Grognard view of One D&D?

Jack Daniel

dice-universe.blogspot.com
It's pronounced groan-yard, right? Not grog-nerd?

Probably closer to "gwãh-nyar" if you're trying to imitate the French accent, but most people just say "grog-nard."


"How now, brown drow?" said the liches with stitches in their britches, while the kobolds cobbled cobblestones and the goblins gobbled gobbledygook.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

haakon1

Adventurer
Agreed; but if one is running a bunch of experienced old-school DMs as one's players it's inevitable that any classic module will almost certainly have been either played through or run by at least one of them and sometimes by all of them.

I'm a good example: there's a bunch of classic modules I'd never want to play in now as I just remember them too well through having DMed them.
Some old school adventures are so variable/up to the DM, that’s not a factor.

I recommend B1 In Search of the Unknown (ran it) and the Nodes from TOEE for that(running them now). Original Adventures Reincarnated did a great job with both.

My two groups have old school players, but they weren’t DM’s back in the day.
 

It's pronounced groan-yard, right? Not grog-nerd?
gro·gnard | \ (ˌ)grō¦nyär \
plural -s
Definition of grognard
1: an old soldier
2 often capitalized : a soldier of the original imperial guard that was created by Napoleon I in 1804 and that made the final French charge at Waterloo

So, yeah technically it's more like GROWN-yar. I say we get to mispronounce it as GRAWG-nard because the original definition was stolen and applied to a particular niche of people in the gaming community and it sounds more appropriately insulting. :cool:
 

Ken Spencer

Explorer
I’ve been playing since 1984, and have played every edition and found a reason to like each. Often, I find a different system to play, wandering away from D&D but always coming back. Will I follow along into this new not-6e?

Likely not. Here’s why:

1) WotC’s writing has been lackluster. Clear, easy to read, but uninteresting. It lacks pizzazz, power, and umph. It is not bad, just increasingly has become more and more bland over the past decade. I do not enjoy reading the books, which is one of my main draws to any text.
2) Their adventures are not the type suitable for my play style. I like adventures that can be dropped into an ongoing campaign with ease, where the setting elements can be taken out and swapped for our table setting, the plots are self-contained or at the very least part of a series that leaves plenty of room for other adventures.
3) Unlike previous edition changes, I have more options here. I’ve replaced all of the 2e stuff destroyed by a leaky roof with reprints from DTRPG, and added some to the collection that I never purchased, only saw while reading Dragon. I play Castles and Crusades, adapt other OSR adventures to it for my home game, love DCC/ MCC and adapt those as well. There is a wealth of material at hand today. I do not have to stick with the new edition, or not-edition, just to keep up with new content.
4) I am not a freelancer anymore, but have a permanent writing position. I don’t have to stay current to find work, so unless the boss says go learn this thing, I view One D&D with a resounding meh.
5) My wife loathes 5e. We don’t play it in our home game because of this. She came into the hobby with 5e, then discovered the OSR and never looked back.

I hope it does well for WotC and that people love it, that it draws in new players, that the brand continues to grow. I’ll continue to check out new D&D adventures and settings, and if there is one I like, I’ll pick it up and adapt it to my home game. But, I will not be buying the corebooks. I have enough PHB, DMG, and Monster Manuals with the same info but with different numbers.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
gro·gnard | \ (ˌ)grō¦nyär \
plural -s
Definition of grognard
1: an old soldier
2 often capitalized : a soldier of the original imperial guard that was created by Napoleon I in 1804 and that made the final French charge at Waterloo

So, yeah technically it's more like GROWN-yar. I say we get to mispronounce it as GRAWG-nard because the original definition was stolen and applied to a particular niche of people in the gaming community and it sounds more appropriately insulting. :cool:
Besides, you can't have grognards without the grog.
 

DarkCrisis

Legend
I’ve been playing since 1984, and have played every edition and found a reason to like each. Often, I find a different system to play, wandering away from D&D but always coming back. Will I follow along into this new not-6e?

