# Are Gognards killing D&D?



## Antonlowe (Dec 6, 2007)

First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. Why is this bad? Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old. There is a generational gap (or two) between the majority of players and people who are just now playing the game for the first time. Since it seems that have the greatest numbers, and greatest disposable income to spend on the game, they have the most say within the gaming community on how the game advances (or doesn’t).  If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs. 

There has been a lot of hate concerning 4E. I would say that the sides stand at about 50/50. Why has this divided our community? Because WOC is changing things to appeal to new gamers? Guess what? If you want there to be a game in 20 years, then they have to attract new gamers. 

So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game. Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?


----------



## Victim (Dec 6, 2007)

Not everyone who played 1e played it when it first came out.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 6, 2007)

I will say that yes, grognards are a potential problem. They may be a part of the Greyhawk problems, by example.

Grognards are in the stereotypical sense, of course.


----------



## Antonlowe (Dec 6, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Not everyone who played 1e played it when it first came out.




Yeah, but i wasn't even alive when it came out. It seems like most of the forum members here have wives, kids and steady careers. I would say that the market for D&D should try to be 13+. The younger you get them the better.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole.




Or perhaps it means that there is a large, strong, loyal fan base for the game.

Just because I played 1e doesn't mean that I won't like 4e. Conversely, if I didn't play 1e, that doesn't mean that I will like 4e.


----------



## Orius (Dec 6, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> They may be a part of the Greyhawk problems, by example.
> 
> Grognards are in the stereotypical sense, of course.




May be?  The stereotypical grognard complains about how the Realms killed their beloved Greyhawk, and then when WotC does bother to publish something Greyhawk, they complain, "But that's not the way I took my Greyhawk campaign 15 years ago!  I'm not getting it!".  It's like they want to sweep away everything that was published for the game since 1986 and bring back Gary and restore the old 1e.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 6, 2007)

My group's a little strange. We range from 43 to 24 and have had people younger than that. We once had an 18 year old player, but that didn't last very long.

So, the OP has a point, though I'd probably word it a little differently. It seems like as you get older you have to get a lot less choosy about the age ranges you're willing to play with, since on the whole the number of players your own age is inevitably going to decrease.

And yeah, from my own experience, telling younger people about how great things were in the old days and how bad they are now generally tends to make those younger folks start looking for the door. I mean, young folks can barely tolerate it when their grandparents start doing that, much less some random on a message board or in a gaming group.

On the other hand, the first thing I thought when I read the OP was, "FLAME ON!!!"


----------



## Drammattex (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Are grognards killing D&D?




Yes, but we're getting XP for it.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 6, 2007)

I'm 26.  I played 1e.  I don't consider myself a grognard- to me, that word denotes attitude rather than age.  

1e came in a single compendium instead of in a huge pile of expansion books, and it was actively supported in a bunch of magazines I couldn't afford.  It seemed a better choice than 2e at the time, and in retrospect, it probably was.  The single Rules Cyclopedia was a lot better for me in terms of affordability and in terms of scope.

I don't think grognards are ruining D&D.  For the most part, in real life, they can go off and play their grognard games on their own.  For example, I know some people locally who play a 2e game.  The fact that I cannot even comprehend why someone would want to play 2e when 3e is available for free in SRD form online doesn't matter- I don't play in their game, so they're not bothering me.

Grognards ARE annoying the crap out of me online.  But that's very different from "ruining D&D."


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 6, 2007)

Nice Sock Puppet.
4/10


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 6, 2007)

Drammattex said:
			
		

> Yes, but we're getting XP for it.



Yes, and some are even killing it _and_ taking its stuff.

No really! 

As in, grabbing bits of 4e *already* to enhance their current and future 3e games. Evil, I say. Just evil.

But that's only the new breed of 3e grognards - or poseurs/3tards etc., as the True Grognards(tm) might have it.


----------



## Antonlowe (Dec 6, 2007)

Drammattex said:
			
		

> Yes, but we're getting XP for it.




Please tell me you're taking its stuff as well. 

Oh yeah sorry if it sounded like I was flaming. I just wanted this question to be addressed.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 6, 2007)

Drammattex said:
			
		

> Yes, but we're getting XP for it.




At least I took its stuff and use it in my homebrew.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old.




And ... as someone who is now 32, I can honestly say that I see the world much differently than a decade ago.  Neither age is totally bad (or perfect, either) - just completely different!  Forty may be old to you, but I occasionally see 70 year olds playing their Wii.  Age does not force people into a "fun category."



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> There is a generational gap (or two) between the majority of players and people who are just now playing the game for the first time. Since it seems that have the greatest numbers, and greatest disposable income to spend on the game, they have the most say within the gaming community on how the game advances (or doesn’t).  If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.




Actually, I only bought my first RPG book 3 years ago.  I may be 32, but I didn't start playing D&D seriously until I was almost in my 30's!  I truly started the game for the first time at almost 30 ... and I liked 3.x. And it has nothing to do with "tradition" or "grodnardism" ... just recognizing that I like a game.

Also, I would imagine that the age group with the most disposable income is 25-30 (who are also unmarried and/or no kids).  All those aging grognard gamers who supposedly have all the cash really don't.  They're still paying off mortgages, paying for all their kids (braces, food, clothing, schooling, blah, blah, blah), and many still may be paying off school loans - especially if they went the second career route.  I'm not claiming that you are wrong, just saying that as I get older I am realizing that the years where I had the most money to spend on hobbies and not on bills was the first five years after college.  Then life got expensive! 



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> There has been a lot of hate concerning 4E. I would say that the sides stand at about 50/50. Why has this divided our community? Because WOC is changing things to appeal to new gamers? Guess what? If you want there to be a game in 20 years, then they have to attract new gamers.




This I absolutely agree with.  And, I can say that the OP and I probably sit on the opposite side of the fence on the 4e thing.  I'm content with 3.x and am not converting to 4e.  Having said that, I'm also not doing much 4e bashing, either.  I'm actually really glad the hobby is moving on to 4e ... because it means I get to funnel my fun money in another direction and settle in with a game that is going to stabalize much more because the rules won't change with new supplements!

But, I agree that games must evolve or die.  For example ... look at any classic boardgame.  Monopoly has branched out into how many varieties?  [They even have a variety out now with blank labels so that you can make your own spaces!]  Trivial Pursuit keeps updating.  Even Life has come into the 21st century.  Games must evolve and update their layout/rules/pictures/etc.  That is part of attracting a new audience.

To take what the OP said one step further, I think what is best for the gaming is if the people looking forward to 4e would be understanding about the people who like 3.x and let them be comfortable staying put.  And ... the people who are staying put in 3.x should be content with 3.x and get over the fact that WotC is updating the game so that the people looking forward to 4e can do so with enjoyment!  I mean seriously - is it really the end of the world that I'm standing on the dock and waving goodbye to 4e as it sails off into the sunset?  And is it the end of the world that people who like 4e are essentially waving back at me happy to move on?  We should be able to have both groups coexist in peace.  Should ... of course ... does not always mean that we will, though.



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game. Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?




I agree wholeheartedly.  But at the same time, people don't need to feel the necessity to "convert" the people still in the stone age of prior editions.  If people quit slamming the old edition by talking about how bad it was and people quit slamming the new edition about how much it is going to screw things up - we'd be better off.

Really, edition change is a study in human dynamics.  People will almost always gripe and moan before being happy.  Rather than being content with a "good edition" that they like, it's so much easier to slam the one you don't like.  Rather than step up, many people would rather push everyone else down.  Especially when edition wars break out.  Just my 2 cents, of course.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Dec 6, 2007)

Actually, it sounds like you played the Rules Compendium, which was part of BECMI D&D, and not ADnD 1e. The edition you played was a compiled, cleaned-up version of a parallel rule set that was published after 2e was already out.

See, you aren't a grognard. A grognard would publish the sort of correction I just posted   

That said, I am looking forward to 4e, but frankly am not likely to buy it right now. Gaming has dried up for me for many reasons, and I don't see starting a 4e game in the near future. At least not until I finish the first couple of years of my Ed.D. program. Even then, I am more likely to use a more rules-light system like Simple20 and  be a more casual roleplayer with a focus on story and socializing.... In fact, what interests me in 4e is the fact that it sounds as if it could provide tools that make casual gaming easier. Maybe.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> I'm 26.  I played 1e.  I don't consider myself a grognard- to me, that word denotes attitude rather than age.
> 
> 1e came in a single compendium instead of in a huge pile of expansion books, and it was actively supported in a bunch of magazines I couldn't afford.  It seemed a better choice than 2e at the time, and in retrospect, it probably was.  The single Rules Cyclopedia was a lot better for me in terms of affordability and in terms of scope.
> 
> ...


----------



## king_ghidorah (Dec 6, 2007)

Actually, it sounds like you played the Rules Compendium, which was part of BECMI D&D, and not ADnD 1e. The edition you played was a compiled, cleaned-up version of a parallel rule set that was published after 2e was already out.

See, you aren't a grognard. A grognard would publish the sort of correction I just posted   

That said, I am looking forward to 4e, but frankly am not likely to buy it right now. Gaming has dried up for me for many reasons, and I don't see starting a 4e game in the near future. At least not until I finish the first couple of years of my Ed.D. program. Even then, I am more likely to use a more rules-light system like Simple20 and  be a more casual roleplayer with a focus on story and socializing.... In fact, what interests me in 4e is the fact that it sounds as if it could provide tools that make casual gaming easier. Maybe.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> I'm 26.  I played 1e.  I don't consider myself a grognard- to me, that word denotes attitude rather than age.
> 
> 1e came in a single compendium instead of in a huge pile of expansion books, and it was actively supported in a bunch of magazines I couldn't afford.  It seemed a better choice than 2e at the time, and in retrospect, it probably was.  The single Rules Cyclopedia was a lot better for me in terms of affordability and in terms of scope.
> 
> ...


----------



## rounser (Dec 6, 2007)

> First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs.



Reality Check Time: The designers are all "grognards", aren't they? 

Therein lies the answer to your question - the distinction is somewhat artificial.  It's just one small set of grognards (with game design expertise that seems primarily crunch-focused, given many examples of flavour-as-afterthought) with their preferred direction, perhaps informed by surveys (but interpreting them is so easily skewed to inherent biases that I'd take the idea of them being impartial - or their data correct given that what people say in surveys is a different thing to what they do - with one huge grain of salt).  

And like all grognards - nay, all people - they can get it wrong, both in terms of bringing new people to the game and humouring the established fans of the game.  I'm not suggesting that they should listen to teeming hordes of whinging grognards, but given that writers committees also seem to be a terrible forum for getting a good result (see Hollywood scriptwriting teams) it's probably unwise to lay all the blame at the feet of longtime fans of D&D for being the only ones being wrongheaded...and wishful thinking to suggest that the designers have produced something flawless.

There's a certainty that some of the new directions for 4E will be recanted for 5E, just as some 3E directions seem to have been for 4E.  Heck - it's even possible that thousands of minds might come up with some things that just a handful of experts hadn't even considered.  But it's easier to dismiss an entire set of gamers as irrelevant and suffering from "cognitive dissonance" or fear of change, and call it a day...like in this thread?

And that said, I really like most of what I've heard about 4E, and have great faith in the designer's ability to model a great game.  I'm circumspect about seeing eye-to-eye with them on "core flavour", though.  Oh well.


----------



## Gundark (Dec 6, 2007)

Hmmm. I suspect 4e will go over well. I also suspect that a large number of those who are swayed away from 4e will come over to the dark side once they see the full rules. I think that your 50/50 number is based on a vocal minority.

I'm 34, I did play 1st ed. and I'm not a Grognard. In fact the 18 year old in our group is more of a Grognard than me.


----------



## Terramotus (Dec 6, 2007)

To the extent that they hinder adoption of 4E on its own merits, yes.  Absolutely.  For those that are in love with a previous iteration of the ruleset, they've bought all that they need to keep running it (or all that is likely ever to be published).  That's not a bad thing, but they're no longer buying new D&D books, but they're keeping their old version of the ruleset alive.

However, for publishing Dungeons and Dragons to remain a going concern, new books need to be sold.  And if the market for a previous edition has played out, then a new edition has to be sold.  So, to the extent that grognards prevent adoption of 4E, they absolutely are damaging the health of D&D.

And, honestly, I believe that if you're someone who's still totally in love with an older edition, you need to recuse yourself from discussions of 4E if all you can manage is to spew bile.  Let the new shiny come out and let those younger than you find the game.  Let those who are excited about the changes read the dribs and drabs of information that come out and discuss them without having to wade through all the bitterness.

Because, I'll tell you what: if you're still in love with a previous edition to the point that it approaches perfection in gaming for you, then this isn't for you.  You may be a little disappointed at the lack of continuing support, but if the existing game is that perfect, it doesn't really need much more support, does it?  If you're a 3E diehard, what percentage of the newer books have you honestly bought, anyway?  If your favorite flavor is older, well...  sometimes the things we like aren't commercially viable.

Let the game move on, but don't demand that everyone remain loyal to your decision to remain with the older product.  Analyze the information and decide if you will purchase the new product, and let it stop there if you still hate it.  If there's no hope of Wizards winning you over with 4E, don't pollute the places where people get their information.  Wishing the new product to fail is, to me, childish and petty.

This may mean that it becomes difficult to find people to play the older version with, or to discuss it with.  Well, that's life.  It happens to everybody in some form sooner or later.  Sometimes trends pass you by as you get older.  Do you listen to the same music that kids in high school listen to now, with the same appreciation they hold for it?

To those who are utterly opposed to 4E, and are working to convince others of the same so that the new edition fails (and I've seen people posting all over whose admitted mission is just that), ask yourself this: are you really sure that you'd like to see D&D fail just because it's not being played in the way that you have always played it?  It may fail anyway (though I doubt it), but at least give it the shot to do so on its own terms.


----------



## Ifurita'sFan (Dec 6, 2007)

Forgive me for saying this... but I think that this whole thread is something of a flamebait when you look at how it's named. 

Asking the question "Are Grognards killing D&D" is surely not a good way of tamping down the fighting and incivility that's going on in the forums. It could very easily be turned back on you as "Are 4e boosters and MMORPG newbs killing  D&D?" Which is something that I don't think would be well received either.

If you expect grognards to treat you civilly in return, a good first step might be not targeting them as "the problem" especially when you consider that they are the ones with the money that has kept the game afloat for a long while. 

Now you posed the question



> ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game.




To which I reply, No...I'd say that if your market studies say that these big changes are going to bring in new gamers into the game world... then it's good for a NEW GAME. D&D as a brand has to mean something, or it means nothing. If you establish a brand and give it a certain meaning, and then change it into something it historically has not been ... you've just bait and switched your most important asset, your customer base. That's a good way to alienate them.


----------



## rounser (Dec 6, 2007)

> Because, I'll tell you what: if you're still in love with a previous edition to the point that it approaches perfection in gaming for you, then this isn't for you.



This is a straw man.  It's quite possible to like some of 4E a whole lot, and some of it a whole not a lot.  It's also possible to do the same with prior editions, too.  And, given that this is the new game, it's sort of messing with the hobby in a way that the existence of prior editions is irrelevant to.

I think that kind of nerfs your argument a bit (but I have taken just one bit out of context there, it may not have hinged on it).


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 6, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> I think that your 50/50 number is based on a vocal minority.




Agreed.  It seems that there are some very vocal anti 4e people, but for every anti 4e comment there are dozens of responses from people that want to believe in the new edition.  I, of course, fall somewhere in between.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 6, 2007)

Ifurita'sFan said:
			
		

> If you establish a brand and give it a certain meaning, and then change it into something it historically has not been ... you've just bait and switched your most important asset, your customer base.




The problem with this is that people claim D&D is different things. To one guy, keeping sacred cows and traditional elements is keeping it D&D, even if it reduces it's ability to attract a larger audience. To another guy, keeping it the most popular roleplaying game is keeping it D&D, since D&D is the name most commonly associated with roleplaying games, and changing that would be changing what D&D has historically been: numero uno in the RPG market.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old.




I'm 35.  Better apply for that AARP card.  

One of my big rants in life is that so many things are geared towards the younger generations (i.e. movies, music, etc.).  What about the other generations?  They have disposable income too.  



> If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.




I agree that the hobby needs to attract younger gamers.  At the same time, you don't want to alienate your existing fan base.  

AEG switched their L5R rules to the d20 system in order to attract new players, of which I was one.  As it turned out, d20 didn't bring in all that many new players.  They already had their customer base, which were happy enough with the old d10 rules.  Many of which were somewhat alienated by the d20 rules.  So they recently released the 3rd edition L5R rules to get back to basics.

I know, that's not quite the same thing, but that's an example.  I think that D&D needs to do two things.  First, it needs to hold on to certain traditional elements to be familiar enough to veteran players.  The d20 rules were a massive change from 2e, yet many of the basic elements of the game remained familiar.  4th edition promises to have some big changes as well.  Question is whether or not it will have an air of familiarity.

That being said, D&D needs to also be innovative.  As they industry leader, they set the standard and tone for the other RPG companies.  New players should be attracted to expand on the customer base and to insure there are customers in 20 years.  As an industry, we find competition in MMOs, so attracting that customer base is harder than ever.

Finding that happy medium where you keep your veteran players happy and attract new gamers is a tough balancing act.  So yes, I see where the veterans are essential, as well as the new blood.


----------



## pogre (Dec 6, 2007)

OK - I'm the reallllly old 40-year old guy and I agree with some of your sentiments. However, I think WOTC has a fair handle on this. They are enduring the gnashing of teeth and know not all will be pleased. Not all were pleased with 3e.

There is one rub in all of this though. WOTC does have to get most D&D players on board a new edition to flourish. Most D&D players learn the game from another player, often a DM. Merely aiming the game at new players is not enough - they must walk the tightrope of keeping enough old players to bring the newer ones in. When I say "old players" I don't mean old like me, but old as in at least play 3.x.


----------



## Gumby (Dec 6, 2007)

This is probably the worst idea for a thread ever.  Was this a deliberate attempt at trolling, or do you actually hate everyone over 35?


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 6, 2007)

Grognards aren't killing D+D.  They're trying to keep it alive.

Everyone who's ever played the game, including me, has a particular edition or ruleset or collection of houserules that is their preferred version of the game.  Mine happens to be a modified version of 1e, but that doesn't stop me from paying close attention to new developments as the modification process will never be complete and good ideas are hard to find.   And 2e was close enough to 1e that I could take what was put out and tweak it; so no harm there, and I kept buying some of the releases (though not all, there were just too many).

Then 3e came, and I became a grognard overnight without even realizing it.  Why?  Because *all* official or quasi-official support ceased for anything relevant to the game I was playing.  All of us were expected to cast everything we had aside, and start over; it was analagous to a car company saying "we've just released our shiny new 2000 model, and as of now we will not repair or maintain any models 1999 or earlier".  Did this cause resentment?  Obviously.  did it in the end matter?  Not so much, as 3e did so enormously well.

Now, however, when lots and lots of people have found 3.x to be their preferred version of the game, the same thing is about to happen to them....and the same resentment is brewing; only somewhat more in advance as so many of us saw how the 2e-3e changeover went.  Hence, another generation of grognards are preparing to start doing their own repairs and maintenance...and keep the game - as they know and love it - alive.  And though I'm no huge fan of 3e, I can certainly understand the sentiment involved.

Lane-"I should name my next character Grognard"-fan


----------



## Terramotus (Dec 6, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> This is a straw man.  It's quite possible to like some of 4E a whole lot, and some of it a whole not a lot.  It's also possible to do the same with prior editions, too.  And, given that this is the new game, it's sort of messing with the hobby in a way that the existence of prior editions is irrelevant to.
> 
> I think that kind of nerfs your argument a bit (but I have taken just one bit out of context there, it may not have hinged on it).



It would be a straw man if there weren't people expressing just that sentiment around here, though I'm sure there's hyperbole involved.

In all likelihood, though, someone who likes some parts of an older editions and doesn't like others, and feels the same way about 4E from the information given, but prefers an older edition on balance is probably not an individual who is going crazy and thinks that 4E is the End of Everything.

I think it's a matter of definitions.  For the purposes here, I think a good definition of a grognard would be someone who has an emotional attachment to a design element of a previous edition of D&D such that it prevents them from possibly adopting 4E.  And even of those, the people who quietly decide not to purchase the system aren't really the ones being discussed here.


			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Grognards aren't killing D+D.  They're trying to keep it alive.
> 
> Everyone who's ever played the game, including me, has a particular edition or ruleset or collection of houserules that is their preferred version of the game.  Mine happens to be a modified version of 1e, but that doesn't stop me from paying close attention to new developments as the modification process will never be complete and good ideas are hard to find.



With all due respect, are you trying to keep the game alive, or just your particular version of it?  It's been 18 years since 2nd Edition replaced 1st in 1989.  If it's dying from that change, then it's been a long slow death that's lasted longer than the entire publishing history of the game prior to that point.


----------



## Counterspin (Dec 6, 2007)

I'm confused by people's ability to be resentful about entirely foreseeable events.  If a lion bites me, I don't resent it, it's a lion, it was gonna bite something.  Same thing with D&D.  There is going to be a new edition, and support for the old edition will vanish.  This has been obvious for a good while.  Why you'd be resentful about something that was obviously going to happen from day one is beyond me.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Dec 6, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> I'm confused by people's ability to be resentful about entirely foreseeable events.  If a lion bites me, I don't resent it, it's a lion, it was gonna bite something.  Same thing with D&D.  There is going to be a new edition, and support for the old edition will vanish.  This has been obvious for a good while.  Why you'd be resentful about something that was obviously going to happen from day one is beyond me.



Would it be more comprehensible to you if we replaced the word "resentful" with "unhappy"?

Fine.  We don't _resent_ the new edition, we're just _unhappy_ about it.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Dec 6, 2007)

I'm 41, I started playing D&D in 78, left it in 85 to play other systems, and returned in 2000. I'm quite happy with most of what they've revealed about 4e. I'm more worried about how successful the implementation will be than where they're going with it.

I don't see much of a correlation between age and 4e-hating on these boards. I think a lot of divergence in opinion here comes from the poster's opinion of 3e - if someone thinks that 3e was a fine game which needed at most minor corrections, then 4e seems like "change for the sake of change", to quote a common complaint. I think that 3e had fundamental problems which could not be corrected without a major rebuild, so I'm glad to see Wizards being will to attack them.


PS: It's "Grognards". I don't know what "Gognards" would be. Worshipers of Gog, perhaps.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?



Way ahead of you on that one.  My children, a nephew, and a niece are playing in my games (OD&D[1974] and C&C/AD&D).  Also, I gave my son a copy of the Mentzer Basic Set and he's run a few session, too.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 6, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> PS: It's "Grognards". I don't know what "Gognards" would be. Worshipers of Gog, perhaps.



Just be glad he didn't say "Grognads," instead.


----------



## Melan (Dec 6, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Reality Check Time: The designers are all "grognards", aren't they?
> 
> Therein lies the answer to your question - the distinction is somewhat artificial.  It's just one small set of grognards (with game design expertise that seems primarily crunch-focused, given many examples of flavour-as-afterthought) with their preferred direction, perhaps informed by surveys (but interpreting them is so easily skewed to inherent biases that I'd take the idea of them being impartial - or their data correct given that what people say in surveys is a different thing to what they do - with one huge grain of salt).



Precisely. What we are talking about are subjective design decisions presented as "objective neccessity", prettied up with nebulous phrases like "evolve", "up-to date" and "move forward".


----------



## darkseraphim (Dec 6, 2007)

I'd like to point out the personal aspect, since a lot of people seem to be glossing it over in favor of tsk-tsking people who won't accept random product shoved down their throats on the basis of a brand name.

A lot of us grew up with this game.  Before the Internet, community was very much a sense of where you lived and who lived there.  Star Wars was brand spanking new.  A sense of wonder was evoked largely by books, by dreams, by storytelling, by night games (haunted houses, tag, flashlight wars, etc.)  In such a world, the idea of a shared and communal sense of wonder was just coming to the forefront, and it was awesome.  I cannot lie to you, it was one of the most awesome things I've experienced in my life, outside of love, family, travel and learning to read.  It was a revelation.

