D&D General Why grognards still matter

[Micah Sweet]

Is it? Iron Man has long been an Avenger, but he was hardly the top-flight, everyone-loves-him character that he became because of Mr. Downey's performance. As a film, Iron Man definitely does do some of this thing, and it's a pattern you see in plenty of other entertainment spaces. Remember when we had the era of (alleged) "WoW-killer" MMOs? Not a single one of them succeeded. The thing that finally took WoW down a peg, that finally got people into another game...was WoW itself failing to deliver. From what I've heard, they've turned the ship around and the fans are largely hopeful again (I made my peace with WoW long ago), but it's going to take more than two successful expansions to win back the goodwill they lost.

Or consider Watchmen. Not the film--the "graphic novel". Watchmen is a good story (albeit not for the reasons many of its fanchildren love it!), but it and a couple of other similar comic stories from around that time (such as God Loves, Man Kills) almost directly inspired the so-called "Dark Age" of comics, where everyone had grim and gritty reboots and all the new heroes had edgier-than-thou sobriquets like Deathbloom or Bloodnyte or whatever with kriaytyve spellyng and outfits that showed lots of T&A and used guns and knives and probably did drugs etc., etc., etc.

It's not a strawman to say that it's quite common to see a popular and well-made thing that worked, and then a whole passel of imitators came along, trying to distill out only the secret sauce without really understanding or putting in the necessary effort. It's no guarantee, but it certainly isn't uncommon either. Further, many sequels suffer tremendously from what various groups (I first encountered it in music) call "sophomore syndrome/slump", where a first attempt does incredibly well and a second attempt...doesn't. Consider the different responses to Avatar: the Last Airbender and Avatar: the Legend of Korra. LoK was actually okay, though it made a number of stumbles and not all of them can be blamed on executive meddling. (Seriously, deleting Korra's past-life connections--literally forcing a shattering of spiritual traditions, a forgetting of one's past and where one came from, in order to integrate into modern society!!--was....not a good look and not well-handled. To say nothing of its piss-poor handling of spirits...but I digress.)

Point being: True sequels are hard. Merely following the outline of a previous successful work is even harder, and often fails...but people keep trying anyway.


I....think you are misunderstanding. There wasn't one. Raimi (not "Ramey") directed the first Spider-Man film in over 20 years. And, like Iron Man, it got two sequels and then petered out (no pun intended.)


Oh, believe me, I'm quite well aware. It's usually my generation they're trying to pander to with these things. I call it "Instant Nostalgia"; we're getting "live-action remakes" of animated films that, in some cases, aren't even a decade old. And for most of them, the fact that it's live-action is literally the only thing going for them.


I mean...I don't think that's that far off-base? There's a reasonable thesis there. Whether it was well-defended is a different question, but "taking a somewhat obscure character and making a good film about them" has some teeth to it. I'd want to more carefully analyze the sample set, to be sure, but...well, I mean, I used ATLA and TLK for a reason, ATLA definitely was a risky and fairly experimental concept but it is still beloved and cited frequently, while TLK (for a variety of reasons, as noted above) is...not as well-received.

In the end I still liked TLK. The Red Lotus (and all of season 3) in particular were excellent. And most of the worldbuilding in season 2 was quite good. And season 1 dealt with an issue (benders vs. Non-benders) they really needed the attention, even if it could have been executed better. Season 4 was fine too.

 

[GrimCo]

I'm expert grognard playing with couple of fresh master grognards. And in the grand scheme of things, we don't matter. Yes, my disposable income is higher than those of HS/colledge kids. But on the other hand i probably buy less stuff than most of them. As a group, we chip in and buy books for our group. That's 2 phbs, 1 mm, 1 dmg, tasha, xanathar. Ok, i bought Van Richtens and CoS cause i love Ravenloft and my brother bought Starter set for his other group. Over 10 years, that's very little money from 6 grognards.

 

[Maxperson]

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 $$$$$

This one clearly is.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm expert grognard playing with couple of fresh master grognards. And in the grand scheme of things, we don't matter. Yes, my disposable income is higher than those of HS/colledge kids. But on the other hand i probably buy less stuff than most of them. As a group, we chip in and buy books for our group. That's 2 phbs, 1 mm, 1 dmg, tasha, xanathar. Ok, i bought Van Richtens and CoS cause i love Ravenloft and my brother bought Starter set for his other group. Over 10 years, that's very little money from 6 grognards.

My group is very much the same, a factor is likely also the exchange rate and courier costs, but this has been my experience (at least with my players).

 

[GrimCo]

For 2024 version, all 3 books were 45 euros a piece in local game shop, with free delivery for orders above 80 euros. So it was 135 e for full set of 2024 rules, divided by 6 of us, that's bit over 20 euros per person. And we are good for some time. 2014 were also in similar range, about 40-45 euros from amazon.de with free shipping, there were some actions and discounts, so all total, we spent around 350-370 euros . 60 e per person in 10 years. For comparison, one round of drinks for 6 of us in our favorite bar is 30 euros ( and everyone buys a round).

 

[The Firebird]

I'm expert grognard playing with couple of fresh master grognards. And in the grand scheme of things, we don't matter. Yes, my disposable income is higher than those of HS/colledge kids. But on the other hand i probably buy less stuff than most of them. As a group, we chip in and buy books for our group. That's 2 phbs, 1 mm, 1 dmg, tasha, xanathar. Ok, i bought Van Richtens and CoS cause i love Ravenloft and my brother bought Starter set for his other group. Over 10 years, that's very little money from 6 grognards.

