Are Gognards killing D&D?

[Talislan]

This is just a personal opinion

I really don't get what the fuss is about. There is a new game coming out next year as I see it called D&D 4th Edition. We are now going to have the choice of a fourth way of playing a wonderful game!
Anyone who can't see this, to me, is a grognard.
I have been given an opportunity to try something from the ground up again. Something that I can spend the next few years pulling apart and rebuilding just as I have every other game.
Can I still play D&D 3.5 though? YES! will there be any more annoying changes to it that I wasn't expecting? NO!
Will I have to resort to using my own imagination for creating settings/worlds for 3.5? Yes. Is that a problem? Well it hasn't been for the first 29 years of my life so I can't see it suddenly becoming one.

Does anyone see what I'm getting at?

When I first started playing RPG's all we needed was a rule book, a DM to interpret the rules and a group of like minded individuals with equally vivid imaginations. I really don't think this has changed. If it has then it is not D&D that is dying but the RPG genre itself.

My only real problem with so called Grognards or anyone else on these forums is when they cry "its not fair", "they're not supporting it anymore", or liking this to a car company declaring it will no longer be maintaining vintage models.

Since when did my imagination need maintenance? what support can they provide now that this particular game is all grown up?
They can't. they realised it was as good as it was going to get and the rest is up to me. As it always has been.

I would like to reitterate before I go that this is just a personal opinion. I don't claim that it will be right for everybody and I hope that I have not offended.

T.

The boundaries of success are held only by the limits of your imagination. Talislan_D 2000

 

[Aeolius]

...D&D doesn't require a new edition to attract new customers; it requires a better marketing campaign, one that removes the "geek" stigma from gaming...

but...but... I don't want "norms" playing MY game!

 

[Umbran]

Guess what? The whole "we have to do it to attract new gamers thing" is the same 'ol excuse that WotC uses whenever it puts out a change that upsets people. It's tired, it's old, and it's now a cliche.

Note two things:

1)Can you actually quote any place where WotC uses this, as opposed to someone speculating on WotC's reasons? You should avoid putting words in WotC's mouth.

2)Even if it is old, tired, and perhaps even cliche, you have not yet shown that it is not also true. There are truths we don't like, you know.

When 80% of your player base are old timers, alienating half of them to appeal to newer, younger players (who aren't exactly showing an enthusiastic interest in tabletop RPGs to begin with) is a surefire way to marginalize your game and hasten its eventual fadeout.

But failing to change in order to please said old-timers is a surefire way to keep your game locked into the marginal oldtimer base, and doom it to a slow, lingering death as your base shrinks due to attrition. Keeping to the old-timers is not a viable long-term strategy, dude.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

A few thoughts that went through my head while reading this thread...

What is D&D, and how can you kill it? Is basic D&D dead? AD&D 1E? 2E? Or even OD&D (the "one true game" )? I'd argue they are very much alive, since they all are still widely in use, and played by many groups. In the recent years, those editions even saw an increasing support for those older editions.

Is TSR dead? Most certainly.

People that are against change are not grognards, they simply are the conservative part of the D&D player community. Grognards are those who started with one of the earliest editions, played D&D for most of the intervening time, and to whom an older edition of the game is the most preferred one.

What generational gap? Sure, there are younger players who aren't comfy playing with those 20 years older than them, or the other way around. There are obnoxious young punks playing with reminiscing old geezers on the other side. I have one group with people around my age (35), and one where the oldest is 7 years my junior, the youngest 15 years. And likewise have I played with people older than me. Generational gaps are all in the head, after all.

Also, older players are pretty much what keeps the game going, especially with an edition that has pretty high (compared to the Red Box I started with at 14) entry requirements, financial as well as comprehensive ones. Often, it's an experienced player who brings new players in, shows them the ropes, and gives them a taste of the game. And I bet there's enough of us who are handing out roleplaying sets as gifts for christmas, birthdays, or any other opportunity, in order to get younger folks playing. I've made it a habit to keep a surplus copy of the Red Box Basic Set or two around, in case I see one of my younger relatives who might have an interest in it, or as a pressie to the kids of friends.

So no, grognards aren't killing D&D. Neither is the endless debate, divergent opinions and sometimes the extreme positions of a few people (and compared to the "middle ground" the extreme sides are a few people). What would be killing D&D (in my opinion) is taking away its unique qualities. Slapping the brand name on any game engine doesn't automatically make it D&D, just like slapping the VW logo on the Smart wouldn't have made it the "New) Beetle.