People who want to hold onto their 1E are, quite often, holding on to a reverence for their past.

Is that inconvenient for people who want 4E to succeed?  Probably.  When I want quick-and-dirty, visceral, action-based fantasy action, I play WoW.  When I want to relive my past, I play D&D.

That's just the way it is.  Yup, I'm one of those proverbial semi-wealthy guys who hasn't bought a Wizards product since 1998 in the Greyhawk renaissance, when it was clear that they were genuinely interested in stoking the old flame.

Surely there will be something in your life that will make you feel the same way 30 years from now, when virtual-goggle MMOs are all the rage and people sneer at you for playing a "book game."  You don't understand now, but you will.


----------



## Turanil (Dec 6, 2007)

> Are Grognards killing D&D?



I am one of those old grognards...   

So, if I understand well, if a company (any company) releases a product, and that customers don't like the product and don't buy it, it's thus the customers' fault if the company fails? They should be blamed if the company fails? And why not being sued for not buying something you don't like? 

As for 4e, I think that the hate originates from this: even if most publishers are in the business to make money, or at least must be profitable to continue, Hasbro/WotC seems to go over the top with what seems to be just another money-grab scheme. When 3e came out, there was almost a need for it, as TSR was dead and AD&D broken. But then, there was 3.5 very quickly, and even more books released. Many 3e players did cringe at what they already perceived as a trick to draw more money from their wallet (even if of course nobody is obliged to buy anything). And now that most 3e gamers have bought A LOT of 3.5 books, and that WotC doesn't know what to publish more, WotC comes and says: "forget about it, that game is broken, you are going to purchase all that great new 4e stuff now." In fact 4e is a new and different game, and as such there is nothing wrong with it, especially if it pleases a lot of people. However, it's called D&D just because as such it should sell more, and they clearly tell us there will be even more stuff to buy with it, with new core books every year, etc. I am convinced you just rename 4e differently (Paragons of Power) and don't already push the splutter of endless additional things to purchase beyond the three core books, and the hate will quickly disappear.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 6, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Nice Sock Puppet.
> 4/10





If your suspicions of outright foul play are strong enough to act on, your actions should have included a report to the moderators, dude.  If they are not strong enough to bring to our attention, they probably aren't strong enough to use to try to paint another user an ugly color.


----------



## resistor (Dec 6, 2007)

As one of the people who is frequently labelled as having a grognard-ish outlook on 4e, I think the whole classification based on grognard-ism is bunk.

I'm 21, and started playing just after 3e came out.  I just happen to _like_ the game as I currently play it more than what they've been showing.  That's not inherently linked to having played D&D since time out of mind.


----------



## Antonlowe (Dec 6, 2007)

*Wow, this thread has exploded!*

Thanks for all the replies. I think it may have been helpful to define gognard in my original post. It was probably the wrong term to use because it can be so broad. By gognard, I meant a person who is against changes in the game that change what they feel is the essences of D&D.So I will defend my standing a little. The essence of D&D *to me* is killing things and taking their. If the system allows me to do that, then I will use it for DnD. Any change that does not interfere with that I am all for as long as it brings more people into the hobby. I can always house rule other things and dont have a problem with doing so. 

In another thread a poser was upset about the changes to monster stat blocks because "I don't like the idea that now i can just dump a monster into an encounter without having to read it before hand. This will encourage DMs to stop thinking." Or, "Emerald frost is a dumb name and I don't want to have to change it in my homebrew because the players will get confused. Or, "DnD shouldn't have tieflings and dragonborn because....my home setting....the way it's always been". These things have nothing to do with how easy it is to kill things and take their stuff. Thy have nothing to do with mechanics. They only become a problem because people have these funny notions of what DnD should be. 

I dont care if you started playing in 1st addition or in 3.5, but if you dislike change because of how you used to play, regardless of whether or not its good for the hobby, you are a gognard.

Edit: I have no problem with people wanting to stick to old editions. I started with AD&D and have many fond memories of it. The only problem I do have is when people want a new edition to be just like the last. If 4E turns out to be a worse system then 3.5, well then I will go back to plaing 3.5.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Thanks for all the replies. I think it may have been helpful to define gognard in my original post. It was probably the wrong term to use because it can be so broad. By gognard, I meant a person who is against changes in the game that change what they feel is the essences of D&D.




My apologies if others made this clear, but just so you know, that's not what I gather is the overall standard definition.

In the more standard RPG vernacular, a "grognard" is someone who came to rpgs by way of their wargaming roots.  While many have identified them with the... reactionary stance you claim here, I don't think that's really applicable.  Grognards have just been playing for a long, long time, is all.

I started with 1e AD&D, back in the early 80s, and I don't qualify as a grognard (I was also playing wargames, but I came to RPGs and wargames separately).  Grognards typically have been playing longer than I have - I doubt there are enough real grognards around to affect the hobby in the way you suggest.

There may be enough players who don't want change to impact how things move from this point on - but I would expect their loyalty specifically to 3e is the issue, not what games they may have played earlier.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Dec 6, 2007)

Here's wikipedia on grognard - it's usage here is just one of several.

That article also links to an essay by Greg Costikyan where he explains how Grognard Capture can happen to a game. I think this is one of Wizards' worries with D&D. Whenever someone brings up "New Coke" here I remember "Advanced Squad Leader."


----------



## rounser (Dec 6, 2007)

> That article also links to an essay by Greg Costikyan where he explains how Grognard Capture can happen to a game. I think this is one of Wizards' worries with D&D. Whenever someone brings up "New Coke" here I remember "Advanced Squad Leader."



As usual, moderation is probably key.  Radical grognardism or radical progressiveness are both likely to spell trouble.  Where we disagree is where the "radical" starts kicking in, and that's where the namecalling starts.

If memory serves, the wargame hobby kind of died in ways unrelated to "grognardism", didn't it?  In any case, Costikyan has a point about alienating gamers, but the word he's looking for is "hardcore", not "grognard" (IMO).  The Wii caters to casual, non-hardcore gamers, but it has a chance of scoring them because the investment from a granny at the nursing home trying a game of bowling on it is so small.  

I suspect that, to an extent, RPGs and Advanced Squad Leader-like wargames are somewhat doomed to hardcore audiences because of the time investment and mindset required to use them.  If WOTC can manage to create a non-hardcore gamer audience for 4E, then that would be impressive.  Dragondudes alone won't do it.  

The changes need to be much more fundamental than that to acquire a casual gamer audience - I mean, almost by definition every DM might be considered a hardcore gamer.  If there's a hardcore gamer running every group, then you probably don't want to alienate that set of people, because without them you don't get the casuals playing.


----------



## Arkhandus (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> The essence of D&D *to me* is killing things and taking their. If the system allows me to do that, then I will use it for DnD. Any change that does not interfere with that I am all for as long as it brings more people into the hobby. I can always house rule other things and dont have a problem with doing so.
> 
> The only problem I do have is when people want a new edition to be just like the last.




One, you can do that in any RPG.  So that doesn't really work as a definition of what D&D is.  D&D is more specifically a fantasy RPG that primarily deals with fighting monsters and taking their treasure, but that's not _all_ there is to it.

If the game system, or the general kind of fantasy setting that the core rules support, is changed to something completely different from what it used to be/do, then you can't really call it D&D anymore.  As long as you can continue to play Greyhawk or whatever other setting the game has supported for so long (Faerun, Mystara, etc.), without drastically changing the way it looks and works, then you can probably still call the game D&D.

It doesn't matter if the ruleset or whatnot changes a lot (as long as it retains _something_ D&Dish, like classes and 6 ability scores), but so long as it can still work with the settings or playstyle that it has traditionally supported, then it's still recognizably D&D by the vast majority of peoples' standards.  They might not like the rules changes or the new things it can do, but they could still recognize it as D&D and accept it as such.

Sadly, that doesn't seem like the way 4E is going, but that assessment could be wrong, of course.


Point two, of course nobody wants each new edition to be just like the last.  That's pointless and makes no sense; obviously each edition will differ.  But if a new edition looks and plays like a very different game, then it's tough to consider that new edition to still be the same game.

Like, you can't make a turtle look like a horse and then still call it a turtle; or tear out the engine of a sports car, throw in a cheaper, lighter engine, remove the body, throw on the body of a station wagon, and then have the gall to still call it a Porsche, and still try to sell it as a Porsche.


----------



## Melan (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> ... By gognard, I meant a person who is against changes in the game that change what they feel is the essences of D&D.So I will defend my standing a little. The essence of D&D *to me* is killing things and taking their. If the system allows me to do that, then I will use it for DnD. Any change that does not interfere with that I am all for as long as it brings more people into the hobby. I can always house rule other things and dont have a problem with doing so.
> ...
> I dont care if you started playing in 1st addition or in 3.5, but if you dislike change because of how you used to play, regardless of whether or not its good for the hobby, you are a gognard.



Your position is still pure subjectivity in a shroud of extreme vagueness. Killing things and taking their stuff may as well be the essence of D&D, but it is not very helpful when we try to design a game based on it. It is just a truism, a statement without substance. It is the _how_ of killing and taking that counts; the way characters are made and things accomplished; the entire _recipe_ for playing a game of D&D, which includes rules, an implied setting and a lot of "how to" which may or may not even be _expressed_ in a rulebook in a straightforward manner. By your definition, you could be playing Palladium Fantasy, Castles & Crusades, AD&D 2nd edition, Basic D&D or Conan d20, since all of these are well suited for games where the protagonists operate as a mobile abbatoir. Furthermore, I suggest that some of these are better focused on killing and looting than 4e appears to be - what use, for example, are massive character customisation options in a dungeon?

"Good for the hobby" is also misleading. Why are you certain that what WotC does is "good for the hobby", if by this we mean the best game to recruit new players? Can we be positive that the company is good at maximising long-term profits, and that its designers have the wisdom to pursue this good instead of narrow concerns of selling supplements to dedicated people... *again* The last D&D edition that was successful in direct recruitment was the 1980s Mentzer basic set. Wouldn't a strategy based on a simple basic game accompanied by a somewhat more complex system for the hardcore fans work better than what we are seeing? Yet we rarely see people express a wish for WotC to turn D&D into *that*! 

This doesn't even _scratch_ the question of what makes a brand beyond a name and a few superficial elements; needless to say, I'd be very surprised to see McDonalds or Coca-Cola alter the recipes that made their products popular. Only brands in an identity crisis do that, and four times out of five, they fail.


----------



## the Lorax (Dec 6, 2007)

Drammattex said:
			
		

> Yes, but we're getting XP for it.




Drammattex wins the thread.


----------



## Nifft (Dec 6, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Here's wikipedia on grognard - it's usage here is just one of several.
> 
> That article also links to an essay by Greg Costikyan where he explains how Grognard Capture can happen to a game. I think this is one of Wizards' worries with D&D. Whenever someone brings up "New Coke" here I remember "Advanced Squad Leader."



 Thanks for the links. I hadn't heard of those specific terms before, but we've been discussing the dangerous allure of masterable systems in the past -- and how 3.Xe too greatly rewards system mastery.

IMHO it will be quite a trick to make a system that's rewarding to the hard-core system master crowd, and still accessible by regular folks. My theory on how to do it is to reward mastery with options rather than raw power -- for example, anyone can make a viable fire attack mage, and anyone can make a viable air utility mage, but only a true expert can make a viable air attack mage. Or something like that. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Guess what? If you want there to be a game in 20 years, then they have to attract new gamers.




Guess what? The whole "we have to do it to attract new gamers thing" is the same 'ol excuse that WotC uses whenever it puts out a change that upsets people. It's tired, it's old, and it's now a cliche.

When 80% of your player base are old timers, alienating half of them to appeal to newer, younger players (who aren't exactly showing an enthusiastic interest in tabletop RPGs to begin with) is a surefire way to marginalize your game and hasten its eventual fadeout.


----------



## Aeolius (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> I dont care if you started playing in 1st addition or in 3.5, but if you dislike change because of how you used to play, regardless of whether or not its good for the hobby, you are a gognard....The only problem I do have is when people want a new edition to be just like the last.




Hello. My name is Aeolius, and I am a grognard.  

I admit that I have intentionally tried to kill D&D on more than one occasion.

I started with Basic D&D, moved on to Expert, and then played Advanced D&D (1e). When 2e came along I purchased the PH, decided I didn't care for it, and stuck with 1e. And yet they kept publishing 2e books and supplements, despite my best efforts. Darned them.

My past two campaigns have been set beneath the surface of the sea. I've purchased my 3e/3.5e books specifically with the focus of siphoning the aquatic goodies from them. And yet they kept publishing rule books and supplements for campaigns set upon dry land, despite my best efforts. Darned them. 

4e may be a huge success. It may not. At this point, I have yet to be encouraged to play the game. I realize that conversion from one edition to another may be difficult; yet I converted a 1e campaign over to 3e rules literally overnight. That isn't the issue. The issue lies with their approach which states in essence "End your 3e games now and start anew with 4e". No. Sorry. I don't wanna. And yet the will no doubt publish a plethora of 4e books and supplements, despite my best efforts. Darned them.

When I can play 4e the same way I like playing 3e, with monster PCs in an undersea setting in the World of Greyhawk, then I'll take it seriously. I figure within a few years we'll have a 4e Savage Species, Stormwrack, and Greyhawk Gazetteer. If not, I can always see what 5e has to offer.

edit: For the record, I am 42. I have nothing against 20-somethings even though, relatively speaking, they only recently learned how to express themselves with language and use a toilet.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Thanks for all the replies. I think it may have been helpful to define gognard in my original post. It was probably the wrong term to use because it can be so broad. By gognard, I meant a person who is against changes in the game that change what they feel is the essences of D&D.So I will defend my standing a little. The essence of D&D *to me* is killing things and taking their. If the system allows me to do that, then I will use it for DnD. Any change that does not interfere with that I am all for as long as it brings more people into the hobby. I can always house rule other things and dont have a problem with doing so.
> 
> In another thread a poser was upset about the changes to monster stat blocks because "I don't like the idea that now i can just dump a monster into an encounter without having to read it before hand. This will encourage DMs to stop thinking." Or, "Emerald frost is a dumb name and I don't want to have to change it in my homebrew because the players will get confused. Or, "DnD shouldn't have tieflings and dragonborn because....my home setting....the way it's always been". These things have nothing to do with how easy it is to kill things and take their stuff. Thy have nothing to do with mechanics. They only become a problem because people have these funny notions of what DnD should be.
> 
> ...



 You paint a mightily innacurate picture with such a large brush.

Your original post ammounted down to "if you played 1e, you're too old, and you're bad for D&D". Which is so strawmannish, it should be heading down to Oz to ask for a brain.

You claim "grognards" have the most say in the direction of the game because they have the most income to spend on it. But if they're spending this much on D&D 3e, they're not grognards, because they're supporting the current edition! And that can't be bad for the game.

If you aim the game at 13-year-olds, you have to rely on *someone* with the disposable income to present that 13-year-old with his books, as I doubt a 13-year-old will have $120 to shell over for all 3 core books, and to keep spending on the game to support its continued existance.

You have to make a *good* game that will appeal to the 30-year-olds who *do* have the disposable income to support the game, while still appealing to the 13-year-olds to get into the game. And then you hope those 13-year-olds will stay in the game long enough to become a new generation of 30-somethings with the income to support the game.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 6, 2007)

The people who are trying to kill D&D are those who are posting on this forum with the intent of getting people _not_ to buy 4e. People who aren't happy with the new edition aren't a problem; people who are upset at the direction D&D is taking aren't a problem, either. People who are trying to turn anti-4e into a movement, boycotting all 4e products because it is a new edition, and attempting to gather anyone they can into their circle are a problem. But, that is a extremely tiny minority of the anti-4e posters. Most people who are anti-4e are just expressing themselves on the internet in the normal way. Nothing out of the norm. Assume good intentions and things will go much more smoothly.

As to the topic at hand, D&D needs new blood, that's for sure. The problem, I think, is the low entry rate of new gamers and the method of entry mostly being through current gamers. That means you have to have your current gamers, but you have to also have a game that appeals to a wide range of younger players. I don't envy WotC's position on this matter. It's pretty much lose-lose. If they want the game to be profitable in 20 years, they may have to give up some profits now. That might mean "firing" a lot of people, but it might be the best way to keep the niche from becoming even more nichey.

The irony here is that the efforts of the design team is to keep the Tabletop gaming strong. I could easily see a future in 20 years where the D&D brand name is strong but not enough people want to buy D&D Tabletop products to keep it a viable product. WotC looks to be trying to nip this in the bud early. Now, lots of people might be saying they're going about it the wrong way, and that's fine. But, for the talk about video-gameizing D&D and all that, this is really what they're trying to avoid, and it would be nice if people gave them credit for that at least.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. Why is this bad?




You seem to have missed out the long term plan of us grognards - we have been breeding and raising our own new generation of young RPG players!

(newsflash: despite years of bad press and jokes, gamers still get married and have kids. Yay!)

Cheers


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> (newsflash: despite years of bad press and jokes, gamers still get married and have kids. Yay!)




The only problem is when they get married to _other _ gamers…


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old. There is a generational gap (or two) between the majority of players and people who are just now playing the game for the first time.




As with most generation gap things, it's less age and more attitude. I'm 45 and I'm ready for a new edition;if they took the True20 book, made a few changes to how damage is handled, and slapped a 'D&D 4E' cover on it I'd be a happy clam and you'd be hard-pressed to kill more sacred cows in a single blow than doing that.

I will say that the worse thing for D&D has not been the grognards per se but the long, long period interval between editions. If D&D followed the typical pattern of almost every other game out there, we'd be on 6E or probably 7E by now. TSR's long history of not listening to their customers inadvertantly trained a good chunk of those customers to not expect change .


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 6, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> The only problem is when they get married to _other _ gamers…




In IT we call that a feature, not a bug


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In IT we call that a feature, not a bug




Ah, but we Brits rarely go for that PC action, do we…?


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 6, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> As with most generation gap things, it's less age and more attitude. I'm 45 and I'm ready for a new edition;if they took the True20 book, made a few changes to how damage is handled, and slapped a 'D&D 4E' cover on it I'd be a happy clam and you'd be hard-pressed to kill more sacred cows in a single blow than doing that.
> 
> I will say that the worse thing for D&D has not been the grognards per se but the long, long period interval between editions. If D&D followed the typical pattern of almost every other game out there, we'd be on 6E or probably 7E by now. TSR's long history of not listening to their customers inadvertantly trained a good chunk of those customers to not expect change .




Well I don't know about that. We had quite a few revisions within each edition that sought to serve as a sort of mini-coup. You had the Unearthed Arcana (1e), 2e's Combat and Tactics/Spells and Magic, 3e's 3.5 changeover, and then stuff like the Bo9S (which, after playtesting, completely nerfed the fighter). I haven't employed any of the new 3.5 rules sets since around the time of Complete Adventurer, but that was only because I felt that the earlier and the later books were out of whack and balance was becoming a major issue. 

If anything, I think WotC/TSR does follow the typical pattern for most rpgs, but they have such a big market that they don't have to revamp entire editions (just smaller corrections mid-edition). 4e was due sometime soon IMO. If changing editions once every decade means keeping a tabletop vibrant gaming culture intact for my in-the-works Retirement Home Campaign, then so be it. (I'm 28 and I started D&D in 1994 with Dark Sun .... something about the cover of that first boxed set).

C.I.D.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> (I'm 28 and I started D&D in 1994 with Dark Sun .... something about the cover of that first boxed set).




Yeah, Brom rocks.

When Baxa started doing a majority of the art for _Dark Sun_ it almost put me off the entire setting…


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 6, 2007)

I think everyone that plays D&D wants the ruleset to match their tastes.  The problem is, of course, that tastes vary infinitely.  

And as has been said, if 4E loses a significant portion of its consumer base it could be a disaster.  Attracting new players to D&D is hard because of two factors: competing leisure opportunities and a difficult ruleset to easily pick up and master.  I think it's a good idea to make the rules easier to learn, but not at the cost of losing your player base.

For example, the six ability scores could potentially be changed to two: Physical Ability & Mental Ability.  This could simplify things to make it easier for new people to jump right in.  But then you lose the detail stuff like someone who's strong, but not very dexterous.  There's no way to have that kind of character (in the rules as written) in such a simple system.  If I like the detail, the new system sucks.  If I hate the detail, the new system rocks.  

That's where we are.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> There has been a lot of hate concerning 4E. I would say that the sides stand at about 50/50. Why has this divided our community? Because WOC is changing things to appeal to new gamers? Guess what? If you want there to be a game in 20 years, then they have to attract new gamers.



Yes, they have to attract new gamers.  _But they don't have to change the game to do that._  By and large, the people who don't play D&D now haven't turned their backs on D&D because they don't like the mechanics; rather, they're just not into tabletop RPGs as a whole.  They're not going to notice "hey, you tweaked the fighter's class abilities" and start gaming.  If you show a non-gamer a great time, he might become a gamer whether you were playing 3E, 4E, or Moldvay Basic.

D&D is a game.  My other favorite games, Scrabble and Monopoly, have continued to make money for their company despite being fundamentally unchanged for decades.  Shiny new board games come out all the time, but these two classics are still going strong.  Poker has a number of variations, but you don't need to say "Okay, we're ending Texas Hold 'Em forever and starting Night Baseball" to get new players into the hobby.  WotC decided that D&D should follow the business model of computer games, with planned obselescence and a totally new version every few years. 

I see D&D as more like a board game or a card game.  I can play Scrabble over and over, and it's never the same game twice.  I could happily play in BECM forever.  As long as the mechanics are good enough to allow the story to be enjoyable, and I have a good gaming group, the game is going to be fun.  There's no need to keep tinkering for some mythic perfect system.

The fact is that new rulebooks allowed WotC to sell MUCH more material.  New splatbooks in particular.  That opens up a much wider market than just selling campaign settings and adventures for an existing system.  And I can't blame them for wanting to make more money, but it is NOT true that this approach was the only way to bring new gamers into the hobby.  

You KNOW that 4E will be obselete in a few years.  It will get burdened down with splatbooks, as 2E and 3E did, the power balance will be out of whack, and they'll want to wipe the slate clean.


----------



## mhensley (Dec 6, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Here's wikipedia on grognard - it's usage here is just one of several.
> 
> That article also links to an essay by Greg Costikyan where he explains how Grognard Capture can happen to a game. I think this is one of Wizards' worries with D&D. Whenever someone brings up "New Coke" here I remember "Advanced Squad Leader."




I think this is a very important lesson to all game companies.  Unfortunately, I don't think wotc is going far enough in making the game more accessible to newbies.  Making the rules easier or making the job of the dm easier is not enough although it's a good start.  Having to buy 3 books with over 900 pages that cost more than $90 is too high a hurdle for many people who might otherwise consider playing.  Why isn't a basic set the first thing coming out?  Why are we still saddled with the concept of a 3 book core system?  If they really want to make the game more accessible, D&D needs a one book core like the old D&D Cylopedia.  It also needs a good boxed basic set that sells in toys stores.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 6, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Yeah, Brom rocks.
> 
> When Baxa started doing a majority of the art for _Dark Sun_ it almost put me off the entire setting…





Brom's rendition of Cyric (I think from Prince of Lies), also led me to have a brief and joyless flirtation with 2e Forgotten Realms. Ick. 

I have since gotten a hold of the original gray FR boxed set and fell in love (I actually want to run a campaign in 1e Cormyr now). Its just all the stuff since Time of Troubles onward that ruined the setting for me. 

But let that be a lesson of the power of Brom. 


Message to WoTc: Get Brom to illustrate every single rendition of Dragonborn! 

C.I.D.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 6, 2007)

The definition of grognard seems to be extraordinarily slippery, almost as bad as 'powergamer' or 'anime'.

This is my preferred usage on ENWorld:

"players who prefer some past, usually out of print game or edition of a game, to current games or currently-printed editions of same."

So there can be 21 year old 3e grognards, while I, at 37, am not a grognard.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> Its just all the stuff since Time of Troubles onward that ruined the setting for me.




