D&D General On Grognardism...

[Mercurius]

I know language grows and changes, but maybe you should just say "old" when you don't want the other bits. That word already exists, and the only quibbling over meaning will be over exactly how old you mean.

This can be applied to countless instances of words changing, with multiple meanings depending upon context, who is using the word, etc - and often in far more controversial areas in the culture sphere, and as it impacts RPGs. As the saying goes, there's no putting the cat back into the bag. Diverse-meaning and contextual language is probably here to stay, which makes it all the more important to develop our capacity to understand context, intention, and other subtleties.

And it isn't like it is just some guy on the internet (say, me) using the term in a variety of context-specific ways. Lots of people use "grognard" in a variety of ways, from Snarf's "older generation" to "older wargamers" and everything in-between.

In a way, I think it is more accurate to think of grognardism than whether or not one "is" a grognard. Grognardism can be anything from being a bit old-fashioned and using sharp-edged polyhedrals to being actively antagonistic to anything published in the last forty years. So again, a spectrum with many facets.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Something about the 40 year old cut off seems way off to me here. I started gaming in 86, am in my mid-40s. I came up through some AD&D and other games, then 2E, GURPS, TORG, etc; 3E, etc. I wasn't there in the early days of the hobby (to me those were the grognards, the folks who gamed in the 70s). You are definitely going to get a very different perspective if you are dealing with someone who started in the 70s, or even with someone who started in the early 80s versus the mid to late 80s, and the 90s and so on. Overall I think it is good to have older people in a hobby who were there at various points. This is particularly true when you draw a line between tastes in Old School stuff and being a grognard. Maybe people my age and older only account for 10% of the hobby, but I see plenty of young people who like OSR material or have more old school sensibilities (or who simply like the old school elements that are in 5E). I think one lesson I took away from the 4E change, is when you have a product like D&D that is meant to appeal to a broad audience, all of your demographics matter. You really can't just say 'we are going to jettison things group because they don't matter'. Doesn't mean you need to cater entirely to that group, but I think it would be a mistake to think they can grow the brand by cutting out people over 40

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think we have a word for it because it's relatively rare to actually see this in TT RPGs, and usually very quickly self-correcting lol. People who take that attitude typically start exhorting the virtues of something novel and then it's pointed out that thing is actually from 25+ years ago and they basically get laughed out of class. You don't get whole groups of people backslapping over this stuff typically either, whereas you do with grogs in any field.

4E's initial marketing did come pretty close to that though. But as I've said, that was so bizarre it was like a bit from the Simpsons. I have no idea what they were thinking.

I don't think it is quite as rare as you say. In fact, I think it is quite common but takes a different form than grognardism so doesn't correlate in an easily definable (or nameable) way. But you can look to countless discussions here and elsewhere where older or more traditional ways of doing things are considered in a negative light because they don't meet certain, newer standards.

Both, I think, commit a similar error, but it looks quite different.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Doesn't mean you need to cater entirely to that group, but I think it would be a mistake to think they can grow the brand by cutting out people over 40

Has literally anyone suggested that?

This is like one of those hilarious things when old people start getting upset because TV isn't being made with them in mind primarily anymore, or movies, or whatever. It'll happen to all of us one day, but we choose how to react to it.

The point is, with 5E, they made a decision to essentially focus on two groups - those people, who back then, were, well, seven years younger, and 3E/PF players, in terms of how they approached and marketed the edition initially, and more importantly, in terms of how they playtested it and what advice they took.

That's unlikely to happen again. Waffling about how young people like OSR stuff is missing the point profoundly, because if that's true, you have literally nothing to worry about.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But you can look to countless discussions here and elsewhere where older or more traditional ways of doing things are considered in a negative light because they don't meet certain, newer standards.

I'm struggling to think of examples relevant to RPGs. Can you present some? Particularly ones related to mechanics would be good. I can think of wargame and even video game examples, even TV/movie examples. For it to meet your criteria, it would need to be something that was essentially neutral, which was being rejected merely because it was "like oooooooold maaaaaaan".

