How Did I Become a Grognard?

[Ilbranteloth]

Not digging my books out at 2:20AM, but as I recall, the AD&D Rules included info on square and hex facing and determining who was in front, to the side, or to the rear of a given character. If you used those rules- as we did- even if you’re doing ToTM, you’re still internalizing at least an implied grid.

Yes, it does. And [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] just quoted it for us. And my issue isn’t the grid. The nature of the use of the grid changed as the rules became more grid focused, and changed even more with the modification of a round, the alteration of where your entire round’s worth of movement occurs on your turn.

The game shifted from a TotM approach with things like minis and a grid as aids, to a game that switches to a board game when combat starts.

Oh, combat - roll initiative and hang on while I set up the minis. Ok Bob, what do you do? Bob starts counting squares....”If I move here I can do this, but if I move here I can do that...”

It doesn’t have anything to do with grid or no grid really. The focus shifts dramatically from TotM for the rest of the game to moving minis on a map.

Of course, the moving minis on a map evolved from what some people were already doing, combining some, evolving some, but the feel of the game, especially combat, was decidedly different.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The AD&D DMG (published 1979) has the following entry on p 69:

Number Of Opponents Per Figure:
Physical size and space will dictate limitation upon the number of opponents able to engage a single figure in melee. If Official ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS miniature figures are used to represent the creatures involved in a melee, then these miniatures will dictate the number of opponents which can be involved. Beware of using other fantasy miniature figures, as most of them are not designed to the specific scale and do not conform to the standards of the MONSTER MANUAL (or
even necessarily conform to 25mm scale!). In other cases use the following rule of thumb:

1. If the single figure is size S, 4 size M or 2 size L figures are all that can attack it under optimum conditions during any single round. 6 size S figures can attack it, however, space permitting.

2. If the single figure is size M, it can be attacked by a maximum of 8 size S opponents, 6 size M, or 4 size L.

3. If the single figure is size L, a maximum of 12 size S, 8 size M, or size L figures can engage it at one time.

Modifiers are impossible to detail fully, as they include the physical circumstances prevailing at the time. It is obvious that a figure in a narrow passage or in a corner can be attacked only from a limited front. Similarly, the shape of the single figure and the attackers will be a factor, as a giant snake has more body space subject to attack than does a giant, unless the attackers are able to fly or otherwise attack the entire vertical surface of the giant. Any long-bodied creature has more area open to attack, and wide-bodied creatures, or those which employ some natural body weaponry which requires contact with the opponent, will be more restricted with respect to the number of attackers possible, viz. how many constrictor snakes can effectively attack an opponent? Two basic grid systems are shown below, one with hexagons, one with squares. These grids demonstrate how multiple opponents engage a single figure. . . .

To determine the number of opponents which can attack the single defender, use squares or hexes of one inch per face for 25 mm scale, or you may simply view the illustrations used above and mentally visualize the situation.​

The four diagrams that are provided ("diagonal" hexes, "square" hexes, diagonal squares, square squares) show how 6 attackers (for hexes) or 8 attackers (for squares) can surround a single figure.

The text makes it clear that both minis on grids and "theatre of the mind" (ie mentally visualising the situation) are contemplated as approaches.

Rolemaster books (mid-to-late 80s) contemplated the use of hexes for combat positioning; from memory it's also a feature of DragonQuest. And I'm sure other systems in the 70s/80s features it. (Eg Classic Traveller (1977) defaults to "bands" which can be tracked on lined paper, "us[ing] cardboard markers or cast metal miniatures to represent the characters", but the rules suggest that a group may use squares or hexes if they want to have more tactical manoeuvring (Book 1, p 29).)

I never used squares or tokens until I GMed 4e D&D, but I was familiar with the idea from my first encounters with RPGs (which for me was Traveller).

EDIT: cross-posted with [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION].

It’s not that it didn’t exist. It’s that the focus was different. It starts with “if” but that certainly wouldn’t apply to 4e, and a lot of 3.5e/PF for that matter.

Furthermore, it’s far less rigid. It’s pointing out how you would arrange a certain number of opponents (or use it as an aid to determine the number of opponents) but it also simply defines it as a visual example. The use of a grid and minis isn’t required to utilize that info in your TotM game.

The game evolved from war games. But the combat system that was codified in AD&D was very different than that of the war games that preceded it, and also quite different from the Combat & Tactics and later systems which forms a distinct line for a lot of the grognards. It also started the shift away from DM adjudication to a more fixed set of rules.

“Can I hit the goblin behind the pillar?”

In AD&D, even with a grid, it would be adjudicated by the DM in the circumstances. Each DM might have come up with their own standard ruling, but it wasn’t specifically defined in the game. Later on, it was, with diagrams, rules for diagonals, etc. For better or worse.

And that was my point from the start - the Combat & Tactics system is a dividing line amongst two “generations” or approaches to combat in D&D. And a grognard by definition likes “the old way.”

It’s all just tongue in cheek anyway, what a grognard is abs what they like. I was just saying the OP didn’t go back far enough.

 

[jasper]

Maybe I'm looking more at myself since I turned 40, but I'm wondering what traits led me to become a grognard?

1) Not using projectors for maps at the game table
2) Backing off from 4E to play Pathfinder a decade ago
3) Backing off from 5E to play 4E currently (haha)
4) Not following Critical Role
5) Not active on Discord or Reddit but preferring message boards like ENWorld
6) Using miniatures and tactical combat over "theater of the mind"
7) Not using D&D Beyond
8) Not getting into Virtual Tabletops like Fantasy Grounds or Roll 20
9) Using dice instead of die rolling apps
10) Not liking people using PDFs at the table (preferring physical copies)

None of those 10 makes you a grognard. Being over 40 and MAKING A WHINING POST MAKES YOU A GROGNARD. Now go mow your lawn, take your meds, and quit drooling over the booth babes.

