D&D 5E Something to consider about Grognards and the OGL...

Retreater

Legend
Speaking for yourself, you mean. And that's fine. Please don't pretend to speak for me, because I don't agree with you, and my Grognard credentials are pretty impeccable. Don't "no true Scotsman" me!
Every edition of D&D has been a different edition of D&D, ergo different than what preceeded it. I guess you can try to argue that the game has never changed.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
Dude, it if you're a grognard it hasn't been D&D since 2000 when it was purchased by a mega corp.
What was D&D died with 3rd edition. Then that died again with 4e.
5e is a simulacrum of the old way. Twenty years ago, someone spent millions of dollars to use the trademarked brand name, but all of us who were there know that it hasn't been the same D&D for decades.
All this is fine. It's just not the same.
Disagree, there are certain D&D truisms, and style of play that has continued to exist thru the editions.
 

Steel_Wind

Legend
This isn't going to be how everyone feels - but some of us are feeling a real pain over this situation. I'm just asking people to consider that when they write about the situation.
I started with OD&D even before that, in 1977. Admittedly, not as hard core as it became in the summer of 1980.
But I left 1st ed in 1984 for Rolemaster. I skipped 2nd ed in its entirety. Came back with 3.0 in 2000 - jumped to PF1 in 2009, to PF2 when that came out, and just to 5e last March.

It's ALL D&D. The people who make it are incestuously employed across these companies. Monte Cook was with ICE for several years in the 90s writing Rolemaster Companions - before he moved on to TSR and later WotC - and wrote 3.0.

The 3.x I fell in love with had nothing to do with those hardcover books -- it was Dungeon Magazine under Paizo that gained my deep attachment. And at the time? Erik Mona and James Jacobs spoke for the D&D brand in the magazines.

Pathfinder was always D&D. PF1 was just 3.5 in an altered and improved form. The people who made it - and who wrote those Adv Paths were the same people who had written Red Hand of Doom and Age of Worms.

Am I attached to a trademark? No. No I'm not. And I suggest to you that if you are, that's a problem you need to get by. I would never suggest you shouldn't be attached the rules, the style of play, the subject matter of the game, or the creative talent who did all of these things. You can and you should be attached to those things.

But let's get real here: most of those people cycle through company to company : from Wotc to Paizo and back to WotC -- and maybe back to Paizo or Kobold Press or wherever -- the people who are making D&D and near clones of it are the same.

At its core? It's a small hobby.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I absolutely empathize with this. I mean, there’s a reason I describe myself as a DM rather than the more system-neutral GM, even when running games in other systems. There is a certain emotional attachment to D&D in particular, over RPGs broadly.

On the other hand, D&D is a brand, and corporations work really hard to manipulate us into forming these attachments to their brands, precisely so that we will be more charitable towards them, more inclined to favor their product over others, simply because it bears that brand name. It’s something we’re all vulnerable to, and it’s important to be critical of.

For me, the thing is to remember that while I have all these positive associations with D&D, those associations don’t really come from the brand. There’s a certain ephemeral quality of “D&D-ness,” and that je ne sais quoi doesn’t actually come from the brand. I can be playing or running D&D, even if the actual system I’m using to do it is Pathfinder, or OSE, or DCC, or Dungeon World, or whatever else. WotC may own the brand name and the ampersand logo, but they don’t own D&D. We do.
 

Clint_L

Hero
Every edition of D&D has been a different edition of D&D, ergo different than what preceeded it. I guess you can try to argue that the game has never changed.
What? Why would I argue that? That would be silly. And irrelevant. Straw man argument following a no true Scotsman argument - we are hitting all the classics tonight!

That claim has nothing to do with my point, which is simple: you don't get to speak for all of us, just as I won't try to speak for you. Obviously, we see the heart of the game very differently. And that's okay. We're both right. Because it's a subjective truth.
 


Dausuul

Legend
I have some of that feeling.

But it's mitigated, at least for me, by the fact that I don't really expect to be gone forever. Maybe I'll skip an edition (if you consider 1D&D an "edition"), the way a lot of folks did with 4E. But eventually all the chowderheads currently running WotC will have moved on, and the OGL will get sorted out one way or another. Someday I have no doubt I'll come back.

In the meantime, it's been a long time since I explored other games much. I'm looking forward to trying some new things.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yeah, there's a difference between an actual grognard who still plays 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D (and won't be impacted by current events either way) and a longtime gamer who just plays whatever current iteration/reimagining that is released by the corporate IP holder.
The bolded is not true. Even we who still play 1e-adjacent will be* impacted by current events whether we like it or not; be it through less availability of new material (for any edition), or through being (or feeling) more restricted in what we can post on our home-game websites or produce as content, or through a general shrinking of the potential player-base as the game - yet again - fades from the public eye.

* - or are already being, says he who has already started going through his game's website to see what changes are needed to futureproof against whatever WotC/Hasbro do next.
 

MGibster

Legend
I wasn't there at the beginning, but I've been here for more than thirty years now. As Muhammad Ali said, "The man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 wasted thirty years of his life." I've said in other threads, I'm very aware that D&D will change to suit the current crop of customers. It changed in 1989, it changed in 2000, it changed in 2003, in 2008, in 2014, and it continues to change. It's possible that D&D will continue to change in ways that means I won't want to keep up with it. And that's okay, it really doesn't bother me. Things change. People change. D&D doesn't belong to me more than it does a twenty something who has only been playing for 2-3 years.
 

