Grognard good...grognard bad

[Silverblade The Ench]

From various threads here, and one on the Piazza....
Folk tend to use "grognard" in different ways:

1) Lover of an older edition/setting of their fave game.

2) Pig headed twit. Either so stubborn he simply won't or can't try anything else fairly, Or, unable to graps that the nostalgia and original wonder of a new thing can never be repeated and is thus more in love with the emotions of their first gaming days, than actual facts.

I think here, many folk use version #1. I use #2, because if someone likes an "Older version", that's their issue not mine and causes me no grief, no biggie It's like preffering Mozart to Wagner, or VampireTM to D&D, or whatever. it doesn't need a "Name" they are just "Joe who likes 1st ed", if we're talking of (A)D&D.

I had a huge love of 1st ed D&D, it was awesome, so fresh, fun etc!
But same goes for many things for your first time, that time/experience is always precious
But I've enjoyed each iteration of D&D since then. To me, D&D has improved, like anything, over time. I have some complaints, of course, nothing's perfect.
I feel a lack of fluff, of diversity, of amount of various worlds/ideas supported has limited it, and I'm still narked off about Dungeon/Dragon.
but time, moves on...to me, D&D isn't simply the mechanics, it's a whole lot more.

I'm a "grognard" in that I love the older settings.
Ebberon didn't do much for me, I ran games sort of like that style anyway. But I have no objection to it.

3rd Ed Realms was extremely well made, the 3rd ed FRCG is an amazing book...but I love the very first Realms boxed set, because it's how I see the Realms: "Forgotten"!, very unexplored, mysterious, and I just adore the art/design, it evokes the setting to me which later ones don't (especially the 3rd boxed set which I hate, ick).

Dark Sun originally was outstanding, but like many folks, the forced metaplot by TSR/novels etc then 2nd boxed set that "un-mystified" that which was best left mysterious, nah that I completely ignored and left otu of my games.

Spelljammer was just so weird, beautiful, "High adventure" and capable of humour that I adored it I also loved swashbuckling long before Cpt Jack Sparrow was around, lol, "The Crimson Pirate" and Captain Blood being huge favourites of mine.

Planescape, this one's more awkward. I think losing the Factions, that "belief is king" and otehr philosophical aspects was very bad, it lost a lot of what made it "special".
I don't like the Planes as a "huge mega dungeon" OMG I hate that. it completely misses the point as far as I'm concerned. It's like playing Ravenloft without scaring the pants off the players and making it Monty Haul.
Oh, and sorry DiTerLizzi fans, I loathed his style of art, lol many though I know loved it, hey, each to his own.
But I adored the concepts in the orginal setting.
4th ed improved somethings, worsened others with the Planes. I think the Philosophy and factions of original Planescape and the 4th ed Dawn War can both be present.

Original Ravenloft was great, but all the changes...oh no, no thanks, that was change for the sake of change. I'd have gladly paid for more new realms etc, but not messing the whole thing up.


Grognard good...grognard bad....

Companies need to sell products to keep in business. For D&D to survive, it must sell more stuff. So like it or not, new editions, acessories and settings, are vital to the thing well all love.

By re-releasing 4th ed Dark Sun, WOTC does everyone a good turn.

But here's something I think WOTC is making a huge failing in:
Not catering to more grognards, or....just folk who want something different.
Some people just preffer 1st ed. or 2nd, or 3rd. This is not a bad thing!

the huge amount of output in the later TSR days, I think was NOT a bad thing. D&D needs a lot of "stuff" to support, to attract, to give folk DIFFERENT things to see and like. Just because I or you don't like a module, doesn't mean it isn't one Joe will adore and campign around for the next 10 years.


Dragon Magazine and the DDI stuff should support the older editions, thus cementing the good will of those sticking ot other versions. They have money to spend and may well have kids who one day may play 6th edition....

As I've been throwing out my old Dragon magazines, sigh, I've been reading through them, and I see the huge difference between them and the very sad item Dragon mag is today.
Old Dragon mag, especially in it's latter period, had a huge wealth of articles, product reviews, humour and other stuff that made it feel PART OF A COMMUNITY and not merely "chunks of stuff".

I'm not getting at the individual articles in today's Dragon, which are often good but at the failure to realize that an online item allows for a much larger amount of content and the necessity for Dragon magazine to be a powerful item in the D&D community, which it sure can be, as it once was.
At the moment it's...mostly dribs and drabs, soem exicitng, but...no coherence!
It' snot got the strength and flavoursom breadth it had to really reach out to folk.


Then we have the behaviour of WOTC itself, firing or losing people the community respects so damn often. That's not good, it doesn't build rappor, trust etc. The reasons maybe genuine, but with the "coproate speak" used when such occur....not good.

In effect, WOTC is making folk be grognards (good and bad), IMHO, and not embracing them back.

If Dragon/Dungeon mag and DDI had articles for earlier editions and co-operation with sellers of the earlier versions, the community spirit would improve.
as pdfs, Dragon mag could have a huge amoutn of content. It could have money making RPG adverts again.
I LOVE seeing lots of various game related stuff, from minis to soundtracks, dungeon furniture to markers.

Every new edition of D&D will make more grognards...
unless this is realized, and they are kept included as part of the D&D family...then all it does is help erode the game!

