D&D General In defence of Grognardism

[dragoner]

Grumblers gonna grumble. I've done my fair share and you know I'm old enough, but at some point one has got to Dr Strangelove it, stop worrying, and love the bomb. Personally there is a lot I like about 5e, and it ain't that new anymore either.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Talking of US culture; soft power. It may not be as obvious to actual US citizens, but to Grognards from the UK it matters. Those of us who played 1E are, by definition, children f the Cold War and the soft power of the US was pervasive at the time; buying in to D&D was like buying in to Levi’s, skateboards and McDonalds; it mattered. For any doubters, I’d refer to a Russian friend of my own age who told me “the day McDonalds opened in Moscow, we knew we had lost the Cold War.”

Several roleplaying games of the 1980s dealt directly with the Cold War, or the possible consequences if it turned hot – Paranoia (1984), Twilight 2000 (1984), and The Price of Freedom (1986). This post is about the reviews of the latter two in the British roleplaying magazine, White Dwarf, and subsequent debates in its letters pages.

Twilight 2000

Twilight 2000 is set in Europe two years after a nuclear exchange. The PCs are American soldiers or their allies. Marcus L Rowland's review in White Dwarf #68 (1985):

While the system is playable, the moral stance and attitudes it exemplifies are fairly loathsome. The rules favour the style of behaviour found in 'fun' war films; player characters will occasionally get killed (but not terribly often)... There are rules for infection and radiation poisoning, but they aren't nearly harsh enough. The setting, two years after the last nuclear weapon was used, has evidently been designed to avoid showing the worst effects of the bomb; the random encounters don't include civilians suffering from third degree radiation burns, blind children, and the hideously dead and dying victims of blast and heat. Starvation and plague are occasionally mentioned, with the implication that characters can always use their weapons to get food and medicines...​

​

The suggested theme (which beautifully explains the attitude of this game) is to 'return home' to America: Europe evidently isn't worth anyone's time or effort. The rules never say anything about the possibility of rebuilding settlements, negotiating local peace treaties, or doing anything else to start civilisation working again. The box blurb says 'They were sent to save Europe. . . Now they're fighting to save themselves', and it's evident that this game has been written by and for Americans, with little or no understanding of European attitudes or desires.​

A letter from Tom Conway in White Dwarf #71 (1985) agreed with Rowland: "Congrats to Marcus L Rowland for sticking the boot in the Americanised 'Battlefield Europe' views of Twilight 2000 – it was asking for it!"

If it's true that American roleplaying games were capable of exerting influence on British public opinion during the Cold War, changing attitudes to be more in favour of the US, then Twilight 2000 would have to be considered a failure of soft power, at least on Rowland and Conway.

The Price of Freedom

The Price of Freedom is about US resistance to a Soviet invasion. Ashley Shepherd's review in White Dwarf #86 (1987) is mostly positive. Its presentation is "excellent", game system "competent", and GM-ing advice "some of the best to appear in any game." But Shepherd strikes a different tone regarding the game's message:

The whole presentation of the game is far from that of Twilight 2000, which presented a terrible world picture, but did so in a relatively neutral way. Price drops all pretence of being a neutral game system: 'Go out and kill them Commies!' is the message.​

​

I have the feeling that Price is intended to be taken as a tongue-in-cheek game. At least, I hope it is…​

The game was debated in the letters page of White Dwarf #87. Alan Reid wrote:

Your reviewer cheerfully mentions that the game mainly involves killing 'commies'; these might be members of an alien species fit only to be killed in this game, but in reality the millions of people who might call themselves, or might be called, communists are human beings. The game promotes a casual disregard for human life and lends itself to the justification of all manner of repression, torture and massacre in the real world, by effectively branding anyone who might come within a certain range of political views as sub-human.​

​

You may reply that the game is really tongue-in-cheek; if so, it is not very detectable from the advertising.​

Marc Gascoigne, the letters page editor, added:

Having both read Price and talked to its author, Greg Costikyan, I still find myself rather disturbed by its premises and assumptions. Sure, it's a game where people take on personas, like actors, but I don’t happen to like the characters they are forced to adopt. I personally feel it is a fantasy game, but a very unpleasant one. Obviously some of our correspondents disagree. We've had quite a few indignant letters defending both sides of the argument, but there is one very interesting common point which they all seem to share, and it is this: regardless of whether the game is fantasy or a disguised political statement, you'd have to be very, very stupid to spend your money actually buying The Price of Freedom. The designer of the game has admitted that he wrote this game purely and simply to make money, to prey on the gullibility of right-thinking American gamers, and I say good luck to him. If people really want to buy the game that's their look-out.​

Gascoigne was removed from his position at White Dwarf for this response, though he continued to work for Games Workshop. The next issue features a reply from Costikyan, several positive letters, all from Americans, and an apology to Costikyan from the editor, Mike Brunton: "Apologies for the tone that was taken in the editorial comment. Fact is, Greg is one of the best designers in the biz."

As with Twilight 2000, I'm not sure any of this could be seen as a victory for American soft power.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"Dnd players are key to winning the cold war." - Ronald Reagan, probably

“Mr. Gorbachev, dispel that Wall of Stone!” ~ Ronald Reagan

 

[Sacrosanct]

Never played PoF, but it sounds like they were trying to capitalize on the hugely successful popularity of movies like Red Dawn at the time.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Gotta say, I started with AD&D, but I wasn’t a Grognard (Type 1).

…until 4Ed.

I mean, I think 4Ed did some things very well- some better than prior editions- but for me, 3.5Ed (and it’s variants) are the best iteration of the game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

“Trust, but cast Zone of Truth.” ~ Ronald Reagan

 

[aco175]

Ah. OK. Without smily faces, I am quite obtuse. I admit that lol.

Bravo for the great use of vocabulary and letting me quote this.

Grognard- eh, not sure I'm old enough to be in it, or recognize it when I am.

 

[Mercurius]

Gronardism is so year 2000...

 

[Mallus]

I was just responding to the guy who implied older editions weren't challenging. That's just not the case.

I think you were quoting me. My point was survival is only one kind of challenge. Others exists.

Even accepting that survival is the primary challenge of old-school D&D, there's evidence that waned over time when you look at all the lethality-mitigation rules that got adopted both informally (max HP at 1st level, "we start at level 3") and formally ('death's door" rules, higher stat generation methods, various spells to help PC survive early levels) as you move from Original to AD&D 2e.

Then there's the nature that challenge itself. A lot of low level survival comes down to pure dumb luck in OD&D/AD&D. Not the 'smart play' that got talked up in OSR rhetoric. What can a group do about poisonous monsters until somebody makes 7th level as cleric? Which I'm about to do in our Labyrinth Lord campaign, BTW.

In some ways, later editions allow for smarter play because lower-level PCs are assumed to have access to more of the tools they need. So it becomes a logistical problem to solve, not just a matter of rolling high on a d20...

 

[dragoner]

"In the year 2000 ..." Sounds like super sci-fi, if you are a grognard.