D&D General Why grognards still matter

[FrozenNorth]

Then you are not at all familiar with TLJ criticism lol. That's like saying "I've never heard anyone criticise TNG episode 2 for being racist" or something.

That wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that criticism of TLJ was “backfill” i.e. that criticism of the movie was because of racism and nostalgia. It wasn’t. It was a bad movie.

The fact that racists and people obsessed with nostalgia also hated it doesn’t make it not a bad movie.

And yes, if you undermine the premise of your movie, it makes the movie worse. Das Boot is a movie about a submarine crew that get trapped under the ocean and needs to fix the submarine to escape. If you then show multiple people leave the submarine than return without difficulty, you have broken suspension of disbelief.

TLJ was an extended chase scene between the First Order and the Resistance. During the chase scene, Finn and Rose left the ship, made a detour to Canto Blight, spent the night there, caught up with the First Order, caught up with the Resistance, then Rey caught up with the Resistance. It was like Looney Tunes when during a race Bugs Bunny pauses the race to set up a trap.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I mean, they do - groaning and moaning about earlier editions - hence the term grognard.

Which is why the OP’s post is critically flawed.

They took an exceeding broad definition of grognard to justify their argument that their marketing power was non-negligeable, but the broader definition also meant that the members don’t agree what, if anything, is wrong in the current edition.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I didn't like either of the last two in that trilogy. The first movie was likeable, but only because it was essentially a remake of A New Hope and could have served as a good kicking off point for future movies that were good. That didn't happen, though.

I gave up on TFA because it felt too much like a remake of A New Hope. It really made me reevaluate a Phantom Menace more positively, since Lucas tried to do something new with that film, even if he didn’t always succeed. Duel of the Fates was awesome.

 

[Parmandur]

It was a bad movie

Now, I'm not saying that your dislike is invalid or that you have to enjoy it...but that is not an agreed upon fact. It got an A from Cinemascore audience tests, and made big bucks at tge time. Even places where review bombing is rampant, like IMDB, ot has a 3.5 out of 5 average with a large percentage of the user reviews on the higher end.

It was a critical Home Run, too, o1% at Rotten Tomatoes and getting "Universal Acclaim" per MeraCritic:

 

[Chaosmancer]

Finally caught up to where I had first posted.

Um, did you not read the first paragraph of the OP where I wrote: I would think the target audience is the big part of the bell-curve of current D&D players, which is probably something like age 15-25 right now.

Yes, yes I did. I also read the part where you made the argument that because "grognards" buy products they are part of WoTC's target audience. Which is also true of every other demographic which buys WoTC's products.

Which, I'm guessing, is a topic of conversation at WotC, or a tension between (what they perceive to be) the younger audience's desired products and what older players will still fork out discretionary income on. And of course this is complicated by the fact that fans of all stripes have different sensibilities; there is no singular audience, even among different generations.

To be fair to WotC, it is virtually an impossible situation, with a huge player base spanning ages from roughly 10 to 70+. If the "bulge" in the bell-curve is 15-25, they can focus on that, but there's still a lot of folks on the older side of that who buy a significant amount of product and, as you say, there's the danger of losing too many of them. I suppose the disaster scenario would be if D&D morphs into something that distances a huge percentage of older players and cultural moment passes, and younger players move on.

So I would think the key is to focus on keeping as many of the "5E boomers" as possible, while still producing enough products to keep long-time players interested.
My personal take is that quality and fantasy fun win out in the long run. Good stories and interesting worlds - and somewhat of a broad umbrella (meaning, not too narrowly thematic or ideological). Dabble with specific themes, but come back to "this is a game of adventure, stories, and worlds - and everyone is invited."

See, and the bolded and underlined bits are why you keep getting pushback. Sure, "grognards" matter. That is a nothing statement akin to saying "women matter" or "veterans matter", there is nothing to consider or change because all you are stating is that a group we know exists and buys DnD products... exists and buys DnD products. There is nothing to that to justify a post of more than a sentence length. You don't have anything to prove with that statement.

