Grognard good...grognard bad

[Raven Crowking]

A Dragon magazine article published as an opinionated viewpoint could have made the same observations without being seen as tyrannical.

And has been, many times, through many editions, with no clear concensus on what "fun" is.


RC

 

[Obryn]

AFAICT, the core of Melan's post is:

All in all, what we are seeing is the emergence of a philosophy that denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play. Attempting to "protect" gamers from their own mistakes will not result in better games - it will limit self-expression, the freedom of creativity and hinder the natural and easy learning process most of us have gone through. It will subtly, although of course not completely, shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment. The roleplaying hobby will be poorer for it, and it can also be expected to experience slow and continuous shrinkage as it becomes apparent to people that passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment offer much better alternatives than sitting around a table and rolling polyhedral dice.​

It was an argument that the game, by fostering what its audience today apparently finds fun, is destroying the values that make gaming great, is contributing to gamer delinquincy and bad gaming, is destined to "destroy the hobby," isn't really what the customers want (because they just don't know what's actually good for them,) and is generally loitering around on Melan's lawn playing its music too loud.

I think that's a pretty fair summary, actually.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that's a pretty fair summary, actually.

Only if you assume that "what its audience today apparently finds fun" is what WotC says is fun. My experience on EN World is that many 4e players enjoy things that are described as not fun in the rulebooks, and that many 4e players engage the game in a level far beyond what WotC defines as "fun".

(Of course, this might tend to disprove Melan's conclusion about the effectiveness of telling end users what is "fun" or "not fun".)


RC

 

[Obryn]

Only if you assume that "what its audience today apparently finds fun" is what WotC says is fun. My experience on EN World is that many 4e players enjoy things that are described as not fun in the rulebooks, and that many 4e players engage the game in a level far beyond what WotC defines as "fun".

(Of course, this might tend to disprove Melan's conclusion about the effectiveness of telling end users what is "fun" or "not fun".)

RC

False distinction. WotC's not saying something is or is not canonically fun; it's simply focusing on "what the audence today apparently finds fun." Seriously, it's a silly difference, mostly based on intentional and selective misreading of the 4e DMG's example about talking with gate guards.

-O

 

[Scribble]

Only if you assume that "what its audience today apparently finds fun" is what WotC says is fun.

You don't have to assume that.

You just have to assume the designers put the game together based on what they felt was fun, and what they felt their audience felt was fun.

There's no need to assume correct or incorrectness at all.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There's no need to assume correct or incorrectness at all.

Well said. If only the designers shared this sentiment, there would be less conflict.

 

[Scribble]

Well said. If only the designers shared this sentiment, there would be less conflict.

I pretty much assume anyone who puts a game together has a thought on what is fun and what is not fun, and are building said game based on that opinion. Sometimes their opinions differ from mine.

Why should this create conflict?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not sure, but it sure seems to whenever anyone suggests that they disagree with the designers........?

 

[ancientvaults]

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

I would say that you should look into prescription lenses then!
I write a daily oldschool blog and run Pathfinder as well. We did try 4e, but it was a bit more than we were interested in, however, I am a staunch advocate of playing any game that you like, any edition in which your group has fun? That is the perfect game; new, old or sideways.


I am a grognard, we mostly play oldschool games (S&W/LL, with Pathfinder as well) but not only do I see nothing wrong with newer editions, at the local comic shop I will be organizing the roleplaying and you know what? I will encourage 4e to be run right next to my game. Do I have to? Absolutely not. I could be a jerk and buy enough retro-clones to fill a shelf, but I want to encourage people to roleplay in whatever manner they want to.

 

[Scribble]

Not sure, but it sure seems to whenever anyone suggests that they disagree with the designers........?

I don't really agree that just disagreeing with the designers sparks "conflict."