Arguably, those unique qualities are slightly different for each player, but even here, there is an overlap in many cases. We may differ in details, tastes and personal preferences, or the execution of the same rules, and for most of us D&D is something we recognize when we see (or play) it. And that recognition has been colored by how long we played it, how we played it, et. But killing monsters and taking their stuff may have been where D&D originated in, but it's by far not the exclusive attribute that separates D&D from, say, Shadowrun, Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, GURPS, or any other RPG out there that deals with killing monsters and taking their stuff. D&D is special, which is why it was so damn successful for over 30 years, and why it hopefully will continue to be so for the next 30.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

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).

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?

You've kind of contradicted yourself a bit.

Yes, folks like me who've been playing for 20+ years have the greatest disposable income for the market. Never forget that gaming is entertainment and a business. Businesses exist to make money. If I were a business executive would I worry about attracting new, young players who don't exactly have money to burn or do I market to the 30+ year old crowd who has the money? It isn't like the "grognard" customer base is going anywhere... they are going to continue to progress in their careers and thus make more money which in turn they are more likely to spend on more games if I market the product to them. I'll give you an example... Star Trek.
Paramount has been working that "Product Line" since before I was born and it still is one of their tentpole "products". They've done a masterful job of incorporating new material and ideas into the existing universe. The main point to take away from Paramount is that they have made their product "Backwards Compatable" so to speak. This way they've been attracting new fans and keeping the old ones.

I think one of the reasons why there has been so much trash-talk among the grognards (myself included) is that we don't see much in the way of "Backwards Compatability". With each new edition the game looks less and less like what we remember. 2e was for the most part compatible with 1e. 3.X was a further departure but there were still some things that hearkened back to 1e & 2e. 4e appears to be such a large departure that it no longer resembles the game that we loved. It would be like titling a new movie "Star Trek" but showing "Star Wars". Star Wars may be a good movie and all but dang-it we paid to see Star Trek. The movie would be Star Trek in name only... just like the new edition appears to be "Dungeons & Dragons" in name only. At least that is my take on it.

Hopefully I didn't lose anybody...

 

[mhensley]

I think their market research is focused on how much money they can make, as it should be for a business, and not how many new gamers they could bring into the hobby. Selling new sets of core rules and splatbooks will make far more money than selling campaign settings and modules, even if they bring in 0 new gamers and alienate 25% of their customer base.

Only if their plan is to support D&D for a couple more years and then sell it. That's the only scenario where your theory makes any sense.

 

[diaglo]

i am a grognard.

started with wargames.


i ain't killing D&D. i've been highly active. probably the most active fan of D&D of anyone i know or have known.

i'm the guy keeping D&D alive.

i invite you to join a session with us some time. next one is this sunday.

 

[MojoGM]

Don't know if I qualifiy as a Grognard or whatever, but I'm 35, been playing since 1E, and have upgraded every time a new edition came out. Why? Cause it was always better (at least initially).

In order to keep the game alive and expand the base they need to make the game more fun/easier to run. All the players in the world don't matter if nobody wants to run the game because it is too complicated.

High level play in 3E/3.5E is kind of a chore, we all know that. And they're fixing it with 4E by trying to make it as easy to run a level 25 game as it is a level 2.

I think they made the right move at the right time. I may not like EVERY SINGLE thing they're doing with 4E, but most of it appeals to me.

That being said, I'll buy the 4E books to read, but probably won't actually RUN a 4E game for at least a year or so. But if the hype is accurate I'll move that timetable up.

And if you brag about how you "haven't bought a D&D product for years since you play an older edition" then you are not WOTC's target, so whether you're unhappy with the direction they are going in is of no concern to them (nor should it be).

 

[Wolfspider]

Hmm.

OK. This is directed at the OP.

Let's just assume the grognards ARE killing D&D, as you have claimed.

What do you want them to do? Start playing the current edition even though they are happier with an older version? Stop talking to anyone who is not also a grognard? Stop playing D&D altogether?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Only if their plan is to support D&D for a couple more years and then sell it. That's the only scenario where your theory makes any sense.

Well, that depends on present value and projected cash flow for each scenario, doesn't it? The cash flow from continuing to support 3.5 vs. the cash flow from introducing a whole new edition and possibly losing some of their customer base but increasing sales for the remainder. With a 10% discount rate, making $100 million now is as good as making $10 million per year until the end of time.