 

[MNblockhead]

Only have one OD&D die. A light blue d10 with the original white crayon rubbed in. Its worn and still shows the scars from when my dog chewed it up. Its not good for play due to said chew marks, but I use it as my okus in games of Illimat.

When I started playing in the early to mid 80s we used minis mostly to represent marching order (to avoid arguments over which unfortunate character was in front when something nasty was encountered).

We also would use them for loose positioning, to help understand, generally where different players were.

It wasn't that we didn't understand battlemaps, we were also wargammers. We just thought of D&D and other TTRPGs as very different games from Warhammer 40,000 and historical war games (though we used rulers and such on sand and crafted terrain, no grid maps).

One thing that kept me from jumping back into TTRPGs was that 4e and Pathfinder seemed to heavily emphasize tactical combat with miniatures and I didn't want to play half-assed wargame. I realize now that this is unfair, but 5e did a great job making it easy to play TotM. There didn't seem to be any assumptions of miniatures, just some rules if you wanted to use them.

Of course, now I have a well-worn chessex battlemap, lots of dry erase terrain, a shelf of miniatures, and a digital display in a custom-made case for digital battlemaps.

But all of that is mostly for set-piece battles or more complex scenarios. TotM still rules the day for most of my sessions.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Back in the 80s, we never used miniatures in the game. And yet, we all had minis of our characters…mostly for the fun of having a tactile expression of our characters. Occasionally we’d do Battlesystem scenarios where we’d need them, but mostly they were for decoration, I guess?

I still have some of my original dice, including the waxed-in dice. Alas, not all; a fair number disappeared back then, most often somewhere outdoors or into the mysterious crevices of our wood-paneled station wagon.

 

[Shasarak]

And for the OP - I’d say you disqualified yourself from being a grognard by NOT using theater of the mind.

Oh, we had minis. But battlemats? Grids? Bah! That didn’t start until 2.5e. If a measurement needs to be made it’s with string or a tape.

But really the minis were to look cool, not to turn D&D combat into a board game. Theater of the mind is the real old school way (and I’m happy it’s made a comeback).

In my experience the only edition of DnD to require a board was 4th edition. The only people who used minis in the 2e days were the Warhammer players.

 

[Stormonu]

In my experience the only edition of DnD to require a board was 4th edition. The only people who used minis in the 2e days were the Warhammer players.

Let me introduce you to myself. I got the Holmes D&D game for Christmas 1980. A day or two after getting the book, I talked my dad into getting a boxed set of monsters (Grenadier 5004 - Tomb of Spells) & player characters (Grenadier 5003 - Woodland Adventurers) for the game. My brother and I made our first battlemat by absconding with our mom's sewing board (which was a 3 ft. X 6 ft. cardboard mat marked in 1" squares). Been using minis for D&D ever since then.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

In my experience the only edition of DnD to require a board was 4th edition. The only people who used minis in the 2e days were the Warhammer players.

Well I’ve already said I’ve used minis. I had thousands of them. Started buying/painting them c1980/1 I’d guess. My buddy who got me started had several hundred. I’d say that of my friends playing D&D, the ones that were regular DMs tended to have minis, and the players didn’t. But I also recall a lot of players picking up a mini for their character.

But we didn’t use them the same way that Combat & Tactics and the evolution beyond that until they came out. They weren’t an integral part of the mechanics. Don’t get me wrong, we LOVED C&T, and 3e when it came out too. Again it’s not so much the minis as it is that the focus of combat shifted more and more to being its own sub game. At the time it was happening we lived it.

To me 1995 marked as big a split in playstyle as the release of AD&D itself. There were those who used it and loved it, and the rest seemed to hate it. It wasn’t as big as the 3.5/4e split, but I remember it being a pretty heated topic. Far more than D&D vs AD&D around my area anyway.

I’d also have to point out that a lot of this was happening at a time where groups (at least in my area) were becoming more splintered. In part due to the “demonic” backlash, but also because it wasn’t cool. I had friends that no longer played that would come to talk to me in private to see what was going on in the game. They didn’t want anybody to know they EVER played. So my experiences might be quite different than others.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In my experience the only edition of DnD to require a board was 4th edition. The only people who used minis in the 2e days were the Warhammer players.

Never played a single GW game of any kind.

 

[Shasarak]

Let me introduce you to myself.

Hello, Stormonu

I got the Holmes D&D game for Christmas 1980. A day or two after getting the book, I talked my dad into getting a boxed set of monsters (Grenadier 5004 - Tomb of Spells) & player characters (Grenadier 5003 - Woodland Adventurers) for the game. My brother and I made our first battlemat by absconding with our mom's sewing board (which was a 3 ft. X 6 ft. cardboard mat marked in 1" squares). Been using minis for D&D ever since then.

In the dawn of time before recorded history I began with the Mentzer Red Box. That did not say anything about needing minis to play so I didnt use them. Then I managed to get the Blue box and again no minis needed. It even had this cool adventure exploring the Isle of Dread that did not need minis to play.

Then I got the Advanced Rules, ooh Advanced, but they seemed to be roughly the same as the other, obvious less Advanced, rules. So we kept going not using minis. Then one of my friends asked if we should get a mini of our characters. "I dont know" I said "Whats a miniature?"

It turns out that one miniature was more then the cost of a Dragon Magazine and the fate of miniatures was forever* sealed. They did not do anything, they were not useful for anything and frankly they looked pretty bad, not even painted or anything. Why would I give up a Dragon Magazine for that?



* forever or the next 20 years which really were the same thing to me at the time.