Are Gognards killing D&D?

[GVDammerung]

. . . 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.

(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.

(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.

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

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

(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.

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

QFT. Very well summed up.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

Gnomes and half-orcs weren't in original D&D, nor were most of the classes in later editions. They were all new, potentially welcome additions to the core (like the half-orc, who came to the party in 1st edition and left in 2nd edition to make another appearance in 3rd). While 1st edition was much more flavored by the fantasy of the 60s and 70s, 2nd edition was initially more flavored by historical medieval stuff (all the examples given for classes in 2nd edition are real-world folk heroes and such, like Friar Tuck and Charlemagne). Changes like that happen in each addition, so this is nothing new.

 

[Tquirky]

Gnomes and half-orcs weren't in original D&D, nor were most of the classes in later editions.

Not quite true - the paladin and monk (mystic) were OD&D prestige classes, and I think the druid too. Gnomes are indeed a new addition, but fit the overall theme of demihumans, and critically aren't monsters (ala dragonborn) or D&Disms (ala "eladrin"). "Eladrin", being a contrived D&Dism of a name without the mythological meaning of the word "gnome", don't slot in so easily.

As for half-orcs, good riddance IMO. Why they couldn't have taken half-elves with them is a mystery, although I suspect it might have something to do with a flavour-as-afterthought measure like "game needs a leader race to fill a slot in our crunch matrix of roles".

 

[Greylock]

Not quite true - the paladin and monk (mystic) were OD&D prestige classes, and I think the druid too...

I don't think Prestige Classes is the word you are looking for. In OD&D they were full character classes.

Perhaps you are thinking of another edition.

 

[rounser]

In OD&D they were full character classes.

I could have sworn you needed X levels in fighter or cleric before qualifying, or somesuch. But it's been a long time since I cracked those books.

Or are you referring to the white box D&D books, rather than BECMI?

But you're right, the expression "prestige class" only came about as of 3E. I'm using the term as a descriptor of what they effectively were.

 

[Ty]

I *think* they had both actually. I'd have to do some very serious digging in the hermetically sealed boxes stored away in a dry basement area but I recall both mechanisms where they were classes in of themselves and a transition class similar to the old 1st Edition Bard where you had to have X classes levels.

 

[Thurbane]

(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.

(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.

(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.

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

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

(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.

I've been avoiding the 4E area of these forums recently, precisely because of topics like "Are Grognards killing D&D?"...but I just had to post to say, well said RC...I think you've hit a lot of nails squarely on the head.

 

[Fifth Element]

As for half-orcs, good riddance IMO. Why they couldn't have taken half-elves with them is a mystery, although I suspect it might have something to do with a flavour-as-afterthought measure like "game needs a leader race to fill a slot in our crunch matrix of roles".

This comes across as: major changes are inherently bad, unless they're changes I agree with. If you don't think they should be making major changes (like adding or deleting races), then you should be against them removing half-orcs and half-elves.

 

[Tquirky]

This comes across as: major changes are inherently bad, unless they're changes I agree with. If you don't think they should be making major changes (like adding or deleting races), then you should be against them removing half-orcs and half-elves.

No, it comes across as "4E isn't the only edition I don't think got everything right with regard to core races."

Unlike certain others, I don't go pro-everything or anti-everything a given edition has to offer. And I don't pretend to be 100% objective - no-one can be about subjective stuff like this - but I do think some of my arguments hold enough water to not be easily dismissed, as the seemingly undiscriminatingly pro-all-that-is-4E cavalry keep trying to do, for some mysterious reason.

In other words, if you want Edition Wars (as your consistent position seems to be on this board), I'm not your huckleberry.

 

[BASHMAN]

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.

This is the best post on the subject I have ever seen and 100% sums up my feelings on the issue. I hope the "grognard haters" read this before they lay into the "how dare you question anything 4e or WotC does" dead horse again.