But then we get to the "worry" part of the equation. The part where you say that WoTC should "come back" to a way of playing, that they should be "cautious" and keep as many "grognards" as possible playing. Which... isn't actually something you can support.

For example, there is at least one, maybe two self-identified "Grognards" in this thread who have not purchased a single product from the rules revision. They have in fact stated in the past that it has been a long time since they purchased a WoTC product. Meanwhile, I would not identify as a "Grognard" and out of the three books released, I have made 8 purchases. Between gifts for others and getting a spare in case I run a game in the future, I've purchased 4 2024 PHBs, 2 DMGs, and 2 MMs. So... what now? Not only have I purchased their entire "new" product line twice over, I plan on buying more of their books in the future. But if they pursued some of the things that would attract people who stopped playing years ago... then I would stop buying their books. I'm a "bird in the hand" and I'm largely happy with the direction they've gone in. As are all the other people my age who are buying these new books.

So... I doubt there is a tension on not driving away self-described "grognards" because they have already been driven away in large part, and if they haven't been... then they are fine with the direction the game is going. Remember, Matthew Mercer might very well be considered a Grognard, but many people who claim that title refer to him and his style with derision.

 

[Zardnaar]

I gave up on TFA because it felt too much like a remake of A New Hope. It really made me reevaluate a Phantom Menace more positively, since Lucas tried to do something new with that film, even if he didn’t always succeed. Duel of the Fates was awesome.

On the plus side I don't think TFA was unsalvagable. Bit to close to ANH sure but the potential was there imho.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Now obviously calling anyone over 25 a grognard is a bit silly, but the OP defines grognard by degree rather than as a binary.

Kind of odd to call your own post and argument silly. In fact, it kind of feels like you defined "grognard" in a silly way to make it seem like a larger group than it is, since you are counting people you wouldn't consider Grognards as Grognards.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think whales are probably more important.

Not sure what % of whales are grognards vs newer players who are super keen and willing to spend $$$$$

 

[SkidAce]

So... I doubt there is a tension on not driving away self-described "grognards" because they have already been driven away in large part, and if they haven't been... then they are fine with the direction the game is going. Remember, Matthew Mercer might very well be considered a Grognard, but many people who claim that title refer to him and his style with derision.

Just like you have both cool people and jerks, you also have both cool grognards and jerk ones.

I think Matt is very talented, and I see a lot of old school influence in the "way" he plays. I like it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Witcher died. She-Hulk died. Willow died. Do I need to bother with Disney Star Wars? Amazon's LotR? Phase 4-5 Marvel, Star Trek Disovery, Indiana Jones...
They didn't appease their hardcore fans, they went off script, appeased casual minority audiences, trashed the lore, trashed the hardcore fans, subverted the protagonists...

It's a little too early to say but what are your predictions on the James Bond franchise? Aren't you excited how they're gonna appeal now to a larger audience instead of us "terrible" hardcore fans....

I'm sure Rachel Zegler is gonna smash it out the park with their new take on Snow White

The MCU started because Disney took Iron Man, a C-List hero barely anyone cared about, and made a good movie with him.

Who did hardcore Marvel fans want to see on the big screen? The Fantastic Four. Who has never had a good movie? The Fantastic Four. Spider-Man had some good movies with the Ramey movies (which to my knowledge were the first major Spider-Man films), and Spider-man is huge... but how did the Amazing Spider-Man movies do? And what is the most popular Spider-Man movie franchise out there right now? Spider-Verse, who takes Miles Morales, who is not someone that hardcore marvel fans were advocating for.

There was a video I watched a while ago.... here it is

The guy lays out a harsh truth. The most hardcore of fans? They don't have good ideas for moving a franchise forward. They just want more of the same thing they have gotten in the past, which isn't a recipe for success. Because every actually successful project that becomes beloved alters something, it goes in a new direction, it changes our perspective on the product.