Do grognards have to be jerks?

[Croesus]

The funny thing is that I play about anything and can see the good and bad of all editions I've played. (Except for those games in which I was a new player and had no frame of reference.)

I'm sorry if folks are offended by my thread title. I didn't mean to be a jerk myself. Just merely commenting that the grognards I've met recently were pretty hostile, which doesn't seem to support ther argument (that their version of game x is more fun.)

But is it possible you've self-selected your data? As mentioned above, we tend to remember certain behavior we find obnoxious, while completely overlooking behaviour we find completely unobjectionable. We then tend to apply patterns to the behavior, which leads us to stereotype particular groups, whether "grognards", "geeks", or whoever. Even when most members of that group are not exhibiting the behavior we find obnoxious.

I have no issue with a complaint about the behavior - just with the broad brush applied to a group, in this case grognards.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The angry grognards are no worse -- and no better -- than the sneering Pathfinder players (quick, figure out how to insert "4" into an insult!) or the frothing 4E fans.

There are jerks everywhere and they do the games they advocate an injustice by making it seem like you'd have to play with folks like them.

 

[Dannager]

But is it possible you've self-selected your data?

Possibly, but in this case I doubt it.

As mentioned above, we tend to remember certain behavior we find obnoxious, while completely overlooking behaviour we find completely unobjectionable.

The language is, in this case, the giveaway.

On the one hand you have people who are happy playing the games they play, who are often ignorant of the older games out there, and who don't actually harbor any ill will towards games they either a) used to enjoy, or b) never had the opportunity to play to begin with. This group is all of the non-grognards, and it stands to reason that the don't often exhibit the "anti-game-X" behaviors we're talking about.

On the other hand you have grognards, and within this group is a sub-group of people who are (very) set in their ways, and often believe that they know best - not just for themselves, but for all gamers. They harbor a tremendous amount of ill-will towards newer games for any number of reasons: killing sacred cows, stealing players, putting older editions out of print, being more forgiving, being less exclusive, etc. I daresay that many of them believe themselves to be the true heirs to the mythical garden of RPG, and that all the kids playing those WotC games are, as described elsewhere in this thread, "mindless sheep."

We then tend to apply patterns to the behavior, which leads us to stereotype particular groups, whether "grognards", "geeks", or whoever. Even when most members of that group are not exhibiting the behavior we find obnoxious.

It's not a matter of most members of that group being obnoxious. It's the fact that more members of that group act obnoxiously, proportionally, than you might find in the general population, or even the geek population.

I have no issue with a complaint about the behavior - just with the broad brush applied to a group, in this case grognards.

I dislike explanations that go for the "All groups are equally obnoxious, you just don't recognize it in your own group," point. I'm a big fan of groups policing their own, and frankly if I were a member of the OSR I would be furious with the conduct of some of its other members. It has a really unflattering image with a lot of the gaming world for this very reason. Now, granted, being exclusive and insular could be part of the appeal of the group, and in that case they shouldn't give a damn what everyone else thinks of them, but I have the sneaking suspicion (not actually a suspicion at all) that part of the point of the OSR is to expand the playerbase of old-school gaming, and in that sense they are their own worst enemies.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I predict a rational and fair discussion on the topic.

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannager]

The angry grognards are no worse -- and no better -- than the sneering Pathfinder players (quick, figure out how to insert "4" into an insult!) or the frothing 4E fans.

I've always wondered at this. For the past couple of years I've really kept an eye out for 4e fans hating on the games other people play, and I rarely see it.

So, I mean, no, I really don't feel like "frothing" 4e fans are just as bad as those who make a habit of sneering at or being bitter and angry about other games.

It's the difference between defending something you enjoy (which has a certain nobility of purpose to it) and attacking something that you don't like (which is just sort of sad), and I believe that difference to be absolutely critical.

 

[Crothian]

I think this is the first year I didn't directly hear anything like this. Even in my 1e game that included a guy who played since the mid 70's and kids who might not have been born when 3e was released all editions were discussed and it was some good conversations.

 

[saskganesh]

If a specific grognard is a jerk, there's very a good chance he is a jerk when he is not gaming. So in fact, his jerkiness doesn't have much to do with gaming.

[/end thread]

 

[Mournblade94]

I've always wondered at this. For the past couple of years I've really kept an eye out for 4e fans hating on the games other people play, and I rarely see it.

So, I mean, no, I really don't feel like "frothing" 4e fans are just as bad as those who make a habit of sneering at or being bitter and angry about other games.

It's the difference between defending something you enjoy (which has a certain nobility of purpose to it) and attacking something that you don't like (which is just sort of sad), and I believe that difference to be absolutely critical.

Once again though, you fall in the trap of the self selected data mentioned before.

One can paint the nice illusion of the noble 4e avenger defending themselves against all the grognards, but it is just that, an illusion.

It is 100%, the original poster self selected data. Any researcher will tell you so.

 

[gamerprinter]

I only spent one day at Gen Con but did not see one negative pointed remark versus any game system - not one.

Curious though, when the OP says 'grognard' that by itself could be considered a derogatory term. Does the OP mean to say, anyone not embracing new games - as in 4e is a grognard.

While its true, I've played all the editions since 1977, and currently play 3x/Pathfinder, I don't consider myself a grognard - I usually point that term to old pre-RPG miniatures gamers, or even the origin of the term retired veterans who served under Napoleon. I don't think any of those grognards are still alive.

So your very identification on non-new gamers as grognards is in fact a very offensive way to identify a bunch of people. And there are several members of this forum who prefer the 'new game' and are very nasty in their consideration of non-4e gamers (any niche has it's noisome supporters - including non-4e games).

I've seen both the nasty and the pleasant from old and new gamers - never just one side. I've seen reasonable supporters to both as well. Its a big world and there are many differing opinions.

I don't play 4e, but I am definitely not a grognard.

 

[Black Omega]

There's some really good stuff here. It would be great if people were more accepting of change and could understand that people might prefer a different version of a game. I never really played any of the flavors of D&D but know just enough to see how different people can enjoy the uniqueness of each variation.

That said...

You see the same thing in video games.

With StarCraft II, 10+ years after the release of the fantastically popular Brood War (which is still widely played) came the new game on the block.

Naturally the new game did some things differently than the old game. And naturally people complained about it. But after awhile, it became obvious that many things weren't going to be changed back.

This is ridiculous. Starcraft: Broodwar (SC:BW) is quite possibly the best video game of all time. The gameplay has been polished over years and is now so perfectly balanced that any race can fight on any map and have a even fight. The graphics could be called a little mdated, but they accurately portray everything you need to know about what is happening in the game at a glance. I've spent countless hours over the last 15 years on SC:BW and for a while was good enough to consider going pro, so I know what I'm talking about.

Starcraft II (SC2) is an abomination. They updated the graphics, hoping that would disguise otherwise shoddy game play. But top players use graphics at low settings for a reason, they don't want distractions from the game. After 10 months the gameplay of SC2 remains uneven and poorly balanced, while Blizzard keeps finding ways to dumb down the game, making it more accessable to people who are unwilling to put in the countless hours I have.

To compare the morons who enjoy SC2 to the people who enjoy various types of RP games is an insult to SC:BW players everywhere. If the SC2 players actually understood gaming, they'd agree with me.