My Response to the Grognardia Essay "More Than a Feeling"
- Thread starter joethelawyer
- Start date
- Status
Desdichado
Hero
OK, but surely you admit that they had to be published first and gather some steam naturally, right?
Also: prior to the 4e announcement, that same general "sphere" had a fair bit of a surge in interest thanks to Castles & Crusades. Which, in turn, was old school feeling without actually being completely old school. I think C&C actually helped create the surge in interest, because it got people thinking to "well, if this is fun, why not just play the actual old editions instead of this hybrid 3e/old school game? Then OSRIC came along, then the other retro-clones, and the rest, as they say, was history.
Mournblade94
Hero
This reminds me of a discussion I had with my group about RA Salvatores dark elf series. My friend never read it and I told him to read Crystal Shard first, then go on to Homeland etc. Another member of the group, who was around my age called me daft and that the proper order to read them was Homeland etc, then crystal shard etc., and so on. I read every book of RA salvatore's series on first release including Crystal Shard. For me Drizzt was a mysterious character at first. For my friend, by Crystal Shard Drizzt was well known. I still think that my order is best, but there is no way to know other than preference.
This is the same as the Star Wars series. I could not imagine Empire Strikes Back being as great as it was knowing the history of the new three movies. Most 'old school' SW fans think the order the movies should be watched is IV,V,VI then I, II, III. Most kids view then in numerical order, and even George Lucas says they should be viewed in that order (though if he was really true to his "I wrote Star Wars" as an epic he would not say that, as epics typically start at a point in a legend's established history).
There is no correct answer, though I think there is a better case to be made for the order of viewing Star Wars starting with IV. But many kids viewed episode I in their younger years, just like I watched Star Wars IV in the theatre when I was 5 years old.
I can mostly agree, but I have never been a fan of playing monsters. Draconians to me were not a good replacement for orcs. I started Warhammer very early on, and I still find Zoats to be lame and best ignored. Very early on, I still would of never let anyone play a Draconian.
I like most 80's metal. The metal I identify with most is Iron Maiden and Dio and Metallica, bands that had a strong fantasy theme. I don't like a lot of new metal because of subject matter mostly. But then I was a huge AC/DC fan so I guess that argument is blown out of the water...
But I look back at other bands I liked and suddenly I get embarassed. Like if I wore an old POISON shirt and some dude came up to me and said POISON SUCKS!, I would probably look at him, look at my shirt, and then say "you know your right." They did suck. But I loved them.
I think the new metal is pretty cool. But I can't abide any metal that throws rap in the mix. Too many new metal bands include it and then that throws me off. I just can't handle rap in any form. I knew as an angsty teen ager FAITH NO MORE would lead to bad things
Here I pretty much agree. except for one thing...The corollary to "Old School gaming is nostalgia" isn't "4e is flavor of the month", its "The game evolved into something else, and I don't like it". Just like hair metal spun out and became Rap-Metal, Goth Metal and Norwegian Nu Metal, D&D has changed. Those who shake their fists at D&D and talk about how its changed are really no different than those who hear the latest Fall Out Boy song and immediately channel surf to find some Bon Jovi. That's fine.
What irks some people is the eventual mindset of "If I don't like it, it must be bad." This is where some people take the logical leap off the cliff and begin the bashing of how X ruined the game and (worse) should fail. Just like those old school Sex Pistols fans who bemoan how Green Day ruined Punk, it leads to an "us vs. them" mentality and we set up camps and trenches.
So just to review.
1.) Green Day didn't ruin punk, Dragonborn didn't ruin D&D.
2.) Like what you like, but don't assume your opinions matter on the internet.
3.) There are many reasons to like 80's hair metal, nostalgia is one of them. It might not be the ONLY reason, but its there none-the-less. If you'd have heard Fall Out Boy before hearing Motley Crue, you'd clamor for the old days of FOB too.
4.) Music and D&D have a lot more in common than I'd ever given previous thought too.
new metal is all over the radio, and concert circuits. That is fine. But I can still go see Iron Maiden with the seating packed.
with 4e flying on to the scene, I had support for a good game stopped. I can't get new 3rd edition books (not addressing pathfinder right now, just the concept). With music I can go to a concert of the old bands often with new albums. 3rd edition I cannot get any new books.
This is the difference. 4e is the evolution, but WOTC was trying to force everyone into their new paradigm.
So for people that liked older D&D, it did fail. If it does fail as a product, or evolve ultimately into an electronic game, no big deal.
I can still see Iron Maiden and Metallica sell out arenas, 80's metal is alive and well. the market change to 4e is more akin to the record companies destroying all of their master recordings and telling the public only new metal or rap metal is good.
Not really, because that only addresses retroclones, and earlier editions of D&D are part of the resurgence as well, and it doesn't explain that.
Were retroclones all created in response to 4E? No.