Folk who preffer an older version or setting who feel deliberately sleighted by corporate policy decisions that have little "human warmth", may become the "bad" grognards we can all do without, or just "good" ones who buy old books off Ebay or pdf adventures etc from 3rd parties, rather than keep D&D's continued presence alive.


Just some obervations from, the neo-grognard in the Twilight Zone!

 

[Mark]

I'm a "grognard" in that I love the older settings.

(. . .)

But here's something I think WOTC is making a huge failing in:
Not catering to more grognards, or....just folk who want something different.
Some people just preffer 1st ed. or 2nd, or 3rd. This is not a bad thing!

the huge amount of output in the later TSR days, I think was NOT a bad thing. D&D needs a lot of "stuff" to support, to attract, to give folk DIFFERENT things to see and like. Just because I or you don't like a module, doesn't mean it isn't one Joe will adore and campign around for the next 10 years.

Indeed (and well said all around). One of the biggest of the PR blunders of WotC in recent years was the blanket removal of PDFs from the market based on their citing of newer books being pirated in some quarters. There inability to convert some fans to the newest edition was a foregone conclusion but the ending of their relationship with those past fans by cutting off sales of PDFs of previous editions was simply foolish. I'm not their target for 4E (I periodically play and sometimes pick up a product that is more edition neutral) but I was someone who would still purchase older PDFs. I would do this just to read and enjoy them, since I do not run older edition games, although I do play in some at conventions. I'm still perplexed by the decision and what was gained by no longer selling the older edition PDFs. It will be fascinating to someday hear the thought process behind the decision (and you know that someday someone will spill the beans, even if only anonymously, regarding who made the various PR blunders).


Anyway, grognard is still, to me, the traditional gaming definition of a pre-RPG wargamer (though the older wargamers I know would not include any wargamer who since took up RPGs as amoung the ranks of grognards). From my POV, any RPGer who shows signs of grognardishness is termed a neo-grog.

 

[Ariosto]

Yeah, it's sort of funny to see it applied to RPGers.

On the other hand, Napoleon's old soldiers might have thought it funny to see it applied to people who merely played wargames about Napoleon's old soldiers.

What it literally means is "grumbler", I think (but pardon my French if I'm wrong).

 

[maddman75]

Simple test.

If you can get someone to take the position of "Fun! I don't play this game for fun, sonny-boy!", they are the grognard.

The grognard hates new games because they are not exactly like the old games.

Playing old games does not make you a grognard. Hating people getting rid of rules they don't think are fun is grognard. Thinking that harsh arbitrary rules are manly is grognard. Thinking that you must endure pointless frustration before you deserve to have fun is grognard. Not wanting new people to join the hobby because they are the wrong sorts of people is grognard.

This is why I mean when I say grognard.

 

[Ariosto]

As to commerce ...

I've got my skepticism, but I reckon it may well be that what WotC has been doing is the way to maximize profits.

In any case, maximizing profits is not necessarily identical with any other thing -- including the long-term existence of D&D in any form.

It is indeed a drag that the PDFs are gone. With OD&D in particular, as well as some modules, the scarcity of originals makes for collectors'-item prices.

Going beyond that, though, we have the OGL and SRD and "retro-clones" in addition to the original books that are more readily available.

Basically, the futures of the old games are passing into the hands of fans. As the professional industry associated with them falls by the wayside, the hobby comes to prominence.

Rather, it returns to prominence. The hobby is where it all began, whence the industry came. It is the Once and Future King of gaming.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In gamer speak I believe it means those who entered the roleplaying hobby through wargames. This is kind of an interesting definition because someone who learns about D&D through somebody at their weekly Flames of War game would be a grognard. Kind of funny actually.

 

[Bullgrit]

But here's something I think WOTC is making a huge failing in:
Not catering to more grognards, or....just folk who want something different.
Some people just preffer 1st ed. or 2nd, or 3rd. This is not a bad thing!

People who prefer AD&D1, AD&D2, or D&D3 (or OD&D, B/XD&D, or BECMID&D) *have* those games. WotC doesn't need to cater to those folks; those folks already have years of material for those editions.

Bullgrit

 

[wayne62682]

IMO, the "good" use of Grognard means someone who has played the game for years, and brings their years of experience to the table to benefit the whole gaming group.

The far more common use, and the derisive usage, means someone who hates the new game because it's not the game they used to play years ago. So a "stupid Grognard" would be someone who loathes 4E because it's not 1st edition AD&D, and basically considers anyone who likes 4E to be a kid/mmo player/etc. Conversely, someone who just says "4E is not for me, so I don't play it" (i.e. most of the veteran players here) is NOT a Grognard, because they aren't going on a rant about how all the newfangled stuff is dumbing down the game, or worse how 4E isn't really D&D at all.

So basically the bad kind of grognard hates something because it's new, and tries to proselytize to others to see his stance, and typically resorts to insults or baseless arguments to show why new = bad, old = good.

 

[Ariosto]

http://www.alanemrich.com/Writing_Archive_pages/grognard.htm

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Grognard: a soldier of Napoleons' Old Guard; a veteran soldier; grumbler (French) - Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed

[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Grognard: (slang) an experienced wargamer - John Young, Strategy & Tactics magazine
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Bullgrit]

Basically, from what I've seen, someone who self-identifies as a "grognard" is someone who has drawn a line in the sand, demarking where they stand; anyone on the other side of the line is against them, whether the anyone knows or cares to be.

Usually, that line is drawn before AD&D2.

Bullgrit