Rampant Anti-Groggism

[Mark CMG]

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.

I'm not sure who you're addressing, since I'm one of but a handful on these boards who played wargames since before D&D was even invented. You might mean to be referring to the neo-grogs, those who identify as grognards but aren't really wargamers, just old time RPGers. Us grognards don't much care for that sort of sloppy labeling.

We also don't make threats, we just tell those making the games how to earn our money. Those who make games know someone can have bought every 4E book ever made, and even the ones that got cancelled, and throw in a DDI sub since it started, and it isn't a drop in the bucket of what a grognard has and would spend on a well-designed game.

The trick about marketing to grognards is that, in the end, you do have to come up with a well-designed game or we'll spend our money elsewhere.

I put grognards in quotes for this reason. Countless true grognards have expressed that 4E felt more like 1E than 3E did. I wouldn't count the 4E gnome not being in the PHB to be a loss, BTW.

Countless, my ass. There really aren't enough of us left to use the word "countless" (note the quotes). At the meetings I've been to where grognards tend to gather, like Gary Con coming up in March, 4E didn't come up a whole lot. When it did, some just grunt or shrug but most mention how 4E makes one heck of a combat miniatures game but that the RPing feels tacked on and inconsequential to the rules of the game as written. It's a decent game, just not a very good RPG, and if I'm going to play a skirmish level combat miniatures game there are tons of those out that that are better suited to the task. Which is not to say there aren't some rules in the game worth having in an RPG, they just tend to be combat rules.

 

[Deadboy]

Actually, I'd argue that it's WotC that's the tumor on D&D.

They took this game that was an ancient dinosaur and modernized it without understanding anything about the checks and balances within the system, removing all the downsides of spellcasting while leaving all its power. They also proceeded to remove everything that was good about the martial classes without giving them anything decent to make up for it. They also decided to whore out the system to any company that wanted to take a crack at it.

Then, when their corporate overlords, Hasbro, said that they needed to make more money, they dumped that system and created a new one that they felt would match up to a new digitalization initiative they felt would propel them to that mythical $100 million per year mark - then totally bungled the digital end while badly underestimating just how much of its audience feared change and just wanted more of the same thing they had been buying for years. It wouldn't matter if 4e was the greatest RPG ever designed (it wasn't, though it was really good for certain playstyles, like my own), it wasn't going to catch on with certain segments of the audience just by being different. Plus the earlier whoring of the system meant that WotC created its own competition.

So now that blows up in WotC's face as Hasbro sees another company making money off what it likely sees as its Intellectual Property, which Hasbro is very defensive of, so WotC tries to appease them with the idea of an uber-edition that will bring back all the players using the game but not buying new product.

Of course, the two very different games WotC has created apart from the original AD&D has essentially created three (or maybe even more) very different, very fractured audiences. Good luck on this new initiative succeeding, considering each group wants very different things and the older groups seem to begrudge anything from the newer game(s) even showing up in the new main rulebook at all.

So yeah, it's not the Grognards or 4e that's killing D&D, its WotC continuing to not understand its audience(s) or its own mistakes, and continuing to target segments of its audience or its old audiences rather than worrying about bringing in new audiences. It's also fairly clear that niche products should be owned by niche companies, not corporations. But its too late for D&D now, Hasbro's pattern is to shelve and hang onto properties, not sell them.

And BTW, there's no rampant anti-groggism, it's just edition warring. Everyone is feeling attacked right now because everyone IS being attacked right now... I think fans of every system have seen someone on some posting board come in and take a big dump all over their system of choice. Just the way it is right now, unfortunately.

 

[Gamer McSmartypants]

...

 

[Cybit]

Considering how this thread is going, I'm thoroughly convinced we're the tumor on RPGs.

Then again, the polarization of this country in the last 15-20 years is nothing new, it started in politics, and with the connected echo chamber that is the internet, it just blew up.

 

[Mark CMG]

Naw, there are no tumors on D&D, outside WotC or within. The folks outside just like what they like and the folks that are inside are just good hearted designers and gamers trying to create good games that they happen to be able to put the D&D logo on. But you have to realize that grognards aren't being wooed for 5E. If they were, WotC would have signaled a presence at Gary Con or North Texas RPG Con with their playtests. Besides, most of us grognards will be dead before the next edition cycle or two have passed. They need the folks who started with 3E or 4E to buy in, and they need the 3E and 4E adherents to buy into the Big Tent theory so that when 6E and 7E come along they'll make room in the tent without heading out the back.

 

[nedjer]

The way I see it being developed so far, I can't see a single new player for 5E. With more and more quotes coming, it looks like it wholesale borrows from 3.5, while taking some minor words from 4E just to keep the facade of being friendly to all editions - while really kicking 4E swiftly in the groin, if you look deeper.

Let's look at the Vancian magic. IMO - and in opinion of many 4E players - lack of it in 4E was a vast improvement. Now they're stating it's back and in the core, so you can't avoid it. Power sources! One of the major changes in 4E, and ones iconic with the edition. Oh, they're dumping them.

If it keeps that way, i.e. being 3.5E with some names from 4E, it will fail spectactularly. The reactionists will remain with their 3.5 of Pathfinder (because why change their game at all?), while the 4E fans will remain with their - vastly different - game. Now WHO exactly will buy 5E books in that case? What new audiences can they interest in the game if all the old audiences will be gone elsewhere?

