D&D General On Grognardism...

[commandercrud]

Looking purely at mechanics and not the repercussions of the playstyle they cause, 5e is definitely the best edition. Looking at the implications of what the rules are doing in pre-WOTC editions and not the wonkiness of the mechanics themselves, 1e and/or Basic (depending on your crunch preference) is the best.

 

[Umbran]

Because D&D then was challenging. Now everyone's Superman at level 1.

Currently playing a 1st level wizard. Not feeling much like Superman. Just feeling like I have at least one thing I can do if the day is more than one encounter long....

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the number of people who genuinely think old (or OSR rules) are written better than 5E rules is very small. Because ...welll... they aren't.

But they do support a very different play process/experience. And some people enjoy that.

A typewriter will never be as efficient and versatile a writing tool as a laptop. But it will have an unmistakable tactility to it and produce hardcopy at the end. Is that better?

It depends on what you value.

OSR rules aren't uniformly the same as the old rules eh? Some of those rules sets are slick. Just saying...

 

[Campbell]

I think the number of people who genuinely think old (or OSR rules) are written better than 5E rules is very small. Because ...welll... they aren't.

But they do support a very different play process/experience. And some people enjoy that.

A typewriter will never be as efficient and versatile a writing tool as a laptop. But it will have an unmistakable tactility to it and produce hardcopy at the end. Is that better?

It depends on what you value.

I would argue that Moldvay was much more clear and provided consistent instructions. Still Old School Essentials and Worlds Without Number put both texts to shame.

 

[Democratus]

I'm the last person anyone would accuse of being a grognard, but I do not think that's really true. I do not see a general trend of D&D design improving over time. I think 5e is a decent game and definitely a huge improvement over 3e and basically a side grade vis a vis 4e. I basically consider 3e and 2e downgrades over their predecessor. I think the B/X branch is probably the best designed iteration from either TSR or Wizards.

Well said.

I think 5th edition is the second-best version of D&D made, after B/X (we currently use Old School Essentials, which is a simple re-formatting of B/X).

I've played every version since the white box and have managed to have fun with every one. But as far as rules goes, 5e is the cleanest rule set since B/X. And that's a good thing in my book.

 

[jgsugden]

I think this post is really what I see when people discuss old vs. new D&D (or perhaps RPGs in general). It isn't that the game has changed. All of the things this poster describes can still be electively engaged in. The difference is that now people need to choose this course, where previously it was mandatory. Many people who played in the old days grew older, and grew tired of DM power trips, forced home-brew worlds, one group being the only game in town, and other aspects that come along with being in a niche hobby at that particular time in history.
Now people have options, voices, and many paths to their own desired play. That removes the necessity to put up with a lot of the childish narcissism that I remember from my early days. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with games that place the DM as an antagonist, emphasize home-brew worlds/rules, or restrict authority to the DM alone. It is just that one should see this type of game as an option, not as a prison. Modern games are more about a shift in audience and norms than rules.

That was insulting and narrow minded. Equating homebrew to a DM power trip is ridiculous. Was George RR Martin on a power trip because Westeros is not Middle Earth? No - D&D is a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. Stories are creative. If you're just rehashing the same thing everybody else is doing, you're missing out on most of the fun of the game.

I'm sorry you had bad experiences, but both as a player and a DM, your apocalyptic description of the 'old ways' is ridiculously off base.

Just think about it - a campaign setting that is homebrew with homebrew spells and homebrew monsters - that is Exandria of Critical Role fame. Do you think the people applauding the game Matt Mercer runs feel it is a DM power trip? Do his players feel forced to play in his world? Do his players seem to not have a voice?

 

[Gorg]

With the relative lack of 5e mechanics to discuss, there is (from my perspective) more of a trend this edition for Enworld discussions to be focused on more general D&D and RPG topics versus character build and rules parsing.

And thank Reorx for it! Those endless rules arguments, and the hard headed pedantry that was usually a big part of them were annoying af! (not just Enworld, I'm a long time D&D message board junkie, lol I've read more than enough of those threads...)

The "build" threads were mostly from after I'd more or less stopped playing (life happened...), and I'm grateful I never got the bellyfull of powergamers and optimizers so many others have! The threads WERE around during my 3E days, I just paid them little attention- I was always about PLAYING the game as the game. Building characters was just something you did so you could play- not the purpose of the game itself.

