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

[rexartur]

late to the party

"Howard Johnson is right" - Blazing Saddles

Sorry, I know I'm not contributing to the topic but I felt this most sensible and post deserved to be requoted in full.

Have fun and laugh at yourself at least a little. If you're not, someone else is.
And always appreciate that we have are so privileged to be debating, playing or contemplating what we do with our leisure time.

Peace

I don't worry about it. Thats for the individuals to discover.

I think of it in terms of the time worn phrase, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink". This is because in order for anyone to try C&C, or any other "old school" iteration, is for them to get to a point where they are thirsty for what it has to offer in the first place.

Plus I keep in mind that some tasteless people like Coke (I kid!), rather than love the far superior taste of Pepsi. What this helps me keep in mind is that everyones tastes differ. So Castles and Crusades fit my tastes almost to perfection. The tastes of others may make 1E their perfect game, or 2E, or OD&D, or Chainmail, or 3E, or 4E, or GURPS, or Rolemaster, or Ruequest, etc...

So rather than try and "TELL" someone what and how they should be gaming I try to just say, "This is what I do and why." If it sounds appealing to them, they will give it a look. If not, they aren't ready to appreciate the flavors it has to offer. Some day maybe they will. Until then I have plenty of people with which to do the gaming I like to do, even on WW D&D Day. At which I met two other fans of Castles and Crusades, but we all sat down and played 4E for 5 hours, and we had fun. Just that 3 of us agreed we would be having more fun if we were using C&C as the system. Still, we had fun playing 4E despite our taste preferences.

So my personal feelings are that we should all get over thinking we each play the best and most correct and most righteous version of a game, and just learn to unite under the banner of "We play RPG's!" and all have fun.

So if someone wishes to play a specific edition of D&D for the rest of their lives, thats fine. I will still think it is their loss, and that they should at least try out the other versions and systems for a little while, as well as other RPG's such as Shadowrun, L5R, ad infinitum...

Bottom line is, as long as I am having fun, and have friends with which to have that fun with, I am not going to allow myself to get worked up into a frenzy because someone else dares to play something different.

Now if they try and tell me how their game is superior to mine and how I am all wrong for playing it... Well, lets just say a swift kick to the crotch, or a haymaker to their jaw line might result. At the very least I will shake my head in pity and walk away.

I will do my best to stay out of edition wars, though. Its not worth the aggravation, and the bottom line is, "You can lead a gamer to the table, but you can't make him play."

 

[Ariosto]

Well, "just nostalgia" is really code for "objectively wrong".

After all, if the choice of an older game is accepted as a matter of personal preference, then that's reciprocal. There's really no point in calling it "just nostalgia" because the motive for choosing 4E is also "just" something. "They like other games better" suffices, followed by "to each his own".

The "same feel, and that's all that matters" claim doesn't even admit that; it gives no warrant for the "refuse to play pre-4E" bunch, no sales pitch for the (costly) switch.

The full line is really "just nostalgia, because otherwise they would make the right choice."

There are clear differences, and they are products of design, to meet goals of design. If 3E or 4E is to be bruited as better, then it must be demonstrated either as more effectively attaining the same objectives -- or as having better objectives.

The latter is the prime argument of the dismissers, and it is really nothing more than personal preference. They try to make "factual" claims (often treating the word "fun" as if it's not subjective), but all they really have themselves is "just a feeling".

It is simply reaching too far. It is opinion elevated to the status of "fact", bigotry that cannot stand rational examination.

Unfortunately, every valuation comes down ultimately to a fundamental "just because" that people either share or do not. That holds even for the most important of all, the moral values.

When aesthetics effectively become moral values, we're really in trouble.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ariosto, I would give you more XP, but I cannot at this time.

 

[Azgulor]

I covered you RC! Too bad I couldn't give out 2 XP so Ariosto would get the XP he deserved.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, "just nostalgia" is really code for "objectively wrong".

No. It isn't.

My love of 80s hair band rock and roll is primarily based on "just nostalgia." I don't care. I'll still put my Journey and Def Leppard and Ratt and whatever else in the CD player and crank it up.

It's not wrong to like that kind of music. It's not wrong to like older games. Quit running around with a massive chip on your shoulder looking to find offense, if you think saying that liking OD&D because of nostalgia is equivalent to saying, "you're wrong; the games actually suck and the only reason you could possibly like them is because you suck too." All that they're saying (well, possibly; I don't mean to speak for everyone who makes that claim) is that nostalgia is a big factor in the old school renaissance. That isn't a pejorative. It's just an observation and/or an opinion.

I still maintain that any movement that can encompass several games that clearly were going in different directions, for different reasons, and which had different design goals and paramaters, must be based on nostalgia, because the only true link between all of them is publication date.

Also; if you're trying to equate someone's taste in D&D edition to moral values, then you've officially wandered off the reservation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No. It isn't.

Sure it is.

The direct corollary would be "They just like 4e because it's the flavour of the month".

Some differences:

(1) When you claim that your love of 80s hair band rock and roll is primarily based on "just nostalgia", you are in a position to know. However, you are not in a position to know related to anyone else's love of anything.

(2) Likewise, when you make the claim about yourself, you are engaging in (at worst) mild self-criticism. Often, saying a thing about yourself, or levelling the same words against someone else, are different things.