I feel that _FR_ has become a bit polluted, so I am looking forward to this Spellplague shake-up action.


----------



## mhensley (Dec 6, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Yes, they have to attract new gamers.  _But they don't have to change the game to do that._




I'm betting that their market research said otherwise.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 6, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The definition of grognard seems to be extraordinarily slippery, almost as bad as 'powergamer' or 'anime'.
> 
> This is my preferred usage on ENWorld:
> 
> ...




I'm a grognard for campaign setting content, not for rules crunch per se.

For examples, as I said earlier, I find the original boxed set for FR superior to all the FR setting guides that came later. Had more consistency and less sense, of .... oh..we need to "just hand wave Bane's resurrection to sell books."

Same with Greyhawk. I generally like what has been done with Greyhawk because it really tried to maintain a consistent flavor the whole time, largely thanks to a group of grognards from the old AOL Greyhawk Board who really tried to maintain what was good about Greyhawk and then build off it. Its had a little less content than I would have liked, but at least we got a lot of great DUNGEON adventures (which are actually some of the best written and easily customizeable ones out there). 

Anyway, my point bascially parrots Doug McCrae: the grognards have variety.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 6, 2007)

Who said anyone is killing D&D?  Shouldn't we wait until we have at least seen the new game before we start screaming "murder?"

I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 6, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> I feel that _FR_ has become a bit polluted, so I am looking forward to this Spellplague shake-up action.




I actually am as well. I don't like the implementation of the Spell Plague, nor do I like the way certain lawful or good gods killed other lawful or good gods over some tart goddess, but it'll be nice to have an FR that isn't all about Khelben or Elminster. (AND YES! I know that its up to the DM to decide/control the high level NPCs, but I couldn't ever DM an adventure without one of my old player's questioning my grasp of 'the true FR universe.')

Stupid Alustriel of Silverymoon.... she was N in my version of FR ... and an Archdruid .... so what? Is that a reason to spend half a session bickering with the DM?

Edit: Oops ... sorry to threadjack so severely. Rant done. 

C.I.D.


----------



## Aeolius (Dec 6, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I'm betting that their market research said otherwise.




I am reminded of this sketch from Michael Nesmith's "Elephant Parts" video: 
Large Detroit Car Company


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 6, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I'm betting that their market research said otherwise.



I think their market research is focused on how much money they can make, as it should be for a business, and not how many new gamers they could bring into the hobby.  Selling new sets of core rules and splatbooks will make far more money than selling campaign settings and modules, even if they bring in 0 new gamers and alienate 25% of their customer base.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> Is that a reason to spend half a session bickering with the DM?




No, it's never good to waste half a session bickering about anything, but when you get campaign setting fan-boys, whoa, it can be trying.


----------



## el-remmen (Dec 6, 2007)

D&D will never "die" as long as people are playing some form of it.  Perhaps I _am_ a gronard (by the OP's definition), because personally the individual success of any edition of the game does not matter in the least to me, even if it meant that D&D stopped being published.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 6, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> No, it's never good to waste half a session bickering about anything, but when you get campaign setting fan-boys, whoa, it can be trying.





Yeah, I don't game with them anymore.  I tried to run an Eberron game for that same group. I owned only the ECS, while they had most of the other books. 

I wouldn't let one of them take a racial substitution level and they broke into total rebellion.

My new game group is great though. We're happy with the 3.5 core and the Spell Compendium and that's all we need!


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> We're happy with the 3.5 core and the Spell Compendium and that's all we need!




The _Spell Compendium_ is actually one book I regret letting my players have free reign with in my current _Planescape _ campaign.

_Murderous mist _ has got to be one of the most annoying, encounter halting spells I've ever come across.  Even the other players hate it.


----------



## Clavis (Dec 6, 2007)

The idea that D&D (or any game) needs a new rules set to attract new players makes no sense from a marketing point of view. The reason is simple; how does a new player know the ruleset improves anything if they have never played the game before? New features in a rules set can only be attractive in themselves if the customer has knowledge of the prior rules set, so they can compare. The complete neophyte is not buying the game for its rules, because he doesn't even know what those rules are. A new edition of a game only really makes sense as an attempt to re-sell to the existing customer base. 

D&D doesn't require a new edition to attract new customers; it requires a better marketing campaign, one that removes the "geek" stigma from gaming and convinces women that male gamers aren't racist, sexist, anti-social creeps. (To their credit, WOTC is trying to do this with Shelly Mazzanoble's book) Non-gamers do not get involved with gaming because new editions come out, because they're not part of the social networks that know or care about new editions of RPG games. You have to already be a gamer to know that D&D has even had different editions, never mind that there's going to be a 4th.

At this point, if you're even exposed to any 4th edition advertising or buzz, you're already a D&D player. I don't know of any non-gamer who has ever ever seen a D&D ad. D&D doesn't need new editions to grow, but the company that publishes it seems to have decided it needs new editions to keep sales going. I have no problem with a company wanting to make money. We all need to eat and keep a roof over our heads. But don't try to sell me bulls**t about how buying my rulebooks all over again is "good for the game". It's good for WOTC, and Hasbro. The game would keep going on its own, because its actually advertised by its players.


----------



## pogre (Dec 6, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> The _Spell Compendium_ is actually one book I regret letting my players have free reign with in my current _Planescape _ campaign.
> 
> _Murderous mist _ has got to be one of the most annoying, encounter halting spells I've ever come across.  Even the other players hate it.




My approach to 4e is going to be to try everything RAW and build a concensus on what is getting in the way of our game and enjoyment and houserule or throw them out.

I do not know your group, but I sometimes admit to a mistake in allowing things in. Explain to the player how it is interfering with the game for myself and others. I then let them know that trick is now out of my campaign. It might be something like this spell you mentioned, a prestige class, or an entire race. 

For my group as long as I am reasonable and open about it - everyone seems to be just fine with such decisions. YMMV.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 6, 2007)

pogre said:
			
		

> My approach to 4e is going to be to try everything RAW and build a concensus on what is getting in the way of our game and enjoyment and houserule or throw them out.
> 
> I do not know your group, but I sometimes admit to a mistake in allowing things in. Explain to the player how it is interfering with the game for myself and others. I then let them know that trick is now out of my campaign. It might be something like this spell you mentioned, a prestige class, or an entire race.
> 
> For my group as long as I am reasonable and open about it - everyone seems to be just fine with such decisions. YMMV.




That's a good policy that I definitely intend to follow (it took me a while to learn that as a DM). And with things like the Spell Compendium, I allowed clerics and druids to only add a number of SC spells to their spells lists equal to their permanent wisdom modifier per spell level. 

Wizards also were only allowed to add PHB spells to their books when they gained a spell level. SC spells were seen as 'lost lore or yet to be discovered magic.'

Sorcerers and bards however, could learn any spell in the SC that I deemed not broken (of which there were several). 

C.I.D.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> one that removes the "geek" stigma from gaming




What's nice is that over here in Europe, there isn't the stigma attached to RPGs and gaming in general, it's just another one of _many_ eccentric hobbies.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

pogre said:
			
		

> I do not know your group, but I sometimes admit to a mistake in allowing things in. Explain to the player how it is interfering with the game for myself and others. I then let them know that trick is now out of my campaign. It might be something like this spell you mentioned, a prestige class, or an entire race.
> 
> For my group as long as I am reasonable and open about it - everyone seems to be just fine with such decisions. YMMV.




Yeah, we've all talked with him (communication rules!), and even he admits the spell is a real fun-killer, so thankfully we no longer have to deal with it, but thanks for the tip.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 6, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> The idea that D&D (or any game) needs a new rules set to attract new players makes no sense from a marketing point of view. The reason is simple; how does a new player know the ruleset improves anything if they have never played the game before?



While I don't imagine that 4E will bringing in many new RPG gamers, it might bring in (or bring back) _D&D _ gamers.

That is, of the 40% of the gaming market that D&D *doesn't* control, at least some of those players may have left D&D for other games because of things like the Vancian magic system.  By trashing that system, WotC may bring those gamers to D&D.

On the other hand, it will lose gamers like me by doing that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 6, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> D&D doesn't require a new edition to attract new customers; it requires a better marketing campaign, one that removes the "geek" stigma from gaming and convinces women that male gamers aren't racist, sexist, anti-social creeps. (To their credit, WOTC is trying to do this with Shelly Mazzanoble's book)




And, oddly enough, one has to wonder just how many potential new gamers will read that book, flip through a 4e PHB, and discover that the options they enjoyed reading about in the book have little or nothing to do with what is in the game.

Or was the book written from a 4e standpoint?

_Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress_?  Cool...can I make a sorceress?  No.

This whole character creation thing....still works as a primer, right?  No.

Wait a minute, though, Shelly explains how spells work.  That's still correct, right?   No.

Charms?  No.

Familiars?  We're still not sure about that.

Okay, though, surely "elf" means the same thing?  No.


_Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress_ may be a great idea, marketing-wise, and might be a great read.  OTOH, as a means to reach out to potential new gamers, it is poorly timed.  Had this book come out a year earlier.....or come out later, with 4e crunch, it might have been better.  (Again, marketing-wise, not lit-wise.)

RC


----------



## Talislan (Dec 6, 2007)

This is just a personal opinion

I really don't get what the fuss is about. There is a new game coming out next year as I see it called D&D 4th Edition. We are now going to have the choice of a fourth way of playing a wonderful game!
Anyone who can't see this, to me, is a grognard.
I have been given an opportunity to try something from the ground up again. Something that I can spend the next few years pulling apart and rebuilding just as I have every other game.
Can I still play D&D 3.5 though? YES! will there be any more annoying changes to it that I wasn't expecting? NO!
Will I have to resort to using my own imagination for creating settings/worlds for 3.5? Yes. Is that a problem? Well it hasn't been for the first 29 years of my life so I can't see it suddenly becoming one.

Does anyone see what I'm getting at?

When I first started playing RPG's all we needed was a rule book, a DM to interpret the rules and a group of like minded individuals with equally vivid imaginations. I really don't think this has changed. If it has then it is not D&D that is dying but the RPG genre itself.

My only real problem with so called Grognards or anyone else on these forums is when they cry "its not fair", "they're not supporting it anymore", or liking this to a car company declaring it will no longer be maintaining vintage models.

Since when did my imagination need maintenance? what support can they provide now that this particular game is all grown up?
They can't. they realised it was as good as it was going to get and the rest is up to me. As it always has been.

I would like to reitterate before I go that this is just a personal opinion. I don't claim that it will be right for everybody and I hope that I have not offended.

T.

The boundaries of success are held only by the limits of your imagination. Talislan_D 2000


----------



## Aeolius (Dec 6, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> ...D&D doesn't require a new edition to attract new customers; it requires a better marketing campaign, one that removes the "geek" stigma from gaming...




but...but... I don't want "norms" playing MY game!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 6, 2007)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Guess what? The whole "we have to do it to attract new gamers thing" is the same 'ol excuse that WotC uses whenever it puts out a change that upsets people. It's tired, it's old, and it's now a cliche.




Note two things:

1)Can you actually quote any place where _WotC_ uses this, as opposed to someone speculating on WotC's reasons?  You should avoid putting words in WotC's mouth.

2)Even if it is old, tired, and perhaps even cliche, you have not yet shown that it is not also true.  There are truths we don't like, you know.



> When 80% of your player base are old timers, alienating half of them to appeal to newer, younger players (who aren't exactly showing an enthusiastic interest in tabletop RPGs to begin with) is a surefire way to marginalize your game and hasten its eventual fadeout.




But failing to change in order to please said old-timers is a surefire way to keep your game locked into the marginal oldtimer base, and doom it to a slow, lingering death as your base shrinks due to attrition.  Keeping to the old-timers is not a viable long-term strategy, dude.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 6, 2007)

A few thoughts that went through my head while reading this thread...

What is D&D, and how can you kill it? Is basic D&D dead? AD&D 1E? 2E? Or even OD&D (the "one true game"  )? I'd argue they are very much alive, since they all are still widely in use, and played by many groups. In the recent years, those editions even saw an increasing support for those older editions.

Is TSR dead? Most certainly.

People that are against change are not grognards, they simply are the conservative part of the D&D player community. Grognards are those who started with one of the earliest editions, played D&D for most of the intervening time, and to whom an older edition of the game is the most preferred one.

What generational gap? Sure, there are younger players who aren't comfy playing with those 20 years older than them, or the other way around. There are obnoxious young punks playing with reminiscing old geezers on the other side. I have one group with people around my age (35), and one where the oldest is 7 years my junior, the youngest 15 years. And likewise have I played with people older than me. Generational gaps are all in the head, after all.

Also, older players are pretty much what keeps the game going, especially with an edition that has pretty high (compared to the Red Box I started with at 14) entry requirements, financial as well as comprehensive ones. Often, it's an experienced player who brings new players in, shows them the ropes, and gives them a taste of the game. And I bet there's enough of us who are handing out roleplaying sets as gifts for christmas, birthdays, or any other opportunity, in order to get younger folks playing. I've made it a habit to keep a surplus copy of the Red Box Basic Set or two around, in case I see one of my younger relatives who might have an interest in it, or as a pressie to the kids of friends.

So no, grognards aren't killing D&D. Neither is the endless debate, divergent opinions and sometimes the extreme positions of a few people (and compared to the "middle ground" the extreme sides are a few people). What would be killing D&D (in my opinion) is taking away its unique qualities. Slapping the brand name on any game engine doesn't automatically make it D&D, just like slapping the VW logo on the Smart wouldn't have made it the "New) Beetle.

Arguably, those unique qualities are slightly different for each player, but even here, there is an overlap in many cases. We may differ in details, tastes and personal preferences, or the execution of the same rules, and for most of us D&D is something we recognize when we see (or play) it. And that recognition has been colored by how long we played it, how we played it, et. But killing monsters and taking their stuff may have been where D&D originated in, but it's by far not the exclusive attribute that separates D&D from, say, Shadowrun, Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, GURPS, or any other RPG out there that deals with killing monsters and taking their stuff. D&D is special, which is why it was so damn successful for over 30 years, and why it hopefully will continue to be so for the next 30.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Since it seems that have the greatest numbers, and greatest disposable income to spend on the game, they have the most say within the gaming community on how the game advances (or doesn’t).
> 
> So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game. Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?




You've kind of contradicted yourself a bit.

Yes, folks like me who've been playing for 20+ years have the greatest disposable income for the market.  Never forget that gaming is entertainment and a business.  Businesses exist to make money.  If I were a business executive would I worry about attracting new, young players who don't exactly have money to burn or do I market to the 30+ year old crowd who has the money?  It isn't like the "grognard" customer base is going anywhere... they are going to continue to progress in their careers and thus make more money which in turn they are more likely to spend on more games if I market the product to them.  I'll give you an example... Star Trek.
Paramount has been working that "Product Line" since before I was born and it still is one of their tentpole "products".  They've done a masterful job of incorporating new material and ideas into the existing universe.  The main point to take away from Paramount is that they have made their product "Backwards Compatable" so to speak.  This way they've been attracting new fans and keeping the old ones.

I think one of the reasons why there has been so much trash-talk among the grognards (myself included) is that we don't see much in the way of "Backwards Compatability".  With each new edition the game looks less and less like what we remember.  2e was for the most part compatible with 1e.  3.X was a further departure but there were still some things that hearkened back to 1e & 2e.  4e appears to be such a large departure that it no longer resembles the game that we loved.  It would be like titling a new movie "Star Trek" but showing "Star Wars".  Star Wars may be a good movie and all but dang-it *we paid to see Star Trek*.  The movie would be Star Trek in name only... just like the new edition appears to be "Dungeons & Dragons" in name only.  At least that is my take on it.

Hopefully I didn't lose anybody...


----------



## mhensley (Dec 6, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I think their market research is focused on how much money they can make, as it should be for a business, and not how many new gamers they could bring into the hobby.  Selling new sets of core rules and splatbooks will make far more money than selling campaign settings and modules, even if they bring in 0 new gamers and alienate 25% of their customer base.




Only if their plan is to support D&D for a couple more years and then sell it.  That's the only scenario where your theory makes any sense.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 6, 2007)

i am a grognard.

started with wargames.


i ain't killing D&D. i've been highly active. probably the most active fan of D&D of anyone i know or have known.

i'm the guy keeping D&D alive.

i invite you to join a session with us some time. next one is this sunday.


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 6, 2007)

Don't know if I qualifiy as a Grognard or whatever, but I'm 35, been playing since 1E, and have upgraded every time a new edition came out.  Why?  Cause it was always better (at least initially).

In order to keep the game alive and expand the base they need to make the game more fun/easier to run.  All the players in the world don't matter if nobody wants to run the game because it is too complicated.

High level play in 3E/3.5E is kind of a chore, we all know that.  And they're fixing it with 4E by trying to make it as easy to run a level 25 game as it is a level 2.

I think they made the right move at the right time.  I may not like EVERY SINGLE thing they're doing with 4E, but most of it appeals to me.

That being said, I'll buy the 4E books to read, but probably won't actually RUN a 4E game for at least a year or so.  But if the hype is accurate I'll move that timetable up.

And if you brag about how you "haven't bought a D&D product for years since you play an older edition" then you are not WOTC's target, so whether you're unhappy with the direction they are going in is of no concern to them (nor should it be).


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 6, 2007)

Hmm.

OK.  This is directed at the OP.

Let's just assume the grognards ARE killing D&D, as you have claimed.

What do you want them to do?  Start playing the current edition even though they are happier with an older version?  Stop talking to anyone who is not also a grognard?  Stop playing D&D altogether?


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 6, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Only if their plan is to support D&D for a couple more years and then sell it.  That's the only scenario where your theory makes any sense.



Well, that depends on present value and projected cash flow for each scenario, doesn't it?  The cash flow from continuing to support 3.5 vs. the cash flow from introducing a whole new edition and possibly losing some of their customer base but increasing sales for the remainder.  With a 10% discount rate, making $100 million now is as good as making $10 million per year until the end of time.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Dec 6, 2007)

Oh yeah... despite my last post and considering myself a Grognard I still plan on purchasing the new edition.  I've taken to viewing it as a totally separate product to be evaluated on its own merits instead of being compared to the previous editions and other games from other publishers.  I actually think it will be fun to RUN a game again.  3.X became, IMHO, too granular.  It is burdened by the same ability to customize that made it fun to play.  If 2e was the DM's edition then 3e was definitely the Player's edition.  Hopefully 4e will be everyone's edition.


----------



## National Acrobat (Dec 6, 2007)

As one of the almost-40 crowd, who has played every version of the game, let me say just one thing.

As I have gotten older, and had a family, I am more selective upon which to spend my disposable income, due to having many other expenses. With that alone in mind, if something that I do not deem necessary, or worthy, to own or spend my money on, I don't. 

RPGs are a hobby, and I am at the point where I am very picky and choosy about what I spend money on.

I feel that it is imperitave for Wizards to attract more gamers, but to not alienate the ones that already play the game. It's a fine line, and I don't envy them one bit. They can't make everyone happy, that's the bottom line.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 6, 2007)

Talislan said:
			
		

> I really don't get what the fuss is about. There is a new game coming out next year as I see it called D&D 4th Edition. We are now going to have the choice of a fourth way of playing a wonderful game!




Thank you!    

I don't understand why we, as role-players, get in a "versus" mentality.  d20 vs. C&C vs. True20 vs. AD&D...and so on and so forth.

RPGs are kind of like ice cream.  We may not all agree on the particular flavor, but we all like ice cream.  




> I have been given an opportunity to try something from the ground up again. Something that I can spend the next few years pulling apart and rebuilding just as I have every other game.
> Can I still play D&D 3.5 though? YES! will there be any more annoying changes to it that I wasn't expecting? NO!
> Will I have to resort to using my own imagination for creating settings/worlds for 3.5? Yes. Is that a problem? Well it hasn't been for the first 29 years of my life so I can't see it suddenly becoming one.
> 
> Does anyone see what I'm getting at?




Very much so.  I see two things coming from your comments.  First, play the game that works best for you.  If AD&D is your flavor, great!  If you like Arcana Evolved, that's good too!  

Secondly, why limit ourselves to just one system?  Different systems may work for different games.  You may, for example, use AD&D 2e for Dark Sun, D&D 3.5 for Dragonlance, then 4e for your homebrew.  Different groups may prefer different games.  

I think I fell into the trap of saying, "It isn't the same anymore."  Well, truth is, it isn't.  And that's okay.  Because really, I have all sorts of options for playing some of my favorite game worlds.  And you know, some of the stuff in 4e looks to be really fun.  I don't know if 4e will work for worlds like Dragonlance or not.  If so, great.  And if not, that's fine because I can still use other systems for that.  4e will have new options and new things that I haven't tried before.  Heck, there's still tons of 3.5 options I haven't managed to try out yet.

Now WotC knows that some people will never make the switch.  I think that's partially why some of the changes are being made - to attract new customers.  Yet they should also try to keep some of the basics of the D&D experience intact so that it is somewhat familiar to existing customers.  So yeah, we're seeing things like tiefling warlocks, dragonborn, and such, but we also have class levels, a skill system, and other familiar elements.  Maybe the flavor is a bit different, but it's still ice cream.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Dec 6, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I think this is a very important lesson to all game companies.  Unfortunately, I don't think wotc is going far enough in making the game more accessible to newbies.  Making the rules easier or making the job of the dm easier is not enough although it's a good start.  Having to buy 3 books with over 900 pages that cost more than $90 is too high a hurdle for many people who might otherwise consider playing.  Why isn't a basic set the first thing coming out?  Why are we still saddled with the concept of a 3 book core system?  If they really want to make the game more accessible, D&D needs a one book core like the old D&D Cylopedia.  It also needs a good boxed basic set that sells in toys stores.




I thought there was going to be something *like* a basic set...like, isn't H1 out before the core books, and containing pregens and a rule book?  I could be mistaken.  You're absolutely right, though.  I got into D&D because there was a big black box with a dragon on it in with the Monopoly &c. at a Toys 'r Us.  I was like ten or twelve, and I read the entire rulebook and GM-thingy full of cards that one night.  I was up until three in the morning.  This is the sort of scenario we need.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. Why is this bad? Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old. There is a generational gap (or two) between the majority of players and people who are just now playing the game for the first time. Since it seems that have the greatest numbers, and greatest disposable income to spend on the game, they have the most say within the gaming community on how the game advances (or doesn’t).  If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.
> 
> There has been a lot of hate concerning 4E. I would say that the sides stand at about 50/50. Why has this divided our community? Because WOC is changing things to appeal to new gamers? Guess what? If you want there to be a game in 20 years, then they have to attract new gamers.
> 
> So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game. Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?




The question shouldn't just be "Is this going to attract new players?"
There's also "what types of players do we want to attract?"

I think perhaps that question is what concerns so called "grognards."  I know it does me and I'm not even sure I fit the profile of a grognard.  
I don't think we should cater to the lowest common denominator and make our game pander to everyone just to get players.

I want our game to attract those who aren't afraid of using their imagination, using their intellect, aren't afraid of complex rules, are willing to put the time in.  
Should we try to get our ranks to swell?  Absolutely!
But should we sacrifice the game we love to meet this goal? NO!


----------



## vagabundo (Dec 6, 2007)

National Acrobat said:
			
		

> I feel that it is imperitave for Wizards to attract more gamers, but to not alienate the ones that already play the game. It's a fine line, and I don't envy them one bit. *They can't make everyone happy*, that's the bottom line.




They could release a GHB for 4e, this Gognards Handbook shows how to play 4e with 1e/2e/3e flavourings, depending on your level in the class "Gognard"...


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 6, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Secondly, why limit ourselves to just one system?  Different systems may work for different games.  You may, for example, use AD&D 2e for Dark Sun, D&D 3.5 for Dragonlance, then 4e for your homebrew.




See; that's something really nifty I think most people (including myself) forget – certain editions may cater better to certain settings.

I can easily see wanting to use 2nd Ed for a _Ravenloft _ campaign or what have you.