I'm also in the 'expert' category. I think it is a real income stream; the development of "Original Adventures Reincarnated" and efforts to sell that older material shows that WotC is aware of it. But it's not enough of a priority for them to produce new content in house for that audience.

Interestingly, in that Questing Beast interview, Mearls mentioned that part of what they looked at when making 5e was sales of the Rules Cyclopedia pdfs, which he said were a substantial chunk of their 4e revenue.

I think grognards have more disposable income but spread it around much more. When you look at the superfans in their 20s, like Bob World Builder (idk his actual age), you see shelves full of WotC products. The same happened when I got into 3.5; I own dozens of those books. I spend even more now, but its largely on other content (Shadowdark, DCC, OSE, and the like), and WotC only in a blue moon. Even if they targeted me more specifically I think that would be the case. By the point someone has such mature interest in D&D, they're more aware of other offerings and harder to market to.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I'm on the cusp between Master and Grandmaster, but I've always considered the "real" grognards to be those who were serious wargamers/miniatures players before D&D. The SPI fans.

I don't think I matter anymore, as I haven't bought new stuff since the 3.5e days. A few retro-things, yes, mostly PDF versions of print material in my library that's getting ragged. But after 3.5e, D&D lost me.

(OTOH, AD&D 2e was fast losing me too (to other systems), until 3.0 came out. So WOTC or some third party might publish something to bring me back to buying and using current, non-homebrew material - but I don't see that as likely.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In the end I still liked TLK. The Red Lotus (and all of season 3) in particular were excellent. And most of the worldbuilding in season 2 was quite good. And season 1 dealt with an issue (benders vs. Non-benders) they really needed the attention, even if it could have been executed better. Season 4 was fine too.

Well that was kind of my point. LoK was a lot of "it was fine", only occasionally rising to greatness or falling into something really bluh, especially if compared and contrasted to the original show. In isolation, accounting for the apparently expansive executive meddling, it's a better-than-average teenage-targeted show.

In comparison to ATLA, it's a pretty clear and obvious downgrade, and one that even manages to weaken the previous show via retcons. Which sucks, because I like the idea of Korra the character and, as you say, the philosophy behind some of the factions (even if some of them...paraticularly the Red Lotus...really don't make sense with the lore other than because of the frustrating retcons.)

Like, ATLA is still recognized as some truly, truly excellent TV programming, even without putting it in the animation ghetto. LoK...not as much. Heck, even my favorite episodes, the ones about Avatar Wan (good Lord the stylized look of those episodes is just a delight), do some....frustrating things, like flattening the Avatar Spirit from something incredibly beautiful and genuinely non-Christianized, non-European, into a weak, simplistic, and pretty blatantly Christianized dualism. (I will always be torn over Wan's final fight scene: it's both well-made, and feels like a cool and well-written twist, BUT it only happens because it ruins what the Avatar Spirit means!)

 

[GrimCo]

I'm also in the 'expert' category. I think it is a real income stream; the development of "Original Adventures Reincarnated" and efforts to sell that older material shows that WotC is aware of it. But it's not enough of a priority for them to produce new content in house for that audience.

Yeah, updating and recycling old materials and aiming for nostalgia buys mainly from those grognards that stoped playing, gave away their old books and then returned to gaming with 5e. But some of the old grognards kept their old books and they want new stuff, not stuff they already have and can just convert to new edition.

Interestingly, in that Questing Beast interview, Mearls mentioned that part of what they looked at when making 5e was sales of the Rules Cyclopedia pdfs, which he said were a substantial chunk of their 4e revenue.

I think grognards have more disposable income but spread it around much more. When you look at the superfans in their 20s, like Bob World Builder (idk his actual age), you see shelves full of WotC products. The same happened when I got into 3.5; I own dozens of those books. I spend even more now, but its largely on other content (Shadowdark, DCC, OSE, and the like), and WotC only in a blue moon. Even if they targeted me more specifically I think that would be the case. By the point someone has such mature interest in D&D, they're more aware of other offerings and harder to market to.

I own also solid amount of 2ed, 3.x and some 4e stuff. More than enough material i can mine for ideas or just straight port into 5e. So, unless they publish something new that excites me or group, I really don't have anything to spend my money on. I know i'm not their main customer demographic. I'm ok with it.

Unlike you, i spend way less on ttrpgs than i did back in late teens/ early 20s. Not enough time to play and not enough space on shelves, so if it won't be used, ain't gonna buy. I do buy some books that i don't use, but it's more to support company since i use their free to download rules for actual play, like Mork Borg for example.

 

[nevin]

I have bought every 5E book except Acquisitions Incorporated, and the most that has run me a year has been like $300. Dice I maxed out on years ago, and pens and paper are necessary to gave around with kids.

Very inexpensive hobby.

And yet most players I've played with over the years buy a players handbook use the DM's stuff and maybe dice and a cool dice box or a dice tower. . Inexpensive is subjective and doesn't really have anything to do with what people will spend on the game. Some of us have many thousands of dollars of old stuff new to old. Some look online for information because it's cheaper.