Are Gognards killing D&D?

[StarFyre]

Hey!!!

I'm 30..started with 2e (then played some 1e and DND basic) and now I DM my own modified 3.5E..

I hate 1e and basic with a passion. Some very retarded dynamics in them... 2e improved on them a bit but not all.

3.5X I like a lot (other than a few things I house rule anyways) and I am looking forward to 4E since I can always spend time and houserule stuff that is an issue

Sanjay

 

[Roland55]

The only problem is when they get married to other gamers…

Oh my! It would appear the wife and I, both old enough to be called grognards and both gamers for decades, have caused a problem.

Sorry about that.

Well, at least we've raised a generation of new gamers ... and are well on our way to a second! Maybe we'll atone for our mistakes yet.

 

[Roland55]

I started in 1990 with 2e then went to 1e for several years before going 3e and finally 3.5.


So yes, just because someone has played 1st edition doesn't make them an old person.




....unfortunately however I am....(38+)

Good Lord! You people think 38+ is old??

Apparently I really am a Jurassic gamer.

Do you good people have a term for gamers like myself? "Grognard Squared," maybe??

 

[Ifurita'sFan]

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.

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.

A player who knows how to play, knows how to run a game, knows the ins and outs of managing a gaming group and teaching new players, 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.

Wow...
What I got out of this post
Grognard are nothing but bashers
Grognards aren't REAL fans of the game
Grognards are bitter
Grognards are detrimental to the hobby.
Grognards are black holes to the game and should just shut up.

Wow... no wonder the Mods are getting pissed off with flamebaiting going on like this.

Oh, and Dancey said NOTHING about blackholes, so please...

The facts are summed up in a very simple sentence.
"All marketing and sales activity in a hobby gaming genre eventually contributes to the overall success of the market share leader in that genre."

Meaning that if everyone knows your rules and plays by them... then you're going to stay #1. But just like the old "which came first the chicken or the egg" argument...That means you NEED a support network of gamers who are established to stay #1 and who know the rules of your game. You don't stay #1 without the network of vet gamers, and you need vet gamers to stay #1.

The corollary to that is that if you alienate too big a part of that veteran base (if you alienate more old gamers than new gamers with equal fiscal assets to replace them) or change the rules to the game too much... you will diminish or no longer have a support network of gamers who do know your rules set to keep you #1... and thus become vulnerable.

 

[tenkar]

Makes me wonder why they are changing D&D into a game that no one knows the rules of, combined with an unwillingness to release rules information early enough that a bunch of folks might know the rules of it by release time.

RC

Uhm, if you knew the rules as a consumer before release, what would be the purpose of WOtC releasing them?

Or are you saying that 4e will be a bunch of rules that have no roots in previous editions?

Unless you are referring to third party publishers, putting the rules in the hands of the gaming public before publication leaves you with no market to sell to.

Ah heck, we're squabbling over stuff that we truly have little idea over. It would be nice to get some real idea as to HOW everything works together in the new edition. I'm not asking for the rules of the game, but a general outline as to how it all fits together. The bits and pieces being fed to us are like stories I get from my 14 year old when I ask him about school... I want to know what he is learning in school, not the lunchroom brawl and the other fluff stuff

 

[tenkar]

To be honest, I expect 4e to be a huge success ... THE FIRST YEAR.

I don't believe it can be otherwise. but the overall success will not depend on the first year alone : how is WOTC hoping to survive beyond the PHB sales ? They will have to sell further books (as stated in the "yearly PHB" ...) and so on.

Who is willing to buy the whole 4e set of books to keep them afloat ? Not me this time around.

Best regards.

2nd edition started the splatbook craze... 3.0 and 3.5 allowed 3rd parties to grab (and dilute) the splatbook pie.

Having yearly scheduled releases of splatbooks (yearly PHB, DMG, etc) will only help WotC increase their share of the splatbook pie... whether that pie grows, shrinks, or remains the same in size remains to be seen.

 

[Maggan]

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.

