D&D General In defence of Grognardism

"In the year 2000 ..." Sounds like super sci-fi, if you are a grognard. :geek:
I’d love to play an old-style sword & planet or pulp Sci-Fi game!

I even created a semiserious Commando Cody/Flash Gordon/Adam Strange type PC for a HERO game that never got run. IOW, succeeding with his jet pack, ray gun, and wits. But there was a comedic twist to the character: Rōg Tuskarr wasn‘t human, but rather a heavyworlder humanoid alien who strongly resembled a pink elephant. (Yes, this would cause consternation amongs the winos,)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
This is a great post, Doug McCrae. You've done some research, presented us with a viewpoint many of us ( at least me) hadn't heard before, and given us a lot to think about. I missed out on Twilight 2000 back in the day and hadn't heard of The Price of Freedom until sometime after 2010, but my friends and I did play a little Delta Force: American Strikes Back circa 1987-88. I tried to get my friend to run a zombie scenario using Delta Green but he rejected it as being a stupid idea. We could have been ahead of the curve on the zombie apocalypse genre but he was too short sighted.

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. T
Personally, I think this criticism applies to just about every RPG that uses violence as one of its most basic means of conflict resolution. D&D likely wouldn't be nearly as fun if that orc cried out for his mother as he lay dying after being disemboweled by a particularly lucky player character armed with an axe. There are very few RPGs out there that really examine the full horrors of violence. What what makes Twilight 2000 different?

I guess the big difference with Twilight 2000 is that it hits close to home in a way that perhaps a fantasy or science fiction game could not. I checked out the recent Twilight 2000 Kickstarter and was surprised by how many negative feelings it conjured up for me. I don't find the game morally objectionable like Marcus Rowland did, but it conjured up memories of my father going to play war, of seeing tanks on the autobahn, and living in an atmosphere where I had some vague idea that my father and all my friend's fathers, and some of their mothers, were in Germany as a check against the Soviet Union. I came to the conclusion that I just couldn't have fun with Twilight 2000.

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.
Twilight 2000 was game designed by Americans for an American audience. If I was a soldier stuck in Europe my first priority, aside from just surviving, would be to return home where my loved ones are. But I can see why it rankles some people and it's a great example of how some American work goes over like a lead balloon in other parts of the world.
 

I’d love to play an old-style sword & planet or pulp Sci-Fi game!

I even created a semiserious Commando Cody/Flash Gordon/Adam Strange type PC for a HERO game that never got run. IOW, succeeding with his jet pack, ray gun, and wits. But there was a comedic twist to the character: Rōg Tuskarr wasn‘t human, but rather a heavyworlder humanoid alien who strongly resembled a pink elephant. (Yes, this would cause consternation amongs the winos,)
A sword and planet game like that sounds like Gamma World, system probably would have been perfect. The goofy post-apocalypse genre has sadly passed for the most part.

I used to have a bunch of sci-fi books I bought at the Ashby flea market in Berkeley for super cheap and one was "In the Year 2000" with stories how we would all be living in these huge arcologies or something. Completely ridiculous, except good stories.
 

I admit I always chuckle a bit when I hear some variation of "grognards can't handle anything new" or "throw fits when something new comes along."

I mean, have you seen Expedition to the Barrier Peaks? Have you picked up an issue of Dragon during the 80s, where every other issue introduced a new class? We introduced the whole T-Rex shooting lasers meme. We mix-matched campaigns that had a bit of Tolkien, a bit of Moorcock, and a bit of Robotech for flavor without batting an eye. I recall running one adventure that was a mix of Predator, Platoon, Conan the Barbarian, and Robocop all into one. Everything was new back then and it was all good. That's one good thing about the 80s, is that you could pretty much do anything style-wise and no one cared. Just look at how many fashion styles were in that decade compared to every other decade.

No, Grogs don't have anything against new things, they just aren't fans of things that override or remove the parts they do like or think those new things are inherently better. And I think there's a distinction there. Also, if you look at many OSR groups, if you remove those diehard toxic elements like LaNassa and crew, you'll find most grogs like 5e as well (people like Luke Gygax and many others). So that right there sort of disproves the whole "grogs don't like new things" argument.
 

And I think there's a distinction there. Also, if you look at many OSR groups, if you remove those diehard toxic elements like LaNassa and crew, you'll find most grogs like 5e as well (people like Luke Gygax and many others). So that right there sort of disproves the whole "grogs don't like new things" argument.
I cut my teeth on AD&D 1st edition. The last time someone asked me if I wanted to play a 1st edition game my reply was, "Not only no, but hell no!" I have a lot of great memories of AD&D but I have no desire to return to the rules or the style of game play from back then. There's nothing fun about a teleportation trap that forces me to face a bunch of wights while I'm wearing nothing but the tattered remains of the shroud of the wight I just switched places with. It just isn't wight...er, right.
 

Whether I’d play AD&D again would depend on the context. Who else is at the table? What are the boundaries for PC design? Etc.
 


I was thinking of selling my Fiend Folio yesterday to someone on twitter who wanted one, my only opinion is if they are going to use it or not. I mean "je suis ..." except the seats were cheap.
 

If it wasn't for we Grognards, all you folks who first discovered D&D since the mid-80's would not have had that opportunity.
 

If it wasn't for we Grognards, all you folks who first discovered D&D since the mid-80's would not have had that opportunity.
While technically correct, I don't think it's valid to say "Hey, the game wouldn't be around without us buying the books, you should thank us!" anymore than it is for Christopher Columbus (that is, if he wasn't dead) to say "Hey, I 'discovered' the Americas, all of you who are descended from Europeans that emigrated to this country should thank me!"

That's not really a reason for praise. I'm a bit grateful for that, as I really like D&D and am thankful that it's still around, but this still sits funny with me, like it would for someone that was adopted who met their biological parent for the first time, only for the parent to say, "You should thank me! You wouldn't even be born if it weren't for me! Ignore that bit about me abandoning you for 2 decades, you should be grateful!".

See my point?
 

Remove ads

Top