Are Gognards killing D&D?

[Calico_Jack73]

Oh yeah... despite my last post and considering myself a Grognard I still plan on purchasing the new edition. I've taken to viewing it as a totally separate product to be evaluated on its own merits instead of being compared to the previous editions and other games from other publishers. I actually think it will be fun to RUN a game again. 3.X became, IMHO, too granular. It is burdened by the same ability to customize that made it fun to play. If 2e was the DM's edition then 3e was definitely the Player's edition. Hopefully 4e will be everyone's edition.

 

[National Acrobat]

As one of the almost-40 crowd, who has played every version of the game, let me say just one thing.

As I have gotten older, and had a family, I am more selective upon which to spend my disposable income, due to having many other expenses. With that alone in mind, if something that I do not deem necessary, or worthy, to own or spend my money on, I don't.

RPGs are a hobby, and I am at the point where I am very picky and choosy about what I spend money on.

I feel that it is imperitave for Wizards to attract more gamers, but to not alienate the ones that already play the game. It's a fine line, and I don't envy them one bit. They can't make everyone happy, that's the bottom line.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I really don't get what the fuss is about. There is a new game coming out next year as I see it called D&D 4th Edition. We are now going to have the choice of a fourth way of playing a wonderful game!

Thank you!

I don't understand why we, as role-players, get in a "versus" mentality. d20 vs. C&C vs. True20 vs. AD&D...and so on and so forth.

RPGs are kind of like ice cream. We may not all agree on the particular flavor, but we all like ice cream.

I have been given an opportunity to try something from the ground up again. Something that I can spend the next few years pulling apart and rebuilding just as I have every other game.
Can I still play D&D 3.5 though? YES! will there be any more annoying changes to it that I wasn't expecting? NO!
Will I have to resort to using my own imagination for creating settings/worlds for 3.5? Yes. Is that a problem? Well it hasn't been for the first 29 years of my life so I can't see it suddenly becoming one.

Does anyone see what I'm getting at?

Very much so. I see two things coming from your comments. First, play the game that works best for you. If AD&D is your flavor, great! If you like Arcana Evolved, that's good too!

Secondly, why limit ourselves to just one system? Different systems may work for different games. You may, for example, use AD&D 2e for Dark Sun, D&D 3.5 for Dragonlance, then 4e for your homebrew. Different groups may prefer different games.

I think I fell into the trap of saying, "It isn't the same anymore." Well, truth is, it isn't. And that's okay. Because really, I have all sorts of options for playing some of my favorite game worlds. And you know, some of the stuff in 4e looks to be really fun. I don't know if 4e will work for worlds like Dragonlance or not. If so, great. And if not, that's fine because I can still use other systems for that. 4e will have new options and new things that I haven't tried before. Heck, there's still tons of 3.5 options I haven't managed to try out yet.

Now WotC knows that some people will never make the switch. I think that's partially why some of the changes are being made - to attract new customers. Yet they should also try to keep some of the basics of the D&D experience intact so that it is somewhat familiar to existing customers. So yeah, we're seeing things like tiefling warlocks, dragonborn, and such, but we also have class levels, a skill system, and other familiar elements. Maybe the flavor is a bit different, but it's still ice cream.

 

[WyzardWhately]

I think this is a very important lesson to all game companies. Unfortunately, I don't think wotc is going far enough in making the game more accessible to newbies. Making the rules easier or making the job of the dm easier is not enough although it's a good start. Having to buy 3 books with over 900 pages that cost more than $90 is too high a hurdle for many people who might otherwise consider playing. Why isn't a basic set the first thing coming out? Why are we still saddled with the concept of a 3 book core system? If they really want to make the game more accessible, D&D needs a one book core like the old D&D Cylopedia. It also needs a good boxed basic set that sells in toys stores.

I thought there was going to be something *like* a basic set...like, isn't H1 out before the core books, and containing pregens and a rule book? I could be mistaken. You're absolutely right, though. I got into D&D because there was a big black box with a dragon on it in with the Monopoly &c. at a Toys 'r Us. I was like ten or twelve, and I read the entire rulebook and GM-thingy full of cards that one night. I was up until three in the morning. This is the sort of scenario we need.

 

[Kheti sa-Menik]

First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. Why is this bad? Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old. There is a generational gap (or two) between the majority of players and people who are just now playing the game for the first time. Since it seems that have the greatest numbers, and greatest disposable income to spend on the game, they have the most say within the gaming community on how the game advances (or doesn’t). If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.

There has been a lot of hate concerning 4E. I would say that the sides stand at about 50/50. Why has this divided our community? Because WOC is changing things to appeal to new gamers? Guess what? If you want there to be a game in 20 years, then they have to attract new gamers.

So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game. Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?

The question shouldn't just be "Is this going to attract new players?"
There's also "what types of players do we want to attract?"

I think perhaps that question is what concerns so called "grognards." I know it does me and I'm not even sure I fit the profile of a grognard.
I don't think we should cater to the lowest common denominator and make our game pander to everyone just to get players.

I want our game to attract those who aren't afraid of using their imagination, using their intellect, aren't afraid of complex rules, are willing to put the time in.
Should we try to get our ranks to swell? Absolutely!
But should we sacrifice the game we love to meet this goal? NO!

 

[vagabundo]

I feel that it is imperitave for Wizards to attract more gamers, but to not alienate the ones that already play the game. It's a fine line, and I don't envy them one bit. They can't make everyone happy, that's the bottom line.

They could release a GHB for 4e, this Gognards Handbook shows how to play 4e with 1e/2e/3e flavourings, depending on your level in the class "Gognard"...

 

[Steely Dan]

Secondly, why limit ourselves to just one system? Different systems may work for different games. You may, for example, use AD&D 2e for Dark Sun, D&D 3.5 for Dragonlance, then 4e for your homebrew.

See; that's something really nifty I think most people (including myself) forget – certain editions may cater better to certain settings.

I can easily see wanting to use 2nd Ed for a Ravenloft campaign or what have you.

 

[Aeolius]

They could release a GHB for 4e, this Gognards Handbook shows how to play 4e with 1e/2e/3e flavourings, depending on your level in the class "Gognard"...

"The Grognard's Guide to playing 4e (like 3.5e)" . There was already a conversion manual for prior editions to 3e.

 

[KingCrab]

If they really want to make the game more accessible, D&D needs a one book core like the old D&D Cylopedia. It also needs a good boxed basic set that sells in toys stores.

I really like the idea of a small boxed set for attracting new players. One could include only the four classes of Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief together with the more used weapons, feats, and spells. People who already play the game would never buy this, since much material would be gone, but new players would be attracted to it for ease of reading and price. The rules would be completely compatible with the main 4e system of three core books, just with omissions.

 

[vagabundo]

I really like the idea of a small boxed set for attracting new players. One could include only the four classes of Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief together with the more used weapons, feats, and spells. People who already play the game would never buy this, since much material would be gone, but new players would be attracted to it for ease of reading and price. The rules would be completely compatible with the main 4e system of three core books, just with omissions.

Lots of nice art, quest cards, tiles, dice and minis. It would get loads of kids interested. Very clear cut rules, no disarm or grappling.