Rampant Anti-Groggism

[JohnRTroy]

Edited...moved this to a better topic.

 

[Hassassin]

And yet nothing starts a good edition war like a negative-things-only first post!

Negative things only? Did you read the post?

He says 1) that a steep power curve isn't a sacred cow, 2) that he likes skills but is ok without if themes are good, 3) that the supposed spell substitution mechanic fixes 3e style multiclassing, 4) that he needs options, and 5) that silver standard is good news.

Only 4 is a "demand" and it's a positive one (something he likes rather than hates). 1 is sort of neutral, I guess. All the others are at least party praise for what we've heard about 5e.

 

[francisca]

Is it me, or have the anti-groggites been coming out of the woodwork lately?

Meh.

Wouldn't know.

Too busy repainting my lead minis and re-inking my 35 year old gamescience dice.

Besides, in a few years, we'll be declared an endangered species and qualify for federal protection.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Whew, I thought this was about people trying get rid of my wargames. You'll have to pry Empires in Arms, Third Reich and Diplomacy out of my cold dead hand.

When my Basic elf, 1e Paladin, 2e Cleric of the sun, 3e insanely tricked out Wizard and 4e dragonborn Warlord can all get together and adventure, then I'll be happy.

my grognard rant for the day...

"Keep the Dungeons Masters Guide out of my XP!"

 

[Infiniti2000]

Negative things only? Did you read the post?

Of course I did. Here, let me quote the relevant part of it for you, with my emphasis: "To that end, I've decided to compile a list ... of things about D&D, old-school and new-school alike, that I really honestly wouldn't mind seeing changed or even absent from 5th edition."

His post would've carried a lot more weight with: "To that end, I've decided to compile a list ... of things about D&D, old-school and new-school alike, that I really honestly wouldn't mind seeing carried into the 5th edition." He could then follow it up with new ideas that might not belong to any edition. See how easy it is to make a positive post and one that doesn't actually encourage an edition war?

 

[Kalontas]

When I use the term "grognard" it's only for people who are so enamored with their personal favourite versions, that not only they refuse to progress to the next edition just because it dared to change something (then I'd just not like them for stagnation-ism), but also impose their own personal views on everybody else. Like:

A: "PHB should have only the Tolkien races because they're the classic D&D"
B: "Why should we only have the 'classic' races?"
A: "Because they're classic, dumass. They - and only they - should be there because that's where the game started."
B: "Yeah, and we progressed since, and have some actually original and interesting races."
A: "I don't care, only classics can be in the core."
B: "Okay, so you will have classics in the core AND I will have my 'freak' races. So we both can play what we like."
A: "NO BECAUSE MY PREFERENCES TRUMP EVERYBODY ELSES PREFERENCES AND ONLY WHAT I LIKE CAN EVER BE IN THE CORE"

That's a sample of what I call a grognard. Person so stuck-up in their personal, archaic preferences, they're actually willing to take content away from other people because of some misguided sense of "classicity" and "traditionalism". And that's why I'm "anti" them. Because they're harmful to my style of play, by (intending to) removing options the game gives me.

 

[Mark CMG]

When I use the term "grognard" it's only for people who are so enamored with their personal favourite versions, that not only they refuse to progress to the next edition just because it dared to change something (then I'd just not like them for stagnation-ism), but also impose their own personal views on everybody else. Like:

A: "PHB should have only the Tolkien races because they're the classic D&D"
B: "Why should we only have the 'classic' races?"
A: "Because they're classic, dumass. They - and only they - should be there because that's where the game started."
B: "Yeah, and we progressed since, and have some actually original and interesting races."
A: "I don't care, only classics can be in the core."
B: "Okay, so you will have classics in the core AND I will have my 'freak' races. So we both can play what we like."
A: "NO BECAUSE MY PREFERENCES TRUMP EVERYBODY ELSES PREFERENCES AND ONLY WHAT I LIKE CAN EVER BE IN THE CORE"

That's a sample of what I call a grognard. Person so stuck-up in their personal, archaic preferences, they're actually willing to take content away from other people because of some misguided sense of "classicity" and "traditionalism". And that's why I'm "anti" them. Because they're harmful to my style of play, by (intending to) removing options the game gives me.

You know, I think ultimately that's a function of using the same name for things that are fundamentally different from one another, a branding thing, rather than a matter of natural progression. From what I have gathered over four decades of tabletop gaming, the same folks who will even play a lot of different games, still find two games with the same name as something to complain about, even when they are young players who have only played a few games. I don't doubt for a minute that there will be folks who began with 4E who will look on 5E as a game they don't feel is D&D to them because of their preferences, what they learned to play as D&D when they started, and what they will ultimately wind up playing even when others are trying to convince them that the "new" D&D is a better game (which it might or might not wind up being). But tell that to my (true) grognard friends who have been wargaming since the late Sixties and early Seventies who still don't know why I took up RPGing in 1974 and adding it to my own repertoire of gaming when that aberrant variation on tabletop miniatures gaming came along and they'll just chuckle, roll their six-sided dice, and check their combat matrices for results while shaking their heads at the dilution of their epithet.

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

It isn't just 4e folk that behave badly. Everytime an edition has come to a close and a new edition is on the horizon a few folks act out in their fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).

FUD does funny things to people, they start looking for someone to blame and old-schoolers seem to be the current target.

Everything about D&D Next has pointed to older editions as a source of inspiration and those 4e folks aren't seeing where they fit into the new picture.

Unfortunately, the fiddy bits that will add 3e and 4e style of play haven't been written yet. The core system appears to be a rules light system.

"It's OSR!" will be the new "It's WOW!", mark my words...

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Gotta love how for four years, the "grognards" have been decrying 4E as "being WoW in paper form", "D&D for dumbies", or "Not REAL D&D", but now that WotC is shamelessly pandering toward them, the people who haven't bought WotC D&D in years, when 4E adherents, the people who HAVE been buying WotC D&D over the years, raise issue with the fact that their game is being treated like the red-headed stepchild of D&D in terms of how it fits into the planning of D&DNext, the "grognards" get their panties in a bunch because god-forbid the game give focus on something other than their preferred system.

It's crap like "I won't buy 5E if the Warlord, Warlock, Tiefling, or Dragonborn are in the PHB" that is upsetting us 4E players. You "grognards" have no one to thank but yourselves for backlash received because of BS like that.

 

[nedjer]

Not sure how 4e players would be doing if 5e had been following the same path as previous editions - limited support and fractured player base?

This way 4e gets to recruit new players and, while 4e may not be the first book in the core, it stays supported and can be part of the spinal column.

Also seems strange that 4e or 3e would be seen as without a voice when the designers of those versions are central to the work and self-evidently the people most likely to make a success of binding 3e and 4e to any slimmer core.