D&D General Why grognards still matter

[Umbran]

Now there are allegedly tens of millions of players, maybe 5-10 times as many as there were 20 years ago. No one knows, except for perhaps a few folks at WotC, but certainly they talk big.

We still buy a higher percentage of books than kidz these daze.

We matter, economically speaking.

With all due respect, if you have already admitted that you don't know the player demographics, you cannot then reasonably state that grognards are particularly important economically.

We don't know the demographic breakdown of the sales numbers. We should not make claims on such.

 

[Mercurius]

To be fair, there has been rather a lot of that on the forum in the past, and the internet at large.

I get that, but it is a small--if vocal--minority of grognards with certain attitudes, none of which I personally expressed in the OP or this thread. There's also been rather a lot of "ok boomerism" about any statement that doesn't embrace the Latest Thing wholeheartedly. It cuts both ways. As I said above, I personally am not a big fan of strawman tribalism where everyone has to be in one extreme or the other.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

In real life people are much more polite to one another. I can't recall the last time anyone has insulted me to my face or dismissed me to my face. This isn't about hurt feelings. It is about people provoking other posters anger by dismissing them in conversations. If you are trying to have a conversation about games and someone says "okay boomer" or "grognards complains about 'meh edition'" that will make someone react negatively want to say something like "you might call me a grognard but we still buy books". I don't think this is that outrageous of a position

Nope. My immediate response is to be pleasant and cooperative unless someone was genuinely antagonistic. This includes people with way different life views and gaming preferences. At least for the short term, real contact usually melts away the negative.

Now if I tried to meet regularly for a campaign and someone was consistently disruptive, that is a different thing.

 

[Mercurius]

With all due respect, if you have already admitted that you don't know the player demographics, you cannot then reasonably state that grognards are particularly important economically.

We don't know the demographic breakdown of the sales numbers. We should not make claims on such.

I'll make the statement again, but alter it slightly to be more palatable: I believe that older players still matter and buy a significant amount of product - at least enough to "matter."

Is there anything wrong with that amended statement, in your eyes?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, fixating on specifics is, imo, a distraction. My main point is that grognards (in the broad sense of the word) still matter, and yes, because they buy a lot of books. I don't think that's the only reason, but I was mostly making a rather innocuous statement that several posters took as some sort of manifesto for grognard entitlement. To me that points to the problem of tribalism that I have no interest in (partially because I eschew tribes!).

So nothing about that interpretation is even remotely your fault and it's all on everyone else, gotcha. Literally no point whatsoever arguing with that.

 

[Mercurius]

So nothing about that interpretation is even remotely your fault and it's all on everyone else, gotcha. Literally no point whatsoever arguing with that.

Depends what part. I agree I could have been more clear about speaking from opinion about sales, and to emphasize that regardless of sales my main point is that it is enough to matter. In other words, I probably should have phrased it as I did with my response to Umbran a couple posts back: I believe that older players still matter and buy a significant amount of product - at least enough to "matter."

But the "grognards still matter = matter the most" part is entirely on those that took it that way. I said absolutely nothing to that effect, nor did I imply that.

What is strange to me is that you're more interested in arguing secondary specifics than addressing the overall point, except as a way to negate that point which, considering it is a statement of inclusion, is kind of weird.

What is wrong with suggesting that grognards still matter? Why is that at all controversial?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What is wrong with suggesting that grognards still matter? Why is that at all controversial?

You know that wasn't all you were arguing or you could have said "We matter because we're 12.5% of the playerbase!" (or whatever the exact figure is) and dispensed with anything else.

Also you're saying "I'm against tribalism" whilst talking about a group (a tribe one might say) of people who disagree with you and implying they have common cause and goals (hmmm), which is pretty funny stuff.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I thought the OPs intent was pretty clear and reasonable. People can quibble over the implications but holding the poster down to the portions they said they would happily rephrase doesn’t seem charitable

 

[Bedrockgames]

Nope. My immediate response is to be pleasant and cooperative unless someone was genuinely antagonistic. This includes people with way different life views and gaming preferences. At least for the short term, real contact usually melts away the negative.

Now if I tried to meet regularly for a campaign and someone was consistently disruptive, that is a different thing.

In person I find there is almost never an upside to being negative with people or antagonistic. It is usually pretty easy to smooth over things that online spiral out of control. Not that it is perfect. Everyone has their moments. But in real life being nice can go a long way to pull someone back from taking things in a negative direction

 

[Mercurius]

You know that wasn't all you were arguing or you could have said "We matter because we're 12.5% of the playerbase!" (or whatever the exact figure is) and dispensed with anything else.

Now I'm actually a bit confused about what you think I'm arguing, as it seems that you know more about what I was arguing than I do.

Also you're saying "I'm against tribalism" whilst talking about a group (a tribe one might say) of people who disagree with you and implying they have common cause and goals (hmmm), which is pretty funny stuff.

What I observe are several posters insisting I'm saying something that I didn't actually say, something akin to grognard entitlement, or "grognards matter more." I have no idea if there is common cause and goals, but there are similar patterns: like a marginalization of older players (for whatever reason) and/or false assumptions about what I actually meant.