Likely not. Here’s why:

1) WotC’s writing has been lackluster. Clear, easy to read, but uninteresting. It lacks pizzazz, power, and umph. It is not bad, just increasingly has become more and more bland over the past decade. I do not enjoy reading the books, which is one of my main draws to any text.
2) Their adventures are not the type suitable for my play style. I like adventures that can be dropped into an ongoing campaign with ease, where the setting elements can be taken out and swapped for our table setting, the plots are self-contained or at the very least part of a series that leaves plenty of room for other adventures.
3) Unlike previous edition changes, I have more options here. I’ve replaced all of the 2e stuff destroyed by a leaky roof with reprints from DTRPG, and added some to the collection that I never purchased, only saw while reading Dragon. I play Castles and Crusades, adapt other OSR adventures to it for my home game, love DCC/ MCC and adapt those as well. There is a wealth of material at hand today. I do not have to stick with the new edition, or not-edition, just to keep up with new content.
4) I am not a freelancer anymore, but have a permanent writing position. I don’t have to stay current to find work, so unless the boss says go learn this thing, I view One D&D with a resounding meh.
5) My wife loathes 5e. We don’t play it in our home game because of this. She came into the hobby with 5e, then discovered the OSR and never looked back.

I hope it does well for WotC and that people love it, that it draws in new players, that the brand continues to grow. I’ll continue to check out new D&D adventures and settings, and if there is one I like, I’ll pick it up and adapt it to my home game. But, I will not be buying the corebooks. I have enough PHB, DMG, and Monster Manuals with the same info but with different numbers.
if i may ask, what turned her off 5e and onto old school?
 


nevin

Hero
Depends on the group(s) you play with. In my experience it usually isn't that the players agree to play in a campaign, then run out and buy a book they don't have so they can read it to "win."

More likely, many players are also DMs or just fans and buy the books, read them because they enjoy them and some time later their group decides to run an adventure they have already read. Or you may have some very active players that played some or all of an adventure with another group or adventurer's league, but they still want to participate in your game.

Many players are mature enough to not metagame. I'm fine if a player tells me "I read that adventure but I never got to run it. I would love to play in this campaign. I'll avoid metagaming and will let players who haven't run the game make decisions where my pre-existing knowlege of the adventure might be a spoiler." As a DM I would likely make some changes anyway to mix things up.

Currently, I typically run third-party adventures because I don't have the time to homebrew entire campaigns and the third-party adventures better match the style of game I want to run than the WotC games. They also have the benefit of not being familiar to my players.
no one can not metagame. Some of us try very hard but the knowledge is there and it affects our decisions.
 



haakon1

Adventurer
gro·gnard | \ (ˌ)grō¦nyär \
plural -s
Definition of grognard
1: an old soldier
2 often capitalized : a soldier of the original imperial guard that was created by Napoleon I in 1804 and that made the final French charge at Waterloo

So, yeah technically it's more like GROWN-yar. I say we get to mispronounce it as GRAWG-nard because the original definition was stolen and applied to a particular niche of people in the gaming community and it sounds more appropriately insulting. :cool:
I knew the original meaning, and my wargamer buddy told me it’s literally old grumbler and probably from Napoleonic wargaming. So older than Chainmai, circa the first GenCon.

It’s a proud tradition.
 
Last edited:


teitan

Legend
This is simply not true. Each edition of D&D has outsold previous editions, and D&D has seen upwards growth since 1974. The current edition, 5th, has seen explosive growth like never before.

A new "edition", a 5.5E if you will, is not going to hurt the growth of D&D or book sales.
Say what? Demonstrably not true. 2e, in it's entire run, did not outsell 1e in it's first 3 years. Or even first year. 2e chugged along because it was a band aid through poor business decisions and bad communication between departments. Ben Riggs lays it out in his book. Initial sales were high but not like 1e sales and then tanked. Products would sell for a couple months and then bottom out.

4e only outsold 3e in initial pre-orders and while it was still a success it wasn't a Hasbro level success and was dead within 3 years of release.

3.5 lost gas after about 3 years on the market because the OSR was born and started the market split and the release of 4e caused an open wound in the market that Pathfinder bandaged up by being the new edition that 3.x players were wanting when 4e came out.

That 5e has been the massive success it has been is a shock. They had essentially no budget, no team and very little backing from WOTC/Hasbro when it came out. The D&D team was on fumes compared to the past. Mearls, Crawford and Perkins caught lightning in a bottle and synergized, unknowingly, with an unsuspecting pop culture thanks to Stranger Things referencing D&D so much in season 1, Critical Role becoming a massive success, none of that was expected to happen and contribute to D&D business in a big way.

