Are Gognards killing D&D?

[billd91]

Whenever someone brings up "New Coke" here I remember "Advanced Squad Leader."

I'm wondering about the appropriateness of this analogy since ASL has a very active playing community and new products are still coming out for it (how many other 20 year old wargames can say that?).

 

[Khairn]

I hope the standard for when a new edition is due is not "when its needed as much as 3e was needed." Its like saying that you're not allowed to buy a new car until you're running from the wreck screaming and covered in burning gasoline.

Agreed. So what should the standard be for when a new edition is needed / warranted?

A large part of the back-lash against 4E is because so many customers do not feel that a new edition is currently needed. Are the customers to blame if they don't feel a new edition is needed?

 

[Riley]

I'm wondering about the appropriateness of this analogy since ASL has a very active playing community and new products are still coming out for it (how many other 20 year old wargames can say that?).

If this was a few years ago, the analogy would've held up fine. I was still drinking the occasional can of "Coke II" (for amusement value, mostly) when I ran across it in 2001. According to Wikipedia, the stuff was still in limited production until 2002.

And you can still buy 1e adventures under the OSRIC label today.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I hope the standard for when a new edition is due is not "when its needed as much as 3e was needed." Its like saying that you're not allowed to buy a new car until you're running from the wreck screaming and covered in burning gasoline.

But there's a fundamental difference. Cars wear out over time and you *have* to replace them. They simply become nonfunctional.
Game rules don't. I expect that I'll be playing Scrabble, Monopoly, 5-Card Draw, softball, and basketball by the same rules for the rest of my life.

 

[Drammattex]

Please tell me you're taking its stuff as well.

Oh yeah sorry if it sounded like I was flaming. I just wanted this question to be addressed.

Of course. I'm getting a 5 gp exchange rate per Point of Light. By golly, these things spend just like electrum!

...

But to give a less cheeky response to your post, there will ALWAYS be people who resist change, and at certain points in your life (may not be D&D related) you'll find yourself among their number.

Me? I've been playing since 1982 and I've enjoyed every edition of the game. I realize everyone doesn't feel this way, but I believe that D&D is moving forward the same way technology does: a new edition is built on the foundations of the old, and the result is a more sophisticated work. I know folks who ONLY like to listen to vinyl. They are the grognards of audio. Others swear by CDs. I have an iPod. It has ONE control. It stores all my music. I'm not going to be able to convince anyone that my MP3s are better than their vinyl or CDs, and that's fine. At one point, I thought the iPod was a terrible idea, and I couldn't figure out what on earth I would use it for... until I got one.

And that's how it's going to be with 4e. Nobody's read it yet, nobody knows the end product, or how useful it's going to be. I personally think that even in its simplicity it's going to be a more sophisticated game than the one we've been playing, but that is the topic for several other threads.

There will always, always, always be grognards, in every field. In politics and religion especially.

I'm a Star Wars grognard. I've nearly trained my mind to believe that anything made after The Empire Strikes Back does not exist. I have not purchased any of the editions on dvd because I'm waiting until Lucas dies and someone puts out a cleaned up, full audio, high definition transfer of the original films (although I'd take the added CGI on the Death Star run added in the 1997 version). Until then, I will probably never own Star Wars. Many folks don't agree with me on this, but I won't budge on it. I will be a grognard to the end in regards to Star Wars. Fortunately, I have Battlestar Galactica to love now.

 

[Driddle]

HEADER: Are grognards killing D&D?
TEXT: If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. ... I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old....
(B)efore you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day ...

I grabbed a bit of text from Wikipedia, as a good starting point. I'm curious as to which version of "grognard" you're using to define "really old" people in their twilight years of 40+, and why the age-ist insults. I don't remember accusing all my elders of being grumpy old farts back in the day when I was just a young pup of 22. ... But maybe my memory is failing me, too. It's so hard to remember now. So long ago, so very long ago...

