Are Gognards killing D&D?

[rounser]

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.

This is a straw man. It's quite possible to like some of 4E a whole lot, and some of it a whole not a lot. It's also possible to do the same with prior editions, too. And, given that this is the new game, it's sort of messing with the hobby in a way that the existence of prior editions is irrelevant to.

I think that kind of nerfs your argument a bit (but I have taken just one bit out of context there, it may not have hinged on it).

 

[KingCrab]

I think that your 50/50 number is based on a vocal minority.

Agreed. It seems that there are some very vocal anti 4e people, but for every anti 4e comment there are dozens of responses from people that want to believe in the new edition. I, of course, fall somewhere in between.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

The problem with this is that people claim D&D is different things. To one guy, keeping sacred cows and traditional elements is keeping it D&D, even if it reduces it's ability to attract a larger audience. To another guy, keeping it the most popular roleplaying game is keeping it D&D, since D&D is the name most commonly associated with roleplaying games, and changing that would be changing what D&D has historically been: numero uno in the RPG market.

 

[Dragonhelm]

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

I'm 35. Better apply for that AARP card.

One of my big rants in life is that so many things are geared towards the younger generations (i.e. movies, music, etc.). What about the other generations? They have disposable income too.

If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.

I agree that the hobby needs to attract younger gamers. At the same time, you don't want to alienate your existing fan base.

AEG switched their L5R rules to the d20 system in order to attract new players, of which I was one. As it turned out, d20 didn't bring in all that many new players. They already had their customer base, which were happy enough with the old d10 rules. Many of which were somewhat alienated by the d20 rules. So they recently released the 3rd edition L5R rules to get back to basics.

I know, that's not quite the same thing, but that's an example. I think that D&D needs to do two things. First, it needs to hold on to certain traditional elements to be familiar enough to veteran players. The d20 rules were a massive change from 2e, yet many of the basic elements of the game remained familiar. 4th edition promises to have some big changes as well. Question is whether or not it will have an air of familiarity.

That being said, D&D needs to also be innovative. As they industry leader, they set the standard and tone for the other RPG companies. New players should be attracted to expand on the customer base and to insure there are customers in 20 years. As an industry, we find competition in MMOs, so attracting that customer base is harder than ever.

Finding that happy medium where you keep your veteran players happy and attract new gamers is a tough balancing act. So yes, I see where the veterans are essential, as well as the new blood.

 

[pogre]

OK - I'm the reallllly old 40-year old guy and I agree with some of your sentiments. However, I think WOTC has a fair handle on this. They are enduring the gnashing of teeth and know not all will be pleased. Not all were pleased with 3e.

There is one rub in all of this though. WOTC does have to get most D&D players on board a new edition to flourish. Most D&D players learn the game from another player, often a DM. Merely aiming the game at new players is not enough - they must walk the tightrope of keeping enough old players to bring the newer ones in. When I say "old players" I don't mean old like me, but old as in at least play 3.x.

 

[Gumby]

This is probably the worst idea for a thread ever. Was this a deliberate attempt at trolling, or do you actually hate everyone over 35?

 

[Lanefan]

Grognards aren't killing D+D. They're trying to keep it alive.

Everyone who's ever played the game, including me, has a particular edition or ruleset or collection of houserules that is their preferred version of the game. Mine happens to be a modified version of 1e, but that doesn't stop me from paying close attention to new developments as the modification process will never be complete and good ideas are hard to find. And 2e was close enough to 1e that I could take what was put out and tweak it; so no harm there, and I kept buying some of the releases (though not all, there were just too many).

Then 3e came, and I became a grognard overnight without even realizing it. Why? Because *all* official or quasi-official support ceased for anything relevant to the game I was playing. All of us were expected to cast everything we had aside, and start over; it was analagous to a car company saying "we've just released our shiny new 2000 model, and as of now we will not repair or maintain any models 1999 or earlier". Did this cause resentment? Obviously. did it in the end matter? Not so much, as 3e did so enormously well.

Now, however, when lots and lots of people have found 3.x to be their preferred version of the game, the same thing is about to happen to them....and the same resentment is brewing; only somewhat more in advance as so many of us saw how the 2e-3e changeover went. Hence, another generation of grognards are preparing to start doing their own repairs and maintenance...and keep the game - as they know and love it - alive. And though I'm no huge fan of 3e, I can certainly understand the sentiment involved.

Lane-"I should name my next character Grognard"-fan

 

[Terramotus]

This is a straw man. It's quite possible to like some of 4E a whole lot, and some of it a whole not a lot. It's also possible to do the same with prior editions, too. And, given that this is the new game, it's sort of messing with the hobby in a way that the existence of prior editions is irrelevant to.

I think that kind of nerfs your argument a bit (but I have taken just one bit out of context there, it may not have hinged on it).

It would be a straw man if there weren't people expressing just that sentiment around here, though I'm sure there's hyperbole involved.

In all likelihood, though, someone who likes some parts of an older editions and doesn't like others, and feels the same way about 4E from the information given, but prefers an older edition on balance is probably not an individual who is going crazy and thinks that 4E is the End of Everything.

I think it's a matter of definitions. For the purposes here, I think a good definition of a grognard would be someone who has an emotional attachment to a design element of a previous edition of D&D such that it prevents them from possibly adopting 4E. And even of those, the people who quietly decide not to purchase the system aren't really the ones being discussed here.

Grognards aren't killing D+D. They're trying to keep it alive.

Everyone who's ever played the game, including me, has a particular edition or ruleset or collection of houserules that is their preferred version of the game. Mine happens to be a modified version of 1e, but that doesn't stop me from paying close attention to new developments as the modification process will never be complete and good ideas are hard to find.

With all due respect, are you trying to keep the game alive, or just your particular version of it? It's been 18 years since 2nd Edition replaced 1st in 1989. If it's dying from that change, then it's been a long slow death that's lasted longer than the entire publishing history of the game prior to that point.

 

[Counterspin]

I'm confused by people's ability to be resentful about entirely foreseeable events. If a lion bites me, I don't resent it, it's a lion, it was gonna bite something. Same thing with D&D. There is going to be a new edition, and support for the old edition will vanish. This has been obvious for a good while. Why you'd be resentful about something that was obviously going to happen from day one is beyond me.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I'm confused by people's ability to be resentful about entirely foreseeable events. If a lion bites me, I don't resent it, it's a lion, it was gonna bite something. Same thing with D&D. There is going to be a new edition, and support for the old edition will vanish. This has been obvious for a good while. Why you'd be resentful about something that was obviously going to happen from day one is beyond me.

Would it be more comprehensible to you if we replaced the word "resentful" with "unhappy"?

Fine. We don't resent the new edition, we're just unhappy about it.