This is why developers must stop listening to those "grognards". Those people who were afraid of change and for whom the devs are now trying to regress the game are a malignant tumor upon D&D, one that will eventually drive it down, like every reactionist movement. Everything - tabletop games including - must PROGRESS to survive. That tumor needs to removed, or if it removed itself already, the healthy body must distance itself away from it, not try to re-attach it because "it was kinda cool on morphine with the tumor on".

You seem to have different info from me. Where'd you get your news from - because it's like two different stories?

Maybe have a word with yourself on the whole malignant thing

 

[CM]

IBTL...

Seriously, I am continually amazed at the vitriol spewed between factions of fans of the same game. Especially when it's all over some vague "what we'd like to see" ideas tossed around by WotC employees and playtests with characters built with barebones beta-test rules.

I'm a big fan of 4e, just like I was a fan of every edition before that, in its time. The sky-is-falling cries I see from some other 4e fans are ridiculously premature. Let me tell you this: you're not helping "the cause" by drawing lines in the sand.

You're complaining that the rules don't exactly model the 4e game when we've only seen the slightest glimpse of the core foundation of the game, much less any 4e-style tactical combat / action-hero themed add-ons which are likely months away from even a rough draft.

4e was an extreme evolution of 3e with some experimental ideas thrown in, just like 3e was with 2e. WotC has now come to the realization however that too many customers were being "left behind" with each new revision. A new base is needed upon which you can play your older-style narrative or simulationist games while at the same time allowing room for expansion options with the cinematic feel of more recent editions. It is easier to start with the simple base and add to it, rather than starting with the (to some) overwhelming options of 3e and 4e-style tactical play and adding options to remove them for old-school feel.

So to any 4e fans complaining that WotC is catering to grognards, take a deep breath, step away from the computer, and realize that your options are coming. You can't start laying shingles before the building's foundation is even poured.

Edit: TL;DR: Everything that Entilzha said.

 

[Incenjucar]

3E didn't screw up the implied setting with dragonborn warlords in Hommlett like your game did.

3E introduced dragonborn, and I'm pretty sure Hommlett is not at all harmed by inspiring leaders, unless all your kings are clerics.

Yes, I understand that mechanics are more important than aesthetics for many 4E-ers. It can even be detected when the designers talk - the fluff is an afterthought. Well guess what - that shows.

3E's fluff was largely terrible to me. It took Planescape and used it as a latrine, and that is hands down my favorite setting. It outright ignored Dark Sun. And yet I hold no grudge. I won't defend the quality of 4E's fluff - some of it I enjoy, some of it makes me wince. But that has been true of every edition. FR especially just gets gross.

Tell that to FR fans who are upset with the retcons that the 4E implied setting required,

I still have my old FR books. I can still run that horrible adventure with Elminster using a Cure wand on the PCs by saying "Heel!" to his little dog. Why can't fans who actually like the setting?

or dragonboobs in core artwork,

I'm equally offended by elfboobs. It's absurd that a humanoid creature resemble humans that closely.

or explaining why elves blink at will.

Maybe if you knew the lore better.

Your preferences are not core material because they are clearly too niche to belong in a thousand worlds.

And yet they are very very popular.

I don't deny you your reptile PCs, but think they belong in a supplement, that's all. It's also reasonable, given that you're the ones breaking with 30 years of what D&D is, a fracture that your game caused.

Yup, the whole edition.

I don't care about 30 years of D&D in the past. I care about 30 years of fantasy fun in the future. The past is dust and memory.

 

[Umbran]

So, it looks like some of you figured it would be okay to go for hyperbolic language, or to just use this as an opportunity to beat on groups of people.

We've had enough of that kind of nonsense, really. EN World is not a place for beating on people. The moderation staff is of the opinion that people are more important than game preferences.

Therefore, we expect you to show respect for other people, even if they like a game or play style you don't. By extension, that means that you ought to keep their sensibilities into account - it's okay to not like the same things, and say so, but you can either keep your critique short of being inflammatory, or you can go say it somewhere else.

Next person who forgets that can expect to have a few days off from the site.

I hope that's clear. If it isn't, please take it to e-mail or PM with the moderator of your choice. Thanks for your attention, all.

 

[Cybit]

So, it looks like some of you figured it would be okay to go for hyperbolic language, or to just use this as an opportunity to beat on groups of people.

We've had enough of that kind of nonsense, really. EN World is not a place for beating on people. The moderation staff is of the opinion that people are more important than game preferences.

Therefore, we expect you to show respect for other people, even if they like a game or play style you don't. By extension, that means that you ought to keep their sensibilities into account - it's okay to not like the same things, and say so, but you can either keep your critique short of being inflammatory, or you can go say it somewhere else.

Next person who forgets that can expect to have a few days off from the site.

I hope that's clear. If it isn't, please take it to e-mail or PM with the moderator of your choice. Thanks for your attention, all.

But, but, what am I going to do with all of the various nerf bats of dewm and death I have to hit everyone with?

WHAT IS MY PURPOSE IN LIFE NOW IF NOT TO CRITICIZE OTHERS FOR THEIR BELIEFS IN ORDER TO VALIDATE MY OWN BELIEFS?????