D&D General On Grognardism...

[Zardnaar]

I'm a neo grognard. I like the old D&D but not to fanatic about it.

Would hybrid 1E and 2E plus houserule.

Quite like B/X.

 

[Eubani]

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.

 

[Hatmatter]

I’ve been around D&D ever since the opening of the 80’s (and I forgot about keeping my 3-hole punched B/X books in my Trapper Keeper), but I haven’t stagnated on game design. To be truthful, my favorite system is probably Savage Worlds, with D&D a close second (though I own way more D&D stuff of various ages).

I’m constantly digging through my old books for ideas and stuff I want to bring forward, not the other way around. I wouldn’t mind going back and running a 2E game, but I’m actually happy with 5E.

If anything, there are times that I feel 5E stopped short, for the sake of player simplicity and I’d like to add some quasi-simulationist aspects back, or at least broaden opens or fill in gaps I perceive - for example, decoupling sorcerous heritages/sources and subclasses.

When I do look back at that old material, it’s with an eye of the memories of those days in the entirety. Not just what was going on in the game itself, but the movies, music and life experiences I underwent back in that time. For myself, I’m trying to capture some of that feeling that made me happy and excited to be playing D&D - something I know I’ll never be able to capture, but want it there like a cozy ol‘ teddy bear that’s proof against the storm of the world around me.

I realize I am not answering Sabathius's original post question, but I can only echo Sormonu here. I came into the game in 1980, although I was quite young then still. I find 5th edition the version I play and preferable for me in every area...including in book design and art. That sometimes goes unremarked, but the books themselves are really beautiful. I would simply like to see some continued expansion of the game and the settings, which appears to be what is happening.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Could that possibly be because the developers recognized good and useful input when they heard it?

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.

OK, I suppose someone has to bite: what changes did you want to see that didn't happen due to the in-theory influence of grognards?

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.

What are you on about here - that is, other than accusing an entire segment of the gaming community of general dishonesty?

 

[Jack Daniel]

What are you on about here - that is, other than accusing an entire segment of the gaming community of general dishonesty?

Sounds like someone is bitter that the newest and most popular elfgame doesn't cater specifically to their preferred niche.

I'd tell @Eubani they can join the club, but forget that noise, I don't want somebody eager to see grognards "get put in the ground" anywhere near me.

 

[Eubani]

Sounds like someone is bitter that the newest and most popular elfgame doesn't cater specifically to their preferred niche.

I'd tell @Eubani they can join the club, but forget that noise, I don't want somebody eager to see grognards "get put in the ground" anywhere near me.

I am not eager to see grognards put in the ground, it's just a simple fact they are an aging population which is shrinking due to nature taking it's course.

 

[TerraDave]

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.

D&D is more like a GenX thing than a boomer thing.

There has been plenty of experimentation and change in D&D over the years. There have also been plenty of competing games with quite distinct mechanics.

Its been sales, or lack thereof, that have repeatedly driven the game back to its roots. 5e is certainly consistent with this.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I never played the original Torg, but I played Torg Eternity for the first time in November 2020 and I love it! It is the finest attempt I've seen at a cross-genre RPG. I always wanted to play a superhero/anti-hero character but never got the chance because none of the groups I played with were interested in that sort of game. Now I finally have a chance. Our party consists of my (relatively low power) superhero, a gun and bible toting cowboy with faith magic, a fighter pilot and a psionic samurai. And it works thematically because of the lore of the setting.

The fact that, as you say, a cowboy preacher is fighting back to back with an electric psionic samurai and it WORKS in the fiction is one of the reasons it's my favorite system. I'm not sure it's possible to run out of new mechanical ideas for a character.

One of my favorites was the Inch High Private Eye, a fairy who transformed to pulp noir detective, complete with trenchcoat and dual .45s (but also wings).

But really my favorite thing in the game is you play a hero from the start. Not a regular joe who hopes to live long enough and find enough loot to become a hero at some future point, but a hero from day 1. There are still mooks to fight (like the pulp shock troopers you throw at the hero's by the hundreds) but there are also tough encounters that require more than just "I attack" to take down throughout your characters journey.

Circling back to grognardian design....this is why the 3hp 1 spell a day wizard is what I consider bad game design. It's just not fun to spend a good portion of a story ineffective.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

I find your use of us vs. them language to perhaps show how you are conflicting your preferences with good and bad design.

There are a lot of aspects of modern gaming I'm very grognardish about. I won't play games over the internet (including console games) because I hate the disconnect with other people. I similarly have ZERO interest in watching someone else play a game (Critical Role). It's just not my thing, but I don't begrudge others for liking it.

Grognardism isn't bad, it's just a different style of engaging in the hobby.

I challenge you to put yourself in the grognards shoes and try to understand their motivations better. It's literally the topic of this thread.

 

[S'mon]

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.

In design & presentation, I think 5e and BX both have their strengths and weaknesses. I generally use 5e as the base game these days and add in most of the GM-side procedural stuff from Moldvay Basic. I refer to Cook/Marsh Expert a fair bit too (eg for building costs, for wilderness & sea travel, and the generic modular design of the encounter tables is something I'm looking to use). Relative weaknesses in BX for me are legacy OD&D stuff like the clunky saving throws and the extreme vulnerability & weakness of level 1 PCs; for saves I love the Swords & Wizardry unified save (ascending AC too); max hp at level 1 and death at -10 hp deals with the vulnerability issue. BTW OD&D also has some great GM-side procedural stuff in Book 3 that wasn't carried forward, oddly.

Overall I like 5e best for player-side and BX best on DM's side, but there's no clear progression or ranking IMO.