(3) There is a difference between a claim that something is primarily based on "just nostalgia" and that something is "just nostalgia", in degree if not in kind.

(4) The entire "just nostalgia" claim would require that no one new to the hobby finds older games more appealing, and this is demonstrably untrue.

Depending upon you, your group, and your gaming requirements, older versions of the game may indeed provide better play experience than newer versions. Or vice versa.

And it is not due to "just nostalgia" -- in both cases it is due to differences in rules and presentation.


RC

 

[Remathilis]

Depending upon you, your group, and your gaming requirements, older versions of the game may indeed provide better play experience than newer versions. Or vice versa.

And it is not due to "just nostalgia" -- in both cases it is due to differences in rules and presentation.

Here is the "chicken or egg" problem...

If (by way of time machine) you were introduced to fourth edition first, THEN 20 years later found OD&D (or B/X, or 1e), would you still believe the older game creates a better play experience?

Its a trick question; you can't know. Your perception of both games are grounded in the time you encountered both games. You learned to play that older version first; it has positive connotations to you. Its what D&D "feels like" to you. If OD&D had power suites and dragonborn, a lot of people would have fond feelings for THAT.

Like Josh and his 80's metal, part of his affection for it IS nostalgia. It feels good to him. He may like modern acts too, but that 80's metal has the right mix of tempo, base, chords, and hopelessly teased hair to make him want to listen to it. If a modern band started producing an 80's metal sound (I'm sure there's one somewhere) and it got big radio play, Josh might like that too since it fits his preferred musical taste, but make no mistake nostalgia plays a role in it.

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.

 

[Ariosto]

I raised the comparison to moral values because when "the end justifies the means", the end typically is a moral imperative.

It appears to me that the rationale for insisting on telling people (or saying of them) that their views are "just nostalgia" is of that kind. It is the sort of propaganda employed in politics when it is considered that victory for Our Side is more important than any respect for inconvenient facts. Don't let the facts get a hearing! Drown them out with appeals to emotion; dismiss the message by attacking the messenger.

 

[Ariosto]

1.) Green Day didn't ruin punk, Dragonborn didn't ruin D&D.

Those are opinions.

2.) Like what you like, but don't assume your opinions matter on the internet.

Better yet, don't try to present your opinions as facts anywhere. Go ahead and observe that a reversion to an older approach would ruin the game for you, if that's your opinion; you're entitled to it. You're also entitled to speak for yourself as to why that would be, not to have your self-knowledge dismissed. When you address design elements and consequences that are objectively different, those remain facts regardless of whether one likes them or not. It is not necessary to like eating oysters to accept an account of the mollusks' anatomy, common means of preparation, and appreciated gastronomical properties among those who prefer them to clams and abalone.

 

[howandwhy99]

This is pretty much exactly what I gathered James was saying in his blog. I also rather get the impression that quite a few people (perhaps willingly?) simply didn't "get it".

I don't believe it matters, if they are attempting dismissing older games or not. Several things have changed: the definition of roleplaying used by the hobby, and, therefore, the categorization of what counts as a RPG, the philosophy of what roleplaying is and its' objective, and what qualifies as good game design because of those two alterations, and, ultimately, the gameplay itself. Old school games (I include almost all of the 4000 pre-millennial games here) are fundamentally different games and in a different category of "game" than most games designed in the last five years.

In truth, I believe most game designers have wholesale left the hobby as it was for its' first 30+ years because of a widespread belief that those games simply cannot compete against online, computer simulation MMORPGs. For me, to think their design isn't moneymaking is to believe MMORPGs don't make money. It's a hugely successful design and design philosophy. Hoiwever, that the belief our hobby needs to differentiate to survive, and to diverge in a way computer simulations cannot follow, makes a certain sense. And probably makes more sense to particular individuals the more one's paycheck relies upon selling roleplaying games.

No. It isn't.

My love of 80s hair band rock and roll is primarily based on "just nostalgia." I don't care. I'll still put my Journey and Def Leppard and Ratt and whatever else in the CD player and crank it up.

It's not wrong to like that kind of music. It's not wrong to like older games. Quit running around with a massive chip on your shoulder looking to find offense, if you think saying that liking OD&D because of nostalgia is equivalent to saying, "you're wrong; the games actually suck and the only reason you could possibly like them is because you suck too." All that they're saying (well, possibly; I don't mean to speak for everyone who makes that claim) is that nostalgia is a big factor in the old school renaissance. That isn't a pejorative. It's just an observation and/or an opinion.

I believe Hobo's right above. No "old school" movement could exist (in any hobby), if there weren't fond memories of the time to bring people back together. It's not like being a classic rock fan means the Beatles (OD&D) are musically inferior to new musical forms of today (non-old school games).

Here is the "chicken or egg" problem...

If (by way of time machine) you were introduced to fourth edition first, THEN 20 years later found OD&D (or B/X, or 1e), would you still believe the older game creates a better play experience?

I played 3.0 for about 100 hours. Then 3.5 for about 200 more. Since 2004 I've played well over 300+ hours of OD&D and 3E doesn't hold a candle to it in my opinion. There is no "first love" fallacy for me in this regard. 4E took far less time to play and read to ascertain it wasn't remotely similar in play to either game. Not bad, just different. And not nearly as fun for me personally to play. (though it did bring back some old school game design conceptions, which is pretty cool.)