Grognard good...grognard bad

[Desdichado]

The last quote you attributed to me was not actually mine.

Ah, whoops! Feexed.

 

[Herschel]

Yeah, I agree with this. It seems wrong to me that 'skilled play' should be attached to a particular, highly gamist, play style.

Skilled play can take many forms. To me, the skillful player is the one is a good at entertaining all the other participants, not the uber-cautious guy who, frankly, I find boring.

Of course it won't let me give you XP twice in the same thread.

 

[ExploderWizard]

*shrugs*

It could also be summed up conversely as spending vast amounts of time (time more well-adjusted people spend on jobs and social encounters) holed up in your mother's basement examining every rule and combo ad nauseum so you can cover up for a lack of quick thinking is no replacement for skill.

Agreed. Studying character optimization techniques, and rules information is not, IMHO a good use of time.

 

[maddman75]

Agreed. Studying character optimization techniques, and rules information is not, IMHO a good use of time.

Nothing in gaming is a good use of time. We are wasting our lives, every one of us.

The question is whether or not it is a fun waste of time, or an enjoyable one. Heck, that paranoid, think before you act or get crushed kind of game can be fun. That's pretty much how I run Call of Cthulhu, one of my favorite games. I just don't think that its the only way to game. Sometimes I want players to feel free to try crazy stuff or charge in damn the torpedoes. Depends on the genre and feel you're going for.

Good Idea: Grabbing a six inch piece of wood and charging at a monster in Buffy: the Vampire Slayer
Bad Idea: Grabbing a six inch piece of wood and charging in at a monster in Call of Cthulhu

The difference is the grognard will claim the latter to be 'skilled, thoughtful play' and the former to be Tyranny of BadWrongFun.

 

[Ariosto]

Nothing against those that do, but saying that this is 'skilled play' and my way is 'mediocrity' is explicitly saying 'my game is right and yours is wrong'.

If you're playing the same game, then 'skilled' is indeed 'right' and 'mediocrity' is 'wrong'.

If you're playing different games, then I think the intended meaning is "Game B is a pathetic substitute for Game A, utterly devoid of what I find engaging."

Once again, we run into the problems inherent in claiming simultaneously that "the game remains the same" and that "it's not unfun, which it used to be in all the ways that 'grognards' mistakenly call fun."

 

[maddman75]

People play games different ways. One AD&D GM would run gritty screw-you-over survival, while the other runs gonzo space lasers and wereweasels riding giant snails. Both playing the same game, only you claim one of them is playing it wrong.

Please, tell me about other ways that I game wrong, I'm interested to know.

 

[Ariosto]

The attempt to paint all old-style challenging play in absurd "killer DM" terms is obviously not going to fly with anyone who is, even if not better informed, at least possessed of a modicum of common sense.

It would be of similarly little service to paint WotC's games with an unrealistically broad brush.

There are particular things that were by design changed, and the designers' own addressing of those received considerable attention. Moreover, the designers themselves, I think, took the initiative in "connecting the dots" to draw general principles, to paint a portrait of an overall philosophy guiding the work.

The words of fans, about what they like in the new and dislike in the old, were also informative.

That's where Melan got the impressions that he found displeasing. It is hardly news that a great many other people -- whatever they might think when judging it as a hypothetical "something else" -- likewise do not find 4e a satisfying replacement for previous editions of the premier fantasy role-playing game.

 

[Desdichado]

The attempt to paint all old-style challenging play in absurd "killer DM" terms is obviously not going to fly with anyone who is, even if not better informed, at least possessed of a modicum of common sense.

Would a modicum of common sense also allow you to stop tilting at strawmen? Maddman's definition of grognard, which is one which I more or less approve of, does not encompass all old school players or old school playstyles. Only you are insisting that it must in this post right here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Maddman's definition of grognard, which is one which I more or less approve of, does not encompass all old school players or old school playstyles.

AFAICT, it doesn't encompass any old school players or old school playstyles.

I suspect Bigfoot will hold a press conference announcing his existence before I actually see one of these so-called "grognards".

YMMV.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Would a modicum of common sense also allow you to stop tilting at strawmen?

The 'strawmen' are those you all incessantly raise, trying to make us think that some statement about Something Completely Different has something to do with the context at hand.

4e is not the whole of "gaming", or any other such vague agglomeration. 4e is a particular game product, designed to do things that the designers have made pretty explicit.

If you have no rational response to what people actually say, then please at least show enough respect for our intelligence not to get huffy when we point out factually the gulf between your rhetoric and what is actually under discussion.