Are Gognards killing D&D?

[Minicol]

I highly doubt that the idea of the 4th Edition is what is being aggressively campaigned against by the "Grognards." Rather, there is a subset of players of all ages, with varying degrees of favorite editions who are derogatively coined "grognards" by people. Think on it this way, if they didn't care about 4th Edition, why would they actively and purposely come onto a board, post their thoughts and observations, and basically make themselves an inviting target for others?

The rhetorical answer of course, is that they ARE interested in a 4th Edition but are NOT pleased with the proposed changes. The question Mearls and Co. have to answer is how to meet both audiences expectations. Most of the "grognards" around here are not saying No to Dragonborn, Golden Wyvern Adept, Teifling history, Eladrins, or whatever. They are saying No to the way they are being presented to us.

Another part of the "grognard" problem is that it seems many of us are told to shut up, sit down, and buy the new edition but you aren't allowed to participate in the discussion. There have been many suggestions put forward by the "grognards" as options for the designers to examine. Heck, Green Knight technically is a "grognard" because he was complaining about the short shrift Torm received. Now that his proposal for axing Tyr and replacing the deity with Torm has been acted on, it's as though he is treated as a champion of 4th Edition. The point is that minimizing criticism of what is shown is not the way to market something. GM tried that and it didn't quite work.

If you show teasers and provide snippets of information, people are going to jump to conclusions. If you really have a bona fide reason to change something as a designer and it's criticized, most rational people doing the criticizing will accept a real answer rather than puffery. Mearls and Co. don't have to justify their choices in development to us if they don't inform us. However, if they put that info out there for us to see, they are probably trying to gauge the public reaction to some extent, for good or ill. By beating down dissent and only allowing praise of a decision, you're not doing the game a favor. The only thing you are doing is creating a skewed perception for the designers, the game community, and the people actively involved in the observation and analysis of 4th Edition.

Thank you. I could not have voiced it better.

The way 4e is presented by some people feels like the old soviet union. To me at least, that is a large part of the problem, even if not the whole story.

 

[see]

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

Consistently, the answer is no, it won't.

What, you disagree? Show me evidence. I see a lot of people just declaring that the changes will attract new players, and then saying that opposing the changes is bad for the game. But they offer nothing but bare assertions that the changes are going to attract new players; nobody shows any evidence. If you're going to say that grogonardism will hurt D&D by resisting the change, you first have to show that your changes will increase its appeal.

The thing is, you can't. You don't have any evidence that the changes will make the game more appealing, just an opinion. At least the New Coke team had the evidence of taste tests.

I, on the other hand, think I have reasonable evidence — not proof, no, but not mere opinion — that monkeying with the flavor of the game is putting the game at risk.

Look at the last thirty years and notice that every fantasy RPG that wasn't Dungeons & Dragons didn't do nearly as well. Notice, too, that Forgotten Realms, which was the default flavor AD&D 2e setting, did better than all the other flavors tried. Look at the 3e era, when everybody and his brother had a chance to publish their own alternate flavor game using the compatible rules. Over and over again, the one thing proven by the last thirty years of pen-and-paper RPGs is that nothing is as appealing as default flavor (A)D&D.

And 4e deliberately abandons that legacy for something new, something untried. Maybe it'll work. I hope it works, even though I don't like it. But I expect that it'll be lucky to be as popular as 3e, and I'm worried that it'll flop so badly that Hasbro decides to kill the line and not even bother with a Fifth Edition.

 

[pawsplay]

There is a foundational problem with the 4e for new players angle: new players by definition aren't playing 3.5 and don't appreciate the "improvements." 4e will have to stand on its own two feet. Yet 4e seems to be billing itself as a unique fantasy experience, which is traditionally not a selling point for a mainstream frpg.

 

[The Little Raven]

Over and over again, the one thing proven by the last thirty years of pen-and-paper RPGs is that nothing is as appealing as default flavor (A)D&D.

Except that flavor has changed consistently over that 30 years, since once upon a time there were no elf paladins (or non-human ones, for that matter), nor dwarf wizards. Halflings were once chubby Tolkein refugees, and now are kender-cousins. Trying to say nothing has changed in the flavor in the past 30 years just means you haven't been paying attention.

And Wizards has the advantage of things like professional market research, while we have the benefit of limited ancedotal evidence.

 

[Treebore]

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?