That's been said ever since C&C was being developed. "Real soon there's going to be a game that is more D&D than D&D and then WotC are going to feel the hurt!"

It hasn't happened yet. Might it happen a few years down the line?

No.

The alternatives are up against a company with world-wide marketing reach, with distribution to book stores and gaming stores down pat, with an advertising budget that probably exceeds the total budget of the developers of OSRIC and C&C put together.

I don't see D&D being in the least threatened by the likes of OSRIC or C&C.

And if it were to be, I think WotC would be quick to react to this, releasing an official version of D&D that would directly compete with the alternatives. Heck, they might do that anyways, since basic versions of the game has been part of their strategy since forever.

But I will concede that if WotC rests on its laurels, and think that the above advantages automatically guarantees the continued domincance of D&D without them working pro-actively to make it so, they might be in for a world of hurt.

I have seen no indication that such a thing is happening. Other people think it's obvious that such a thing is happening. Only time will tell who's right.

/M

 

[small pumpkin man]

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.

While I don't disagree with your basic point that Good fluff is more likely to sell a book, simply because it's easier tell at a glance whether or not you like fluff, whereas crunch takes quite a bit of testing or looking over conflicting reports to figure out, I would like to point out that while the underlying crunch of MoI was quite interesting, possibly 4E portentous and a really good idea, of the actual classes (that is, the major reasons, crunch wise, to buy the book) it only really had one realistically playable class and two theoretically playable classes, which isn't much better than ToM's one playable and two essentially unplayable classes.

That was the major reason I posted, but I'm going to keep talking until I put my foot in my mouth, okay?
kewl

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.

Yeah, see, I like the fluff. I like the change in the planes, it's kinda like the system I made up for the homebrew game I'm running, and I like making Demons and Devils more distinct, I like the split in Eladrin/Elf I think it makes sense (although it doesn't work great for our world, I'm sure I can ignore it or fit it in).

I don't like the names, I think many of them are stupid, overly busy and well, poorly written, (the Lightning Panther Strike ability from Races and Classes exemplifies them to me, Panther Assault indicates silent deadly speed, Lightning Strike indicates loud violent speed, Lightning Panther Strike is both redundant AND contradictory, need I say more?) and I don't like the idea of magic "traditions" but both are essentially optional, so I merely don't plan to include them.

on a similar note, my favorite settings are Eberron and a homebrew my friends and I are making as a group, which while not as different as, say, Darksun, does stray from core, so I have no real connection to the "core" fluff, indeed, I ignore it most of the time, meaning I get kind of annoyed by people who complain loudly about having to make slight changes from core, when I've been doing that and finding no problem with it, especially when I can see that many of the changes are being made with new players in mind, and can see how the 4E fluff would make it much easier for a new GM/group to throw a game together, who would need the help far more than some GM/group who's been playing since 1980.

(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.

The most recent playtest took 20 rounds, it also only took two hours, that's with about 16 goblins and one of the the "complicated" dragons, if the numbers are easier, and the "special cases" easier to figure out, it could quite well be quicker while still having a bunch of interuptions. Also, SWSaga uses a similar core, and by all accounts is much faster/cleaner, (not that I've played it yet).

In regards to your second point, trapfinding is a feat as is uncanny dodge, and yeah, I'm not caring, Trapfinding and "can cast spells in armour" aren't what defines the rogue and the cleric in 3E, and they were unlikely to in 4E either, Wizards (I'm assuming) still don't get Armour prof, and the way it looks multiclassing works, will actually have to bust out those 3 feats to do so, Clerics can heal with taking actions and can make others self healing abilities work better by standing near them (last time I heard), and it looks like you may need to be a rogue to get twf or Spring Attack. To simplify, they're changing what is special to classes, not removing it.

As you can see I don't think they're doing that, although they're probably hyping stuff up, as you would expect.

(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.