----------



## Aeolius (Dec 6, 2007)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> They could release a GHB for 4e, this Gognards Handbook shows how to play 4e with 1e/2e/3e flavourings, depending on your level in the class "Gognard"...




"The Grognard's Guide to playing 4e (like 3.5e)" . There was already a conversion manual for prior editions to 3e.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 6, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> If they really want to make the game more accessible, D&D needs a one book core like the old D&D Cylopedia.  It also needs a good boxed basic set that sells in toys stores.




I really like the idea of a small boxed set for attracting new players.  One could include only the four classes of Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief together with the more used weapons, feats, and spells.  People who already play the game would never buy this, since much material would be gone, but new players would be attracted to it for ease of reading and price.  The rules would be completely compatible with the main 4e system of three core books, just with omissions.


----------



## vagabundo (Dec 6, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> I really like the idea of a small boxed set for attracting new players.  One could include only the four classes of Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief together with the more used weapons, feats, and spells.  People who already play the game would never buy this, since much material would be gone, but new players would be attracted to it for ease of reading and price.  The rules would be completely compatible with the main 4e system of three core books, just with omissions.




Lots of nice art, quest cards, tiles, dice and minis. It would get loads of kids interested. Very clear cut rules, no disarm or grappling.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Dec 6, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> I really like the idea of a small boxed set for attracting new players.  One could include only the four classes of Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief together with the more used weapons, feats, and spells.  People who already play the game would never buy this, since much material would be gone, but new players would be attracted to it for ease of reading and price.  The rules would be completely compatible with the main 4e system of three core books, just with omissions.




This is what I'm in favor of.  Much better than just a single adventure.  Let it take characters up to level six or so, and everything you need is in one box.  Probably some cheap plastic figs for the PCs and a bunch of cardboard pog/token/thingies for orcs and whatnot.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Yeah, but i wasn't even alive when it came out. It seems like most of the forum members here have wives, kids and steady careers. I would say that the market for D&D should try to be 13+. The younger you get them the better.




That's probably true from the perspective of Hasbro/WotC, but honestly- historically- D&D was created by and for an older gamer market when it came out.


----------



## Talislan (Dec 6, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Thank you!
> 
> I don't understand why we, as role-players, get in a "versus" mentality.  d20 vs. C&C vs. True20 vs. AD&D...and so on and so forth.
> 
> RPGs are kind of like ice cream.  We may not all agree on the particular flavor, but we all like ice cream....





You're welcome... oh and Nice analogy. 

T.


----------



## Khairn (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.



Complete agreement



> There has been a lot of hate concerning 4E. I would say that the sides stand at about 50/50. Why has this divided our community? Because WOC is changing things to appeal to new gamers?




Complete disagreement.  As a gamer who's been labeled a "grognard" because I don't support 4E, I think the majority of the 4E "hate" is not due to a knee-jerk reaction to anything that's new.  I feel that WotC has failed to convince many customers on the need for a change.  If your customers don't believe that a change will be beneficial, then why should they support it?  

When WotC announced 3E, there was some moaning from players who liked AD&D, but the support for the new edition was clearly evident.  Why?  Because WotC's customer believed a new edition would improve their games.  I don't see that across the board support for 4E.  But if its not there, don't blame your fellow customers.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. ...
> 
> So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game. Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?




Hmmm.  There are many errors in this line of thought.  The main two are:

1) having played 1st Ed does not make one 40+ years old.
I played D&D 1e for a full 8 years before the publication of 2e.  I was a kid then, and I am now only(?) 37.  I could've started playing before 2e and still be in my very late 20's.

2) Being old does not make one a grognard.
You're only a grognard if you decide to be a grognard.
I haven't played D&D with any teenagers in quite a while, but I've had the pleasure of playing with some 20-25 year olds, and there's been no generation divide at the table.
I loved 1e, I love 3.5e, and I'm excited about 4e.  Anybody remember 1e pummeling?  Yeesh.  The game moves on, and at this point, I could only be convinced to play a 1e game for a laugh and a trip down memory lane.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 6, 2007)

Two of my players are around 20, started playing DND with 3.5, and, as are most of the people their age with whom I work,  heavily into anime. Neither are happy about the release of 4e. They do not care for most of the stuff information thathas been revealed so far.  They even consider the Paladin ability that heals an ally when striking an opponent to be extremely lame.

Now as for myself, I started with 1e and stuck around for 2e (which kept me playing ADND longer than I would have) before moving on to other games. I will never play either 1e or 2e again. 

3e brought me back with the underlying mechanical changes and, with all the wonderful third party products, I was looking forward to 4e and some more mechanical changes. However, I am not impressed with the direction of 4e based upon what has been revealed and almost certainly won't be switching- there is still time for that to change.


----------



## Talislan (Dec 6, 2007)

Kheti sa-Menik said:
			
		

> .....
> I want our game to attract those who aren't afraid of using their imagination, using their intellect, aren't afraid of complex rules, are willing to put the time in.
> Should we try to get our ranks to swell?  Absolutely!
> But should we sacrifice the game we love to meet this goal? NO!




and my point as made in this thread above reiterated...

nobody is asking you to sacrifice anything people. This kind of thinking in my opinion is what comes across badly to others.

You are being given a new game, based on a previously successful theme. nobody is taking away your old toys though. They are leaving them as they are for you to cherrish as long as you chose. No, there will be no new pieces for your old game. It has been left in your hands to decide its future....As it always has.

it is as in any adventure your choice.
Goodevening folks and happy gaming.

T.
Mint Choc chip anyone?

The boundaries of success are held only by the limits of your imagination


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 6, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> When WotC announced 3E, there was some moaning from players who liked AD&D, but the support for the new edition was clearly evident.  Why?  Because WotC's customer believed a new edition would improve their games.  I don't see that across the board support for 4E.  But if its not there, don't blame your fellow customers.



I think there was much more widespread dissatisfaction with 2E, especially after the 2.5 material.  Then TSR went bankrupt and it looked like the hobby would be dead.  3E was extremely welcome news as I recall.

On the other than, 3.5 had just seen the release of a number of neat options that went a long way towards fixing people's problems with 3.5.  Reserve feats, so your wizard would never need to use a crossbow if that was a problem for you (or the Warlock, if you never wanted to run out of magical abilities ever).  Skill tricks, expanding the rogue's abilities.  Tome of Battle classes, if you wanted a more complicated fighter with per-encounter abilities.  PHBII, if you wanted higher-power fighter-only feats.  Brand-new spells and magic item rules in those Compendiums.  And you always had the option to start campaigns at higher levels if you felt level-1 characters were too frail.

So for those who saw facets of 3.5 as flaws, a whole ton of new material had just been released to fix those flaws.  For those who didn't see them as flaws, they were just *options*.  You could still play a wizard who accepted the risk of running out of spells in exchange for greater power and versatility.  You could still play a PC who is no tougher than the a city guard recruit but is a hero by virtue of choosing to stand up when nobody else will.  You could still play a basic fighter.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 6, 2007)

In my groups, the oldest of the players are more pro-4E, that being myself and another player, while the younger ones are of the view that its not needed.

I agree with other posters that there is a lot less perceived need for a new edition than there was for the 2E/3E changeover, but I think that's inevitable - TSR and 2E were such a mess that 3E really felt like a blast of fresh air.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 6, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> In my groups, the oldest of the players are more pro-4E, that being myself and another player, while the younger ones are of the view that its not needed.
> 
> I agree with other posters that there is a lot less perceived need for a new edition than there was for the 2E/3E changeover, but I think that's inevitable - TSR and 2E were such a mess that 3E really felt like a blast of fresh air.




I hope the standard for when a new edition is due is not "when its needed as much as 3e was needed."  Its like saying that you're not allowed to buy a new car until you're running from the wreck screaming and covered in burning gasoline.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 6, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Whenever someone brings up "New Coke" here I remember "Advanced Squad Leader."




I'm wondering about the appropriateness of this analogy since ASL has a very active playing community and new products are still coming out for it (how many other 20 year old wargames can say that?).


----------



## Khairn (Dec 6, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I hope the standard for when a new edition is due is not "when its needed as much as 3e was needed."  Its like saying that you're not allowed to buy a new car until you're running from the wreck screaming and covered in burning gasoline.




Agreed.  So what should the standard be for when a new edition is needed / warranted? 

A large part of the back-lash against 4E is because so many customers do not feel that a new edition is currently needed.  Are the customers to blame if they don't feel a new edition is needed?


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I'm wondering about the appropriateness of this analogy since ASL has a very active playing community and new products are still coming out for it (how many other 20 year old wargames can say that?).




If this was a few years ago, the analogy would've held up fine.  I was still drinking the occasional can of "Coke II" (for amusement value, mostly) when I ran across it in 2001.  According to  Wikipedia, the stuff was still in limited production until 2002.

And you can still buy 1e adventures under the OSRIC label today.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 6, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I hope the standard for when a new edition is due is not "when its needed as much as 3e was needed."  Its like saying that you're not allowed to buy a new car until you're running from the wreck screaming and covered in burning gasoline.



But there's a fundamental difference.  Cars wear out over time and you *have* to replace them.  They simply become nonfunctional.
Game rules don't.  I expect that I'll be playing Scrabble, Monopoly, 5-Card Draw, softball, and basketball by the same rules for the rest of my life.


----------



## Drammattex (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Please tell me you're taking its stuff as well.
> 
> Oh yeah sorry if it sounded like I was flaming. I just wanted this question to be addressed.




Of course. I'm getting a 5 gp exchange rate per Point of Light. By golly, these things spend just like electrum!  

...

But to give a less cheeky response to your post, there will ALWAYS be people who resist change, and at certain points in your life (may not be D&D related) you'll find yourself among their number. 

Me? I've been playing since 1982 and I've enjoyed every edition of the game. I realize everyone doesn't feel this way, but I believe that D&D is moving forward the same way technology does: a new edition is built on the foundations of the old, and the result is a more sophisticated work. I know folks who ONLY like to listen to vinyl. They are the grognards of audio. Others swear by CDs. I have an iPod. It has ONE control. It stores all my music. I'm not going to be able to convince anyone that my MP3s are better than their vinyl or CDs, and that's fine. At one point, I thought the iPod was a terrible idea, and I couldn't figure out what on earth I would use it for... until I got one. 

And that's how it's going to be with 4e. Nobody's read it yet, nobody knows the end product, or how useful it's going to be.  I personally think that even in its simplicity it's going to be a more sophisticated game than the one we've been playing, but that is the topic for several other threads. 

There will always, always, always be grognards, in every field. In politics and religion especially. 

I'm a Star Wars grognard. I've nearly trained my mind to believe that anything made after The Empire Strikes Back does not exist. I have not purchased any of the editions on dvd because I'm waiting until Lucas dies and someone puts out a cleaned up, full audio, high definition transfer of the original films (although I'd take the added CGI on the Death Star run added in the 1997 version). Until then, I will probably never own Star Wars. Many folks don't agree with me on this, but I won't budge on it. I will be a grognard to the end in regards to Star Wars. Fortunately, I have Battlestar Galactica to love now.


----------



## Driddle (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> HEADER: Are grognards killing D&D?
> TEXT: If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. ... I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old....
> (B)efore you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day ...




I grabbed a bit of text from Wikipedia, as a good starting point. I'm curious as to which version of "grognard" you're using to define "really old" people in their twilight years of 40+, and why the age-ist insults. I don't remember accusing _all_ my elders of being grumpy old farts back in the day when I was just a young pup of 22. ... But maybe my memory is failing me, too. It's so hard to remember now. So long ago, so very long ago...

_* Slang for someone who enjoys playing board wargames. This use is supposed to have been coined by John Young in the early 1970s while employed by Simulations Publications, Inc. Originally this term referred to the "old guard" of gamers who were playing military board games prior to 1969.
* Inside the computer game development industry, the term grognard is used to name fans who will buy every game released in a certain genre of game (RTS, RPG, etc.). These dedicated game players are often viewed as a blessing and a curse, as they will ensure a certain minimum level in sales, but they will also be the most critical of any mistakes or bugs in the game.
* In the board game, role-playing game, miniature wargaming and computer game genres, a grognard is an ultra-hardcore gamer, seeking reality and assembling detailed tables of probabilities and statistics. It may also refer to someone with a detailed knowledge of real world history without necessarily being interested in becoming a good player or having a detailed knowledge of game mechanics or play. It also refers to players who prefer some past, usually out of print game or edition of a game, to current games or currently-printed editions of same._


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 6, 2007)

There are a number of things that I really like about 4e that I am hearing (points of light, return of Monster Levels, using creature types proactively with character race, a plane of Faerie even if poorly named, speeding combat and prep time), a number of things I dislike (dragonborn as a core race, tielfling as a core race to a lesser extent, increased miniatures focus, loss and/or replacement of much of D&D's backstory, no druid in the core), and a number of things that I am just plain skeptical about (speeding combat and prep time, end of Xmas tree effect, end of 10-minute adventuring day, some aspects of design goals, more options yet less complicated, everyone can do everything yet more distinct).

There are many things about 4e that seem to mirror houserules I made for 3e, which seems good to me.  There are many things about 4e that make it seem as though it were being designed for those who don't like the "sacred cows" of D&D (by which I mean, its history, its continuity, and its backstory) which seems bad to me.

The idea of everything being core, of the digital initiative, of common core elements from prior editions being spread through many books, etc., really bother me.  The idea that WotC was actively suggesting (if not directly stating) that 4e rumours were hogwash just weeks before the announcement, presumably in order to sell 3e books, doesn't sit well with me.

However.....

About a week before the 4e announcement, I almost responded to one of Kamikaze Midget's posts with "Maybe it is time for a new edition".  And, maybe it is time for a new edition.

Certainly, high level play and game prep in 3e can be a pain in the backside.  Certainly, there are problems with the 3e model (although, for some of us, 3rd party rules have been of great use to repair these problems).  Combat in 3e can be so...bloody...slow that it's no wonder that some folks have decided that non-combat-monsters are "unfun".....they get their 10 minutes of "shine" time just before a 30-second (in game) combat that lasts several hours (in real life).

So, fixing the speed of combat?  Definitely needed.  Fixing prep time?  Definitely needed.  Fixing the power curve?  Definitely needed.  Fixing the monster vs PC power ration?  Arguably needed.  Fixing the X-mas Tree Effect?  Arguably part of fixing the power curve, but needed.  Re-examining class balance, the CR System, and Wealth-per-level?  These are all part of my vision of "needed" things in a new edition.

Making all characters equally proficient in and out of combat?  Not needed.  IMHO, of course.

Replacing existing core PC classes with new ones?  Not needed.  IMHO, of course.  Even though I did this in my house rules, I don't think it's necessarily right for the core game.

Replacing existing core PC races with new ones?  Not needed.  IMHO, of course.  Even though I did this in my house rules, I don't think it's necessarily right for the core game.

Making the game more minis-centric?  Not needed.  IMHO, of course.

Quest Cards?  Really depends upon how the advice in the DMG is worded.  Let players write their own cards, and the DM adjudicate their XP value, with good rules for determining XP values, and it's all good.

New Monster Designs?  One of the big beefs I have with 1e is that every monster is designed to be fought.  Which makes some of these monsters less useful than they could be.  Why would you be pounding on a brownie?  Please, please, please consider monsters as more than one-dimensional "gotchas".  Please.

I guess I feel that, in some ways, 4e seems to be a step backwards towards some of the elements of earlier editions that have been lost.  Exploration as a viable playstyle?  Rock on!  Yet, at the same time, 4e seems to be a step backwards from the options that 3e made possible.  I applaud the loss of "bad" complexity (complexity that bogs down the game for little purpose), but I am dismayed by what seems to be the loss of "good" complexity (for instance, many of the 3e character creation options).

And there you have it.  A good revision, IMHO, builds on what has come before.  I feel that too many parts of 4e seem to be tossing out the baby with the bathwater.  If that makes me a grognard, so be it.  After all, I am in my 40s.

RC


----------



## Turjan (Dec 6, 2007)

I haven't read the whole thread, but did the words "Soylent Green" already fall ?

And no, I don't think anyone destroys D&D. And even if 4e won't be a success - and i think it will succeed - there will still be the grognards playing the game. Whatever version.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Dec 6, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. Why is this bad? Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22.....




enworld polls are biased towards folks that post on enworld and can't stay away from polls.  In any given year I probably game with about 30 other gamers- 2 of them post to enworld (me included) and only another 1 or 2 read the news here and all the non-posters from 11 to 58.
22 is young by the way. I was still playing 1st edition when I was 22     .

Grognards are not killing D&D.


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 6, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> Grognards are not killing D&D.




I agree, because it is probably the wrong question.

It should be, "If WOTC tried to keep the grognards happy, would D&D die on its own?"

And the answer to THAT is probably yes.

Good thing they aren't.


----------



## Nifft (Dec 6, 2007)

MojoGM said:
			
		

> I agree, because it is probably the wrong question.
> 
> It should be, "If WOTC tried to keep the grognards happy, would D&D die on its own?"
> 
> ...



 This mojo has my approval.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## mhensley (Dec 6, 2007)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> I thought there was going to be something *like* a basic set...like, isn't H1 out before the core books, and containing pregens and a rule book?  I could be mistaken.  You're absolutely right, though.  I got into D&D because there was a big black box with a dragon on it in with the Monopoly &c. at a Toys 'r Us.  I was like ten or twelve, and I read the entire rulebook and GM-thingy full of cards that one night.  I was up until three in the morning.  This is the sort of scenario we need.




Yeah, H1 will probably be kind of, sort of a basic set. The problem is that it will almost certainly not have character generation, only pregens.  It's just not the same.  Creating characters is probably the most fun activity beginners have when they first get a game.  Especially if you were like me and there were years between buying your first basic set and actually finding someone to play it with you.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 6, 2007)

MojoGM said:
			
		

> I agree, because it is probably the wrong question.
> 
> It should be, "If WOTC tried to keep the grognards happy, would D&D die on its own?"
> 
> ...



Can somebody please explain to me why this is?
What has D&D done so wrong that it is on perpetual life support?  Why it is always threatened with extinction and needing to adapt or die?  Why is its staying power seen to be so utterly pathetic compared to rule systems for other games?
Why can't you bring in new gamers to old rules, like chess, Trivial Pursuit, or soccer manage to do?  
Are the rules for all versions of D&D just that horrible that people only play until they realize the flaws (such as at high levels)?  Are gamers some breed that get bored with *mechanics* to the point where not even new and cool stories, settings, and adventures can engage them?

Why are RPGs so flawed in this manner that they need perpetual revision in a way that other games do not?

And going forward, 4e and onward... will this always be the business model?  New rulesets, continual tinkering, and so on?  Is it destined to be a game that its players ALWAYS look at and say "It's not good enough yet"?


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Dec 6, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I think this is a very important lesson to all game companies.  Unfortunately, I don't think wotc is going far enough in making the game more accessible to newbies.  Making the rules easier or making the job of the dm easier is not enough although it's a good start.  Having to buy 3 books with over 900 pages that cost more than $90 is too high a hurdle for many people who might otherwise consider playing.  Why isn't a basic set the first thing coming out?  Why are we still saddled with the concept of a 3 book core system?  If they really want to make the game more accessible, D&D needs a one book core like the old D&D Cylopedia.  It also needs a good boxed basic set that sells in toys stores.




Or like Arcana Evolved... one book with all of the rules you need to play.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 6, 2007)

You're gonna have to remind me -- did AE have monsters in it?  Did it assume you had access to the SRD or the Monster Manual?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 6, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I hope the standard for when a new edition is due is not "when its needed as much as 3e was needed."  Its like saying that you're not allowed to buy a new car until you're running from the wreck screaming and covered in burning gasoline.




Exactly.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 6, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Why are RPGs so flawed in this manner that they need perpetual revision in a way that other games do not?




No, it isn't a flaw, per se, but it is the nature of the beast.  In a sense, RPGs are less like more traditional games, and more like hobby activities - like building model railroads, and making scrapbooks.  This is due to the complexity and time commitment involved.

The vast majority of what we'd call hobby activities each cater to a small, niche audience that happens to like that particular activity.  What you're seeing are the results of working in that niche market - a market so small that it could, in theory, completely evaporate if you aren't careful.


----------



## megamania (Dec 6, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Not everyone who played 1e played it when it first came out.





I started in 1990 with 2e then went to 1e for several years before going 3e and finally 3.5.


So yes, just because someone has played 1st edition doesn't make them an old person.




....unfortunately however I am....(38+)


----------



## Turjan (Dec 6, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> You're gonna have to remind me -- did AE have monsters in it?  Did it assume you had access to the SRD or the Monster Manual?



It had a few monsters in it, but not many. It assumed access to the SRD and made suggestions on how to use those monsters from there.


----------



## sjmiller (Dec 6, 2007)

OK, I first have to admit that I only read through page 2 of this thread, but felt I should comment on a few things.  Hope I am not retreading too much here.

I am someone who started playing D&D in 1979.  I played a lot of AD&D.  When 2nd Ed came around I bought the PH, DMG, MM, and got most of the Complete ___ Handbooks as gifts.  I stopped playing D&D for a number of years in the late 90s, finally coming back when 3e came around.  I got people who have not played D&D since the 80s to play 3e, and we are still playing today.  We did not get 3.5, mainly because we liked what we had and did not see the need for it.

I've been hearing a lot about 4e, reading the blogs, reading the message boards, and have made the decision that I am not going to buy 4e.  My main reason for not buying it is not because it is different than the version I am playing, or that it different than my favorite version (AD&D 1e), but because I think that a great many changes are being made because "it's cool" or they are changes made just for the sake of change.

Lots of the changes appear to be influenced by things I am not a fan of (video games, wujia [sp], MMORPGs, animation of all sorts, etc.) and add things I don't find particularly fun.  that's one of the big things, actually.  None of the changes I have heard of sound like they make the game more fun than what I am playing now.  Since fun is the reason I play RPGs, that motivates the games I buy.

So yes, I am a grognard, of sorts, but my reasons for not buying 4e are entirely personal, and I am not trying to get others not to buy it.  I am just saying why _*I*_ will not be buying it.


----------



## Wanderer20 (Dec 6, 2007)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> They could release a GHB for 4e, this Gognards Handbook shows how to play 4e with 1e/2e/3e flavourings, depending on your level in the class "Gognard"...




  It is a good idea to release a Grognard Handbook, but at that point they could plainly call it "Dung€on$ & Dragon$: 4€"


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 6, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Are the rules for all versions of D&D just that horrible that people only play until they realize the flaws (such as at high levels)?  Are gamers some breed that get bored with *mechanics* to the point where not even new and cool stories, settings, and adventures can engage them?




Yes; I wouldn't say 'bored' but that I can only take bad mechanics for so long a time befire I have to play something else.

A sufficently good GM can make you ignore or overlook bad mechanics for quite some time, but those GMs are relatively rare. In the hands of an average GM, the system matters a great deal more because it's more obvious. (Also, I've noticed that the really good GMs also ignore or change parts of the system themselves, in a transparent way that you don't always realize is happening unless you're very familiar with the rules yourself). 

For many years, I'll say that I only played D&D because it was everyone's second choice. Everyone, including me, had another game in mind as their first choice of a game system to use but none of us could agree on what that was so we all played D&D as a second or third choice. Campaigns wouldn't last all that long, though, and we'd eventually have to change to some other game when we couldn't take D&D's rules anymore.

The rules were badly dated, and were not getting any better while we had a number of fourth and fifth generation RPGs that were doing well and doing so with very nicely-designed rules systems. They had moved away from being 'alternatives' to D&D to being better than D&D.

Now, 3E solved a lot of those problems. In fact, it solved the majority of them. After 3E came out, our consumption of other RPG systems dropped to virtually nothing. I could, if I needed, play 3E another seven years, easily. There are still a lot of things I'd like to fix, and a lot of things I'd like to change, but I could live with 3E as it is now. I'm excited by 4E, though, because it promises to fix some of those problems (such as high level play). 

There are some things I still won't like, I'm sure. One thing I don't like, and one thing I think hurts D&D more and more as time goes on, are the sheer number of rules. I think we're seeing the end of the 'huge books of rules' era of game design simply because a lot of people just are not going to put up with learning that huge pile of text. My druthers would have been a D&D that took up a single 200-page book, myself. 



