My Response to the Grognardia Essay "More Than a Feeling"

[Doug McCrae]

Nostalgia definitely plays a part in Goodman Games marketing, the very first words of their standard module text in the Dungeon Crawl Classics series are "Remember the good old days..."

The first DCC, Idylls of the Rat King, was published in 2003, which is further evidence for the popularity of old school existing long before 4e.

 

[Remathilis]

Nostalgia definitely plays a part in Goodman Games marketing, the very first words of their standard module text in the Dungeon Crawl Classics series are "Remember the good old days..."

The first DCC, Idylls of the Rat King, was published in 2003, which is further evidence for the popularity of old school existing long before 4e.

Ahem.

"Third Edition Rules, First Edition feel?"

 

[Raven Crowking]

One could just as easily say,

Liking (or not) newer RPGs is not the whole of 4e sales, so pointing out that (to use the example a couple of posts up) that older guys like 4e or whatever too doesn't mean that flavour of the month isn't a huge part of the 4e movement. The 4e blogs are often not only steeped in flavour of the month in nearly every post (even as they deny flavour of the month as being important to them), but some of them also have really romanticized the new edition of D&D, and approach playing the game as an almost liturgical experience, where we have to not only avoid thinking about the play experiences of previous editions, but to actively deny Gary's game.

 

[Remathilis]

One could just as easily say,

Liking (or not) newer RPGs is not the whole of 4e sales, so pointing out that (to use the example a couple of posts up) that older guys like 4e or whatever too doesn't mean that flavour of the month isn't a huge part of the 4e movement. The 4e blogs are often not only steeped in flavour of the month in nearly every post (even as they deny flavour of the month as being important to them), but some of them also have really romanticized the new edition of D&D, and approach playing the game as an almost liturgical experience, where we have to not only avoid thinking about the play experiences of previous editions, but to actively deny Gary's game.

Except they don't.

And I think very few players would deny that "new hottness" IS an attractive element of 4e. The books are brand new. There are new elements, new ways of doing things, and new spins on classic things. We get a brand new book nearly every month, and a boatload of online stuff to boot. The rules (IMHO) improve upon earlier iterations and create a new and interesting play experience.

I don't deny that "newness" is an attraction to 4e (and 3e via Pathfinder), why do you deny "nostalgia" is in the OSR?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nostalgia definitely plays a part in Goodman Games marketing, the very first words of their standard module text in the Dungeon Crawl Classics series are "Remember the good old days..."

Hrrrmm.

GG is definitely making an appeal to the idea that "older is better", which is a logical fallacy if that is all there is to it. However, if one actually prefers the "1e feel", then buying something based upon that quality is not "just nostalgia".

The entire idea that one could create products which express the qualities of older games suggests that there are objective criteria for that expression. Indeed, Goodman Games goes on to suggest what (to them) some of those qualities are.

The first DCC, Idylls of the Rat King, was published in 2003, which is further evidence for the popularity of old school existing long before 4e.

The popularity of old school games began, obviously, before there were any other games to compete with. I.e., when they were the new school.

Ahem.

"Third Edition Rules, First Edition feel?"

See above.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I think very few players would deny that "new hottness" IS an attractive element of 4e.

Preordered? You obviously couldn't know what you were getting, so equally obviously your enjoyment of 4e is nothing more than "flavour of the month"ism.

Does that seem rather dismissive?

So does "just nostalgia".

Does that seem rather simplistic, and, dare I say it, just plain wrong?

So does "just nostalgia".

No one, I think, is denying an element of nostalgia (to a greater or lesser degree). Rather, the modifier "just" causes some serious problems.

Because if your enjoyment of 4e was just new-flavourism, then once you get playing, that new flavour would wear off and you'd be looking for something newer. Likewise, if others' enjoyment of older games was just nostalgia, once they got to playing them they'd discover that the games themselves suck.

Since neither of those things is true, it is equally unlikely that "just new-flavourism" or "just nostalgia" is anything other than a load of unmitigated bull-hooey.


RC

 

[Remathilis]

Since neither of those things is true, it is equally unlikely that "just new-flavourism" or "just nostalgia" is anything other than a load of unmitigated bull-hooey.

I see what you're getting at...

Its not the "nostalgia" part you're having a fit about, its the "just".

Ok, its not "just nostalgia", but I never said it was. I merely pointed out nostalgia colors your perception of likes and dislikes, and that's part of the human condition. It colors it in your clothing choice, your taste in music, etc. To claim nostalgia has NO role is just as disingenuous as saying its everything.

We'll have to disagree on the rest.

 

[rogueattorney]

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.

The problem I see is that many 4e (and 3e before them) players are so defensive about their edition "being D&D" that they perceive any claim that the editions play differently as some sort of attack against their edition "being D&D." Many completely innocuous statements regarding "old school" play (as I believe James M's original blog entry was) are perceived as attacks on the new version.

 

[Mournblade94]

Except they don't.

And I think very few players would deny that "new hottness" IS an attractive element of 4e. The books are brand new. There are new elements, new ways of doing things, and new spins on classic things. We get a brand new book nearly every month, and a boatload of online stuff to boot. The rules (IMHO) improve upon earlier iterations and create a new and interesting play experience.

I don't deny that "newness" is an attraction to 4e (and 3e via Pathfinder), why do you deny "nostalgia" is in the OSR?

It is a matter of taste more so than "just nostalgia". Many OD&D players don't want Anime influences like Japanese Roleplaying games and Anime in their fantasy. Many OD&D players want races based in literature and not made up arbitrarily by designers.

A player with this preference certainly would not like 4e so they go to a different edition. Nostalgia can quite possibly have nothing to do with it.

I love playing Oblivion. There is no nostalgia in it.

I TRIED to play LOST ODYSSEY because it was the new shiny, and it was just all silly story with alot of melodrama thrown in; closer to Avatar the air bender rather than good quests. it is a matter of taste more than nostalgia.

I never liked monster races and nostalgia has nothing to do with it. It could just be that OD&D sticks to the story elements I like.

I don't begrudge people their japanese scifi/fantasy style, I just don't want to see that be the standard. Old D&D had the traditional elements as the core and all the other tastes could be added in and taylor made.

 

[rogueattorney]

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"....

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...

For what it's worth, having talked to the guys who worked on OSRIC quite a bit, C&C's successes and failures had a lot more to do with the creation of OSRIC than the perceived strengths or weaknesses of either 3.x or 4e (which, at the time, was just the looming specter on the horizon).

Of course neither C&C or OSRIC would have been possible without the OGL, so in that respect, both are direct reactions to the market conditions created by or for 3e.