No one I know "hates" 4E. WE just all agree it isn't going to be a game we will like better than what we play now.

What do my kids play? The same things I have, 2E, 3E, L5R d20, L5R 2E, and now L5R 3E, Mutants and Masterminds 2E, Shadowrun 4E, Traveller, Synnibar, RIFTS, Paladium Fantasy, GURPS Fantasy 4E, Castles and Crusades, C&C Wild West, and others I'm forgetting.

Not to mention Hero Scape, Axis and Alllies, Playstations games, X-box and X-Box 360 games, Football, Baseball, and some Basketball.

My kids and I spend tons of time together.

 

[Tquirky]

Except that flavor has changed consistently over that 30 years, since once upon a time there were no elf paladins (or non-human ones, for that matter), nor dwarf wizards. Halflings were once chubby Tolkein refugees, and now are kender-cousins. Trying to say nothing has changed in the flavor in the past 30 years just means you haven't been paying attention.

Minor tweaks, akin to removing level limits. Dragonborn, eladrin, and so-called-"warlords" in the core are in a completely different league to the examples you cite.

 

[The Little Raven]

Minor tweaks, akin to removing level limits. Dragonborn, eladrin, and so-called-"warlords" in the core are in a completely different league to the examples you cite.

Not really. Established for years in all of those worlds, you had no elf paladins, because only humans could be paladins. Suddenly, out of the blue, the world is full of paladins of Corellon Larethian, and dwarves, who once had a spell resistance bonus and were unable to become wizards, are suddenly able to sling fireballs. Hell, the FR even had a metaplot event for it. Kobolds go from being goblinoids originally to being reptilian in AD&D. New classes and races have been introduced to core books and removed from core books. Assassin, Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer, Half-Orcs and Gnomes are all examples of that.

 

[Tquirky]

Not really.

I know it's subjective, but so far as I'm concerned: Yes really. Very much really.

Tweaking the flavour of some established races does not even begin to compare with dumping in several new, potentially unwelcome ones into the core. It simply doesn't.

 

[GVDammerung]

. . . 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.

Congratulations! You have spotted a tree and missed the forest!

Grognards are indeed often times opinionated and this is so because they speak from a position of some experience. They know to a goodly measure whereof they speak because they have witnessed the hobby's and the game's ups and downs.

More importantly, I believe, many Grognards' voiced opinions come from their passion for the game - the reason they have been around awhile and are still around - the reason they are Grognards.

Grognards are passionate about the game and speak from experience. You see that as sour grousing. Sometimes. But as often as not, passion and experience.

 

[GVDammerung]

I highly doubt that the idea of the 4th Edition is what is being aggressively campaigned against by the "Grognards." Rather, there is a subset of players of all ages, with varying degrees of favorite editions who are derogatively coined "grognards" by people. Think on it this way, if they didn't care about 4th Edition, why would they actively and purposely come onto a board, post their thoughts and observations, and basically make themselves an inviting target for others?

The rhetorical answer of course, is that they ARE interested in a 4th Edition but are NOT pleased with the proposed changes. The question Mearls and Co. have to answer is how to meet both audiences expectations. Most of the "grognards" around here are not saying No to Dragonborn, Golden Wyvern Adept, Teifling history, Eladrins, or whatever. They are saying No to the way they are being presented to us.

Another part of the "grognard" problem is that it seems many of us are told to shut up, sit down, and buy the new edition but you aren't allowed to participate in the discussion. There have been many suggestions put forward by the "grognards" as options for the designers to examine. Heck, Green Knight technically is a "grognard" because he was complaining about the short shrift Torm received. Now that his proposal for axing Tyr and replacing the deity with Torm has been acted on, it's as though he is treated as a champion of 4th Edition. The point is that minimizing criticism of what is shown is not the way to market something. GM tried that and it didn't quite work.

If you show teasers and provide snippets of information, people are going to jump to conclusions. If you really have a bona fide reason to change something as a designer and it's criticized, most rational people doing the criticizing will accept a real answer rather than puffery. Mearls and Co. don't have to justify their choices in development to us if they don't inform us. However, if they put that info out there for us to see, they are probably trying to gauge the public reaction to some extent, for good or ill. By beating down dissent and only allowing praise of a decision, you're not doing the game a favor. The only thing you are doing is creating a skewed perception for the designers, the game community, and the people actively involved in the observation and analysis of 4th Edition.

Very nicely put!