Are Gognards killing D&D?

[Minicol]

You should be a lovegamer!

I so wish it were true. Sex and D&D ! At last !

 

[Minicol]

and yet won't shut up about how the game is going to hell in a handbasket, is not a benefit to the hobby, and constitutes a black hole in that network that Dancey is discussing.

Up until the 4e announcement, I was not. I don't think I was the only one to hit grognardism just at this particular moment. To WOTC : Reap what you sow !

 

[MojoGM]

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if WotC decided to release 4e this year, 5e next year, and 6e the year after IF they would provide official support* to all the various editions, past and present, side by side. That way everyone gets something approximating the game they want; it's all still D+D, and WotC sells more material overall.

This would be business suicide. And D&D is a business, make no mistake about it.

And to me that is a good thing.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Wait....can my cleric heal someone by hitting that person with an axe?



RC

Actually, from what I've heard, I think he can. The blurb said something about the cleric critting someone and healing the mage. No reason why he couldn't crit the mage and heal him too. I don't see why he would, but he could.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Unfortunately, grognards tend to be bashers rather than fans. They tend to have existing ideas about how the game ought to be played, and are usually the ones leading the charge to complain about each and every new release.

Like all that bashing of, say, Tome of Magic?

I believe it was MerricB who pointed out that sales of the (crunch-wise better) Magic of Incarnum sold worse than (fluff-wise better) Tome of Magic, suggesting in the process that people simply do not buy new-fluff products if they don't like the fluff. Also suggesting that people will forgive rules snags if the fluff is good enough.

AFAICT, the big problems some people have with what is being released about 4e can be summed up as follows:

(1) Don't like the fluff. Be it dragonborn, the feywild, or Golden Wyvern Adepts, there is something about the 4e naming strategy that is -producing.

(2) Disbelief in the claims being made. When WotC says that the game will be faster to run (but examples complicated combats with more foes), or says that each class will be more distinct (but wizards can wear armour and everyone can heal), etc. Some folks, myself included, feel that this is "hope they were born yesterday" marketting.

(3) Don't like changes that undo the existing story of the game without a solid purpose behind them (and with some apprehension that the rammifications of these changes won't be fully understood until a year after release date). WotC admits that happened with 3e, after all, so why not 4e? Especially as rushed as things seem to be. Especially when, on occasion, the WotC make mistakes about 3e rules.

(4) Lack of backwards compatability. The more value your previous purchases retain in the new edition, the better it is for the consumer.

(5) Reaction to the dismissal of any of the above as being "bashers rather than fans".

(6) Negative perceptions based on WotC decisions. I am thinking of the Dave Noonan "Cloudwatching" blog here, the cancellation of print Dragon and Dungeon (and the way WotC flubbed the digital launch), and so on. If the launch of digital Dragon was the yardstick by which we should judge the current "Trust us, guys, this is gonna be great!" coming from WotC, then I for one am a bit skeptical.

I honestly don't believe, regardless of what they say, that anyone here would be upset if 4e was so good that it was a "must have, must play" game. We all want every potential product to be great, because great products are always.....well, great. Great to have. Great to read. Great to play. Always.

But the desire to have a great product doesn't mean that my critical thinking goes out the window when I examine the claims being made about it. And, frankly, based on the playtest reports, I don't see how anything could live up to the hype.


RC

 

[Umbran]

In fact, I'd suggest that the defining feature of the grognard is not age, is not amount of time spent playing, but is that they're a fan who has gone sour, and is now detrimental to the hobby.

The history of the term really doesn't agree with that assessment. Grognard is about where you come from, and how long you've been around. Complaining, resisting change - those things are about being a human.

Most folks I'd call grognards are happy to play and let play. They'll do their thing, you'll do yours. Official support for their original game dried up decades ago, and they've adapted. The old dudes who prefer playing older editions recognize that today's changes will have exactly zero impact on the game they're playing - there really isnt' anything to complain about.

The folks who have hefty gripes are the ones who are in the process of losing support for what they love, and they resent it.

 

[BASHMAN]

There IS support for AD&D 1st Ed. It is called OSRIC. Any OSRIC product you buy or make is support for 1st Edition AD&D.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Well, my bet would be that the children will buy the most recent version. I have a hard time seeing any kind of snowball effect where the new gamers hunt down old copies of AD&D or pdf versions of the game, when they have a new and shiny version on the shelves.

Unfortunately for "official D&D," new and shiny revamps of old editions are starting to hit the shelves. C&C and OSRIC both come to mind, and I suspect more to come. If those systems start becoming more appealing ways for grognards to introduce their kids to PnP RPGs, "offcial D&D" could end up taking a hit a few years down the line.

 

[Clavis]

I so wish it were true. Sex and D&D ! At last !

During my campaign in high-school, I actually had two players (boyfriend-girlfriend at the time) who had sex in-character. Not in my presence, however. They accidentally told me about it later.

See, 1st edition was just sexier!

 

[Banshee16]

Thank you but such was wholly unnecssary.

You are positing that Grognards dominate the message boards but not actual sales, personally or via their groups. This supposes that newer, shall we say younger, gamers, who grew up with these "computers" more intimately than any 'Nard, are somehow not represented on the dominate medium (the internet) of their generation as it concerns the sales of the game you would have them dominate. A Nixonian "silent majority" of young computer savy gamers that don't frequent message boards but dominate actual sales of D&D? And these are the same computer message board avoiders that Gleemax and DDI are intended to reach? How's that going to work? It doesn's add up.

Your hardcore are your Grognards; its how they got to be Grognards after all. Sure, a good game can grab some initial number of new players that outnumber the 'Nards but when the novelty wears off or the new hotness lures the newbies away, it is the Gorgnards who pay Wotc's bills, the Grognards who have the steady groups running for years. Grognards are the rock upon which D&D rests and the rock upon which 4e will, by one degree or another, flounder or succeed.

Wotc is going to put your "silent majority" theory to the test the more 4e kicks the Grognards to the curb. All prior editions have added to the number of Grognards, per force. 4e - the new edition - can either play to these dedicated, established players or go looking for newer ones in greater numbers. Nice idea but risky that last. 4e could try to split the difference but has chosen to go all in with the non-backwards compatible changes. The jury is out and won't be in until likely 18 months after 4e's release but if we see 5e in short order it will be the Grognards you will hear laughing. It will be Wotc who got kicked in the, well, their nards.

If it matters towards the argument, most of the younger players I know seem to secure their materials through electronic means which....uh...don't exactly result in money getting into WotC's pocket... This grognard? I like to pay cold hard cash for a physical book.

Banshee