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Why are RPGs so flawed in this manner that they need perpetual revision in a way that other games do not?




Because other games have a definate sharp focus, along with a defined beginning, end, and goal. RPGs don't have those things, so they are very open-ended in what you can add. They also have a greater number of rules than any other kind of game. With more rules, you'll eventually come to the realization that there are better ways of doing things, and you implement those things in a new revision.



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> And going forward, 4e and onward... will this always be the business model?  New rulesets, continual tinkering, and so on?  Is it destined to be a game that its players ALWAYS look at and say "It's not good enough yet"?




I would say that it always has been like this; almost all other RPGs are (Call of Cthulhu is the only game that comes to mind that has not had - or needed - a significant revision during it's lifespan) like this. Remember that the first 20 years of D&D's life is an abberation brought about by a company that didn't listen to it's customers. People tried for many, many years to tell TSR 'change this, change that', and they might as well have been blowing in the wind.

It's not a 'business model', per se, it's the normal way of doing things: eventually, you come up with better ways of doing what you were doing before, and implement those changes.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 6, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Why can't you bring in new gamers to old rules, like chess, Trivial Pursuit, or soccer manage to do?




The rules of most games change and evolve a lot more than what most of us think they do.

E.g., the rules of fotball (or soccer, as it's also known) are constantly changing and evolving to fit the changing circumstances and technology that is developed.

Chess has been severely revised during the course of the game's history, although I don't know enough about the game to know if there have been more recent changes.

Trivial Pursuit ... I don't know if the basic rules are revised, but there are no shortages of special editions with various "enhancements", to bring new gamers to the game.

/M


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> The rules of most games change and evolve a lot more than what most of us think they do.




I have a reproduction of the 50's version of Risk, and the rules are different from those I grew up with and play.

IIRC, the biggest difference was that you had only had one army on each of your territories at the beginning of the game.  (For those those know Risk, it should be obvious that that single change would make for a much slower and longer game.)


----------



## Spinachcat (Dec 6, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Can somebody please explain to me why this is?




Sure! 

It's all about selling new core books to the same people.   You can generally only sell one copy of Clue or Monopoly to a family.  Rarely do they buy another copy regardless how many "rules flaws" may exist there.

How do you get someone to buy the nearly-same game twice or three times or four times?  
How do you get the next generation to buy the nearly-same game?  You change the artwork and you do enough tinkering to exclaim "It's Improved!"



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Are gamers some breed that get bored with *mechanics* to the point where not even new and cool stories, settings, and adventures can engage them?




Internet Posters are an itsy, bitsy part of the hobby, but they bitch the loudest.   Most actual gamers just want a good time with cool stories, settings and adventures and in reality could not give a damn what the mechanics may be.   The GM tells them what dice to roll and boom, adventure away!

I say this with 25+ years of convention GM experience meeting thousands of gamers of all kinds for all sorts of games.   Only a tiny fraction really give a damn what version they are playing as long as they are having fun.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 6, 2007)

I brought this up in another thread, but this seems like an appropriate place for it.

I think a lot of what's going on now is a natural result of a new edition. Everyone who plays D&D plays it differently. If you have problems with something in the current rules, you would like to see it fixed. If it's never bothered you, you probably have other things that you want to see fixed more.

However, I think the longer you've been playing, the more likely you are to regard "how you play" as "the way everyone plays" (or possibly "the way everyone ought to play" - more on that later). As a result, when you see WotC changing something about the game that you either don't see as broken or that you like, you're more apt to believe they're ignoring their audience than to consider the possibility that "the way you play" might actually be in the minority.

Technically, it's only grognardism the way most people mean it when that attitude becomes, "well even if I AM in the minority, the majority is WRONG!" I think most people here are operating under the assumption that their playstyle IS the norm. Therefore, when they see WotC changing the game in a way they dislike, they assume that WotC is ignoring their audience.

I assume WotC is changing the game to reflect the tastes of the bulk of their market. It is a truism of change that the changes they are making will not appeal to everyone. If it's sufficiently divergent from the way you want to play the game, you don't have to play it. That doesn't mean the new game "isn't D&D," it's just "not your D&D."

We all need to be aware that the way we play D&D isn't the only way to play. We all like to think our playstyle is superior, but the truth is that different playstyles are just that - different. And WotC has to design the game to appeal to as many different styles of play as they can. But inevitably, someone will be left out. There is no way to write a game with ANY rules or ANY story and avoid that.


----------



## GVDammerung (Dec 6, 2007)

Grognards _ARE_ D&D, which is why a goodly bit of 4e has its head up its rump.  Grognards are a disproportionate part of the audience.  Abuse your 'Nards and see what you get.  Wotc is going to learn this lesson the hard way with 4e.  4e will sell well but not well enough.


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Dec 6, 2007)

*From a D&D Grognard*

Respecfully submitted, I find the question this post posses just as inflexible as the group of people it segregates from the general population.  There are in fact a very wide range of opinions on the topic of D&D and 4E and they are all quite worth while.  I myself would be considered a grognard by the narrow definition here.  I have been playing since the age of thirteen and am apparently really old.  Hahaha!  

But it would appear that applying labels isn't just an old man's game.  Is there, after all, a term for supporters of 4E?  I've not seen one if there is.  I'm not particularly insulted of course, but I do agree that this post is flamebait (as someone eloquently put it) and serves no real purpose.  However, this is the proposition I disagree with most:



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game. Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?




I disagree with the proposition that _anything_ that draws more players to the game or hobby should be added to it.  Where do you draw the line?  Should they add _greys_ to the available list of races?  Why not add _androids_ and _dolphins_?  How about adding a _laser pistoleer_ character class and have magic items that run on rechargable batteries?  Yeah, go real "Barrier Peaks" with the whole game.  It's what the kids today want so we must give it to them for the good of the game?  Really?  I'm mean, as Shrek would say, really, really?

Um, no I think such kids would be happier with a different game and there are many, many games out there.

Also, according to many here the mixture of elements is what has made D&D the so-called mish-mash it allegedly is today.  I have been playing D&D since 1E.  I loved 2E.  I've written Dragon magazine articles, I loved it so much!  It was a better _looking_ game.  This may come as a shock but I was in full support of 3.5.  I was fortunate in that I didn't get burned (economically) by playing 3.0.  I waited until 3.5; the rules are just better but I am still disappointed with the cartoonish, gothic, punkish artwork in most of its pages.  

I've not spent a single word attempting to disuade anyone from purchasing 4E and that even extends to my game group.  They just happen to dislike some of the changes, same as me.  Oh, and my youngest player is thriteen, same age I was when I started, and _he_ doesn't like the changes either.  He can't be a grognard though because he's not old enough.  Hahahah!  

Do I plan to buy 4E?  No, but I do plan to look at the SRD and house rule what I like.  I don't think D&D needs a complete reboot because the grapple rules are a little slow or because a sassy little Frenchman says so.  I happen to think that doing so is motivated by economics.  That's my opinion and I should be welcome to it.


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Dec 6, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Grognards _ARE_ D&D, which is why a goodly bit of 4e has its head up its rump.  Grognards are a disproportionate part of the audience.  Abuse your 'Nards and see what you get.  Wotc is going to learn this lesson the hard way with 4e.  4e will sell well but not well enough.




I agree.  I also believe they no longer want us in their customer base.  We're just bad for business.


----------



## nothing to see here (Dec 7, 2007)

darkseraphim said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out the personal aspect, since a lot of people seem to be glossing it over in favor of tsk-tsking people who won't accept random product shoved down their throats on the basis of a brand name.
> 
> A lot of us grew up with this game.  Before the Internet, community was very much a sense of where you lived and who lived there.  Star Wars was brand spanking new.  A sense of wonder was evoked largely by books, by dreams, by storytelling, by night games (haunted houses, tag, flashlight wars, etc.)  In such a world, the idea of a shared and communal sense of wonder was just coming to the forefront, and it was awesome.  I cannot lie to you, it was one of the most awesome things I've experienced in my life, outside of love, family, travel and learning to read.  It was a revelation.
> 
> ...





That was a beautiful post.  I don't post on these boards all that much, but one thing I do chime in about is how much game-system nostalgia, is actually "memories of game-playing nostalgia".  

No rule system is able to capture the feeling of being 12 and playing the game at your friends house on rainy Saturday afternoon.  The game isystem is not what created the fun, it's what enabled the fun of doing some creative with your friends...and I think, too often, system preference stems from an attempt to recapture those memories.  

Of course no system can recapture what it feels like to be twelve.  Unless, of course, you play Synnibar.


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Dec 7, 2007)

darkseraphim said:
			
		

> In such a world, the idea of a shared and communal sense of wonder was just coming to the forefront, and it was awesome.  I cannot lie to you, it was one of the most awesome things I've experienced in my life, outside of love, family, travel and learning to read.  It was a revelation.




You, sir, are my kind of grognard.  I know _exactly_ what you mean and tip my hat to you.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 7, 2007)

darkseraphim said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out the personal aspect, since a lot of people seem to be glossing it over in favor of tsk-tsking people who won't accept random product shoved down their throats on the basis of a brand name.



By 'shoved down their throats' do you mean 'sold in shops'?


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 7, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Can somebody please explain to me why this is?
> What has D&D done so wrong that it is on perpetual life support?  Why it is always threatened with extinction and needing to adapt or die?  Why is its staying power seen to be so utterly pathetic compared to rule systems for other games?
> Why can't you bring in new gamers to old rules, like chess, Trivial Pursuit, or soccer manage to do?
> Are the rules for all versions of D&D just that horrible that people only play until they realize the flaws (such as at high levels)?  Are gamers some breed that get bored with *mechanics* to the point where not even new and cool stories, settings, and adventures can engage them?
> ...




These are some good questions.

My take on it is that, particularly nowadays, there is a limit to how far they can expand the game.  Frankly, it is a niche hobby.  It is hard to find new players...particularly when they do boneheaded things like remove the player databases they used to have.  At least from my perspective, I found many players that way.  Say what you want about message boards, but they're distributed all over the internet.  The www.wizards.com site is a central location, by the manufacturer of the game, and all the players I know check there first....or used to.  None of them know about EN World.  They've all got their favourite sites they go to look at, but it usually starts with www.wizards.com.  They pulled that database down (or made it atrociously hard to find) several years ago.

There is a lot of competition from online games, regular computer games, and such.  The game itself has taken a pummelling in regular media, and I think that acts as a disincentive against new players.  

I do think that some of the things they're talking about now with the online initiative could be good....the virtual tabletop and similar tools, for instance.  I just don't know if players will pay to play.  I can barely influence my players to buy some of the books they want to use.  Instead, they loan books around, make photocopies of relevant pages, etc.

Personally, I do think a lot of the impetus behind edition change is simply marketing.  They need to sell books to generate profit, pay their staff, etc.  Thus, they have to create books.  In the absence of finding some way to attract new players, I think we're just going to see the same cycle, over and over.  So yeah, you're going to jetison a lot of older players, who are going to get sick of the endless cycle of buying product.  I truly do not believe that every edition change is 100% improvement.  I think a lot of this is perspective.  Perfect rules are somewhat of a holy grail.  Sure, there are improvements....but they also break things when they change rules.  Which in turn necessitate changes and fixes and stuff.

I have a severe distrust of the idea that "grognards" are as harmful and useless as some here would point "us?" to be.  I've spent alot on this hobby, and I'm pretty confident that I spend far more on this hobby than some 18 year old working at McDonalds.  I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

These "grognards" are also the ones who are often passionate about the game, posting on message boards, recruiting and building groups of players, etc.  They're the die hards for whom the game isn't a passing fad, and who are likely to stick with it for 20+ years.

This is not to disparage age.  It is true that, with the current business model, without an influx of new players, eventually you'll end up with a bunch of old folks in retirement homes rolling up elven sorcerors and dwarven monks, playing a game that hasn't been produced in 30 years.

I think part of the problem must be the business model.  I haven't looked too deeply at the mechanics of it, but everything seems to be focused on the players....yet in many groups, from what I understand, it is the GM who makes most of the purchases.  But everything nowadays is produced in hardcover, and high quality paper, colour printing, etc.  I wonder why WotC can't produce old school, staple bound modules anymore.  Maybe with their overhead, they can't get a return on investment?  But how expensive must it be to produce black and white, staple-bound books for things like modules, which GM's aren't likely to use more than once?  I mean, how often does anybody run an adventure more than once?  I'd prefer having more choice in adventures, but have them be cheaper.  I don't need colour and nice paper.  It's an adventure.  I need the content, but that's it.  Sourcebooks?  Yeah, it's nice to have colour printing, nice paper etc. with them.

Which brings us to sourcebooks.  Generally how many times can you write about the same topic?  There's likely a limit to how many topics you can cover in the game, in detailed books.  Consequently, they sold us a Draconomicon at least twice....in 2nd and 3rd edition.  And in 3rd Ed. we even got Races of the Dragon and that other book, Dragon Magic.  That's a good example.  How many books can they write about that in an edition?  But it seems they're so focused on making those sales in the month a book is released, that they always have to be putting out a new book every month, to generate the revenue to keep their staff.  Eventually, you run out of topics, or your players start looking at their shelves and realizing they need to stop buying new books....sales of newer books start to drop, and you end up needing to put out a new edition.

I remember a post on these boards about a year ago....it was a thread talking about the business model behind the game, and whether it was inherently flawed.

Maybe some good, well-developed, subscription based tools would bring in a stream of revenue that would allow them to offset decreased revenue from sourcebook sales.  This would bring in some level of income every month, and wouldn't need to be "re-sold" every time.  One could always dream.

This may be a gradually dying hobby, and nothing that is done will prevent it.  When the game was in its heyday, computer games and such were really just starting out.  But now they're at the point where they are a valid competition to tabletop games in many ways.  There are still some limitations.  I still haven't found any games with very good takes on things like scrying, or shapechanging.  Shapeshifting is limited to doing something like turning into a troll to beat on something.  But something like having your character turn into a swarm of ravens, and fly away, and using that as a method to travel from one location to another?  That's still limited to the imagination.  As is something simple like casting Alter Self to turn into a nondescript peasant, to sneak by NPCs, or even to sneak by characters controlled by other players.  Characters in these online games are usually highlighted on their name, and on mouseover, so you always know you're facing another player.  But because the online games are often not very roleplay oriented, there's no real way to simulate that kind of thing.  And frankly, some of that non-combat related stuff is often more interesting than beating on things.  Again, you can do that in a tabletop game, but not online.  Yet currently, it seems like they're trying to make the tabletop game more video game-like.....and they just can't compete against video games.  I think they should be emphasizing their differences, and building upon those.....because you can do some really cool things in this game.  In many ways the opportunities are limitless, whereas in a computer game, you can only really do what the programmers anticipated ahead of time.

Anyways, those are just some musings.  Take them for what you will.  Not saying I'm correct.....

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 7, 2007)

AWizardInDallas said:
			
		

> I agree.  I also believe they no longer want us in their customer base.  We're just bad for business.




Maybe there's enough of us that some smart company will pick up the ball, and deal with product that appeals to us 

Banshee


----------



## Ifurita'sFan (Dec 7, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Grognards _ARE_ D&D, which is why a goodly bit of 4e has its head up its rump.  Grognards are a disproportionate part of the audience.  Abuse your 'Nards and see what you get.  Wotc is going to learn this lesson the hard way with 4e.  4e will sell well but not well enough.



Quoted for truth. 

They've lost my purchases already, and honestly I do hope the 4e fails miserably. 

Why?

Because I'd rather see Hasbro sell the rights off to someone like Kenzer and co who would do the game justice and bring the game system to a state where both new and old time gamers would be happy.


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Dec 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> By 'shoved down their throats' do you mean 'sold in shops'?




No, more like we're 'desupporting' you and your silly preferences.  No more material for you either.  You will have to either write it yourself or find a third party publisher we're also not going to support.  Pardon us while we reboot.  We suggest that you end all of your current un-convertable campaigns in line with our release schedule and set aside large sums of cash for the 8-10 years worth of supplements.  Thaaaaaanks.


----------



## Erik Mona (Dec 7, 2007)

Well, they've kept it alive for 33 years so far, so we'll see how well the game can do without them. In a sense, maybe they _will_ kill it.

That's assuming they don't convert anyway, which is an assumption I do not currently make, btw.


----------



## mhensley (Dec 7, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Well, they've kept it alive for 33 years so far, so we'll see how well the game can do without them. In a sense, maybe they _will_ kill it.
> 
> That's assuming they don't convert anyway, which is an assumption I do not currently make, btw.




It will probably fare the same as when so many grognards didn't come along for 3rd edition or later left it to go to HackMaster or C&C.


----------



## Cbas_10 (Dec 7, 2007)

*Please define what a grognard is.......*

I see this word a lot; it seems like there is mostly a negative connotation to it....but other times it appears benign.  

Here's what I am: I started playing D&D when I was a kid.  We had those color-coded boxed sets: the red Basic rules, the blue Expert rules, and so on.  Whatever label has been posthumously tagged to those rules, I have no idea.  Then, at some point, I realized that other books were being made: Advanced D&D.  By the time I realized this aspect of the game existed, they were using the second versions of the cover artwork.  During these years of D&D, I was just a kid; I can tell you for a fact that I had no idea what the rules really were...nor did I care.  High School came along, as did Second Edition.  Nothing was really noteworthy about the game; I remember having a million questions about things that I thought were pointless or asinine (such as level limits, confusing and senseless multi/dual classing, and front-loaded powerful Kits).  But it was D&D....and the genre sold itself to me.  There may have been other fantasy games around at the time, but none had the name to attract me or had the coverage to make it to my FLGS.

Then 3E came along.  Revolutionized the game for me, my group, and many of my other friends that were barely into gaming.  I could list the reasons, but this post is not a 3E campaigning post.  The short of it is: 3E was easily customizable, it was a basic framework, was able to be played with as little or as many rules as a group wanted.  It was not realistic, but....*breaking news:* physics and reality cannot be totally emulated by rolling a d20 and adding or subtracting a few digits.  With a few suppliments over the years and a refinement in the form of 3.5, my group and I had the perfect game.  It was intuitive and a system that was easy for us to explain to new players.  Maybe we were fortunate to have all of the geniuses in gaming...not sure.  Allocating 12 points of skills or perusing all two pages of grappling rules never stumpted us.  We'd never heard of the "christmas tree effect," nor had we ever had any problem with gaming in even epic levels (dammit...if the DM didn't get a promotion in Orlando, my 27th level archmage might be 35th by now...).

I realize that others had problems that we found to be trivial paragraphs, and I realize that there might be enough of these people out there to warrant a new edition.  But I'm not planning on changing to exclusively playing 4e.  Not because I'm some hold-back or stubborn and reminiscent ancient gamer that hates anything new....

I simply have a LOT of fun with 3.5...I'm quite content with the fact that there will no longer be support.  Until the Rules Compendium, Spell Compendium, and Magic Item Compendium came out, my gaming books included the 3 core books, the Epic book, Stronghold Builder's Guide, and various Greyhawk books from across the game editions.  Nobody will force me to throw away the books, so after 4e comes out....my game will still be the same fun as I've been having for the last almost-decade or so.

Why am I on these forums?.....Well, because 4e is still D&D.  Whatever I may think about various aspects....we have not seen the entire package, and I may end up liking the final result.  Until then, this is a _forum_.  I'll wow at what I like and let it be known in the appropriate topic when I see something I don't like.  I know 4e is not 3e, and I don't expect it to be.  I know that the best way to evaluate 4e is to look at it on its own.  When I say that I don't like the idea of characters having crazy self-healing-because-they-hit-really-hard powers....it has nothing to do with who or what heals in 3e; it is purely because I think (until I see the final 4e product) it is a silly idea.

Am I a grognard?  If so, am I killing D&D?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 7, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Grognards _ARE_ D&D, which is why a goodly bit of 4e has its head up its rump.  Grognards are a disproportionate part of the audience.  Abuse your 'Nards and see what you get.  Wotc is going to learn this lesson the hard way with 4e.  4e will sell well but not well enough.



I wish the mods would let me put money on these kinds of statements.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I wish the mods would let me put money on these kinds of statements.



And if I could put money on the various predictions that "*Everybody* is going to 4E no matter what they say on the boards," I would.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 7, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> And if I could put money on the various predictions that "*Everybody* is going to 4E no matter what they say on the boards," I would.




Now, I wouldn't say that. I believe many people who currently are saying they won't go to 4e probably will end up switching, and most of those who don't switch (and did switch to 3.5) are more likely to stop playing regularly at all than to keep playing an older edition of D&D. But that's not to say that there won't be 3.x holdouts. Heck, we've got dialgo around and he's an OD&D(1974) holdout.


----------



## BlackMoria (Dec 7, 2007)

The only thing that will kill D&D is WOTC.  

Every edition of the game has had its devotees and those people are still playing the edition they prefer.  Each move to a new edition WILL leave people behind.  It is the stark reality of a game which defies being pigeonholed.  Look at threads about what is the spirit or essence of D&D and you will find that it is different for every person.

A number of people feel that 4E may be drawing a line in the sand that they can't cross.  That doesn't make them disgruntled grognards holding back or threating the future of the game.  It just means they are staying with a version of the game which defines D&D for them.


----------



## tenkar (Dec 7, 2007)

AWizardInDallas said:
			
		

> No, more like we're 'desupporting' you and your silly preferences.  No more material for you either.  You will have to either write it yourself or find a third party publisher we're also not going to support.  Pardon us while we reboot.  We suggest that you end all of your current un-convertable campaigns in line with our release schedule and set aside large sums of cash for the 8-10 years worth of supplements.  Thaaaaaanks.




Kinda like Microsoft ending support for Win 98 and in short time XP as it has moved on to Vista?

Our "Hobby" is a "Business" and if it isnt a viable one it will wither (tho' it might not die thanks to the OGL).

No one is forcing anyone to move on to 4e... but Wizards is moving on to 4e and it will be what they are supporting.  To try and support 3.5e and 4e at the same time would be commercial suicide for them.  Since core books are the bread and butter of Wizards, and since the hobby we all enjoy is apparently not expanding, the most successful way to sell more core books is to "reboot" and put out a new edition.  It is the way to keep the bean counters at Hasbro at bay, and it might put a better system in our hands... or it might not.

Just like I am in no rush to upgrade to Vista when XP is working just fine for me, I have no driving need to rush out and buy 4e when it is released.  No need, but I have the curiosity of a gamer, so there is a good chance I'll get the core books when they are released. 

Maybe it is a good business decision for Wizards... but those core books better be heads and shoulders over my 3.5 core books, or else my curiosity will be sated, and the rest of the line will not see any more of my money.  I have a 3.0/3.5 library to last me several lifetimes.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 7, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Now, I wouldn't say that. I believe many people who currently are saying they won't go to 4e probably will end up switching, and most of those who don't switch (and did switch to 3.5) are more likely to stop playing regularly at all than to keep playing an older edition of D&D. But that's not to say that there won't be 3.x holdouts. Heck, we've got dialgo around and he's an OD&D(1974) holdout.



You know, I loved 3.5, but I don't think I'll be sticking with it.  I'll either quit gaming or revert to BECM.  While I loved 3.5's flexibility and elegant d20 resolution mechanic, I eventually got sick of the character build optimization, players looking forward more to what abilities they would get over the next few sessions than what their characters would accomplish in the storyline, numerous stacking modifiers to keep track of, splatbooks increasing power, an increasing design aversion to PC death, etc.

BECM didn't have any real options for plotting character development (aside from weapon mastery, which I think I'd rather do without).  That's a benefit in my view right now.
BECM didn't have splatbooks increasing power -- it just had Gazetteers and modules.
BECM had "dead levels" as the norm, so there seemed to be more focus on accomplishments and actions than on abilities.  The players looked forward to buying a ship and exploring, not to getting Feat X or Special Ability Y.
BECM didn't have many stacking modifiers or buffing spells.  The fighter's damage was almost always 1d8+3 (+2 Str, +1 magic), not something to be recalculated every round as his Power Attack changed or as the bard song expired.