* Slang for someone who enjoys playing board wargames. This use is supposed to have been coined by John Young in the early 1970s while employed by Simulations Publications, Inc. Originally this term referred to the "old guard" of gamers who were playing military board games prior to 1969.
* Inside the computer game development industry, the term grognard is used to name fans who will buy every game released in a certain genre of game (RTS, RPG, etc.). These dedicated game players are often viewed as a blessing and a curse, as they will ensure a certain minimum level in sales, but they will also be the most critical of any mistakes or bugs in the game.
* In the board game, role-playing game, miniature wargaming and computer game genres, a grognard is an ultra-hardcore gamer, seeking reality and assembling detailed tables of probabilities and statistics. It may also refer to someone with a detailed knowledge of real world history without necessarily being interested in becoming a good player or having a detailed knowledge of game mechanics or play. It also refers to players who prefer some past, usually out of print game or edition of a game, to current games or currently-printed editions of same.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There are a number of things that I really like about 4e that I am hearing (points of light, return of Monster Levels, using creature types proactively with character race, a plane of Faerie even if poorly named, speeding combat and prep time), a number of things I dislike (dragonborn as a core race, tielfling as a core race to a lesser extent, increased miniatures focus, loss and/or replacement of much of D&D's backstory, no druid in the core), and a number of things that I am just plain skeptical about (speeding combat and prep time, end of Xmas tree effect, end of 10-minute adventuring day, some aspects of design goals, more options yet less complicated, everyone can do everything yet more distinct).

There are many things about 4e that seem to mirror houserules I made for 3e, which seems good to me. There are many things about 4e that make it seem as though it were being designed for those who don't like the "sacred cows" of D&D (by which I mean, its history, its continuity, and its backstory) which seems bad to me.

The idea of everything being core, of the digital initiative, of common core elements from prior editions being spread through many books, etc., really bother me. The idea that WotC was actively suggesting (if not directly stating) that 4e rumours were hogwash just weeks before the announcement, presumably in order to sell 3e books, doesn't sit well with me.

However.....

About a week before the 4e announcement, I almost responded to one of Kamikaze Midget's posts with "Maybe it is time for a new edition". And, maybe it is time for a new edition.

Certainly, high level play and game prep in 3e can be a pain in the backside. Certainly, there are problems with the 3e model (although, for some of us, 3rd party rules have been of great use to repair these problems). Combat in 3e can be so...bloody...slow that it's no wonder that some folks have decided that non-combat-monsters are "unfun".....they get their 10 minutes of "shine" time just before a 30-second (in game) combat that lasts several hours (in real life).

So, fixing the speed of combat? Definitely needed. Fixing prep time? Definitely needed. Fixing the power curve? Definitely needed. Fixing the monster vs PC power ration? Arguably needed. Fixing the X-mas Tree Effect? Arguably part of fixing the power curve, but needed. Re-examining class balance, the CR System, and Wealth-per-level? These are all part of my vision of "needed" things in a new edition.

Making all characters equally proficient in and out of combat? Not needed. IMHO, of course.

Replacing existing core PC classes with new ones? Not needed. IMHO, of course. Even though I did this in my house rules, I don't think it's necessarily right for the core game.

Replacing existing core PC races with new ones? Not needed. IMHO, of course. Even though I did this in my house rules, I don't think it's necessarily right for the core game.

Making the game more minis-centric? Not needed. IMHO, of course.

Quest Cards? Really depends upon how the advice in the DMG is worded. Let players write their own cards, and the DM adjudicate their XP value, with good rules for determining XP values, and it's all good.

New Monster Designs? One of the big beefs I have with 1e is that every monster is designed to be fought. Which makes some of these monsters less useful than they could be. Why would you be pounding on a brownie? Please, please, please consider monsters as more than one-dimensional "gotchas". Please.

I guess I feel that, in some ways, 4e seems to be a step backwards towards some of the elements of earlier editions that have been lost. Exploration as a viable playstyle? Rock on! Yet, at the same time, 4e seems to be a step backwards from the options that 3e made possible. I applaud the loss of "bad" complexity (complexity that bogs down the game for little purpose), but I am dismayed by what seems to be the loss of "good" complexity (for instance, many of the 3e character creation options).

And there you have it. A good revision, IMHO, builds on what has come before. I feel that too many parts of 4e seem to be tossing out the baby with the bathwater. If that makes me a grognard, so be it. After all, I am in my 40s.

RC

 

[Turjan]

I haven't read the whole thread, but did the words "Soylent Green" already fall ?

And no, I don't think anyone destroys D&D. And even if 4e won't be a success - and i think it will succeed - there will still be the grognards playing the game. Whatever version.

 

[JDJblatherings]

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.....

enworld polls are biased towards folks that post on enworld and can't stay away from polls. In any given year I probably game with about 30 other gamers- 2 of them post to enworld (me included) and only another 1 or 2 read the news here and all the non-posters from 11 to 58.
22 is young by the way. I was still playing 1st edition when I was 22 .

Grognards are not killing D&D.

 

[MojoGM]

Grognards are not killing D&D.

I agree, because it is probably the wrong question.

It should be, "If WOTC tried to keep the grognards happy, would D&D die on its own?"

And the answer to THAT is probably yes.

Good thing they aren't.