Are Gognards killing D&D?

[Aus_Snow]

Yes, but we're getting XP for it.

Yes, and some are even killing it and taking its stuff.

No really!

As in, grabbing bits of 4e *already* to enhance their current and future 3e games. Evil, I say. Just evil.

But that's only the new breed of 3e grognards - or poseurs/3tards etc., as the True Grognards(tm) might have it.

 

[Antonlowe]

Yes, but we're getting XP for it.

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.

 

[Odhanan]

Yes, but we're getting XP for it.

At least I took its stuff and use it in my homebrew.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old.

And ... as someone who is now 32, I can honestly say that I see the world much differently than a decade ago. Neither age is totally bad (or perfect, either) - just completely different! Forty may be old to you, but I occasionally see 70 year olds playing their Wii. Age does not force people into a "fun category."

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.

Actually, I only bought my first RPG book 3 years ago. I may be 32, but I didn't start playing D&D seriously until I was almost in my 30's! I truly started the game for the first time at almost 30 ... and I liked 3.x. And it has nothing to do with "tradition" or "grodnardism" ... just recognizing that I like a game.

Also, I would imagine that the age group with the most disposable income is 25-30 (who are also unmarried and/or no kids). All those aging grognard gamers who supposedly have all the cash really don't. They're still paying off mortgages, paying for all their kids (braces, food, clothing, schooling, blah, blah, blah), and many still may be paying off school loans - especially if they went the second career route. I'm not claiming that you are wrong, just saying that as I get older I am realizing that the years where I had the most money to spend on hobbies and not on bills was the first five years after college. Then life got expensive!

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.

This I absolutely agree with. And, I can say that the OP and I probably sit on the opposite side of the fence on the 4e thing. I'm content with 3.x and am not converting to 4e. Having said that, I'm also not doing much 4e bashing, either. I'm actually really glad the hobby is moving on to 4e ... because it means I get to funnel my fun money in another direction and settle in with a game that is going to stabalize much more because the rules won't change with new supplements!

But, I agree that games must evolve or die. For example ... look at any classic boardgame. Monopoly has branched out into how many varieties? [They even have a variety out now with blank labels so that you can make your own spaces!] Trivial Pursuit keeps updating. Even Life has come into the 21st century. Games must evolve and update their layout/rules/pictures/etc. That is part of attracting a new audience.

To take what the OP said one step further, I think what is best for the gaming is if the people looking forward to 4e would be understanding about the people who like 3.x and let them be comfortable staying put. And ... the people who are staying put in 3.x should be content with 3.x and get over the fact that WotC is updating the game so that the people looking forward to 4e can do so with enjoyment! I mean seriously - is it really the end of the world that I'm standing on the dock and waving goodbye to 4e as it sails off into the sunset? And is it the end of the world that people who like 4e are essentially waving back at me happy to move on? We should be able to have both groups coexist in peace. Should ... of course ... does not always mean that we will, though.

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?

I agree wholeheartedly. But at the same time, people don't need to feel the necessity to "convert" the people still in the stone age of prior editions. If people quit slamming the old edition by talking about how bad it was and people quit slamming the new edition about how much it is going to screw things up - we'd be better off.

Really, edition change is a study in human dynamics. People will almost always gripe and moan before being happy. Rather than being content with a "good edition" that they like, it's so much easier to slam the one you don't like. Rather than step up, many people would rather push everyone else down. Especially when edition wars break out. Just my 2 cents, of course.

 

[king_ghidorah]

Actually, it sounds like you played the Rules Compendium, which was part of BECMI D&D, and not ADnD 1e. The edition you played was a compiled, cleaned-up version of a parallel rule set that was published after 2e was already out.

See, you aren't a grognard. A grognard would publish the sort of correction I just posted

That said, I am looking forward to 4e, but frankly am not likely to buy it right now. Gaming has dried up for me for many reasons, and I don't see starting a 4e game in the near future. At least not until I finish the first couple of years of my Ed.D. program. Even then, I am more likely to use a more rules-light system like Simple20 and be a more casual roleplayer with a focus on story and socializing.... In fact, what interests me in 4e is the fact that it sounds as if it could provide tools that make casual gaming easier. Maybe.

I'm 26. I played 1e. I don't consider myself a grognard- to me, that word denotes attitude rather than age.

1e came in a single compendium instead of in a huge pile of expansion books, and it was actively supported in a bunch of magazines I couldn't afford. It seemed a better choice than 2e at the time, and in retrospect, it probably was. The single Rules Cyclopedia was a lot better for me in terms of affordability and in terms of scope.

I don't think grognards are ruining D&D. For the most part, in real life, they can go off and play their grognard games on their own. For example, I know some people locally who play a 2e game. The fact that I cannot even comprehend why someone would want to play 2e when 3e is available for free in SRD form online doesn't matter- I don't play in their game, so they're not bothering me.

Grognards ARE annoying the crap out of me online. But that's very different from "ruining D&D."

 

[king_ghidorah]

Actually, it sounds like you played the Rules Compendium, which was part of BECMI D&D, and not ADnD 1e. The edition you played was a compiled, cleaned-up version of a parallel rule set that was published after 2e was already out.

See, you aren't a grognard. A grognard would publish the sort of correction I just posted

That said, I am looking forward to 4e, but frankly am not likely to buy it right now. Gaming has dried up for me for many reasons, and I don't see starting a 4e game in the near future. At least not until I finish the first couple of years of my Ed.D. program. Even then, I am more likely to use a more rules-light system like Simple20 and be a more casual roleplayer with a focus on story and socializing.... In fact, what interests me in 4e is the fact that it sounds as if it could provide tools that make casual gaming easier. Maybe.