I switched because my best friend wanted to play the brand new shiny 2E.  But BECM is still a great system.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 7, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Grognards aren't killing D+D.  They're trying to keep it alive.




You made some pretty good points in your post. The only critique I would make, and this is really just my own personal opinion, is that the thing that "grognards" tend to do that makes them such whipping boys is treating anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint like they're inbred, slack-jawed hillbilly hicks with an IQ of 52.

But now, with 4E, it's pretty clear that even people who wouldn't traditionally be considered "grognards" do that. I suppose the definition of the term needs to be widened a bit.


----------



## mhensley (Dec 7, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Grognards are a disproportionate part of message boards.




Fixed that for you.


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Dec 7, 2007)

tenkar said:
			
		

> Kinda like Microsoft ending support for Win 98 and in short time XP as it has moved on to Vista?




I've heard this comparison before and it's not all that valid.  Operating systems are a form of technology and technology advances through a process of gradual refinement. Microsoft is  not asking me to dump all my files and start over is it?  

D&D, by contrast, is not a form of technology and is not being revised or refined.  It's being redone, though to what degree remains to be seen.  However, it has been made clear that your current characters and campaigns will not be continuable with the new game system.  That's a pretty serious level of change.  Microsoft also offers an upgrade discount.  Surely, you're not suggesting...um, no I didn't think so...


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 7, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> And if I could put money on the various predictions that "*Everybody* is going to 4E no matter what they say on the boards," I would.




I wouldn't quite go that far, but I would say that it seems very likely that there will be a very large discrepancy between what people say and what they will do.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 7, 2007)

AWizardInDallas said:
			
		

> I've heard this comparison before and it's not all that valid.  Operating systems are a form of technology and technology advances through a process of gradual refinement. Microsoft is  not asking me to dump all my files and start over is it?
> 
> D&D, by contrast, is not a form of technology and is not being revised or refined.  It's being redone, though to what degree remain to be seen.  However, it has been made clear that your current characters and campaigns will not be continuable with the new game system.  That's a pretty serious level of change.  Microsoft also offers an upgrade discount.  Surely, you're not suggesting...um, no I didn't think so...




Whenever Microsoft launches a major upgrade for its OS, you have to buy all your programs over again. That's pretty similar.

Microsoft also charges $400 for a new OS. Surely you aren't suggesting...


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Dec 7, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Whenever Microsoft launches a major upgrade for its OS, you have to buy all your programs over again. That's pretty similar.
> 
> Microsoft also charges $400 for a new OS. Surely you aren't suggesting...




Probably a topic for a technology forum at this point...


----------



## SteveC (Dec 7, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> And if I could put money on the various predictions that "*Everybody* is going to 4E no matter what they say on the boards," I would.



Well I would be happy to put a gentleman's bet together. I'd wager that at least 75% of the posters in the thread saying that they won't go to 4E, and weren't created in the last three months, (i.e., are posters with some standing on the board) will be posting about buying ot playing 4E within a month of launch, if not both.

There are some sock puppet accounts and people who aren't really ENWorlders, just people from other sites who are angry that are posting, but I'd say of actual ENWorld accounts 75% is a good number...heck it's probably too low.

I'm not trying to denigrate any of the folks who say "no way!" at this moment, by the way, I'm just that confident that 4E will be something good.

--Steve


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 7, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Well I would be happy to put a gentleman's bet together. I'd wager that at least 75% of the posters in the thread saying that they won't go to 4E, and weren't created in the last three months, (i.e., are posters with some standing on the board) will be posting about buying ot playing 4E within a month of launch, if not both.



I'm not interested.  I'm specifically referring to the posters who claim that "everyone" will be playing 4E.
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I do feel that I have significant disagreements with the fundamental game design principles behind 4E, at least as far as the designers have communicated them. 
For example, "No more dead levels" is EXACTLY OPPOSITE to what I want.  "Your wizard should never have to fall back on a crossbow" is also antithetical to what I'd want in playing a wizard.
I have thought a lot about what I want in a gaming system, and my opposition is not some reflexive dislike of something new.


----------



## GVDammerung (Dec 7, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.




Thank you but such was wholly unnecssary.  

You are positing that Grognards dominate the message boards but not actual sales, personally or via their groups.  This supposes that newer, shall we say younger, gamers, who grew up with these "computers" more intimately than any 'Nard, are somehow not represented on the dominate medium (the internet) of their generation as it concerns the sales of the game you would have them dominate.  A Nixonian "silent majority" of young computer savy gamers that don't frequent message boards but dominate actual sales of D&D?  And these are the same computer message board avoiders that Gleemax and DDI are intended to reach?  How's that going to work? It doesn's add up.  

Your hardcore are your Grognards; its how they got to be Grognards after all.  Sure, a good game can grab some initial number of new players that outnumber the 'Nards but when the novelty wears off or the new hotness lures the newbies away, it is the Gorgnards who pay Wotc's bills, the Grognards who have the steady groups running for years.  Grognards are the rock upon which D&D rests and the rock upon which 4e will, by one degree or another, flounder or succeed.  

Wotc is going to put your "silent majority" theory to the test the more 4e kicks the Grognards to the curb.  All prior editions have added to the number of Grognards, per force.  4e - the new edition - can either play to these dedicated, established players or go looking for newer ones in greater numbers.  Nice idea but risky that last.  4e could try to split the difference but has chosen to go all in with the non-backwards compatible changes.  The jury is out and won't be in until likely 18 months after 4e's release but if we see 5e in short order it will be the Grognards you will hear laughing.  It will be Wotc who got kicked in the, well, their nards.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 7, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> it is the Gorgnards who pay Wotc's bills



Like the guy in this thread who said he hadn't bought a WotC product since 1998? Or the 1e boosters on ENWorld with usernames like 'GBarrelhouse' or 'TrampierFan99'? They don't make money for WotC. They never have. The only grognards that do are the 3e grognards. And despite the gnashing of teeth they are most likely to take the 4e plunge.

The GBarrelhouses are unsalvageable. They're too old, too set in their ways, for the most part. 3e grognards are more prepared to make a change, they may even have switched up with every previous edition from 1-3, as I did, which is strong evidence they'll do the same again.



> 4e - the new edition - can either play to these dedicated, established players or go looking for newer ones in greater numbers.



4e is playing to grognards - 3e grognards. After all 4e with its at will spells, per encounter powers, fighters that don't suck and video game monsters is a small step mechanically from late period 3e products which have all these things too.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 7, 2007)

Salt and pepper beard here.

The thing to keep in mind is that the designers of the game are almost always on average older than there player base.  Those designers have one of two choices.  Either they can design a game which appeals to themselves as older players, or else they can design a game which appeals to people younger than themselves.  

The latter seems like the best option, but its not.  The best option is to make a game as mature and sophisticated as you can tolerate.  That way your player base never out grows the game.

Games which are written down to the percieved maturity level of the fan base always fail in the long run.  'Junior' versions of anything are never as enduring.  Lasting children's literature always works at multiple levels, else very quickly the reader reaches a point that they are embarassed by thier former tastes and abandon them.  Hense, the problem with music pitched to junior high kids.  It's good for a quick sale, but its not a lasting phenomenom unless it grows up in a hurry.  Even Harry Potter achieves its success by not only working on several maturity levels, but by growing up with its primary fan base.

I think there would be a temptation to write down to whatever is popular amongst 12 year olds currently.  This is a temptation to be avoided IMO.  Instead, ideas should be gathered I think from whatever is currently above the 12 year olds heads.  RPG's always work on the level of 'killing and taking thier stuff'.  That's a universal thrill.  But you need more than that to endure.

D&D has been successful because it was an adult game written by adults for adults.  Read the 1st edition DMG and you see not just a 30+ year old writer, but a 30+ year old writer whose fondness for military, mythological, and historical esoteria makes him seem even older than that.  EGG was a grognard in both the old and new senses of the term write from the time he published the game.  You don't out grow military, mythological, and historical esoteria easily.  You grow into it and with it.  Getting the kids on board is the easy part.  Keeping them more than a few years or a few sessions is the hard part.  I love the look of anime.  But I find I have a hard time retaining my enthusiasm as a I age.  So it is with the style of gaming 4e seems to promote.

Naruta?  I suspect you out grow that as painfully and easily (and all the more painfully because it is easy) as you outgrow 'Gatchaman', GI Joe, 'Land of the Lost' and all the rest of the stuff I thought was cool as a kid.   It might not seem like it at 20 or even 25, but come back and talk when you are 30.

It remains to be seen if the next incarnation of 4e will age as well as The Beatles or Bon Jovi or if it is New Kids on the Block or even New Coke.  Anything is possible.  Most likely the answer is somewhere in the middle.  That's were I'd bet.  My objections have never been that it is new.   My objections remain the same:

1) I don't appear to be in the target audience.
2) The game doesn't appear to actually solve any of the problems I have.
3) The game doesn't go in the direction I find desirable.
4) It appears as if I'm being forced to buy into someone's homebrew setting.   There is nothing wrong with homebrew settings - many are better than some officially supported settings that won't be named and this seems like a good one - but I don't like being forced to by offbeat setting material as part of the core rules.

Those are personal objections.  They apply to me.  They might not apply to you.  If so, have fun.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 7, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. Why is this bad? Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old.



So being in your forites is bad because that seems really old to people who are 22.

It's "gRognards," by the way.  With two "R"s.



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.



Very true.



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> There has been a lot of hate concerning 4E. I would say that the sides stand at about 50/50. Why has this divided our community? Because WOC is changing things to appeal to new gamers? Guess what? If you want there to be a game in 20 years, then they have to attract new gamers.



WotC is changing things, yes.  It's a bit of a leap on your part to say that they are changing it to appeal to new players, or that the changes _will_ appeal to new players.

It has divided the community because WotC is changing the flavor of the game wholesale.  Looking back on 3E, it changed the mechanics in a big way but left pretty much all the D&D flavor intact (aside from halflings).  A 3E wizard isn't really that different from a 1E magic-user, for example.  From everything we've seen, a wizard in 4e will be a radical departure from what has come before... really, it seems that a 4e anything will be completely unlike what has existed in any previous version of the game.



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"?



If it was so easy to know what attracted new gamers... RPGs would be a lot more popular than they currently are.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 7, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> You seem to have missed out the long term plan of us grognards - we have been breeding and raising our own new generation of young RPG players!



QFT. In fact, I'm a second generation gamer, myself.

So before anyone out there writes off grognards as irrelevant, consider this: those grognards might not be buying any new D&D products for themselves, but what are they buying for their children? And what will their children be buying over the next few decades?


----------



## Spinachcat (Dec 7, 2007)

A) Playing RPGs is a hobby.  

B) Selling RPGs is a business.  

A does not equal B

A can exist without B (especially with the internet)

A can not grow substantially without B

A depends on grognards (all hobbies exist because of the hardcore)

B does not depend on grognards


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Dec 7, 2007)

Drammattex said:
			
		

> Yes, but we're getting XP for it.




You win!


----------



## SteveC (Dec 7, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I'm not interested.  I'm specifically referring to the posters who claim that "everyone" will be playing 4E.
> I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I do feel that I have significant disagreements with the fundamental game design principles behind 4E, at least as far as the designers have communicated them.
> For example, "No more dead levels" is EXACTLY OPPOSITE to what I want.  "Your wizard should never have to fall back on a crossbow" is also antithetical to what I'd want in playing a wizard.
> I have thought a lot about what I want in a gaming system, and my opposition is not some reflexive dislike of something new.



No problem. Anyone who says that everyone will be doing anything six months from now is speaking with a fair bit of hyperbole. I certainly wasn't saying that people don't have deep profound dislikes for what they've heard about 4E (which, quite honestly, isn't much yet). I'm simply saying, as I've said many times before, that most of them will be overcome by the *shiny *of the game and pick it up. I also trust the designers (especially Mike Mearls) to make a quality product. Will you do that? Well, I'll take you at your word and say, "no."

Frankly, if the complaints you list above (no dead levels and wizards always being able to do some magic) are at the core to what you want in D&D, I hope the designers do disappoint you, since I'm looking for a very different game than you are. I hope that both of us get what we want.

--Steve


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 7, 2007)

Something that's occurred to me while catching up on the stupendous amount of reading this thread has generated since yesterday:

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if WotC decided to release 4e this year, 5e next year, and 6e the year after *IF* they would provide official support* to *all* the various editions, past and present, side by side.  That way everyone gets something approximating the game they want; it's all still D+D, and WotC sells more material overall.

* - this could include sanctioning the RPGA to run any published edition, offering Sage Advice support for any edition, publishing modules/expansions/settings for all the various editions, etc.

Where they lose my vote is in the hard change...one month they only support 3e, the next month 3e is kicked to the curb and they only support 4e.  Why not support both?

Oh, and for clarity: I represent most if not all of the quasi-established definition of a grognard - mid-40's, still play 1e (and 3e), dont like change unless it makes sense to me.  I'll probably pick up the 4e PH and DMG not long after release, just to see what's there, but at this point I rather doubt I'll be playing or running it. (though it *could* still blow my socks off to the point where I convert on the spot...)

Lanefan


----------



## EvilPheemy (Dec 7, 2007)

> Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old.




GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
(shakes fist menacingly).
Lousy kids... gots no respec'.  No respec' at all...


----------



## Maggan (Dec 7, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> QFT. In fact, I'm a second generation gamer, myself.
> 
> So before anyone out there writes off grognards as irrelevant, consider this: those grognards might not be buying any new D&D products for themselves, but what are they buying for their children? And what will their children be buying over the next few decades?




Well, my bet would be that the children will buy the most recent version. I have a hard time seeing any kind of snowball effect where the new gamers hunt down old copies of AD&D or pdf versions of the game, when they have a new and shiny version on the shelves.


Sure, some will hand down the old AD&D books, and the kids will love them, but I think the majority will go with the latest edition. Whichever that is.

/M


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 7, 2007)

Ifurita'sFan said:
			
		

> Quoted for truth.
> 
> They've lost my purchases already, and honestly I do hope the 4e fails miserably.
> 
> ...



Never happen; Hasbro has a long-standing history of clutching their IP, even those they're not currently marketing, like grim death. You're saying "I want D&D to be locked away in a filing cabinet until it dies completely".

Have fun with WoW!







			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> D&D has been successful because it was an adult game written by adults for adults. Read the 1st edition DMG and you see not just a 30+ year old writer, but a 30+ year old writer whose fondness for military, mythological, and historical esoteria makes him seem even older than that. EGG was a grognard in both the old and new senses of the term write from the time he published the game. You don't out grow military, mythological, and historical esoteria easily. You grow into it and with it. Getting the kids on board is the easy part. Keeping them more than a few years or a few sessions is the hard part. I love the look of anime. But I find I have a hard time retaining my enthusiasm as a I age. So it is with the style of gaming 4e seems to promote.
> 
> Naruta? I suspect you out grow that as painfully and easily (and all the more painfully because it is easy) as you outgrow 'Gatchaman', GI Joe, 'Land of the Lost' and all the rest of the stuff I thought was cool as a kid. It might not seem like it at 20 or even 25, but come back and talk when you are 30.



I'm sorry, is there some way this *doesn't* say "My tastes, honed on 1e, are enduring. Your tastes, should 4e appeal to you, are juvenile and you just need some more time to realize that"?


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 7, 2007)

Nah. 

There are some long-time players that are misliking the proposed changes, but age isn't much of a factor here... considered opinions are.

I started with BD&D in '79, skipped 2E, and came back for 3E. I am cautiously optimistic about 4E.

I have some grognardy opinons about what classes and races should be included in the PHB and am a bit hesitant about the power-creep that seems to be invading the rules, but these aren't cranky-old-man cliché rants. I have genuine concerns that the new rules must allow me to continue my play-style preference and preserve my campaign without massive retcons. 

Even teens, new to 3E, are angered they won't be able to play their gnome druid right out of the gate, and think tiefling warlocks are too emo. 

And no matter what your age... anyone can despise Golden Wyvern Adept as a feat name.

It doesn't take a Grognard to have a conservative opinon regarding how extravagant changes "should" happen in the next ruleset, it just takes someone to like the "way" they are playing right now. But no matter how slow or fast the game changes over time whether for good or ill... change _is_ inevitable.

Since, RPGs are primarily a hobby of comraderie and creativity, whether the game sticks close to its roots or becomes a WoD&D wuxia mutant... grognards are not killing D&D... it simply will not die.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 7, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Have fun with WoW!I'm sorry, is there some way this *doesn't* say "My tastes, honed on 1e, are enduring. Your tastes, should 4e appeal to you, are juvenile and you just need some more time to realize that"?




Looking for a way to read this in a better light? Want some help?  Try reading it like this...
"From my point of view, the way 4E is promoted serves to easily bring kids on board as new gamers, but doesn't look like it is made with keeping them in the game for the next 20+ years as well."

Which, considering there will most likely be a 5th edition in under 10 years, is maybe not TOO far from the truth either if you think about it. Gary Gygax probably didn't think there would be a need for a 2nd Edition of AD&D when he put together AD&D 1E, after all...it was the first BIG RPG project in the world of tabletop games, and there wasn't quite as much experience on how the market works as there is today.

See, it's not that hard to NOT read personal insults into the posts of others.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> They don't make money for WotC. They never have.



the thousands of dollars i spent per year consistantly on products beg to differ with you.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 7, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Looking for a way to read this in a better light? Want some help?  Try reading it like this...
> "From my point of view, the way 4E is promoted serves to easily bring kids on board as new gamers, but doesn't look like it is made with keeping them in the game for the next 20+ years as well."



...and why is it presumed that it won't keep them?

Because of the assumption that given time they'll "grow out of" the tastes that drew them to 4e, while previous editions feed tastes that are appropriate for "mature" gamers.

Context, and the poster in question, are important.


To which I say bollocks, let me hit something with a mountain already.


----------



## National Acrobat (Dec 7, 2007)

tenkar said:
			
		

> Kinda like Microsoft ending support for Win 98 and in short time XP as it has moved on to Vista?




The Windows OS analogy isn't a good one at this time, as Microsoft keeps pushing back the date to stop supporting XP because businesses are not buying Vista, mine included. The latest survey placed on 13% of US Businesses as having adopted Vista. XP still remains very popular with purchasers of computers, and Microsoft has acknowledged that they misjudged the reaction of the consumer to Vista.

Now, back to topic. I don't think dislike of a certain edition has anything to do with age. I've been playing dnd since the mid 70's, and I play 3.5. I think it has to do with comfort level, expectations and simply whether or not something appeals to you.

I like 1e and 3.5, and I have materials for both, but since I don't get to play regularly anymore due to time constraints, there isn't any incentive for my group to purchase all new rules and books when we can only get together once every 2 months to role play. Plus, we don't want to have to totally change our characters, which I have been told, won't convert, since we are in a 17th level game that has lasted for a long time.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 7, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> ...and why is it presumed that it won't keep them?
> 
> Because of the assumption that given time they'll "grow out of" the tastes that drew them to 4e, while previous editions feed tastes that are appropriate for "mature" gamers.
> 
> ...




Not before you finished your gamma-ray treatment, grow to 3 meters, green skin, and wear ripped purple shorts.  

Nah, seriously..I guess there's some generalization going on in that post, going from



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I love the look of anime. But I find I have a hard time retaining my enthusiasm as a I age. So it is with the style of gaming 4e seems to promote.




It sounds to me like he's saying that he doesn't believe the motifs they use for 4E will be usable to keep the "kids" for the 20+ years after they were drawn in because they are, in his opinion, not enduring enough for somebody over the decades, while the underlying motifs for older editions came from a hobby that already demanded a high investment of time and money to actually get into (tabletop wargaming), and hence had a much higher percentage of hobbyists that would stay in the hobby.

Personally, I don't quite agree, seeing as I'm still watching anime after 17 years, and still enjoy most flavours of it, but I wouldn't want to accuse Celebrim of calling people who will enjoy 4E "juvenile" or "underdeveloped"...I think he's making a judgement call based on personal opinion on the style of 4E design rather than its players, saying that it looks to him like it is being designed to draw in the "kids who want to be cool", but not to keep them for the long run. On the other hand, he ISN'T saying that you cannot choose to like 4E without being exactly that kind of player. And we all know that perfectly rational and refined adults can be deeply into the most silly and seemingly juvenile hobbies...like pretending to be elves, dragon-men or wizards.  And I predict that many of those who WILL be drawn in by 4E are NOT the "kids who want to be cool"..at least not anymore for the last 15-20 years or so.  They simply will be those players who are in it for the long run already, and just check out the new incarnation, to see if it's a good game or not. Most of us can make that decision despite all the emotionally heated debates here.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Like the guy in this thread who said he hadn't bought a WotC product since 1998? Or the 1e boosters on ENWorld with usernames like 'GBarrelhouse' or 'TrampierFan99'? They don't make money for WotC. They never have. The only grognards that do are the 3e grognards. And despite the gnashing of teeth they are most likely to take the 4e plunge.
> 
> The GBarrelhouses are unsalvageable. They're too old, too set in their ways, for the most part. 3e grognards are more prepared to make a change, they may even have switched up with every previous edition from 1-3, as I did, which is strong evidence they'll do the same again.




I understand that Diaglo, for one, has an impressive collection of WotC books.  And his "Only True Game" predates 1e.

RC


----------



## Mallus (Dec 7, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> D&D has been successful because it was an adult game written by adults for adults...



...that allows adults to participate in a version of the childhood game "let's pretend". Albeit, one with more dice and charts.



> Read the 1st edition DMG and you see not just a 30+ year old writer, but a 30+ year old writer whose fondness for military, mythological, and historical esoteria makes him seem even older than that.



There is a kind of crazy brilliance evident in the 1st edition DMG. Then again, the same can be said of William S. Burroughs' Naked Lunch. Come to think of it, there's a certain similarity in the way both books are structured.



> You don't out grow military, mythological, and historical esoteria easily.



If you want to get invited to parties you do.



> Naruto?  I suspect you out grow that as painfully and easily (and all the more painfully because it is easy) as you outgrow 'Gatchaman', GI Joe, 'Land of the Lost' and all the rest of the stuff I thought was cool as a kid.



I know of lot anime fans who are pushing or exceeding 40. The appreciate the character development and plotting (usually). A surprising amount of anime gets the storytelling fundamentals right, if you can overlook the spiky hair and shouting-out of move names... 



> It remains to be seen if the next incarnation of 4e will age as well as The Beatles or Bon Jovi Bruce Springsteen...



As a proud son of New Jersey, I couldn't let that slide. 



> It appears as if I'm being forced to buy into someone's homebrew setting.   There is nothing wrong with homebrew settings - many are better than some officially supported settings that won't be named and this seems like a good one - but I don't like being forced to by offbeat setting material as part of the core rules.



So there Tenser, how is this different from 1st ed?


----------



## sjmiller (Dec 7, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Well I would be happy to put a gentleman's bet together. I'd wager that at least 75% of the posters in the thread saying that they won't go to 4E, and weren't created in the last three months, (i.e., are posters with some standing on the board) will be posting about buying ot playing 4E within a month of launch, if not both.



Wow, if you were betting on me and my gaming group, of which I am the only one who posts here, you would be losing that bet.  Out of the 8 players and the DM (that's me) not a single one has any desire to switch, and 5 of them specifically said they don't want to even think about switching game systems until the current campaign is done (sometime in 2009 or 2010, if the gaming schedule works as it has).  Heck, I still have the whole Pathfinder Rise of the Runelords campaign to run!  Of the three other gaming groups I associate with, one just switched to 3.5 from 3.0 this year, one is switching to 3.0 from 2e after the new year, and one is still playing OD&D and has no plans to switch to anything.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.




I am going to ask folks to stop using that "FIFY" stuff in this thread.  If you have something to say, you can say it yourself in clear language, rather than trying to proxy it.  The minor humor value is far outweighed by the confusion and annoyance generated.  Thank you.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Dec 7, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. Why is this bad? Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old. There is a generational gap (or two) between the majority of players and people who are just now playing the game for the first time. Since it seems that have the greatest numbers, and greatest disposable income to spend on the game, they have the most say within the gaming community on how the game advances (or doesn’t).  If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.
> 
> There has been a lot of hate concerning 4E. I would say that the sides stand at about 50/50. Why has this divided our community? Because WOC is changing things to appeal to new gamers? Guess what? If you want there to be a game in 20 years, then they have to attract new gamers.
> 
> So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game. Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?




