Grognard good...grognard bad

[The Shaman]

Grognard: "Someone said my idea of fun isn't fun! WAHHHHHHH!"

You'd like that to be true, wouldn't you?

 

[Aegeri]

I couldn't care less what anyone plays, I just hate it when a constructive discussion goes south due to thread crapping about irrelevant nonsense. I've never seen the point behind the term grognard anyway and I hate to say this, but 99% of the time I usually see it used in the same context as the word "idiot" would be. Personally it's what people write and not what terms they label themselves with that I pay attention to.

 

[Ariosto]

I get so exasperated when some berk moans about a new edition he hasn't even given a fair shot at

What's a fair shot?

I have watched people getting subjected again and again to moving goalposts. How much money and time and energy does someone have to flush down the drain to be "allowed" to dislike 4e?

How much should the 4e fanatics be required to invest in other games before they are entitled to make such demands?

 

[Aegeri]

How much should the 4e fanatics be required to invest in other games before they are entitled to make such demands?

I played 3rd and 3.5 for around 5 years total, with a variety of different approaches before concluding it was utterly terrible and ceasing it to play it any further (Call of Cthulhu and various World of Darkness games replaced it for me). I played 2nd edition for the better part of eight years, actually I still like 2nd edition and I would love to play a few games of it just for amusement (I will never ever play 3.5 again).

Usually I've given anything quite a good shot before decided I did or didn't like it to be honest. With PnP RPGs so much is reliant upon the DM running the game or just the general enthusiasm of the people you have playing with you it can be very hard to judge. Usually I make sure I read the core rulebook first and at least play using whatever "core" rules are available.

When I started playing 4E I suspected it sounded really stupid, but it was worth a shot seeing as I hadn't played DnD in a long time by that point. I originally bought just a players handbook and a DMG - not much of an investment to be honest and got some people together. I figured I would have to DM anyway and so I did, but actually after around a month 4E really grew on me. My players were all having fun and I found the combat system very much to my liking. When I don't want combat I don't play DnD, always had that attitude and hence the multitude of systems I own that are very good at anything to do with not fighting things.

I never liked 4Es skill challenge system off the bat and thought it was utterly worthless. That Wizards have tried to address that is a good thing, but overall I've adapted my own system and so I quite enjoy it. The primary point here is that I made a small investment - even in NZ monies - then played the system for around 2-3 months (meeting every weekend was around 12 sessions).

For most games I give a suitable amount of time if I think I have some interest in them. Motivation to play something else comes from:

1) Wanting to bother playing it

2) Getting a group who wants to play it

3) Playing it.

Where I have not done 1, 2 and 3 together I don't comment on a system. I might make some general comment that I'm not interested in it, but if I'm not interested in something I never make posts about it. Being disinterested in something does not equal disliking it. People who have at least played 4E for more than a few sessions can say whatever they want - albeit so long as that is based on what they said they played. People who haven't even played 4E or any system for that matter I just write the opinions off of because I just don't care what they think.

If you haven't played something, I really don't care if you "dislike" it and especially if the reasons don't even make sense to anyone who has played the system under discussion (90% of the time or more in my experience). Your opinion is irrelevant no matter what the particular system is under discussion. You can say "I don't have any interest in this" and that is a perfectly fair opinion. When people just start making up random nonsense about a system they "dislike" is truly the issue for me. Such "dislike" is usually is full of logical holes that anyone who has actually played it can drive trucks through, I have no problems just writing whatever they think off without debate.

So I think it's a simple answer to your question. If you've at least played the game that is more than enough. If such arguments are at least framed in the context of those experiences that is even better. Making up random nonsense to prove arguments based on absolutely zero idea what you are talking about is pure threadcrapping. Just spare everyone the effort and just say "It doesn't sound like its for me" or just don't post in threads you supposedly have no interest in.

I mean, this isn't difficult to do as somehow I resist the temptation in posting in all the threads about 3.5 or so that I dislike because I have no worthwhile commentary to add to the topic. I don't know how I do it though, but somehow - and god willing - I manage.

 

[Melan]

Since I was asked for a definition in a PM...

The Tyranny of Fun phenomenon, concisely summarised:
1) Equating 'fun' with 'positive reinforcement' to the neglect of other ways to have it - some of which involve adversity, effort, minor inconvenience or, yes, short/long-term failure.
2) Redesigning games to codify this understanding of customer satisfaction and cutting elements construed as 'unfun', which makes the game more focused - but also feature-poor and less satisfying for people who have their fun in a different way.
3) Often wrapped up in rhetorics of 'progress' as inevitable and basically beneficial, traditional gaming practices as an impediment before having fun and appeals to the authority of 'professional game designers'.

If you want it in one sentence: "Fun is a loaded term, and it should not be assumed to mean the same thing to all people." That's it.

I posted basic examples from the 4e PHB here, and had more to say on the subject here and here, with ideas on how to deal with the problem here. Since my point has been discussed to hell and back since I made it in 2006 (way before 4e was even announced*), attacked with way stronger language than the admittedly ranty, although largely tongue-in-cheek originals ever had, and had significantly more screentime on the Internet than I ever intended for it, I have little personal interest in rehashing it further, and would rather spend my time constructively. So there.

__________________
* Coincidentally, I don't think the Tyranny of Fun is a 4e- or even D&D-specific problem; rather, it says something about popular entertainment in general - I see some of the same problems and debates in computer games (particularly the transformation of 'immersive sim' games and console vs. PC arguments), and potentially elsewhere.

 

[Aegeri]

I have little personal interest in rehashing it further

I can agree that wouldn't be worth it from reading what you write.

 

[Melan]

Oh look! An insult!

 

[Aegeri]

Oh look! An insult!

Oh look, the pot wants to call the kettle black.

Having read even more ENWorld since it has come back up, I can say with confidence that the effects are already prominent. 4th edition is strongly in support of the folks previous editions and gaming practice referred to as 'bad players', and their perspectives are currently dominant in gaming discourse.

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a bad player and has ruined everything. Plus if it wasn't for those damn kids at the cotton mill we'd have got away with it too. Either way, I do agree with you that rehashing this out any further won't be useful to anyone if that is your starting attitude. Don't you agree?

 

[Melan]

Yeah, that was inconsiderate and I should have worded it more tactfully. Then again, I hadn't the faintest idea people in 2010 would still be discussing a random edition wars post I made in 2008 on what bothered me at that time. So what? Should I apologise two years and a shitload of personal attacks later? To whom? ENWorld? Circvs Maximvs? Gleemax? Grognards.txt? You?

Get real. Nothing I said would ever stop the hypocrites looking for an excuse to play Internet judge, jury and executioner, while the people interested in actually considering what I had to say will be able to do just that irregardless of the style. I don't have the time or wish to stand in the way of either. So there.

 

[ggroy]

You've actually seen this? I mean I've never seen someone state they don't like 4e because... "it's new.".

I have actually seen this.

I know three people offline whom have personally mentioned to me that they absolutely hate 4E because it is "new". These particular three people have not played 4E either. I got the impression these individuals are very proud of their ignorance about 4E, and have no shame about admitting it in public.