How Did I Become a Grognard?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

By my (grey-specked) beard, indeed! But don't forget the 1d4 HP! Though, to be fair, even back then I would've allowed the poor soul that rolled a 1 for HP to re-roll.

You are absolutely right, that it is more than just the rules set, but a conglomeration of place and time. It’s about how we struggled through the rules sometimes (or often), about the books and movies and art and videogames that were consumed at the same time.

For the record, though, I don't consider myself a Grognard, despite my share of old-school credentials. I'll always have a soft spot for old-school play, though, that's for sure.

they haven't ever really played D&D unless they've suffered through a first level Magic User with robes, a dagger, a single spell.

Hear me now and believe me later, Grognard-ism isn't just a ruleset, it is a whole set of influences. Verily, it is like the atmosphere that we breathe!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zardnaar]

Grognard is 2e ... and 3e.

Grognard is 2e ..... and 3e.

GROGNARD IS 2E AND 3E???!!!!!111?????????!!!!1111


I am rolling over in my grognard grave, clutching my first printing of Deities and Demigods (with the Moorcock mythos) and my Volume 2 Monsters and Magic in one hand, and a set of dice that you mark in with crayon in the other hand.

Now get off my lawn.

Yeah that didnt make much sense, my bad I own it. Fixed.

 

[MNblockhead]

I almost included a bit at the bottom that read, "EDIT: This is meant to be tongue-in-cheek; I'm just poking fun of myself and the idea of what a Grognard is" or something like that. But I decided nah, people will get it, this is obviously one of those outdated list-gags that used to go around e-mail in the 90s...because grognard, lol.

Maybe I should have included it after all?

Nah, I'm not taking myself seriously. We're all arguing about something unimportant for the fun of it.

 

[MNblockhead]

AD&D 2e turns 30 this year. It feels very odd to suggest that someone playing a 30 year old game is insufficiently set in their ways.

Oh god. I stopped playing TTRPGs about the time 2e game out, until I started again with 5e.

I'm playing 5e and newer kickstarted games and have not wargammed in decades.

So I'm not a grognard.

Just old.

 

[MNblockhead]

By my (grey-specked) beard, indeed! But don't forget the 1d4 HP! Though, to be fair, even back then I would've allowed the poor soul that rolled a 1 for HP to re-roll.

My monocle fell. Sir, I thought you were a reputable member of our club!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why? Men & Magic has 3 classes (fighter, MU, cleric), and then Supplement 1 introduces both thief and paladin. I don't see what's especially grognard-y about adding the thief but not the paladin.

It is arguable that the 'big 4' cover all of the most elementary archetypes, with the paladin being a bit less central. However I would argue that the cleric really is kind of an odd man out in that lineup, and the paladin is perhaps more basic. I mean, you can find knights (fighters), knaves (thieves), sorcerers (magic users), and paladins in Arthurian legend, which is based on a whole cycle of earlier prototypical Welsh/Irish legends, but there's no priests at all I can remember in all of Mallory. Not one. They are mentioned sometimes in passing, but have no lines, no plot significance, don't occupy any role in society, etc.

Anyway, I think in the 'grog' sense it is just a perception that these 4 are the basic toolkit. You can play a fighter as a 'paladin' in an RP sense, but you can't easily fill the other concepts unless you have those 4 specific classes. This is certainly why they appear as such in B/X.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[pemerton]

It is arguable that the 'big 4' cover all of the most elementary archetypes, with the paladin being a bit less central. However I would argue that the cleric really is kind of an odd man out in that lineup, and the paladin is perhaps more basic. I mean, you can find knights (fighters), knaves (thieves), sorcerers (magic users), and paladins in Arthurian legend, which is based on a whole cycle of earlier prototypical Welsh/Irish legends, but there's no priests at all I can remember in all of Mallory. Not one. They are mentioned sometimes in passing, but have no lines, no plot significance, don't occupy any role in society, etc.

Anyway, I think in the 'grog' sense it is just a perception that these 4 are the basic toolkit. You can play a fighter as a 'paladin' in an RP sense, but you can't easily fill the other concepts unless you have those 4 specific classes. This is certainly why they appear as such in B/X.

The cleric and paladin are essentially the same archetype, especially pre-2nd ed AD&D: heavily armed and armoured warriors who perform miracles, turn away the undead, and heal with a touch. The differences between them are purely mechanical, not thematic. (And no matter how much a fighter is RPed as a paladin, s/he won't heal with a touch.)

So if clerics are played as paladins, then I think they fit right in. Played as priests, and divorced from their cultural/archetypical context, then they make no sense.

Along the same lines of thought, druids really are a MU/wizard variant, not a cleric/paladin variant.