Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orcus" data-source="post: 3792819" data-attributes="member: 1254">The funny thing to me is the &quot;grognard&quot; element. Many 4E rejecters are serious old school types. Now, some never even embraced 3E, so it is no surpirse that they reject 4E. But I find that funny. Because many of those grognards played back in the day. Let me ask this: did you reject the AD&amp;D Monster Manual and Player's Handbook when they came out? Or the DMG? Did you say &quot;that's not my D&amp;D, its taking away my control and my freedom, that isnt the game I play.&quot; For the most part, I would guess you didnt. Most of you were probably like me: you couldnt get enough! When the Greyhawk supplement came out you loved it. When Eldritch Wzardry came out, you loved it. When AD&amp;D came out, you loved it. So why accept those rule changes but then reject these? Why reject advances to the game?Is it because of who the authors of the changes are? If so, then you wouldnt ever accept a new version of the game. What can we do about that? If the position is &quot;Gygax didnt write it so I dont want it?&quot; Is that it? Is it that you have mastered the rules as they are and dont want to change? Is there something inherent in 3E that makes you say &quot;this is it, this is the ultimate incarnation of the game and I refuse to even view another one&quot;? Is it the nostalgia? &quot;This is how it is, dont change it, because if you do then you are changing my beloved memory&quot;?Maybe I am mis-remembering because I was relatively young, but I remember D&amp;D players absolutely embracing changes and advances to our game. Why are those same old school guys the ones now who seem so against change?An interesting question, to me anyway. Maybe not to anyone else <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Clark</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orcus, post: 3792819, member: 1254"] The funny thing to me is the "grognard" element. Many 4E rejecters are serious old school types. Now, some never even embraced 3E, so it is no surpirse that they reject 4E. But I find that funny. Because many of those grognards played back in the day. Let me ask this: did you reject the AD&D Monster Manual and Player's Handbook when they came out? Or the DMG? Did you say "that's not my D&D, its taking away my control and my freedom, that isnt the game I play." For the most part, I would guess you didnt. Most of you were probably like me: you couldnt get enough! When the Greyhawk supplement came out you loved it. When Eldritch Wzardry came out, you loved it. When AD&D came out, you loved it. So why accept those rule changes but then reject these? Why reject advances to the game? Is it because of who the authors of the changes are? If so, then you wouldnt ever accept a new version of the game. What can we do about that? If the position is "Gygax didnt write it so I dont want it?" Is that it? Is it that you have mastered the rules as they are and dont want to change? Is there something inherent in 3E that makes you say "this is it, this is the ultimate incarnation of the game and I refuse to even view another one"? Is it the nostalgia? "This is how it is, dont change it, because if you do then you are changing my beloved memory"? Maybe I am mis-remembering because I was relatively young, but I remember D&D players absolutely embracing changes and advances to our game. Why are those same old school guys the ones now who seem so against change? An interesting question, to me anyway. Maybe not to anyone else :) Clark [/QUOTE]

Verification