Not getting this, do you mean the fluff changes? Again, making it simpler for new players to make their own world, (which I think many of the changes do do) should be more important than making it slightly harder for older players to convert their games, since they likely have the experience to do so. Also, rammifications? to fluff changes? I'm getting a tad confused, but don't worry about that, I'll just move on.

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

Absolutely, but it didn't happen with 2nd to 3rd, I didn't expect it now, they're just being more honest about it, and people are jumping on them because of that honesty (not you), which is kind of annoying.

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

Yeah, that sucks, my condolences.

I do have to say, I've see some far more reasonable explanations for the whole "not currently interested in 4E" thing recently, hopefully the bashing from both sides has calmed down a bit.

(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.

Yeah, I totally get that, actually, the podcast (which I'm pretty sure had Noonan) had a similar thing, with them sitting there laughing at how stupid guardinals were, and I felt very much that if they hadn't been good, and I'd actually ever fought them/had them in my campains, I'd be VERY pissed off right now.

On a side note the fact that people got really annoyed at the demon/devil/succubus thing, but not at that podcast either shows that nobody listens to those, or the alignment system does need changing, if only so that people can fight/interact with always good creatures regularly

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

Fair enough.

I guess my feeling/POV about 4E is that 3E is a really good game which I play weekly and quite enjoy/put a decent amount of mental time into.

But this game which I've invested so much into comes with some fundamental problems, which while may not come up all the time, do have to be worked around for our group to play the game and tell the story we want to tell. It's also relatively difficult to teach to other people and get them interested.

Now, when WotC say they're bringing out a new version of this game I put so much effort into, and echo all of the problems I'm having, and the solutions to those problems they put forward are logically sound (as far as I can tell), I got kind of exited.

I mean, ultimately, even if 4E ends up with it's own set of problems, the creaters seem on the ball enough that I can't really see it being worse than 3E, meaning currently I'd probably buy it even if it doesn't come near to the hype, simply because a game as good as 3E is a game with playing, and it seems different enough that I can see it being possible or easier to tell stories/play games that were difficult/impossible in 3E.

 

[Failed Saving Throw]

I can't help but feel that a lot of these arguments are just silly. It all boils down to this: Play what you want. Most people I know do. There are people who still play 1E, 2E, and there will be people who dismiss 4E and stick with 3.5. And why not? There's enough stuff out there for 3.5 to play dozens of campaigns, enough to last you decades.

You have to expect WoTC to put out new products, because it's a company that needs to make money. Also you should hope that instead of just treading water and releasing 20 years of 3.5 splatbooks, they would put some effort into change and innovation.

It's a pretty simple process. Review 4E when it comes out. If you don't like, don't play it, and stick with 3.5. If you do like, keep going with it. Why all the angst, the endless flamewar threads, etc.? It all seems like such a waste to me.

Even the term "grognard" - geez people. I'm sure many of you have other hobbies. Look at music, for example. There are older guitar players who want nothing more than that standard old Fender Telecaster through an old Fender amp, and they're happy. Then there are the younger players who want that VG Strat and the newest digital modeling amp. If you step back and look at it globally, it's a positive thing to have currents of traditionalism and innovation co-exist. The key is respect. Older players who pine for the days of 1E don't "bring D&D down" any more than groups of young players coming into the hobby who carry new influences from video games and other RPG systems.

Stasis breeds stagnation. The unwillingness to take a risk and innovate leads to narrow, dogmatic thinking that ultimately tends to rot many things from within. So I'm pretty excited about 4E. I plan to buy the first rounds of books and gauge how I feel. If it sucks, well, I have a whole bookshelf right here of 3.5 stuff. I have my current group of players who all love 3.5. I think I'll be fine.

 

[baradtgnome]

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.

Thank you. Being a Grognard who meets the requirements of more than a few of those descriptions, I wish we could use a different term for someone who is resisting/sabotaging any potential change. Having bought Basic, AD&D, 3e & 3.5 I don't think I am killing the game growth. Perhaps Luddite, curmudgeon or even better 'edition hugger' might be more appropriate? Maybe we need a contest.