Yup, you're absolutely correct. I'm killing it, single handedly, a slow debilitating demise. That's why two editions have managed to come out that I don't want to play. I also imagine there'll be many more come out that I don't want to play. So give yourself a cigar.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Celebrim
> D&D has been successful because it was an adult game written by adults for adults...




How does that jive with the immense popularity of Basic/Expert D&D?  IIRC, it said for 12 years old on up on the box.

Or, how does that jive with the fact that other than a couple of fad years, 3e has at least as many players as 1e did?

If obscure, wordy writing made for good games, why did it take clear and consise writing to rescue the game from the extinction it was headed toward?  Why do no other RPG's emulate obscure writing?  What benefit is there to using unclear writing in a rulebook?


----------



## Delta (Dec 7, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Are Gognards killing D&D?




Look, Grognards are what made D&D a running business. To my understanding, there was a whole order of magnitude more people playing D&D during 1E than any version since. It sounds like you're irritated that D&D publishers may have to keep their customers happy to maintain their business. It's an odd perspective from where I sit.

From a business perspective, I don't believe that new versions of D&D really help draw new players. Every iteration gets more complicated, which (when I've tried to introdce new people) has turned new players off faster and faster. There's a smaller and smaller hard-core fanbase of D&D'ers who are up for the enormous complexity and collectible-like aspects to the game in the WOTC era, and I think that's who the new editions are really selling to. I think that this is going to kill off D&D as an RPG faster than a sustainable, alternative business plan.

There are plenty of "new" versions of products that have wound up hurting a business instead of helping it. My amateur analysis is that 4E D&D is more like those business products than ones that really grow a customer base.


----------



## Drammattex (Dec 7, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How does that jive with the immense popularity of Basic/Expert D&D?  IIRC, it said for 12 years old on up on the box.




Red box with Elmore art was 10 and up. 
I know because it was the first one I was actually allowed to OWN, even though I'd been playing it clandestine with my cousin for a couple years before that (the white/blue box first, and then the one with the viking dude & sexy sorceress in the water... the one with my beloved Morgan Ironwolf inside!).


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2007)

How are you defining grognard?

I started playing D&D w/ 1st Edition back in 1980.  Since that time I've played once a week or every couple weeks with only limited periods of interruption.

I also happen to be 31 years old.  My dad got me started on D&D at the age of 4.

So, am I a grognard, or not?  I certainly have been playing long enough. . . but I'm not even close to my 40s.

Personally, I'm looking forward to 4E.  I have hopes that it will reduce or eliminate my D&D fatigue that has afflicted me of late.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 7, 2007)

HP Dreadnought said:
			
		

> So, am I a grognard, or not?



no. grognards like me were wargamers first.
still are.
i am a wargamer first.


----------



## darkseraphim (Dec 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Like the guy in this thread who said he hadn't bought a WotC product since 1998? Or the 1e boosters on ENWorld with usernames like 'GBarrelhouse' or 'TrampierFan99'? They don't make money for WotC. They never have.




I found this rather amusing, considering I spent over $20,000 on Magic:  The Gathering cards from 1993-1997.

Concerning the word never - I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Dec 7, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> no. grognards like me were wargamers first.
> still are.
> i am a wargamer first.





Dear me....am i a Grognard?  Helping my older buds get the shade of mud right on their napoleonics, owing a heck of lot miniatures that look liek midgets compared to new miniatures, pushing stacks of card board counters around the room and discovering the shades on those counters that made army A look distinctly different from army B at 3PM tend to really blur together at 2AM,   knowing "that guy" who had a game setup in a side room that was played just once or twice a month for 2 years and everyone probably got 10 or 11 turns in total, beign able to see nothing new in the sum of the parts for 3e (it is D&D, meets GRUPS and EARTHDAWN folks)  and wondering how they are going to polish other rules to make 4e different...oh crud I could be one...


----------



## diaglo (Dec 7, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> Dear me....am i a Grognard?  Helping my older buds get the shade of mud right on their napoleonics, owing a heck of lot miniatures that look liek midgets compared to new miniatures, pushing stacks of card board counters around the room and discovering the shades on those counters that made army A look distinctly different from army B at 3PM tend to really blur together at 2AM,   knowing "that guy" who had a game setup in a side room that was played just once or twice a month for 2 years and everyone probably got 10 or 11 turns in total, beign able to see nothing new in the sum of the parts for 3e (it is D&D, meets GRUPS and EARTHDAWN folks)  and wondering how they are going to polish other rules to make 4e different...oh crud I could be one...



 

diaglo "was *"that guy"*" Ooi

edit: and cringed when the something knocked over the setup. like the dog, vacuum cleaner, or collapsing table.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I understand that Diaglo, for one, has an impressive collection of WotC books.  And his "Only True Game" predates 1e.
> 
> RC




I'm not quite a grognard, but I've been playing since about 1981 fairly steadily, with my first exposure coming in sporadic bursts in the late '70s.  I also own almost every 3e product except for the last tier of stuff that I had absolutely zero interest in, the nine swords and Iron Might stuff, and about 50 or so non WOTC D20 books, yet I do not like 3e nor do I play it.  But I can rob a 3e book of a prestige class and make a core class out of it for AD&D.  I can take interesting mechanics from Frost and Fur or a similar product and tack them on without all the extraneous stuff that I don't like about 3e.  It doesn't look like I can do that with 4e.  By the time I strip out all the per encounter stuff and Wowisms, and clerics healing by hitting people with an axe, I'll be down to the forward.  So I won't be buying into 4e, and if I help to kill off D&D, so be it.  I see no reason to purchase a product I do not like.  I do not like European football, so I could give a crap less if they do something to attract new players.  Now, if they were to change the shape of the ball, and mark the field off in 10 yard increments, allow players to run with the ball, maybe add a set of posts connected by a crossbar to kick the ball over and still keep the name "football", maybe I'd watch a game.


----------



## Midknightsun (Dec 7, 2007)

> I hope the standard for when a new edition is due is not "when its needed as much as 3e was needed." Its like saying that you're not allowed to buy a new car until you're running from the wreck screaming and covered in burning gasoline.




This is soooo sigged   


Grognards kill D&D?

*hysterical laugher ensues*

Naaaaah.  Heck, as one of many who has played 1st edition to current, I'm generally looking forward to 4e.  I got the disposable income to look it over and decide myself if the switch is worth it (And if they can deliver on faster DM prep time, they got me 75% sold).

Point is, many of us old-timers with the income to burn are just as excited about a new edition as the young 'uns.  Grognards are more vocal, sure.  Anyone with a strong opinion would be.  But there will be a lot of people of all ages who will switch to 4e. . . and some of many ages who will not.

My personal prediction is that, assuming WotC pulls through on the majority of its promises, they will manage to attract new gamers and win over many older ones.  And the grognards will still have their edition of choice to keep them happy.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Dec 7, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Can somebody please explain to me why this is?
> What has D&D done so wrong that it is on perpetual life support?  Why it is always threatened with extinction and needing to adapt or die?  Why is its staying power seen to be so utterly pathetic compared to rule systems for other games?
> Why can't you bring in new gamers to old rules, like chess, Trivial Pursuit, or soccer manage to do?




D&D 3.5 = 1,000 pages of rules (three core books)
Chess = one page of rules


----------



## Keldryn (Dec 7, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How does that jive with the immense popularity of Basic/Expert D&D?  IIRC, it said for 12 years old on up on the box.
> 
> Or, how does that jive with the fact that other than a couple of fad years, 3e has at least as many players as 1e did?
> 
> If obscure, wordy writing made for good games, why did it take clear and consise writing to rescue the game from the extinction it was headed toward?  Why do no other RPG's emulate obscure writing?  What benefit is there to using unclear writing in a rulebook?




I was 12 years old when I started playing D&D, in 1986, with the "red box" (Elmore) Basic Set.  Picking up the 1st Ed PHB or DMG may very well have been too overwhelming an experience to start out with.  By the end of '87, I had mostly moved on to AD&D (though a lot of the rules got ignored because they were poorly-explained or just seemed weird), but I hadn't even hit 14 yet.  If I waited until I was an "adult" to pick up (A)D&D, both BECM D&D and AD&D 1st Ed would have been out of print for several years.

I have real data to back it up, but I would bet that a large proportion of current D&D players were first introduced to the game between the ages of 12 and 16 (or thereabouts).  At that age, you have the time to play an 8-hour session every weekend (and sometimes short sessions at lunch while at school!), and the time to plan out many adventures.  If you first pick up the game in university/college or once you've started working full-time, it may never capture your lifelong interest the way it would have had you picked it up as a kid or teenager.

It's a generalization, to be sure, but I think it makes sense.


----------



## olshanski (Dec 7, 2007)

This is a sorry state of affairs.

Look at what happened with all of those other games like Chess, Monopoly, Golf... once you get old people playing then you might as well can the whole thing. No game can survive under those circumstances.


----------



## Ifurita'sFan (Dec 7, 2007)

*Proof that Grognards make the (gaming) world go around.*

New players ARE needed to grow the franchise. But at the same time the single largest force that keeps D&D going is its ESTABLISHED base of fans. The Grognards. 

Don't believe me? Read this section of an interview with Ryan Dancey the VP in charge of RPGs. 



> That brings us to Open Gaming, and why we're pursuing this initiative inside Wizards and outside to the larger community of game publishers.
> 
> Here's the logic in a nutshell. We've got a theory that says that D&D is the most popular roleplaying game because it is the game more people know how to play than any other game. (For those of you interested researching the theory, this concept is called "The Theory of Network Externalities.")
> 
> ...




So.. Their own person in charge of RPGs said that they believe that D&D's success is tied to it's ubiquitousness... meaning it's success is BECAUSE more people know how to play it than any other system. In short... the existence of Grognards (not new players) is what keeps D&D on top. Without that ESTABLISHED fanbase, they are just another game system.

 The people in the industry know this...so why they are ignoring this in the design and development of 4e..

They have to know that changing and sacrificing too much of the core game will remove their competative advantage. 

As a result, Hasbro is systematically alienating it's base of people familiar with the game, that familiarity upon which D&D's dominance is based. 

Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden egg.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 7, 2007)

Ifurita'sFan said:
			
		

> So.. Their own person in charge of RPGs said that they believe that D&D's success is tied to it's ubiquitousness... meaning it's success is BECAUSE more people know how to play it than any other system. In short... the existence of Grognards (not new players) is what keeps D&D on top. Without that ESTABLISHED fanbase, they are just another game system.
> 
> The people in the industry know this...so why they are ignoring this in the design and development of 4e..




They aren't ignoring it, not by a long shot. After all, so far the *only* marketting WotC has done is toward the established fanbase.  in fact, a particulr subsection of the established fanbase: those that use the internet in conjunction with their engagement in the hobby.  it won't be until the Preview Books hit Barnes and Nobles that the other part of the existing fanbase gets marketted to, and who knows how long until these mythical "new customers" get marketted to.

That said, they aren't really hittinga  home run with the current target.  Even among those that are excited about 4E, there's a sizable portion that dislike, for example, the Mearlsian naming conventions.


----------



## Stereofm (Dec 7, 2007)

olshanski said:
			
		

> This is a sorry state of affairs.
> 
> Look at what happened with all of those other games like Chess, Monopoly, Golf... once you get old people playing then you might as well can the whole thing. No game can survive under those circumstances.




One of the messages I keep reading is buy 4e or D&D dies. 

Why the heck should I care ?

I bought every single WOTC rules book until the announcement. PLUS about 95% D20 paper-printed books. Who else has helped these companies survived this much ? Me and a few other "old" people.

Because, if you don't buy, all these guys, all these pretty deisgners and their demi-fandom  are soon on the dole.

And despite all this  buying, it still does not sell enough to be worth keeping 3e ? then D&D is already dead. not just to me, but as a whole.

You can buy the "zombie D&D" 4e all you want. It is stillborn. In fact you should. It will show you what supporting a hobby with no return is like. Kind of what charity business is. I am certain you will have the same deeppockets and spending habits with 4e than I used to.

It will be fun to see what comes of it after WOTC 2008 fiscal year, I believe.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 7, 2007)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> One of the messages I keep reading is buy 4e or D&D dies.
> 
> Why the heck should I care ?
> 
> ...




And if you are wrong?  If 4e is a huge success, will you eat crow and apologize in public the way you previously bashed in public?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> By the time I strip out all the per encounter stuff and Wowisms, and clerics healing by hitting people with an axe, I'll be down to the forward.




Wait....can my cleric heal someone _by hitting that person with an axe_?    




			
				Ryan Dancy said:
			
		

> We've got a theory that says that D&D is the most popular roleplaying game because it is the game more people know how to play than any other game. (For those of you interested researching the theory, this concept is called "The Theory of Network Externalities.")




Makes me wonder why they are changing D&D into a game that no one knows the rules of, combined with an unwillingness to release rules information early enough that a bunch of folks might know the rules of it by release time.

RC


----------



## Toryx (Dec 7, 2007)

Ifurita'sFan said:
			
		

> In short... the existence of Grognards (not new players) is what keeps D&D on top. Without that ESTABLISHED fanbase, they are just another game system.
> 
> The people in the industry know this...so why they are ignoring this in the design and development of 4e..
> 
> ...




I disagree. D&D has long been an evolving, growing system. For all the changes that are being made now for 4th edition (that we know of primarily from rumor), I don't think they're so great as people are making it out to be. As someone who played D&D before AD&D and has subsequently played every version, I'd have to say that 3.5 is hugely different from the first system I've played. There have been a lot of changes and a lot of sacrifices all along. Some for the better, some for the worse, but the game is still here all these years later.

I'd also say that the numbers of players I've encountered since 3rd edition was released are far larger than any period since the '70's, and probably substantially larger than even when it was the new thing riding the wave of the success of The Lord of the Rings. It's the reasons for WoW and all the other MMORGs people are always freaking out about, and the fact that so new players are getting involved that a ridiculous term like "Grognard" can come into use illustrates that it's success is as much because it appeals to so many different people as anything else.

I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the old timers. It's significant too. But there isn't such a huge risk in making large changes to the game. 30 years of changes bears that out, and the substantial numbers of new players to the game who have still played older systems like 1st ed. are also testaments to that. 

No one's killing the game, and even if 4th edition turned out to be crap, it still wouldn't be dead. You'd still have your contingents across the world sticking with 1st edition, 2nd edition, and 3.5. And I bet there will always be a group of people who hang onto 4th edition with just as much fervor. D&D satisfies a lot of different requirements, and that's what keeps it going. As long as there are players, young and old, who are taking time to argue about it as passionately as people have around here since the Announcement, that'll remain true.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 7, 2007)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> Wow, if you were betting on me and my gaming group, of which I am the only one who posts here, you would be losing that bet.  Out of the 8 players and the DM (that's me) not a single one has any desire to switch, and 5 of them specifically said they don't want to even think about switching game systems until the current campaign is done (sometime in 2009 or 2010, if the gaming schedule works as it has).  Heck, I still have the whole Pathfinder Rise of the Runelords campaign to run!  Of the three other gaming groups I associate with, one just switched to 3.5 from 3.0 this year, one is switching to 3.0 from 2e after the new year, and one is still playing OD&D and has no plans to switch to anything.



Well there is a reason I had some of the specifics in the bet that I did. I certainly don't believe that someone who's playing OE at the moment will be won over to 4E very easily, but I'm going to maintain a very high level of confidence that the people who are playing 3.5 at the moment will almost completely pick up 4E and run with it. I say this both because it's *shiny *but also because I'm confident it will be *good*. 

I'm of the opinion that the "marketing" we've seen for 4E up until now has been extremely bad, largely because it hasn't been coordinated or given real crunch. The designers who have been talking recently are game designers, and not marketing or publicity people. That's a good thing, though: the skills to market and create publicity for a product are very different than those necessary to create it. I'd say they're actually polar opposites. So let's hope WotC gets a real marketing plan going soon, so we can settle down a bit.

If it turns out that 4E is a big old steaming pile of poo, not only will I admit to being wrong, I'll certainly join people in developing the game along the lines of the 3.75 model we've been hearing about. I'm very confident that won't happen, because the designers who are making the game are just too good for that.

That's just my opinion and all that implies...

--Steve


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 7, 2007)

Ifurita'sFan said:
			
		

> \So.. Their own person in charge of RPGs said that they believe that D&D's success is tied to it's ubiquitousness... meaning it's success is BECAUSE more people know how to play it than any other system. In short... the existence of Grognards (not new players) is what keeps D&D on top.




That would be true IF AND ONLY IF "existing players" were coterminous, or close to coterminous, with "grognards."

Unfortunately, grognards tend to be bashers rather than fans.  They tend to have existing ideas about how the game ought to be played, and are usually the ones leading the charge to complain about each and every new release.

In fact, I'd suggest that the defining feature of the grognard is not age, is not amount of time spent playing, but is that they're a fan who has gone sour, and is now detrimental to the hobby.  

A player who knows how to play, knows how to run a game, knows the ins and outs of managing a gaming group and teaching new players, _and yet won't shut up about how the game is going to hell in a handbasket_, is not a benefit to the hobby, and constitutes a black hole in that network that Dancey is discussing.


----------



## Ty (Dec 7, 2007)

They are also very good troubleshooters who aren't afraid to speak their minds.  But yes, they can be very annoying people.  They have a tendency to rain on parades, pee in Cheerio's, and otherwise make life miserable for optimistic types. 

I've been termed a grognard but I don't fit the technical definition.  I wasn't part of Napolean's Old Imperial Guard nor was I a former wargamer turned D&D'er.  I am however, a disappointed fanboy of D&D.  

On a side note, I really wish they'd actually publish a decent computer RPG in the vein of the old Baldur's Gates.  Darn those were fun games.  Not like those new-fangled games like WoW or Neverwinter Nights 2 and whatnot.  Those are just horrible abominations of the game systems.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 7, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> no. grognards like me were wargamers first.
> still are.
> i am a wargamer first.



 So you always prefer to play warlocks, warmages, warlords, warforged, warchanters and warshapers, as drawn by WAR?

Make love, not war, mang!

You should be a lovegamer!


----------



## Stereofm (Dec 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> And if you are wrong?  If 4e is a huge success, will you eat crow and apologize in public the way you previously bashed in public?




I do apologize already that my post is unduly harsh. At the same rate, i am irritated beyond reason by what I read, and I should know better.

To be honest no. I will stand by my opinions. If 4e is good so much the better for you all.
I don't see why you should not be enjoying it, if it is true.

But I won't enjoy it. And since I won't, don't expect me to spend 1cent on it. I will not even read the 4e SRD.

Besides crow is a bit tough.   

To be honest, I expect 4e to be a huge success ... THE FIRST YEAR.

I don't believe it can be otherwise. but the overall success will not depend on the first year alone : how is WOTC hoping to survive beyond the PHB sales ? They will have to sell further books (as stated in the "yearly PHB" ...) and so on.

Who is willing to buy the whole 4e set of books to keep them afloat ? Not me this time around.

Best regards.


----------



## Stereofm (Dec 7, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You should be a lovegamer!




I so wish it were true. Sex and D&D ! At last !


----------



## Stereofm (Dec 7, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> _and yet won't shut up about how the game is going to hell in a handbasket_, is not a benefit to the hobby, and constitutes a black hole in that network that Dancey is discussing.




Up until the 4e announcement, I was not. I don't think I was the only one to hit grognardism just at this particular moment. To WOTC : Reap what you sow !


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 7, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if WotC decided to release 4e this year, 5e next year, and 6e the year after *IF* they would provide official support* to *all* the various editions, past and present, side by side.  That way everyone gets something approximating the game they want; it's all still D+D, and WotC sells more material overall.




This would be business suicide.  And D&D is a business, make no mistake about it.

And to me that is a good thing.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Wait....can my cleric heal someone _by hitting that person with an axe_?
> 
> 
> 
> RC




Actually, from what I've heard, I think he can.  The blurb said something about the cleric critting someone and healing the mage.  No reason why he couldn't crit the mage and heal him too.  I don't see why he would, but he could.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, grognards tend to be bashers rather than fans.  They tend to have existing ideas about how the game ought to be played, and are usually the ones leading the charge to complain about each and every new release.




Like all that bashing of, say, Tome of Magic?

I believe it was MerricB who pointed out that sales of the (crunch-wise better) Magic of Incarnum sold worse than (fluff-wise better) Tome of Magic, suggesting in the process that people simply do not buy new-fluff products if they don't like the fluff.  Also suggesting that people will forgive rules snags if the fluff is good enough.

AFAICT, the big problems some people have with what is being released about 4e can be summed up as follows:

(1)  Don't like the fluff.  Be it dragonborn, the feywild, or Golden Wyvern Adepts, there is something about the 4e naming strategy that is   -producing.

(2)  Disbelief in the claims being made.  When WotC says that the game will be faster to run (but examples complicated combats with more foes), or says that each class will be more distinct (but wizards can wear armour and everyone can heal), etc.  Some folks, myself included, feel that this is "hope they were born yesterday" marketting.

(3)  Don't like changes that undo the existing story of the game without a solid purpose behind them (and with some apprehension that the rammifications of these changes won't be fully understood until a year after release date).  WotC admits that happened with 3e, after all, so why not 4e?  Especially as rushed as things seem to be.  Especially when, on occasion, the WotC make mistakes about 3e rules.

(4)  Lack of backwards compatability.  The more value your previous purchases retain in the new edition, the better it is for the consumer.

(5)  Reaction to the dismissal of any of the above as being "bashers rather than fans".

(6)  Negative perceptions based on WotC decisions.  I am thinking of the Dave Noonan "Cloudwatching" blog here, the cancellation of print Dragon and Dungeon (and the way WotC flubbed the digital launch), and so on.  If the launch of digital Dragon was the yardstick by which we should judge the current "Trust us, guys, this is gonna be great!" coming from WotC, then I for one am a bit skeptical.

I honestly don't believe, regardless of what they say, that anyone here would be upset if 4e was so good that it was a "must have, must play" game.  We all want every potential product to be great, because great products are always.....well, great.  Great to have.  Great to read.  Great to play.  Always.

But the desire to have a great product doesn't mean that my critical thinking goes out the window when I examine the claims being made about it.  And, frankly, based on the playtest reports, I don't see how _*anything*_ could live up to the hype.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> In fact, I'd suggest that the defining feature of the grognard is not age, is not amount of time spent playing, but is that they're a fan who has gone sour, and is now detrimental to the hobby.




The history of the term really doesn't agree with that assessment.  Grognard is about where you come from, and how long you've been around.  Complaining, resisting change - those things are about being a human.  

Most folks I'd call grognards are happy to play and let play.  They'll do their thing, you'll do yours.  Official support for their original game dried up decades ago, and they've adapted.  The old dudes who prefer playing older editions recognize that today's changes will have exactly zero impact on the game they're playing - there really isnt' anything to complain about.

The folks who have hefty gripes are the ones who are in the process of losing support for what they love, and they resent it.


----------



## epochrpg (Dec 7, 2007)

There _IS_ support for AD&D 1st Ed.  It is called OSRIC.  Any OSRIC product you buy or make is support for 1st Edition AD&D.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 7, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Well, my bet would be that the children will buy the most recent version. I have a hard time seeing any kind of snowball effect where the new gamers hunt down old copies of AD&D or pdf versions of the game, when they have a new and shiny version on the shelves.



Unfortunately for "official D&D," new and shiny revamps of old editions are starting to hit the shelves. C&C and OSRIC both come to mind, and I suspect more to come. If those systems start becoming more appealing ways for grognards to introduce their kids to PnP RPGs, "offcial D&D" could end up taking a hit a few years down the line.


----------



## Clavis (Dec 7, 2007)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> I so wish it were true. Sex and D&D ! At last !