So no, each successive edition did not outsell the previous edition. 3.x didn't even outsell 1e or basic, it's measure of success was 2e that's how successful 1e and the original Basic set actually were.
 

teitan

Legend
I decided I won't be buying much beyond the PHB, we decided in my group to just play DCC. I haven't really liked the playtest as it seems to be adding to the complexity as opposed to just having a core and then optional complexity like 5e. That was what was great about 5e was a solid core game with optional rules that could complicate it however you liked but the playtest seems to be making those optional rules part of that core game which is a barrier to teaching the game to new people.
 

payn

Legend
Say what? Demonstrably not true. 2e, in it's entire run, did not outsell 1e in it's first 3 years. Or even first year. 2e chugged along because it was a band aid through poor business decisions and bad communication between departments. Ben Riggs lays it out in his book. Initial sales were high but not like 1e sales and then tanked. Products would sell for a couple months and then bottom out.

4e only outsold 3e in initial pre-orders and while it was still a success it wasn't a Hasbro level success and was dead within 3 years of release.

3.5 lost gas after about 3 years on the market because the OSR was born and started the market split and the release of 4e caused an open wound in the market that Pathfinder bandaged up by being the new edition that 3.x players were wanting when 4e came out.

That 5e has been the massive success it has been is a shock. They had essentially no budget, no team and very little backing from WOTC/Hasbro when it came out. The D&D team was on fumes compared to the past. Mearls, Crawford and Perkins caught lightning in a bottle and synergized, unknowingly, with an unsuspecting pop culture thanks to Stranger Things referencing D&D so much in season 1, Critical Role becoming a massive success, none of that was expected to happen and contribute to D&D business in a big way.

So no, each successive edition did not outsell the previous edition. 3.x didn't even outsell 1e or basic, it's measure of success was 2e that's how successful 1e and the original Basic set actually were.
A question, you may or may not know, what exactly do people mean when they say "each edition outsold the last"? Are they talking about launch day printings of the core rulebooks?
 

I am struggling to find primary sources regarding sales numbers. (Maybe my google-fu is weak?) Most of what I've found is either people on reddit or game forums claiming that WotC employees have stated things. So let's spread so more questionable assertions!
  • Mike Mearls on Twitter in August 2016 said that hardcopies of the 5e D&D Player's Handbook had outsold the lifetime PHB sales of 4e, and 3.5e, and 3e. Note that that was individually, not more than all three of the latter combined.

  • In October 2007, WotC's Ryan Dancey claimed on a forum that:
    Total lifetime sales of the 1E PHB over 10 years were roughly 1.5 million units.
    Total lifetime sales of the 2E/2ER PHB over 10 years were roughly .75 million units.
    Total lifetime sales of the 3E/3.5E PHB over 5 years were 1 million units.
    On release, the 2E PHB sold ~250K units in 12 months. The 3E PHB sold ~300K units in 30 days.

  • However, back in 2011 TSR's Tim Kask pointed out that if you're only looking at PHBs while in search of the all-time champ, you're looking at the wrong spot:

    So, I went to Jim Ward, who certainly was in a position to know, and he concurs with my assertion. Consider this, and I am paraphrasing Jim a bit: Frank's Red Box set was selling 100K copies per quarter, just in the US. Both the German and the Japanese editions of the Red Box matched those numbers for several years, plus the other 8 or 9 language editions were also being sold at that time. ...

    So, if we assume those numbers for just three years, that means 1.2 million US, 1.2 million Japan and Germany, and then all of the rest will probably account for another 500 or 600K. That makes roughly 3 million just for those three years.

So is 5E the highest selling edition? Who knows! I saw earlier a table from roll20 saying that 61% of the games on their platform are 5E. Of course now that I am looking for it again, it has vanished into the ether.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I am struggling to find primary sources regarding sales numbers. (Maybe my google-fu is weak?) Most of what I've found is either people on reddit or game forums claiming that WotC employees have stated things. So let's spread so more questionable assertions!

Its extremely hard to find solid sales numbers on almost any RPG products, and when you do it involves taking the company involved at its word. That's why you see so many attempts to use secondary metrics to determine popularity so often.
 

haakon1

Adventurer
Benjamin Riggs is the expert on TSR era sales, and actually had access to primary sources. I look forward to a sequel, but sales data after the Hasbro acquisition I assume will never be released, unless the brand is owned by gamers again.

Anyhow, we don’t need sales data to see it’s not been from strength to strength with new editions.

1e is the edition that was a cultural phenomenon.

2e the edition when TSR went bankrupt and stopped printing. DOWN.

3e was a literal renaissance (rebirth, after bankruptcy). UP.

4e split the brand with PF taking a substantial part of the audience. DOWN.

5e has been during a cultural renaissance for D&D, where it became nearly pop culture. UP.

What will happen with 5.5/6/One is unknown, but the chances look 50/50 on up or down to me.
 



The Weather Outside Is Frightful!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top