Did the advent of 4E affect the level of interest in retroclones and earlier editions to a large degree? Almost certainly. It appears to have shovelled coal directly into their furnaces.
Fifth Element
Legend
But this is just a limitation of the analogy. In music, there are many, many bands you can listen to. In RPGs, there are very few publishers of note. And there are resource allocation issues that don't arise in music.
WotC was no more trying to "force" everyone into their paradigm than a band is trying to "force" their fans into a new paradigm when they release a new album with a new sound. But the band can still play their old stuff in concerts because it doesn't cost them anything. Maintaining support for old editions would cost WotC resources. It's not the same deal.
Remathilis
Legend
As Doug pointed out, one needs only look at Dragonsfoot and other OS boards to see the problem doesn't begin in 4e, but 3e.
For example, TLG wanted to make an RPG with "AD&D sensibilities" for Gygax's pet project Castle Grey... Zygag. This was a reaction to the concept that 3e wasn't "true enough" to AD&D's roots to recreate Gygax's vision and thus needed ruleset that mimicked the old game (if he could have gained the rights to publish the thing in 1e, he'd probably have done that instead).
Not long after, OSRIC 1.0 came out as a tool to produce new AD&D 1e material. Both of these (and slowly the other clones, as well as interest in the originals) gained steam and (to agree with you, came to a head in) the 4e changeover.
Let me repeat my point though: "This was a reaction to the concept that 3e wasn't 'true enough' to AD&D's roots". The reaction was against 3e's methodology; while some ideas from 3e were kept (no level limits, upwards AC) much of the retro movement railed against open multi-classing, prestige classes, feats, "boxed in skill sets", over-complex monsters, bonus stacking, Level adjustments, "balanced" encounters, magic Wal-Marts, and a dozen specific changes to my favorite race/class/spell/magic item.
Instead, they wanted games that used the elements of the game they're familiar with, back when multi-classing was constrained, bard was the only PrC, skills were DM fiat, monster stats fit on a text line, bonuses stacked but there were few to go around, encounters were whatever the DM deemed them to be, magic couldn't be bought, and elves were elves, rangers had 2 HD to start, fireball killed whole cities, and you couldn't make or buy a wand of fireballs. If that's not nostalgia...
(Ironically, 4e fixes many of the same complaints, but in a completely reverse manner.)
Don't delude yourself that you can wave a bloody shirt and say "4e did this" when 3e was well on its way to disgruntling the grognards long before 4e hit the scene. 4e only served to speed up the process. Remember, you said it yourself...
I have a somewhat unique gaming situation at the moment, one that I think provides a certain perspective on the Old-School versus New-School debate.
Right now at my FLGS we have a large group (7-10 players per session) that alternates between 4th Edition and Classic D&D (Rules Cyclopedia version). Both games are "open', in that we allow new players who want to join to simply show up and start playing. (All games in my past experience had been "closed", consisting only of people who already knew each other and played at our homes). The group was originally a 4th Edition group, created because my Castles & Crusades campaign had to go on hiatus (our gaming space became unavailable), and one of the players had bought the 4th Edition books. A new game shop had fortuitously opened, so 3 of us decided to try out 4th Edition there. That group soon acquired more players, and eventually I asked everyone if they would like to try playing Classic, so they could experience what the game was originally like.
The first session of Classic D&D was a great success, and to my surprise younger players loved the game. The Classic game was intended to be an occasional thing, but the players insisted that it become a regular campaign. So here's the thing. Now we alternate between the 4th Edition campaign and the Classic campaign. The two campaigns mostly share players, although there are some players who will only play one or the other. The funny thing is, there is no correlation between a player's age and what edition they prefer. I had thought that nobody under 30 could possibly care about Classic D&D. I was very wrong. There are players in the game who are too young to have any nostalgia for Classic, who learned to play both 4th Edition and Classic at the same time, and who prefer the older game. Conversely, I have encountered older players who love 4th. The preference for older editions is not simply nostalgia, nor is a preference for 4th simply the influence of growing up with video games and manga.
Played side-by-side (and especially teaching both games to the same players), the differences between the two editions are glaring. They are not the same game at all, but both are enjoyable. In many ways, they complement each other. 4th is a essentially a tactical combat game, with a plot that links combat encounters. The game is the combats, and combats are far more interesting than in other editions. They also take much longer, so long that trying to make the game about anything else is futile. Classic D&D, on the other hand, is a game of role-playing exploration and a PC's rise to fame and political power. That's what's in the rules, and that's what the game does best. Combat can indeed descend into a series of "I attack" statements, but 4th simply isn't as good as Classic for a role-playing and exploration-based game. Older D&D is also far more dependent on the DM's skills, but also allows a great DM to make a more enjoyable game. I will admit however, that 4th seems dramatically less dependent on the DM's skills, and Classic with a bad DM could be a horrible experience.