I'm 26. I played 1e. I don't consider myself a grognard- to me, that word denotes attitude rather than age.

1e came in a single compendium instead of in a huge pile of expansion books, and it was actively supported in a bunch of magazines I couldn't afford. It seemed a better choice than 2e at the time, and in retrospect, it probably was. The single Rules Cyclopedia was a lot better for me in terms of affordability and in terms of scope.

I don't think grognards are ruining D&D. For the most part, in real life, they can go off and play their grognard games on their own. For example, I know some people locally who play a 2e game. The fact that I cannot even comprehend why someone would want to play 2e when 3e is available for free in SRD form online doesn't matter- I don't play in their game, so they're not bothering me.

Grognards ARE annoying the crap out of me online. But that's very different from "ruining D&D."

 

[rounser]

First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs.

Reality Check Time: The designers are all "grognards", aren't they?

Therein lies the answer to your question - the distinction is somewhat artificial. It's just one small set of grognards (with game design expertise that seems primarily crunch-focused, given many examples of flavour-as-afterthought) with their preferred direction, perhaps informed by surveys (but interpreting them is so easily skewed to inherent biases that I'd take the idea of them being impartial - or their data correct given that what people say in surveys is a different thing to what they do - with one huge grain of salt).

And like all grognards - nay, all people - they can get it wrong, both in terms of bringing new people to the game and humouring the established fans of the game. I'm not suggesting that they should listen to teeming hordes of whinging grognards, but given that writers committees also seem to be a terrible forum for getting a good result (see Hollywood scriptwriting teams) it's probably unwise to lay all the blame at the feet of longtime fans of D&D for being the only ones being wrongheaded...and wishful thinking to suggest that the designers have produced something flawless.

There's a certainty that some of the new directions for 4E will be recanted for 5E, just as some 3E directions seem to have been for 4E. Heck - it's even possible that thousands of minds might come up with some things that just a handful of experts hadn't even considered. But it's easier to dismiss an entire set of gamers as irrelevant and suffering from "cognitive dissonance" or fear of change, and call it a day...like in this thread?

And that said, I really like most of what I've heard about 4E, and have great faith in the designer's ability to model a great game. I'm circumspect about seeing eye-to-eye with them on "core flavour", though. Oh well.

 

[Gundark]

Hmmm. I suspect 4e will go over well. I also suspect that a large number of those who are swayed away from 4e will come over to the dark side once they see the full rules. I think that your 50/50 number is based on a vocal minority.

I'm 34, I did play 1st ed. and I'm not a Grognard. In fact the 18 year old in our group is more of a Grognard than me.

 

[Terramotus]

To the extent that they hinder adoption of 4E on its own merits, yes. Absolutely. For those that are in love with a previous iteration of the ruleset, they've bought all that they need to keep running it (or all that is likely ever to be published). That's not a bad thing, but they're no longer buying new D&D books, but they're keeping their old version of the ruleset alive.

However, for publishing Dungeons and Dragons to remain a going concern, new books need to be sold. And if the market for a previous edition has played out, then a new edition has to be sold. So, to the extent that grognards prevent adoption of 4E, they absolutely are damaging the health of D&D.

And, honestly, I believe that if you're someone who's still totally in love with an older edition, you need to recuse yourself from discussions of 4E if all you can manage is to spew bile. Let the new shiny come out and let those younger than you find the game. Let those who are excited about the changes read the dribs and drabs of information that come out and discuss them without having to wade through all the bitterness.

Because, I'll tell you what: if you're still in love with a previous edition to the point that it approaches perfection in gaming for you, then this isn't for you. You may be a little disappointed at the lack of continuing support, but if the existing game is that perfect, it doesn't really need much more support, does it? If you're a 3E diehard, what percentage of the newer books have you honestly bought, anyway? If your favorite flavor is older, well... sometimes the things we like aren't commercially viable.

Let the game move on, but don't demand that everyone remain loyal to your decision to remain with the older product. Analyze the information and decide if you will purchase the new product, and let it stop there if you still hate it. If there's no hope of Wizards winning you over with 4E, don't pollute the places where people get their information. Wishing the new product to fail is, to me, childish and petty.

This may mean that it becomes difficult to find people to play the older version with, or to discuss it with. Well, that's life. It happens to everybody in some form sooner or later. Sometimes trends pass you by as you get older. Do you listen to the same music that kids in high school listen to now, with the same appreciation they hold for it?

To those who are utterly opposed to 4E, and are working to convince others of the same so that the new edition fails (and I've seen people posting all over whose admitted mission is just that), ask yourself this: are you really sure that you'd like to see D&D fail just because it's not being played in the way that you have always played it? It may fail anyway (though I doubt it), but at least give it the shot to do so on its own terms.

 

[Ifurita'sFan]

Forgive me for saying this... but I think that this whole thread is something of a flamebait when you look at how it's named.

Asking the question "Are Grognards killing D&D" is surely not a good way of tamping down the fighting and incivility that's going on in the forums. It could very easily be turned back on you as "Are 4e boosters and MMORPG newbs killing D&D?" Which is something that I don't think would be well received either.

If you expect grognards to treat you civilly in return, a good first step might be not targeting them as "the problem" especially when you consider that they are the ones with the money that has kept the game afloat for a long while.

Now you posed the question

ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game.

To which I reply, No...I'd say that if your market studies say that these big changes are going to bring in new gamers into the game world... then it's good for a NEW GAME. D&D as a brand has to mean something, or it means nothing. If you establish a brand and give it a certain meaning, and then change it into something it historically has not been ... you've just bait and switched your most important asset, your customer base. That's a good way to alienate them.