Grognards?

[Wormwood]

. . .

Best. 4e. Post. Evar.

 

[Fifth Element]

I concur. Skill systems and whatnot are not bad game design, I just don't think they belong in D&D. I detest what I've seen of 4th edition, but if it was an entirely new game called ANYTHING besides D&D, I might even pick it up and give it a try. Hell, I might even like it. But it ain't D&D and shouldn't be passed off as such.

That's irrational. You might try the game, if it did not have the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover. Heck, you admit you might even like it. But since it will say "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, you refuse to even try it.

As Umbran pointed out, posts such as yours start arguments. I, and many others, do consider 4E to be D&D, in large part because it says D&D on it. There is no one set of criteria for determining what D&D is, and as such you blanket assertion that 4E ain't it is likely only to raise some backs.

 

[mudbunny]

As Umbran pointed out, posts such as yours start arguments. I, and many others, do consider 4E to be D&D, in large part because it says D&D on it. There is no one set of criteria for determining what D&D is, and as such you blanket assertion that 4E ain't it is likely only to raise some backs.

We are on a message board. Is it really necessary for people to start every post with a disclaimer:

The following post is my opinion

 

[FourthBear]

You know, 1e and 2e had skill systems. 1e had skills for thieves and released non-weapon proficiencies in the latter part of 1e. Further, I know there were plenty of house-ruled AD&D games with home brewed skill systems. I can't say that I find the argument that skill systems make a system "not D&D" very tenable.

 

[Umbran]

We are on a message board. Is it really necessary for people to start every post with a disclaimer:

We are on a messageboard that has a mixture of content - some is factual statement, some is observation, some is interpretation, and some is just outright gut feeling. If you want to be understood, it does pay to make it clear what your basis is. Failing to do so means that the reader cannot differentiate a well-considered opinion from overly-authoritative assertions. And if your prose is sloppy on the point, you cannot really blame that on the reader.

My observation, as a moderator, is that folk who tend to phrase a thing a a fact ("that is not D&D") are more likely to treat and defend that statement like a fact. Having said it, their ego seems rather tied up in defense of that statement. Those who state a thing a an opinion appear more likely to make allowances for differences of opinion - and to ask why the other person may think differently.

 

[diaglo]

I'm even starting to do some monster statting for my freebie adventure I am writing, now that I have seen the gnolls...

wait. i thot 4e got rid of gnomes.
how can you have gnolls without gnomes.

diaglo "grognard that knows gnolls = gnome/troll hybrids" Ooi

 

[Dausuul]

Pfah. I've been playing this game for twenty years, sonny. In my day, a grognard was a guy who'd been playing for eons and knew the system inside out--it didn't matter whether he liked the new edition or not. You young whippersnappers with your newfangled "grognard" definitions... pfah, I say.

 

[Incendax]

Grognard can have a negative connotation when it is used to imply that a person fears change for the sake of change. Those that hold onto previous editions because they LIKE an aspect of the previous edition more strongly are still technically Grognards but get called it less often. Those that exclaim their DISLIKE of an aspect of the new edition often get called the Grognard with a negative spin on it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

What's very interesting to me - and yes, I know, you've heard it said before - in 1999 there was a very loud chorus of folks saying that 3e wasn't D&D, either. For many people nowadays that isn't the case. I have no idea if it'll be the case with 4e, but for me it seems premature to decide before we've played it for a few months.

To me, 3e is BARELY still D&D. Or mostly D&D, at least. 4e is a whole 'nother animal.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

That's irrational. You might try the game, if it did not have the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover. Heck, you admit you might even like it. But since it will say "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, you refuse to even try it.

By your logic, if I suddenly inherited the rights to Monopoly and D&D, and released a new version of Monopoly and called it D&D it would still be D&D?

See the thing is, I don't want to play a 4e version of D&D because it brings things to the table I don't want in a D&D game. I don't want triple hit points, dragonborn, teleporting rangers, healing surges, and umpteen different powers. I don't want my face cards to have hit points and Thac0 when I play poker either. I want to play D&D on game night. If someone brings a 4e game over, I'd be just as disgusted as if they'd brought Clue or Risk. And I LIKE Risk.