Are Gognards killing D&D?

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I'm 41, I started playing D&D in 78, left it in 85 to play other systems, and returned in 2000. I'm quite happy with most of what they've revealed about 4e. I'm more worried about how successful the implementation will be than where they're going with it.

I don't see much of a correlation between age and 4e-hating on these boards. I think a lot of divergence in opinion here comes from the poster's opinion of 3e - if someone thinks that 3e was a fine game which needed at most minor corrections, then 4e seems like "change for the sake of change", to quote a common complaint. I think that 3e had fundamental problems which could not be corrected without a major rebuild, so I'm glad to see Wizards being will to attack them.


PS: It's "Grognards". I don't know what "Gognards" would be. Worshipers of Gog, perhaps.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?

Way ahead of you on that one. My children, a nephew, and a niece are playing in my games (OD&D[1974] and C&C/AD&D). Also, I gave my son a copy of the Mentzer Basic Set and he's run a few session, too.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

PS: It's "Grognards". I don't know what "Gognards" would be. Worshipers of Gog, perhaps.

Just be glad he didn't say "Grognads," instead.

 

[Melan]

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).

Precisely. What we are talking about are subjective design decisions presented as "objective neccessity", prettied up with nebulous phrases like "evolve", "up-to date" and "move forward".

 

[darkseraphim]

I'd like to point out the personal aspect, since a lot of people seem to be glossing it over in favor of tsk-tsking people who won't accept random product shoved down their throats on the basis of a brand name.

A lot of us grew up with this game. Before the Internet, community was very much a sense of where you lived and who lived there. Star Wars was brand spanking new. A sense of wonder was evoked largely by books, by dreams, by storytelling, by night games (haunted houses, tag, flashlight wars, etc.) In such a world, the idea of a shared and communal sense of wonder was just coming to the forefront, and it was awesome. I cannot lie to you, it was one of the most awesome things I've experienced in my life, outside of love, family, travel and learning to read. It was a revelation.

People who want to hold onto their 1E are, quite often, holding on to a reverence for their past.

Is that inconvenient for people who want 4E to succeed? Probably. When I want quick-and-dirty, visceral, action-based fantasy action, I play WoW. When I want to relive my past, I play D&D.

That's just the way it is. Yup, I'm one of those proverbial semi-wealthy guys who hasn't bought a Wizards product since 1998 in the Greyhawk renaissance, when it was clear that they were genuinely interested in stoking the old flame.

Surely there will be something in your life that will make you feel the same way 30 years from now, when virtual-goggle MMOs are all the rage and people sneer at you for playing a "book game." You don't understand now, but you will.

 

[Turanil]

Are Grognards killing D&D?

I am one of those old grognards...

So, if I understand well, if a company (any company) releases a product, and that customers don't like the product and don't buy it, it's thus the customers' fault if the company fails? They should be blamed if the company fails? And why not being sued for not buying something you don't like?

As for 4e, I think that the hate originates from this: even if most publishers are in the business to make money, or at least must be profitable to continue, Hasbro/WotC seems to go over the top with what seems to be just another money-grab scheme. When 3e came out, there was almost a need for it, as TSR was dead and AD&D broken. But then, there was 3.5 very quickly, and even more books released. Many 3e players did cringe at what they already perceived as a trick to draw more money from their wallet (even if of course nobody is obliged to buy anything). And now that most 3e gamers have bought A LOT of 3.5 books, and that WotC doesn't know what to publish more, WotC comes and says: "forget about it, that game is broken, you are going to purchase all that great new 4e stuff now." In fact 4e is a new and different game, and as such there is nothing wrong with it, especially if it pleases a lot of people. However, it's called D&D just because as such it should sell more, and they clearly tell us there will be even more stuff to buy with it, with new core books every year, etc. I am convinced you just rename 4e differently (Paragons of Power) and don't already push the splutter of endless additional things to purchase beyond the three core books, and the hate will quickly disappear.

 

[Umbran]

Nice Sock Puppet.
4/10

If your suspicions of outright foul play are strong enough to act on, your actions should have included a report to the moderators, dude. If they are not strong enough to bring to our attention, they probably aren't strong enough to use to try to paint another user an ugly color.

 

[resistor]

As one of the people who is frequently labelled as having a grognard-ish outlook on 4e, I think the whole classification based on grognard-ism is bunk.

I'm 21, and started playing just after 3e came out. I just happen to like the game as I currently play it more than what they've been showing. That's not inherently linked to having played D&D since time out of mind.

 

[Antonlowe]

Wow, this thread has exploded!

Thanks for all the replies. I think it may have been helpful to define gognard in my original post. It was probably the wrong term to use because it can be so broad. By gognard, I meant a person who is against changes in the game that change what they feel is the essences of D&D.So I will defend my standing a little. The essence of D&D to me is killing things and taking their. If the system allows me to do that, then I will use it for DnD. Any change that does not interfere with that I am all for as long as it brings more people into the hobby. I can always house rule other things and dont have a problem with doing so.

In another thread a poser was upset about the changes to monster stat blocks because "I don't like the idea that now i can just dump a monster into an encounter without having to read it before hand. This will encourage DMs to stop thinking." Or, "Emerald frost is a dumb name and I don't want to have to change it in my homebrew because the players will get confused. Or, "DnD shouldn't have tieflings and dragonborn because....my home setting....the way it's always been". These things have nothing to do with how easy it is to kill things and take their stuff. Thy have nothing to do with mechanics. They only become a problem because people have these funny notions of what DnD should be.

I dont care if you started playing in 1st addition or in 3.5, but if you dislike change because of how you used to play, regardless of whether or not its good for the hobby, you are a gognard.

Edit: I have no problem with people wanting to stick to old editions. I started with AD&D and have many fond memories of it. The only problem I do have is when people want a new edition to be just like the last. If 4E turns out to be a worse system then 3.5, well then I will go back to plaing 3.5.

 

[Umbran]

Thanks for all the replies. I think it may have been helpful to define gognard in my original post. It was probably the wrong term to use because it can be so broad. By gognard, I meant a person who is against changes in the game that change what they feel is the essences of D&D.

My apologies if others made this clear, but just so you know, that's not what I gather is the overall standard definition.

In the more standard RPG vernacular, a "grognard" is someone who came to rpgs by way of their wargaming roots. While many have identified them with the... reactionary stance you claim here, I don't think that's really applicable. Grognards have just been playing for a long, long time, is all.

I started with 1e AD&D, back in the early 80s, and I don't qualify as a grognard (I was also playing wargames, but I came to RPGs and wargames separately). Grognards typically have been playing longer than I have - I doubt there are enough real grognards around to affect the hobby in the way you suggest.

There may be enough players who don't want change to impact how things move from this point on - but I would expect their loyalty specifically to 3e is the issue, not what games they may have played earlier.