In my experience, the problem with the "Old School Movement" is its exclusivity. It sometimes comes off as lecturing to younger players, who naturally feel like the Grognards are devaluing things the things that the under-30 crowd genuinely enjoy. Unless the "Old School Movement" (which is really a Neo-Old School Movement) attracts younger players, it by definition has no future. I found that when the older editions are presented as simply a different way to role-play, without swipes at the newer versions, new players can and will enjoy an Old School game.
Right now at my FLGS we have a large group (7-10 players per session) that alternates between 4th Edition and Classic D&D (Rules Cyclopedia version). Both games are "open', in that we allow new players who want to join to simply show up and start playing. (All games in my past experience had been "closed", consisting only of people who already knew each other and played at our homes). The group was originally a 4th Edition group, created because my Castles & Crusades campaign had to go on hiatus (our gaming space became unavailable), and one of the players had bought the 4th Edition books. A new game shop had fortuitously opened, so 3 of us decided to try out 4th Edition there. That group soon acquired more players, and eventually I asked everyone if they would like to try playing Classic, so they could experience what the game was originally like.
The first session of Classic D&D was a great success, and to my surprise younger players loved the game. The Classic game was intended to be an occasional thing, but the players insisted that it become a regular campaign. So here's the thing. Now we alternate between the 4th Edition campaign and the Classic campaign. The two campaigns mostly share players, although there are some players who will only play one or the other. The funny thing is, there is no correlation between a player's age and what edition they prefer. I had thought that nobody under 30 could possibly care about Classic D&D. I was very wrong. There are players in the game who are too young to have any nostalgia for Classic, who learned to play both 4th Edition and Classic at the same time, and who prefer the older game. Conversely, I have encountered older players who love 4th. The preference for older editions is not simply nostalgia, nor is a preference for 4th simply the influence of growing up with video games and manga.
Played side-by-side (and especially teaching both games to the same players), the differences between the two editions are glaring. They are not the same game at all, but both are enjoyable. In many ways, they complement each other. 4th is a essentially a tactical combat game, with a plot that links combat encounters. The game is the combats, and combats are far more interesting than in other editions. They also take much longer, so long that trying to make the game about anything else is futile. Classic D&D, on the other hand, is a game of role-playing exploration and a PC's rise to fame and political power. That's what's in the rules, and that's what the game does best. Combat can indeed descend into a series of "I attack" statements, but 4th simply isn't as good as Classic for a role-playing and exploration-based game. Older D&D is also far more dependent on the DM's skills, but also allows a great DM to make a more enjoyable game. I will admit however, that 4th seems dramatically less dependent on the DM's skills, and Classic with a bad DM could be a horrible experience.
In my experience, the problem with the "Old School Movement" is its exclusivity. It sometimes comes off as lecturing to younger players, who naturally feel like the Grognards are devaluing things the things that the under-30 crowd genuinely enjoy. Unless the "Old School Movement" (which is really a Neo-Old School Movement) attracts younger players, it by definition has no future. I found that when the older editions are presented as simply a different way to role-play, without swipes at the newer versions, new players can and will enjoy an Old School game.
Last edited:
Mournblade94
Hero
I can agree with your post but that was not my point. You are right the music industry is wide open. A new band can make a new album and still play old singles. WOTC cannot support both editions (though I disagree with this, I think they COULD, but I really no longer care, because PAIZO has all those good designers.)
My point, was more in response to how a group of D&D fans can actually be angry about the direction and play style of a new edition. It is not a simple solution of "play what you like" when the game you like has been replaced with something you consider completely different.
Desdichado
Hero
Liking (or not) older RPGs is not the whole of the Old School Revival, so pointing out that (to use the example a couple of posts up) that younger guys like BD&D or whatever too doesn't mean that nostalgia isn't a huge part of the Old School Revival movement. The Old School Revival blogs are often not only steeped in nostalgia in nearly every post (even as they deny nostalgia as being important to them), but some of them also have really romanticised the old days of D&D, and approach playing the game as an almost liturgical experience, where we have to think about "how would Gary Gygax have done this? Why did Gary Gygax include this element? What were Gary's sources here?" and try to emulate, not only old school gaming, but specifically Gary's game.
Anyway, yeah... I think it's foolish for anyone outside the movement to dismiss it as just nostalgia, but I think it's equally foolish for those inside the movement to deny that nostalgia is an important component of the surge in interest.
Anyway, yeah... I think it's foolish for anyone outside the movement to dismiss it as just nostalgia, but I think it's equally foolish for those inside the movement to deny that nostalgia is an important component of the surge in interest.
Last edited:
Remathilis
Legend
Have some XP!
I think there is a not-discussed element to the OSR; retrospective. Since Gary's death last year (and Dave's this year), there has been renewed interest in their works (not unlike a few years back when Johnny Cash received a post-mortem bump in sales). While that doesn't explain those who have enjoyed his works for a long time, it does account for a small amount of interest in older versions of D&D, if for nothing else than curiosity.
- Status
Similar Threads
