D&D General On Grognardism...

[S'mon]

OSR groups seem to concentrate the toxicity, but sadly there's plenty to go around outside of those, too.

I'm in a secret OSR Facebook group with zero toxicity. Tres cool.
Edit: But the D&D UK Facebook group is very low toxicity too. Most of the posters are laid back; you get a few snide comments but the mods don't take sides or let things get out of hand.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm in a secret OSR Facebook group with zero toxicity. Tres cool.

Same here. Might be the same group. But we have to keep it secret .

But yeah, I don't visit other OSR facebook groups often because there are ALWAYS plenty of folks who feel the need to hijack every conversation with toxic attitudes or flat out ignorant comments. My time is too short for that lol.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Same here. Might be the same group. But we have to keep it secret .

But yeah, I don't visit other OSR facebook groups often because there are ALWAYS plenty of folks who feel the need to hijack every conversation with toxic attitudes or flat out ignorant comments. My time is too short for that lol.

One-True-Waysim is possibly the most toxic of the lot and of course is the exact opposite of what Gygax and Arneson (myself included) extolled before it came to the LGTSA, during playtesting the concept, and after its publication in 1974. The wrench of "standardization" with AD&D divided the camps and has created extreme POVs ever since.

 

[Zardnaar]

One-True-Waysim is possibly the most toxic of the lot and of course is the exact opposite of what Gygax and Arneson (myself included) extolled before it came to the LGTSA, during playtesting the concept, and after its publication in 1974. The wrench of "standardization" with AD&D divided the camps and has created extreme POVs ever since.

And 3E and 4E kind of standardized the concept.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

And 3E and 4E kind of standardized the concept.

Yes. The more one foregrounds the mechanics a swelling standardization will occur and the resulting, and often flaring, POVs.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm in a secret OSR Facebook group with zero toxicity. Tres cool.
Edit: But the D&D UK Facebook group is very low toxicity too. Most of the posters are laid back; you get a few snide comments but the mods don't take sides or let things get out of hand.

I'm on a pretty chill OSR discord so... so yeah, the OSR is not a toxic monolith, by any means

 

[jasper]

I can remember that first we had the 0-9 twice dice that you had to color one set differently and note that they were the 'higher numbers'... then they had the D20 with the 0-9 twice, but one set had a + next to them to mark the higher numbers... and finally, an actual D20 that was 1-20.... come to think of it, for a while, they didn't have actual D10s, and the 0-9 D20 did double duty as both...

Black high. Red high. Black high.
DM please pick a color and stick with for the rest of night jasper.
You can't tell me what to do.
I still have multiple 0-9 dice and the + dice

 

[House_Of_Dexter]

One-True-Waysim is possibly the most toxic of the lot and of course is the exact opposite of what Gygax and Arneson (myself included) extolled before it came to the LGTSA, during playtesting the concept, and after its publication in 1974. The wrench of "standardization" with AD&D divided the camps and has created extreme POVs ever since.

One of the things I like about this thread and Enworld in general is that by and large...it's pretty nontoxic. This thread has been awesome and some interesting ideas and discussions have been made. Some of it has clarified what I like and don't like about D&D in the different editions.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

5e's big issue with the culture surrounding its optional rules is that they make things optional that people like and expect in their baseline. Which creates this feeling that something you could somewhat take for granted before can be stolen from you at any time, which people in turn reject by applying social pressure to weld it back onto the baseline so that a culture of denying it can't take hold. Each of those stories about players being shocked, angry, and dismayed when its not available speaks to how the game's actual baseline doesn't really meet their standards very well.

On a basic level, this is a product of it being a compromise game intended to be played in such dramatically different ways-- some of the people you're sitting to play with have very different assumptions about how the game should work than you do, its not really about standardization at that point, its about whether the players get to play in a game they enjoy, or whether the GM gets to run a system they enjoy. It creates scenarios that for players, no matter how irrational this sounds, feel tantamount to advertising a 5e game and busting out ye olde Rules Cyclopedia instead when everyone sits down to play-- you and they are expecting fundamentally different experiences and neither of you is actually wrong (although we could make a good case that the players should be more open minded, or that the GM should consider working the optional stuff in since the players want it anyway.)

The other issue, is that it lets the system get off with being 'buyer-beware' about every optional system it produces, which is a problem since those systems are often the ones most in need of system integration and balance attention. This creates situations where the GM is antsy about allowing/using them for the integrity of the game experience, but the players are antsy about not using them, because that deprives them of tools. This includes magic items too, if you aren't being sparing with magic items, or banning feats like GWM in concert with +2/+3 weapons, the game takes no responsibility for the resulting messes.

 

[S'mon]

This includes magic items too, if you aren't being sparing with magic items

Interesting points. My current 5e campaign is definitely the most 'old school' yet in its design/module use, but that definitely included an active decision to have a good amount of magic items out there! I think Feats, Multi-classing and such build elements can fill the gap in a low magic items campaign, but they create a more internal focus for the players. Lots of cash & magic items down dungeons gives a more outward, exploratory focus, and makes adventuring activity less reliant on presumed heroism (or foolhardiness).