D&D General In defence of Grognardism

[Thomas Shey]

Imagine you start a style that is really transparent on the GM side. The gm tells the players what all the monster stats are, doesn’t use a screen, rolls out in the open, shared his notes on plot after the game to show all was above board, and begin calling your style honest play. People adopt your style and the honest play label.

I don’t see how you using that word in any way suggests other styles are dishonest, or implied there aren’t other styles that place emphasis on different forms of honesty. It is just a positive descriptor of the style, it resonates, gains traction, and conveys what you mean. Obviously it means a particular kind of honesty and that needs to be conveyed in the explanation. But it seems a useful term, I wouldn’t object to it just because my osr style of play also values being honest (in the form of being sn honest ref)

Actually, I'd have exactly the same reaction to that. It privileges the style in a way that isn't warranted just by the terminology.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I gotta say, as someone who is pretty big onto the older games and OSR, I've never really heard "skillful play" as an association or description of OSR games. I HAVE heard "player skill", and often. Those are two different things.

While I have some issues with that, too, at least in context its a bit more descriptive and actually can be read as a not unmixed-description (i.e. making things about player skill over character skill is something that can be argued as not-a-virtue from the right perspective).

I get how some people don't like that playstyle, but I don't think it's nearly as condescending as some are making it out to be because it's being taken out of context. It's simply letting you know how it's played vs other systems.

Well, keep in mind some people see it as condescending because they've seen people use it that way. Everyone carries water for people who are in a group they're in that misbehave, that's just a practical reality.

 

[GuyBoy]

Hah. Man I played since the 80s, went to cons in the 80's and 90's and it was ALL I saw. A bunch of finger wagging neckbeards all playing the exact same character, over and over: the professional adventure solver. They had a strong tendency to engage with the world in the same boring manner, because they'd been trained through Pavlovian response to poke, prod and pixelbitch (so much for fast play huh?). They were just playing themselves with a thin veneer of spellcasting or items spackled over, regardless of what the mental/social stats on their sheet said. Sometimes the character was Axebeard MacAleHammer and the Scottish dial was cranked up 15%, or they were 10% more haughty as "Elfy le Elfbow", but the goal was always "win the adventure". If the rules were in their favor, they use them. If not, they "get creative" and avoid engaging with the rules of the game. Power Metagaming if you will.

I've never seen a grognard knowingly spring a trap or make the wrong decision because that's what their character would do. They don't play interestingly flawed characters. You know the scene in Pan's Labyrinth where the little girl eats the grape from the monsters table and all hell breaks loose? I've never seen an old skooler who would voluntarily make that choice. For all the pontificating about roleplaying, the characters they choose to portray are from a really narrow spectrum.

Ehren37, I’d eat the grape!
I’ve see plenty of interesting, deep and engaging characters played by players of all ages.
I’ve seen less interesting ones, also from players of all ages.

I’m sorry your experience has been otherwise, but I think terms like “a bunch of finger-wagging neckbeards” is verging on the offensive.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hah. Man I played since the 80s, went to cons in the 80's and 90's and it was ALL I saw. A bunch of finger wagging neckbeards all playing the exact same character, over and over: the professional adventure solver.

You’ve made your disdain for this particular subculture of gamers abundantly clear. I’m sure your preferred playstyle rubs some people the wrong way as well.

Perhaps, in the future, if you feel the need to share your viewpoint, you can do so in a less detailed & inflammatory manner? Just a suggestion.

 

[Nefermandias]

Rob Kuntz knew Gygax well, and could likely predict whether he was going to respond to a particular tactic Kuntz chose in any fashion that Kuntz would expect. So is that playing to the fiction or to the GM?

Is there really any difference in the end? Is there a real separation between DM and fiction? Between PC and player?

I think it's a fuzzy and interesting subject. Angry GM has a wonderful article on this, but I'm not sure if I can post links here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Actually, I'd have exactly the same reaction to that. It privileges the style in a way that isn't warranted just by the terminology.

I think that is reading way too much into a positive descriptor for a style. Like I said these aren't part of a zero sum game.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Is there really any difference in the end? Is there a real separation between DM and fiction? Between PC and player?

I think it's a fuzzy and interesting subject. Angry GM has a wonderful article on this, but I'm not sure if I can post links here.

There certainly is.

Imagine if you and I were co-DMing a campaign together. Two players are given identical pre-gen PCs and assigned to one of us. We each go into a sealed room with our assigned play and run the same adventure for that player.

The PC and the initial fiction are the same, but do you have any realistic expectation that the emergent fiction will be the same? The emergent fiction will almost certainly differ, because you and I will probably make different calls, and the players will each make different choices for their (same) character.

 

[Nefermandias]

There certainly is.

Imagine if you and I were co-DMing a campaign together. Two players are given identical pre-gen PCs and assigned to one of us. We each go into a sealed room with our assigned play and run the same adventure for that player.

The PC and the initial fiction are the same, but do you have any realistic expectation that the emergent fiction will be the same? The emergent fiction will almost certainly differ, because you and I will probably make different calls, and the players will each make different choices for their (same) character.

Precisely!
That's because it's really impossible for you to completely remove yourself from the character you are playing. It's your human brain making the calls at the end of the day.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Precisely!
That's because it's really impossible for you to completely remove yourself from the character you are playing. It's your human brain making the calls at the end of the day.

Sure, I would agree with that. Although it's entirely possible for a player to make a choice for a character that they, themselves, would not have made (and would not have made if they were playing a different character).

 

[Nefermandias]

Sure, I would agree with that. Although it's entirely possible for a player to make a choice for a character that they, themselves, would not have made (and would not have made if they were playing a different character).

Yes, you are correct. That's why we see so much advice online on how making suboptimal choices on purpose can lead to "interesting" situations in game.

I might be on the minority when I straight up tell my players not to do it unless they are okay with the prospect of quick, gruesome death. I believe the story is more interesting when players try their beast to overcome the challenges laid in front of them. I also don't care about what people call "metagaming".