 

[Mercurius]

Something about the 40 year old cut off seems way off to me here. I started gaming in 86, am in my mid-40s. I came up through some AD&D and other games, then 2E, GURPS, TORG, etc; 3E, etc. I wasn't there in the early days of the hobby (to me those were the grognards, the folks who gamed in the 70s). You are definitely going to get a very different perspective if you are dealing with someone who started in the 70s, or even with someone who started in the early 80s versus the mid to late 80s, and the 90s and so on. Overall I think it is good to have older people in a hobby who were there at various points. This is particularly true when you draw a line between tastes in Old School stuff and being a grognard. Maybe people my age and older only account for 10% of the hobby, but I see plenty of young people who like OSR material or have more old school sensibilities (or who simply like the old school elements that are in 5E). I think one lesson I took away from the 4E change, is when you have a product like D&D that is meant to appeal to a broad audience, all of your demographics matter. You really can't just say 'we are going to jettison things group because they don't matter'. Doesn't mean you need to cater entirely to that group, but I think it would be a mistake to think they can grow the brand by cutting out people over 40

Yep. As I think Umbran said upthread, there was a sea change in RPGs circa 1990 when White Wolf arose, with games before and after which broadened the scope of RPGs, both mechanically and thematically (there have been a range of games since early on, but there was a kind of critical mass that occurred around then).

And of course there are no clear cut-offs, with a variety of moments that represent shifts in RPGs - just tendencies and trends that shift and change over time. Inevitably, when you were born--and thus when you started playing--has an impact on your attitudes and general proclivities, but not in a rigid or totalizing way (thus my example above of the kid getting into vinyl and old jazz).

But I wholeheartedly agree: all demographics matter, and two things are not inherently mutually exclusive: embracing tradition and the new. The trick is in how to do it.

I'm struggling to think of examples relevant to RPGs. Can you present some? Particularly ones related to mechanics would be good. I can think of wargame and even video game examples, even TV/movie examples.

To quote Admiral Ackbar, "It's a trap!" I mostly jest, but there's danger of not only veering too far off topic but getting into controversial subjects that have been endlessly rehashed with little apparent progress. But there have been countless discussions about traditional approaches vs. newer ones with iconic D&D tropes and concepts. Usually it isn't mechanical, but I think we're seeing some of that with changes (if only in discussion phases) around alignment, race, and other areas.

 

[RealAlHazred]

I know language grows and changes, but maybe you should just say "old" when you don't want the other bits. That word already exists, and the only quibbling over meaning will be over exactly how old you mean.

Rather than "old," I prefer to be called "cultured."

Like cheese.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To quote Admiral Ackbar, "It's a trap!" I mostly jest, but there's danger of not only veering too far off topic but getting into controversial subjects. But there have been countless discussions about traditional approaches vs. newer ones with iconic D&D tropes and concepts. Usually it isn't mechanical, but I think we're seeing some of that with changes (if only in discussion phases) around alignment, race, and other areas.

I think you might be trapping yourself here mate lol.

You set out pretty good criteria - specifically when people dislike stuff just because they perceive it, correctly or not, as "old". Someone suggested "The Cult of the New" as a name and I think that's fine.

I've seen that in various media. I spoke to a man-child once who claimed that he would never watch a movie made before 2000 (this was in like 2012), because there "was no point" and all the stuff before that all sucked. He also claimed to be a movie buff/cinephile (!!!). I literally saw him posting four-five years later raving about 1960s cinema, so clearly he grew out of that little patch of insanity.

With D&D, I did think of an example, on reddit I saw someone basically say "Ugh, rolling stats, that's lame and for old people and it's literally impossible to run a good game if you do!", and whilst there are tons of valid reasons to not roll stats, that's not really one of them. Yet it's obviously an example of what you described.

Whereas with, say, racial attribute bonuses, I've never seen anyone, anywhere say "Ugh, racial attribute bonuses, they're dumb and for old people!", rather people, some of them quite aged, like 43-year-old-me, say "Well I think it's fine to remove them because X Y and Z". Even if I was 23, it wouldn't be "Cult of the New" unless the fact that they were old was the reason to object.

That's what you'd need to capture - examples where "X thing is old, therefore X thing sucks", and where there's not really any more reasoning. Not like different opinions, just dismissal of stuff because it's old or new.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Rather than "old," I prefer to be called "cultured."

Like cheese.

Extra mature or vintage are the terms we use re: aged cheese here lol. Which would you prefer?

 

[kenada]

So that's an example of how removing codification (reaction rolls) hurts player power. I think you agree? 3E did take away some codification. So did 4E - I made the example of the stunt adjudication "rules" in 4E, which basically amount to "ask the DM, he'll decide how hard", which is a step back from 3E's codification, which attempts to pretty much lay out what you'd roll in various situations.

Yep. This conversation and the side ones have been good. It prompted me to crack open my copy of Worlds Without Number.

Hmm …

I’m pretty sure I have a severe penalty to reaction rolls with my players when proposing new systems.