorn and derision. D&D 2024 is absolutely getting the same vitriol that The Acolyte did. And as long as the fandom demands the hits (and only the hits) be played, the property remains caught in a time warp.

When we complain though, people often tell us companies don't owe us anything. But I would point out the reverse is true, when film makers or game producers make movies, shows or games we aren't interested in, they aren't owed our business. I make games on a very small scale and while I would love for my games to sell more, blaming the customers, rather than looking at what I can to do increase their interest, is the wrong way to go in my opinion. Sometimes people want what is tried and true in their games, and they don't necessarily want that advances the system (and sometimes they do want advances). Part of design and art is figuring out how to connect to your audience. I think D&D's issue in this respect is it is the biggest game. So they will always have to find a sweet spot that appeals to the largest cross section of the fandom (same with Star Wars). There are plenty of smaller game companies doing all kinds of creative and interesting things, because they are not working with that very large D&D base that has built in expectations (and by the same token, science fiction shows and movies that aren't tied to an existing property or fanbase are a lot more free to experiment and do things a bit differently)
 

Generally, I agree. However, when you look at Star Wars in particular, the fan base really raised Hell after Rian Johnson made changes to things. I clearly remember the uproar because of a random stablehand used the Force to grab a broom. And so we went back and had to have Palps return, and under Abrams, SW became all about playing the greatest hit.
Star Wars are not a good example for that though. There were quite a lot of "how dare they do this to my beloved Star Wars!!" when Empire was released. It was just that fanzines and letter columns didn't have the feedback loop amplifier of the Internet so it was more or less isolated. But there has always been Star Wars fans that has hated Star Wars for any change or addition.
 

When we complain though, people often tell us companies don't owe us anything. But I would point out the reverse is true, when film makers or game producers make movies, shows or games we aren't interested in, they aren't owed our business. I make games on a very small scale and while I would love for my games to sell more, blaming the customers, rather than looking at what I can to do increase their interest, is the wrong way to go in my opinion. Sometimes people want what is tried and true in their games, and they don't necessarily want that advances the system (and sometimes they do want advances). Part of design and art is figuring out how to connect to your audience. I think D&D's issue in this respect is it is the biggest game. So they will always have to find a sweet spot that appeals to the largest cross section of the fandom (same with Star Wars). There are plenty of smaller game companies doing all kinds of creative and interesting things, because they are not working with that very large D&D base that has built in expectations (and by the same token, science fiction shows and movies that aren't tied to an existing property or fanbase are a lot more free to experiment and do things a bit differently)
However, the issue with the "big tent" franchises is that people who were part of the in-group dislike what's going on, leave the tent, and then sit outside the tent and loudly criticize the tent for all to hear. I've been through so many "X left me behind, woe is me" tales I instinctively recoil at them. Its okay for a property to no longer be your bag. But it seems a lot of people who supposed leave can't let go, so they hang around badmouthing the Ex even though they totally blocked them and are perfectly happy seeing other people.
 

I don't have any problems with your definitions but emotionally I have a hard time thinking of anyone who was playing 3.x or 4E as a grognard. Man, I am old. Sigh....
painful post isn't it. Don't feel bad I"m only a year away from Grandmaster Grognard, except for playing with Gary I meet all the other requirements. Hopefully they have a Gamers nursing home for us.....
 

Star Wars are not a good example for that though. There were quite a lot of "how dare they do this to my beloved Star Wars!!" when Empire was released. It was just that fanzines and letter columns didn't have the feedback loop amplifier of the Internet so it was more or less isolated. But there has always been Star Wars fans that has hated Star Wars for any change or addition.
To be fair, D&D players hate nothing more than any other version of D&D that isn't their current go-to.
 

Remove ads

Top