I think that, in a nutshell, is the source of my grognardism. Later editions of the game seemed to shift focus away from the fantasy mideval swords n sorcery/ epic adventure "thing" that's the heart of what draws me to the game, and more towards a rules heavy, persnickety tactical wargame simulator. Complete with drawn out combats, player turns that were so complicated and took so long, people's attention started to wander- and endless rules arguments.

And, of course, a more video gamey feel, and change just for the sake of it.

Don't get me wrong- I LOVED 3E! Precisely because it went with a YES, you CAN!! model, and a single, unified system-rather than the arbitrary restriction just because; with different mechanics for everything model. It was, more or less, our old homebrew rules- with cool new additions that came from 20+ years of playtesting. It did, however, have it's warts- like the constant rules arguments during combat. (attacks of opportunity seemed to be the worst offender, as in what triggered one)

We missed the vast majority of the things everyone kvetched about, because we played it just like we always did. Not having any players interested in creating uber-characters, or abusing the hell out of the rules helped, too. (I can't remember ANYONE ever using Haste, for example, much less abusing it)

We missed 3.5 and 4E entirely.

Which brings us to 5E. Frankly, I love this edition, too. It hearkens back to the rules lite feel of early D&D, heck it's nearly B/X like, lol. We're JUST getting into actually playing it, so threads discussing a possible 6E are like WHOA, Bubba- not so fast!!

I just want D&D to remain D&D. It's own specific game. Many of the proposed changes I've read people asking for over the years have been akin to wanting D&D to "Be more like XYZ Game" If I wanted that experience, I'd play THAT game. To that end, I believe that a certain amount of grognarding and gatekeeping are necessary to keep the train from jumping the tracks. That way new players can have that same sort of experience we did when first introduced.

 

[Gorg]

I've been playing for 40 years (and have also played war games like Panzer Leader and Panzer Blitz (the first one I actually bought) as well as Advanced Squad Leader and Advanced Third Reich). I even grumble about some newer stuff as an old geezer. So I feel grognard is a label that can, in some ways, fit.
And I really enjoy 5e. In fact, I think it effing fixes some of the ways D&D spun off its track in the 3e/4e days by squelching some of the bloated math, expected wealth/gear, and capping stats while still delivering a fun and better designed set of mechanics than the early (A)D&D days.
That said, there are definitely some aspects of the game that I consider important to the core experience (sacred cows, if you wish) and where I think replacing them would undermine the shared experience of playing D&D too much. Some of them may be proud nails and I'm OK with that. Removing too many of them just leads me to ask "Do you really want to play D&D, or just a tangentially-related fantasy RPG?" I recognize that everyone has different criteria for this and some of the OSR people just have a longer list than I do - and my list is longer than a 4e fans' would be. But for me, 5e is hitting a pretty sweet spot between the list of divine bovines and innovations and I'm not turning in my grognard card.

Wow- Panzer Leader!! I haven't heard about that game since the early 80's!

 

[tetrasodium]

I might have played one brief game of d&d in the early 80s when I was barely out of diapers & may or may not have finished character creation then in the early 90s one of us got a job working with a relative & bought the redbox+ad&d stuff at waldenbooks or something as that was the closest thing to a game store in the area. We devoured them & played a few games before picking up 3.5 books. Both of those systems had areas they were objectively poor at (especially late in their cycle) but they also had areas they handled very well.

Having played in those older editions it's easy to see the parts 5e half pulled forward that left out the other half to complete it in the name of simplicity (ie mounts without armor speed penalties that made them very desirable)& the areas 5e just deemed badwrongfun by coding against as much as possible like the tactical components.

 

[Krachek]

There is more and more reason to clash.

People know more precisely what that like for their games : optimizing, role play, sand box, gritty realism, low magic, high magic, and so on.

People have played many editions, 1, 2, 3.5, 4, 5 and many other games. The more you have play the more chance you got the know what you like and how to get it.

Does this make people more grognard? I don’t think so. People are more quick to dismantle any new edition, supplement or wonderful idea. The grognard effect may rise when poster don’t realize they talk about opposite aspects of the game when challenging a new topic.