Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8363857" data-attributes="member: 7023887">I'm not sure that this defends grognardism at all, or that maintaining the things that work is an aspect of grognardism. In my experience, the opposite is more common. Plenty of new players want to keep the parts of traditional/&quot;classic&quot; D&amp;D that work, but want to get rid of the parts that they think are harmful (whether that be alignment, racial ASIs, or similar examples). So, yeah, I don't think that this is a part of grognardism, and thus not defending it. Nostalgia is a reason (probably the main one) for grognardism, but it's not a defense for it. Explanations and excuses are two very different things. You can explain why something exists without supporting the existence of that thing (like how people can explain how certain awful historical events happened without supporting those events). Reason =/= excuse, and thus this is not a defense of grognardism (at least, not a valid one). Plenty of newer players care about and learn the history of D&amp;D. They just don't idolize it as much as grognards tend to (in my experience, at least). You can be a history geek without loving/fantasizing about the part of history that happened. This is very much tied to nostalgia and &quot;the grass is always greener on the other side&quot;. Again, not a defense of grognardism. I'm also not sure how this is a defense of grognardism. I'm not sure that what you're describing is a good thing, and thus not a reason to support/defend grognardism. Inevitability is not a valid excuse/reason to support/defend something. We're all going to die, it's inevitable, but that's no excuse for going around murdering everyone you can, because &quot;they just were gonna die anyway!&quot; Again, not a defense for grognardism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8363857, member: 7023887"] I'm not sure that this defends grognardism at all, or that maintaining the things that work is an aspect of grognardism. In my experience, the opposite is more common. Plenty of new players want to keep the parts of traditional/"classic" D&D that work, but want to get rid of the parts that they think are harmful (whether that be alignment, racial ASIs, or similar examples). So, yeah, I don't think that this is a part of grognardism, and thus not defending it. Nostalgia is a reason (probably the main one) for grognardism, but it's not a defense for it. Explanations and excuses are two [I]very [/I]different things. You can explain why something exists without supporting the existence of that thing (like how people can explain how certain awful historical events happened without supporting those events). Reason =/= excuse, and thus this is not a defense of grognardism (at least, not a valid one). Plenty of newer players care about and learn the history of D&D. They just don't idolize it as much as grognards tend to (in my experience, at least). You can be a history geek without loving/fantasizing about the part of history that happened. This is very much tied to nostalgia and "the grass is always greener on the other side". Again, not a defense of grognardism. I'm also not sure how this is a defense of grognardism. I'm not sure that what you're describing is a good thing, and thus not a reason to support/defend grognardism. Inevitability is not a valid excuse/reason to support/defend something. We're all going to die, it's inevitable, but that's no excuse for going around murdering everyone you can, because "[I]they just were gonna die anyway![/I]" Again, not a defense for grognardism. [/QUOTE]

Verification