D&D General On Grognardism...

[transmission89]

question do you want others to potentially agree with you on this opinion?

Nope. I’m not necessarily interested in other peoples’ perspective on my views in this thread as it’s not germane to the discussion point. It was the OP that wanted to know why we might feel the way we do and it’s been enjoyable reading why others might appreciate the games for what they are.
Certainly feel free to riff on peoples contributions (as indeed I shall) but I don’t need to try to explain things or present alternate takes as it’s more a sharing of experiences of you get me?

Apologies if it sounds abrasive, (the joys of text being unable to communicate tone). It’s certainly not meant that way.

im up for a debate/discussion as much as the next person (you can tell by viewing some other threads). But for my part at least, I’d rather just leave this as a shared experience topic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My problem was that they are a shrinking loud minority that is only getting smaller as they get put in the ground, yet in play testing the developers paid an undue amount of attention to them. My second issue is that they have halted too much change in the game whether be from a fear of change or rose coloured view of the past. Thirdly all too often their arguments are often dishonest or poorly chosen eg Fighter abilities are magic or a Fighter doesn't need abilities because they can just describe any action.

We are at the point where they make such a small percentage of players that we can afford the occasional Ok Boomer and not pay them undue attention.

Unfortunately this was true for 5E during development and in the first two-three years.

I'm not sure it's still true now. I think the fact that that group has been completely eclipsed, like, just dwarfed by the influx of new/returning players, will mean that the same does not happen with 6E.

With 5E, the mission was "get back the people we lost to PF whilst retaining what we can from 4E". This mission was a success! And accidentally, due to cultural stuff's convenient timing, they actually got a huge number of new players too.

With 6E, the mission will be "retain the huge number of new players we got". That will not mean listening to the groggiest grogs whoever grogged a grog, unlike 5E, where there clearly was some of that during the D&D Next design phases.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think that it's an oversimplification to liken the old morale rules to just a table that left gm's shackled to a rule or that the 5e dmg "equivalent" somehow makes it easier by stripping it down so far. The 5e dmg273 has about a quarter of a page dedicated to morale. By contrast the 2e ad&d dmg stretches the section about morale checks & advice on using it across page 97, 98, & 99.




In the older editions (at least 2e & 3x for sure) there was a ton of page space dedicated to helping fledgling GM chicks grow their flight feathers to understand rules so they could comfortably use them to make their game soar in fun & exciting ways with their players. The morale rules are a pretty stark example of one area that actually survived into 5e that show how extreme the differences were. youtube channels like mat coleville's mcdm, cody's taking20's, how to be a great gm & so on offer some help to bridge the gap to a degree, but that only goes so far & is far from a replacement. An experienced gm mentioning the insight & advice that accompanies a rule that was meant to be extensible is a very different & often desirable worm to give that newbie gm chick than "here are five 15-30 minute videos of people giving advice that might be tangentially useful" with very different time investments. Plus only one of them can be skimmed at the table to help now.

maybe a book on how to dm and what is expected would be use full?

 

[S'mon]

With 6E, the mission will be "retain the huge number of new players we got". That will not mean listening to the groggiest grogs whoever grogged a grog, unlike 5E, where there clearly was some of that during the D&D Next design phases.

5e is great for letting grogs and newbs sit down together at the table of gaming love. I can't see why WoTC would want to throw that away. IME most newbies see grogs as a valuable resource for learning how to play, not some kind of a threat.

 

[Umbran]

5e is great for letting grogs and newbs sit down together at the table of gaming love. I can't see why WoTC would want to throw that away.

So, some demographics.

What we call "grognards" are going to be a subset of players age 40 and up. 40+ gamers are about 10% of the current 5e player base. So, the grognards are single-digit percent of the current D&D market, and that number will only be dropping as time goes on - WotC doesn't need to throw them away, when they're just going to pass out of the market of their own accord (as in, die or retire from buying new gaming products). Economically, grogs are already not a major market issue for WotC.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

According to Gary Alan Fine's Shared Fantasy, published in 1983 a grognard is:

"a war gamer, particularly one concerned with extreme realism"

Of course, language changes. Grognards are now something else...though I am sometimes amused to see people younger than me calling themselves grognards.