I wasn't there at the beginning, but I've been here for more than thirty years now. As Muhammad Ali said, "The man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 wasted thirty years of his life." I've said in other threads, I'm very aware that D&D will change to suit the current crop of customers. It changed in 1989, it changed in 2000, it changed in 2003, in 2008, in 2014, and it continues to change. It's possible that D&D will continue to change in ways that means I won't want to keep up with it. And that's okay, it really doesn't bother me. Things change. People change. D&D doesn't belong to me more than it does a twenty something who has only been playing for 2-3 years.
Yeah but in this debacle, it's twentysomethings (such as the 20-something fella in my group) who are also in the lead of fighting Hasbro's destruction of what they came to love, even if they only played it a few years. The new generations are not down with corporate greed either, or even more so!
 

I get the emotional investment, but I might suggest you have misplaced it a bit. D&D the Game, is just that, a game: some published rules in a book. Just some text on a page.

What you really have the connection to is what you have made with the game: thousands of memories. What you have made from some rules on a page. No one can touch that.
 

Matt Thomason

Adventurer
I'm one of the exceptions to this, it seems.

I've been playing RPGs since the early 80s, but D&D was not my first or only RPG in those years, it was just one option. It's always been the one I knew was most well-known, but to me it was still just an option, and I actually feel like I'm disrespecting the many alternatives if I refer to any of those as "D&D".

I'm also generally somewhat pedantic when it comes to how things are referred to. Heck, I even get annoyed that D&D calls them "editions" when what it really has are "versions" because they're so incompatible with one another (Call of Cthulhu has editions, you can generally take stuff from any one of them and drop it into any other one without blinking, with the possible exception of the very latest, and they're just refinements over the previous ones, not written completely from scratch.) I just like to know I'm being accurate in what I call something.
 

Wizards wants D&D to be a brand, and sure, it might take on the facsimile of one. But D&D isn't a brand - at least, I don't think so. It's a game, a hobby, a community, a way of life, a through-line of continuity despite changes stretching almost fifty years.

Even if D&D-as-commercial-product takes a serious hit as a result of The OGL Affair, even if our sentiment regarding it is spoiled by the behaviour of WotC or by our fellow hobbyists, even if we mourn what we felt about the game as recently as a few weeks ago or as far back as the turn of the century (or longer!) - D&D lives on in our hearts, and I for one hope it always will.

(By we I mean the wider community of D&D hobbyists/gamers writ large. There are those for whom the love of the game has gone, and that's quite all right!)
 


Matt Thomason

Adventurer
Wizards wants D&D to be a brand, and sure, it might take on the facsimile of one. But D&D isn't a brand - at least, I don't think so. It's a game, a hobby, a community, a way of life, a through-line of continuity despite changes stretching almost fifty years.

Even if D&D-as-commercial-product takes a serious hit as a result of The OGL Affair, even if our sentiment regarding it is spoiled by the behaviour of WotC or by our fellow hobbyists, even if we mourn what we felt about the game as recently as a few weeks ago or as far back as the turn of the century (or longer!) - D&D lives on in our hearts, and I for one hope it always will.

(By we I mean the wider community of D&D hobbyists/gamers writ large. There are those for whom the love of the game has gone, and that's quite all right!)

Tycho also touches on this at the end of Ogle - Penny Arcade

For me personally, D&D is not a hobby, any more than Warhammer is, and I feel it's leaning into corporate wishes to consider either of those one. I consider myself an RPG player and a Wargamer, who happens to enjoy various brands of product within those categories. Interestingly though, I do consider D&D to be a culture and a community, even if I don't think of it as a hobby...
 

Steel_Wind

Legend
Wizards wants D&D to be a brand, and sure, it might take on the facsimile of one. But D&D isn't a brand - at least, I don't think so. It's a game, a hobby, a community, a way of life, a through-line of continuity despite changes stretching almost fifty years.
The term you were looking for is sub-culture.

At WotC the term that has previously been used to describe hardcore gamers is "lifestyle players"
 


Matt Thomason

Adventurer
I never get when people say this. My groups have always mixed and matched stuff through all the editions.
A 2e class makes very little sense if you drop it into a 4e game. A monster statblock might sorta-work, but will certainly require some converting. XP values likely don't work at all.

1e/2e and to a degree BECMI, they were similar enough you could do that, but beyond requires various levels of conversion as entirely new concepts are introduced or removed (where'd my THAC0 go? Wait, are ACs back to front now? What the heck is a challenge rating? What do you mean by Encounter/Daily/Utility spells?)
 

cbwjm

Legend
Opinions vary. 3E felt a hell of a lot more like D&D than late 2E did to me.
I think the only edition of DnD that didn't quite feel like DnD to me was 4e. I still thought it had some great stuff but it just didn't feel right. Meanwhile, pathfinder (both editions), ACKS, all other editions, WoW d20, Conan d20, Astonishing swordsmen and sorcerers of Hyperborea, and likely a host more, all felt like DnD.
 

ScYork

Explorer
Personally. I like all the D&D versions/iterations. The basic underlying frame work of the game is there throughout thr editions but the tweaks to the rules bring a different flavor to the game. Our group has been playing modules from all the different editions, we've played 1E 5E, 3.5E, we are now moving to 2E and we've played Pathinder 2E as well. I'm enjoying playing all the differences between the editions...but to me it's still all D&D, because the underlying substructure to the various versions remains the same...its all still cake with just different icing!
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top