Edit to add: I've been playing long enough to know that originally "grognard" referred to those that came to D&D through the wargame roots, but not long enough to actually be a grognard by that definition.

As someone who can't eat regular ice cream, oreo cookie ice cream is definitely better than sorbet, the consolation prize of frozen desserts. Be that as it may, I totally agree with the analogy otherwise.

Exactly. D&D is a recreational past time. One edition isn't better than another edition any more than football is better than basketball, or oreo cookie ice cream is better than raspberry sorbet. They are just different, and I for one am glad we have all the options available to us

 

[Umbran]

Of course, language changes. Grognards are now something else...

Yeah. I mean, originally originally, it was a name for Napoleonic Imperial guard grenadiers who had been part of their unit from its inception to the final charge at Waterloo...

Maybe we need to identify "RPG Waterloo", and then we can nail down grognards.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As someone who can't eat regular ice cream, oreo cookie ice cream is definitely better than sorbet, the consolation prize of frozen desserts. Be that as it may, I totally agree with the analogy otherwise.

I can't eat regular ice cream either (dairy allergy), but coconut versions are just as good, as I've found out (much to my relief, as ice cream is my favorite treat)

 

[pogre]

So, some demographics.

What we call "grognards" are going to be a subset of players age 40 and up. 40+ gamers are about 10% of the current 5e player base. So, the grognards are single-digit percent of the current D&D market, and that number will only be dropping as time goes on - WotC doesn't need to throw them away, when they're just going to pass out of the market of their own accord (as in, die or retire from buying new gaming products). Economically, grogs are already not a major market issue for WotC.

You are no doubt correct. Interestingly, my table is mostly 50-somethings and 60-somethings and we buy a ton of 5e stuff. Most came to the game later, but a couple, myself included started this strange journey in'75.

The young ones at my table are my children (teenagers and older) - one of my kids is much more of grognard in his attitudes than the rest of us are.

 

[CleverNickName]

So this brings me to the grognards of Enworld. I am always baffled at the sheet amount of words in support of RPG gaming having peaked sometime in the late 70s, with no system since that time being in overall comparison sake "better" for them.

I don't really have a question, but more of an invitation for discussion. If you think RPG design peaked in the late 70s, what about that design speaks to you so strongly?

Hello, self-avowed grognard here.

My favorite edition of the game is the 1986 Basic/Expert rules. It's the version I wish was still in print, still in development, and still being actively played by the majority of gamers. I loved the simplicity of the system: it was very much story-forward, with more emphasis on the character's role within the story and the world at large. Your character was expected to do more than just Kill Things and Take Their Stuff: you would earn titles, build castles, lead armies, fend off invaders, settle the wilderness, and build kingdoms. Gaining levels was more than just watching some numbers get bigger on your character sheet.

Rules were lightweight and open-ended, and were largely left to DM interpretation. If you could imagine it, the DM had everything they needed to make it happen. There were no battle mats or minis; combat was more about narrative and less like a board game. For the most part, rules were meant to be scaffolding for the story: to be used only as needed, and only to prop up the story in key places.

All of this, and more, are what speaks most strongly to me about the 1986 BECM rules. But that shouldn't be confused with "better." It's not a "better" system simply because I prefer it. And it's not a "better" system because its older. Nor is it "better" because of my personal history with it, my nostalgia associated with it. And even if you could combine all of these things together and multiply them by the speed of light squared, it still wouldn't be "better." Better will never be more than a simple statement of preference, according to the opinion of this one Moogle right here. It's never a statement of fact.

Rather than attempt to restructure the newer editions of the game to "recapture the old-school feel" of my favorite, I just play my favorite. The Rules Cyclopedia is readily available as a print-on-demand hardcover book, and the PDFs for all of the original rulebooks and modules are available for sale at a fraction of their original cost. There's no need to bend, twist, and carve newer editions of the game to fit it. If you want to court new players to play an older system, just use the older system. Don't worry about "selling your group on it," just let it sell itself.