During my campaign in high-school, I actually had two players (boyfriend-girlfriend at the time) who had sex in-character. Not in my presence, however. They accidentally told me about it later.

See, 1st edition was just sexier!


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 7, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Thank you but such was wholly unnecssary.
> 
> You are positing that Grognards dominate the message boards but not actual sales, personally or via their groups.  This supposes that newer, shall we say younger, gamers, who grew up with these "computers" more intimately than any 'Nard, are somehow not represented on the dominate medium (the internet) of their generation as it concerns the sales of the game you would have them dominate.  A Nixonian "silent majority" of young computer savy gamers that don't frequent message boards but dominate actual sales of D&D?  And these are the same computer message board avoiders that Gleemax and DDI are intended to reach?  How's that going to work? It doesn's add up.
> 
> ...




If it matters towards the argument, most of the younger players I know seem to secure their materials through electronic means which....uh...don't exactly result in money getting into WotC's pocket...  This grognard?  I like to pay cold hard cash for a physical book.

Banshee


----------



## StarFyre (Dec 8, 2007)

*Hey!!!*

I'm 30..started with 2e (then played some 1e and DND basic) and now I DM my own modified 3.5E..

I hate 1e and basic with a passion.  Some very retarded dynamics in them... 2e improved on them a bit but not all.

3.5X I like a lot (other than a few things I house rule anyways) and I am looking forward to 4E since I can always spend time and houserule stuff that is an issue 

Sanjay


----------



## Roland55 (Dec 8, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> The only problem is when they get married to _other _ gamers…




Oh my!  It would appear the wife and I, both old enough to be called grognards and both gamers for decades, have caused a problem.

Sorry about that.   

Well, at least we've raised a generation of new gamers ... and are well on our way to a second!     Maybe we'll atone for our mistakes yet.


----------



## Roland55 (Dec 8, 2007)

megamania said:
			
		

> I started in 1990 with 2e then went to 1e for several years before going 3e and finally 3.5.
> 
> 
> So yes, just because someone has played 1st edition doesn't make them an old person.
> ...




Good Lord!  You people think 38+ is *old*??

Apparently I really am a Jurassic gamer.   

Do you good people have a term for gamers like myself?  "Grognard Squared," maybe??


----------



## Ifurita'sFan (Dec 8, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, grognards tend to be bashers rather than fans.  They tend to have existing ideas about how the game ought to be played, and are usually the ones leading the charge to complain about each and every new release.
> 
> In fact, I'd suggest that the defining feature of the grognard is not age, is not amount of time spent playing, but is that they're a fan who has gone sour, and is now detrimental to the hobby.
> 
> A player who knows how to play, knows how to run a game, knows the ins and outs of managing a gaming group and teaching new players, _and yet won't shut up about how the game is going to hell in a handbasket_, is not a benefit to the hobby, and constitutes a black hole in that network that Dancey is discussing.





Wow... 
What I got out of this post
Grognard are nothing but bashers
Grognards aren't REAL fans of the game
Grognards are bitter
Grognards are detrimental to the hobby. 
Grognards are black holes to the game and should just shut up. 

Wow... no wonder the Mods are getting pissed off with flamebaiting going on like this. 

Oh, and Dancey said NOTHING about blackholes, so please... 

The facts are summed up in a very simple sentence. 
"All marketing and sales activity in a hobby gaming genre eventually contributes to the overall success of the market share leader in that genre."

Meaning that if everyone knows your rules and plays by them... then you're going to stay #1. But just like the old "which came first the chicken or the egg" argument...That means you NEED a support network of gamers who are established to stay #1 and who know the rules of your game. You don't stay #1 without the network of vet gamers, and you need vet gamers to stay #1. 

The corollary to that is that if you alienate too big a part of that veteran base (if you alienate more old gamers than new gamers with equal fiscal assets to replace them) or change the rules to the game too much... you will diminish or no longer have a support network of gamers who do know your rules set to keep you #1... and thus become vulnerable.


----------



## tenkar (Dec 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Makes me wonder why they are changing D&D into a game that no one knows the rules of, combined with an unwillingness to release rules information early enough that a bunch of folks might know the rules of it by release time.
> 
> RC




Uhm, if you knew the rules as a consumer before release, what would be the purpose of  WOtC releasing them?

Or are you saying that 4e will be a bunch of rules that have no roots in previous editions?

Unless you are referring to third party publishers, putting the rules in the hands of the gaming public before publication leaves you with no market to sell to.

Ah heck, we're squabbling over stuff that we truly have little idea over.  It would be nice to get some real idea as to HOW everything works together in the new edition.  I'm not asking for the rules of the game, but a general outline as to how it all fits together.  The bits and pieces being fed to us are like stories I get from my 14 year old when I ask him about school... I want to know what he is learning in school, not the lunchroom brawl and the other fluff stuff


----------



## tenkar (Dec 8, 2007)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> To be honest, I expect 4e to be a huge success ... THE FIRST YEAR.
> 
> I don't believe it can be otherwise. but the overall success will not depend on the first year alone : how is WOTC hoping to survive beyond the PHB sales ? They will have to sell further books (as stated in the "yearly PHB" ...) and so on.
> 
> ...




2nd edition started the splatbook craze... 3.0 and 3.5 allowed 3rd parties to grab (and dilute) the splatbook pie.

Having yearly scheduled releases of splatbooks (yearly PHB, DMG, etc) will only help WotC increase their share of the splatbook pie... whether that pie grows, shrinks, or remains the same in size remains to be seen.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 8, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for "official D&D," new and shiny revamps of old editions are starting to hit the shelves. C&C and OSRIC both come to mind, and I suspect more to come. If those systems start becoming more appealing ways for grognards to introduce their kids to PnP RPGs, "offcial D&D" could end up taking a hit a few years down the line.




That's been said ever since C&C was being developed. "Real soon there's going to be a game that is more D&D than D&D and then WotC are going to feel the hurt!"

It hasn't happened yet. Might it happen a few years down the line?

No.

The alternatives are up against a company with world-wide marketing reach, with distribution to book stores and gaming stores down pat, with an advertising budget that probably exceeds the total budget of the developers of OSRIC and C&C put together.

I don't see D&D being in the least threatened by the likes of OSRIC or C&C.

And if it were to be, I think WotC would be quick to react to this, releasing an official version of D&D that would directly compete with the alternatives. Heck, they might do that anyways, since basic versions of the game has been part of their strategy since forever.

But I will concede that if WotC rests on its laurels, and think that the above advantages automatically guarantees the continued domincance of D&D without them working pro-actively to make it so, they might be in for a world of hurt.

I have seen no indication that such a thing is happening. Other people think it's obvious that such a thing is happening. Only time will tell who's right.

/M


----------



## small pumpkin man (Dec 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Like all that bashing of, say, Tome of Magic?
> 
> I believe it was MerricB who pointed out that sales of the (crunch-wise better) Magic of Incarnum sold worse than (fluff-wise better) Tome of Magic, suggesting in the process that people simply do not buy new-fluff products if they don't like the fluff.  Also suggesting that people will forgive rules snags if the fluff is good enough.



While I don't disagree with your basic point that Good fluff is more likely to sell a book, simply because it's easier tell at a glance whether or not you like fluff, whereas crunch takes quite a bit of testing or looking over conflicting reports to figure out, I would like to point out that while the underlying crunch of MoI was quite interesting, possibly 4E portentous and a really good idea, of the actual classes (that is, the major reasons, crunch wise, to buy the book) it only really had one realistically playable class and two _theoretically_ playable classes, which isn't much better than ToM's one playable and two essentially unplayable classes.

That was the major reason I posted, but I'm going to keep talking until I put my foot in my mouth, okay?
kewl


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> AFAICT, the big problems some people have with what is being released about 4e can be summed up as follows:
> 
> (1)  Don't like the fluff.  Be it dragonborn, the feywild, or Golden Wyvern Adepts, there is something about the 4e naming strategy that is   -producing.



Yeah, see, I _like_ the fluff. I like the change in the planes, it's kinda like the system I made up for the homebrew game I'm running, and I like making Demons and Devils more distinct, I like the split in Eladrin/Elf I think it makes sense (although it doesn't work great for our world, I'm sure I can ignore it or fit it in).

I don't like the names, I think many of them are stupid, overly busy and well, poorly written, (the Lightning Panther Strike ability from Races and Classes exemplifies them to me, Panther Assault indicates silent deadly speed, Lightning Strike indicates loud violent speed, Lightning Panther Strike is both redundant AND contradictory, need I say more?) and I don't like the idea of magic "traditions" but both are essentially optional, so I merely don't plan to include them. 

on a similar note, my favorite settings are Eberron and a homebrew my friends and I are making as a group, which while not as different as, say, Darksun, does stray from core, so I have no real connection to the "core" fluff, indeed, I ignore it most of the time, meaning I get kind of annoyed by people who complain loudly about having to make slight changes from core, when I've been doing that and finding no problem with it, especially when I can see that many of the changes are being made with new players in mind, and can see how the 4E fluff would make it much easier for a new GM/group to throw a game together, who would need the help far more than some GM/group who's been playing since 1980.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (2)  Disbelief in the claims being made.  When WotC says that the game will be faster to run (but examples complicated combats with more foes), or says that each class will be more distinct (but wizards can wear armour and everyone can heal), etc.  Some folks, myself included, feel that this is "hope they were born yesterday" marketting.



The most recent playtest took 20 rounds, it also only took _two hours_, that's with about 16 goblins and one of the the "complicated" dragons, if the numbers are easier, and the "special cases" easier to figure out, it could quite well be quicker while still having a bunch of interuptions. Also, SWSaga uses a similar core, and by all accounts _is_ much faster/cleaner, (not that I've played it yet).

In regards to your second point, trapfinding is a feat as is uncanny dodge, and yeah, I'm not caring, Trapfinding and "can cast spells in armour" aren't what defines the rogue and the cleric in 3E, and they were unlikely to in 4E either, Wizards (I'm assuming) still don't get Armour prof, and the way it looks multiclassing works, will actually have to bust out those 3 feats to do so, Clerics can heal with taking actions and can make others self healing abilities work better by standing near them (last time I heard), and it looks like you may need to be a rogue to get twf or Spring Attack. To simplify, they're changing what is special to classes, not removing it.

As you can see I don't think they're doing that, although they're probably  hyping stuff up, as you would expect.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (3)  Don't like changes that undo the existing story of the game without a solid purpose behind them (and with some apprehension that the rammifications of these changes won't be fully understood until a year after release date).  WotC admits that happened with 3e, after all, so why not 4e?  Especially as rushed as things seem to be.  Especially when, on occasion, the WotC make mistakes about 3e rules.



Not getting this, do you mean the fluff changes? Again, making it simpler for new players to make their own world, (which I think many of the changes do do) should be more important than making it slightly harder for older players to convert their games, since they likely have the experience to do so. Also, rammifications? to fluff changes? I'm getting a tad confused, but don't worry about that, I'll just move on.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (4)  Lack of backwards compatability.  The more value your previous purchases retain in the new edition, the better it is for the consumer.



Absolutely, but it didn't happen with 2nd to 3rd, I didn't expect it now, they're just being more honest about it, and people are jumping on them because of that honesty (not you), which is kind of annoying.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (5)  Reaction to the dismissal of any of the above as being "bashers rather than fans".



Yeah, that sucks, my condolences.

I do have to say, I've see some far more reasonable explanations for the whole "not currently interested in 4E" thing recently, hopefully the bashing from both sides has calmed down a bit.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (6)  Negative perceptions based on WotC decisions.  I am thinking of the Dave Noonan "Cloudwatching" blog here, the cancellation of print Dragon and Dungeon (and the way WotC flubbed the digital launch), and so on.  If the launch of digital Dragon was the yardstick by which we should judge the current "Trust us, guys, this is gonna be great!" coming from WotC, then I for one am a bit skeptical.



Yeah, I totally get that, actually, the podcast (which I'm pretty sure had Noonan) had a similar thing, with them sitting there laughing at how stupid guardinals were, and I felt very much that if they hadn't been good, and I'd actually ever fought them/had them in my campains, I'd be VERY pissed off right now.

On a side note the fact that people got really annoyed at the demon/devil/succubus thing, but not at that podcast either shows that nobody listens to those, or the alignment system does need changing, if only so that people can fight/interact with always good creatures regularly 


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I honestly don't believe, regardless of what they say, that anyone here would be upset if 4e was so good that it was a "must have, must play" game.  We all want every potential product to be great, because great products are always.....well, great.  Great to have.  Great to read.  Great to play.  Always.
> 
> But the desire to have a great product doesn't mean that my critical thinking goes out the window when I examine the claims being made about it.  And, frankly, based on the playtest reports, I don't see how _*anything*_ could live up to the hype.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.

I guess my feeling/POV about 4E is that 3E is a _really good game_ which I play weekly and quite enjoy/put a decent amount of mental time into. 

But this game which I've invested so much into comes with some fundamental problems, which while may not come up all the time, do have to be worked around for our group to play the game and tell the story we want to tell. It's also relatively difficult to teach to other people and get them interested.

Now, when WotC say they're bringing out a new version of this game I put so much effort into, and  echo all of the problems I'm having, and the solutions to those problems they put forward are logically sound (as far as I can tell), I got kind of exited.

I mean, ultimately, even if 4E ends up with it's own set of problems, the creaters seem on the ball enough that I can't really see it being _worse_ than 3E, meaning currently I'd probably buy it even if it doesn't come near to the hype, simply because a game as good as 3E is a game with playing, and it seems different enough that I can see it being possible or easier to tell stories/play games that were difficult/impossible in 3E.


----------



## Failed Saving Throw (Dec 8, 2007)

I can't help but feel that a lot of these arguments are just silly. It all boils down to this: Play what you want. Most people I know do. There are people who still play 1E, 2E, and there will be people who dismiss 4E and stick with 3.5. And why not? There's enough stuff out there for 3.5 to play dozens of campaigns, enough to last you decades. 

You have to expect WoTC to put out new products, because it's a company that needs to make money. Also you should hope that instead of just treading water and releasing 20 years of 3.5 splatbooks, they would put some effort into change and innovation.

It's a pretty simple process. Review 4E when it comes out. If you don't like, don't play it, and stick with 3.5. If you do like, keep going with it. Why all the angst, the endless flamewar threads, etc.? It all seems like such a waste to me.

Even the term "grognard" - geez people. I'm sure many of you have other hobbies. Look at music, for example. There are older guitar players who want nothing more than that standard old Fender Telecaster through an old Fender amp, and they're happy. Then there are the younger players who want that VG Strat and the newest digital modeling amp. If you step back and look at it globally, it's a positive thing to have currents of traditionalism and innovation co-exist. The key is respect. Older players who pine for the days of 1E don't "bring D&D down" any more than groups of young players coming into the hobby who carry new influences from video games and other RPG systems. 

Stasis breeds stagnation. The unwillingness to take a risk and innovate leads to narrow, dogmatic thinking that ultimately tends to rot many things from within. So I'm pretty excited about 4E. I plan to buy the first rounds of books and gauge how I feel. If it sucks, well, I have a whole bookshelf right here of 3.5 stuff. I have my current group of players who all love 3.5. I think I'll be fine.


----------



## baradtgnome (Dec 8, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I grabbed a bit of text from Wikipedia, as a good starting point. I'm curious as to which version of "grognard" you're using to define "really old" people in their twilight years of 40+, and why the age-ist insults. I don't remember accusing _all_ my elders of being grumpy old farts back in the day when I was just a young pup of 22. ... But maybe my memory is failing me, too. It's so hard to remember now. So long ago, so very long ago...
> 
> _* Slang for someone who enjoys playing board wargames. This use is supposed to have been coined by John Young in the early 1970s while employed by Simulations Publications, Inc. Originally this term referred to the "old guard" of gamers who were playing military board games prior to 1969.
> * Inside the computer game development industry, the term grognard is used to name fans who will buy every game released in a certain genre of game (RTS, RPG, etc.). These dedicated game players are often viewed as a blessing and a curse, as they will ensure a certain minimum level in sales, but they will also be the most critical of any mistakes or bugs in the game.
> * In the board game, role-playing game, miniature wargaming and computer game genres, a grognard is an ultra-hardcore gamer, seeking reality and assembling detailed tables of probabilities and statistics. It may also refer to someone with a detailed knowledge of real world history without necessarily being interested in becoming a good player or having a detailed knowledge of game mechanics or play. It also refers to players who prefer some past, usually out of print game or edition of a game, to current games or currently-printed editions of same._




Thank you.  Being a Grognard who meets the requirements of more than a few of those descriptions, I wish we could use a different term for someone who is resisting/sabotaging any potential change.  Having bought Basic, AD&D, 3e & 3.5 I don't think I am killing the game growth.  Perhaps Luddite, curmudgeon or even better 'edition hugger' might be more appropriate?  Maybe we need  a contest.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

I like 'edition hugger'. Fits the description nicely.


----------



## baradtgnome (Dec 8, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> QFT. In fact, I'm a second generation gamer, myself.
> 
> So before anyone out there writes off grognards as irrelevant, consider this: those grognards might not be buying any new D&D products for themselves, but what are they buying for their children? And what will their children be buying over the next few decades?




Thank you.  Where do most new RPG gamers come from I wonder.  Is it WoTC marketing efforts direct to potential gamers, or do more come from the loins of us Grognards?   My 19 old son was raised a gamer, and now is bringing in new blood as the central point of his own group.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 8, 2007)

Failed Saving Throw said:
			
		

> If you step back and look at it globally, it's a positive thing to have currents of traditionalism and innovation co-exist. The key is respect. Older players who pine for the days of 1E don't "bring D&D down" any more than groups of young players coming into the hobby who carry new influences from video games and other RPG systems.



It's not the old players who pine for 1E that bother people. It's the old players who actively crap on 4E threads that are the problem. If anyone has implied that all players who prefer older editions are bad, then that's untenable. What's bad is the subset of those players who aggressively campaign against 4E.


----------



## baradtgnome (Dec 8, 2007)

Ifurita'sFan said:
			
		

> New players ARE needed to grow the franchise. But at the same time the single largest force that keeps D&D going is its ESTABLISHED base of fans. The Grognards.   ................so why they are ignoring this in the design and development of 4e..




I do not see how they are ignoring us.  I may or may not move to 4e, but clearly the items in 3e that we complained about are being addressed.  If they address them in a way that fits our homebrews, view of how D&D _should _ be, improves our gaming experience, then we'll buy.  simple.


----------



## Ty (Dec 8, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> It's not the old players who pine for 1E that bother people. It's the old players who actively crap on 4E threads that are the problem. If anyone has implied that all players who prefer older editions are bad, then that's untenable. What's bad is the subset of those players who aggressively campaign against 4E.




I highly doubt that the idea of the 4th Edition is what is being aggressively campaigned against by the "Grognards."  Rather, there is a subset of players of all ages, with varying degrees of favorite editions who are derogatively coined "grognards" by people.  Think on it this way, if they didn't care about 4th Edition, why would they actively and purposely come onto a board, post their thoughts and observations, and basically make themselves an inviting target for others?

The rhetorical answer of course, is that they ARE interested in a 4th Edition but are NOT pleased with the proposed changes.  The question Mearls and Co. have to answer is how to meet both audiences expectations.  Most of the "grognards" around here are not saying No to Dragonborn, Golden Wyvern Adept, Teifling history, Eladrins, or whatever.  They are saying No to the way they are being presented to us.  

Another part of the "grognard" problem is that it seems many of us are told to shut up, sit down, and buy the new edition but you aren't allowed to participate in the discussion.  There have been many suggestions put forward by the "grognards" as options for the designers to examine.  Heck, Green Knight technically is a "grognard" because he was complaining about the short shrift Torm received.  Now that his proposal for axing Tyr and replacing the deity with Torm has been acted on, it's as though he is treated as a champion of 4th Edition.  The point is that minimizing criticism of what is shown is not the way to market something.  GM tried that and it didn't quite work.

If you show teasers and provide snippets of information, people are going to jump to conclusions.  If you really have a bona fide reason to change something  as a designer and it's criticized, most rational people doing the criticizing will accept a real answer rather than puffery.  Mearls and Co. don't have to justify their choices in development to us if they don't inform us.  However, if they put that info out there for us to see, they are probably trying to gauge the public reaction to some extent, for good or ill.  By beating down dissent and only allowing praise of a decision, you're not doing the game a favor.  The only thing you are doing is creating a skewed perception for the designers, the game community, and the people actively involved in the observation and analysis of 4th Edition.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 8, 2007)

In reply to the question in the thread subject: 
As much as it pains me to say this, no, they aren't.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 8, 2007)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> I bought every single WOTC rules book until the announcement. PLUS about 95% D20 paper-printed books. Who else has helped these companies survived this much ?




I did. And I'm stoked about 4e.

There are people who have played the game for ages and ages, who's got lots and lots of stuff (oD&D, AD&D, D&D, what have you), who's very dedicated to the hobby ...

... who thinks it's fun to see the game change, to see new stuff. And to buy new stuff.

So "old gamer" is not the same as "grognard" and "I spent tons of cash on D&D already" is not the same as "WotC can look on the moon for more money from me".

Just saying, because I think it always seems to boil down to "us old guys have done everything for this game and we're being trampled on", when there are plenty of "hey, we're also old guys whose done as much or more for the game and we think seeing the game evolve is fun!".

/M


----------



## baradtgnome (Dec 8, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now.




True enough.  Half my gaming group is AARP material.



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Why is this bad? Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old.



 As someone who was once 22, and now <ahem> a little more than forty I don't see it as bad.  I trust you will live to be on this side of the discussion some day, and still be able to enjoy the hobby if you choose.



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> There is a generational gap (or two) between the majority of players and people who are just now playing the game for the first time.



 I think there is actually more of a style gap between different style players than a generation gap.  It can be difficult to game with folks of a different age group for social reasons, I'll grant that.  However I think being old or young doesn't align on the view of 4e.  To me it seems like other factors on what you want from a game are more important.



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Since it seems that have the greatest numbers, and greatest disposable income to spend on the game, they have the most say within the gaming community on how the game advances (or doesn’t).



 as has been said many times more eloquently than I, for WoTC this is a business; they are in it to sell product.  We have been told they make their most profit during the rush to buy new edition core books.  Ergo, there is great pressure on them to deliver a new edition as soon as the market would accept it.  

I would guess that a very large number of the 4e core rule books sold in the first six months will go to existing D&D gamers, not new RPG gamers.  What does that say about who their target really is?



			
				Antonlowe said:
			
		

> If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.



  I do agree with that.  Although I don't agree with your assumptions on how to accomplish it.  Put an easier to play, more fun edition in current gamers hands (Grognards or no) and that will generate word of mouth sales, retention of gamers that are frustrated, and possible lower the threashold for newbies to join.

As was also pointed out many times, WoTC could use its marketing power to generate additional sales of 3.5e to new RPG gamers.  It does not require a new edition to expand your market.  I will acknowledge that marketing and sales folks do like the 'new & improved' sticker on a product; it gives them something to talk about.

I'm still wait and see on 4e.  I promise not to cop a 'gronard-itude' on you if you choose to stick with 3.5e or move on to 4e.


----------



## sjmiller (Dec 8, 2007)

baradtgnome said:
			
		

> Perhaps Luddite, curmudgeon or even better 'edition hugger' might be more appropriate?



As a grognard and an official curmudgeon, I don't think either term is appropriate for what you are describing.  Neither is Luddite, as they are not any technology.  Edition Hugger might work.


----------



## baradtgnome (Dec 8, 2007)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> As a grognard and an official curmudgeon, I don't think either term is appropriate for what you are describing.  Neither is Luddite, as they are not any technology.  Edition Hugger might work.



  It might.  Even as I typed the others I knew they were not right.  I just couldn't put my finger on the right word.  This is a clever bunch, I'm sure a better name will arise.


----------



## Stereofm (Dec 8, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that the idea of the 4th Edition is what is being aggressively campaigned against by the "Grognards."  Rather, there is a subset of players of all ages, with varying degrees of favorite editions who are derogatively coined "grognards" by people.  Think on it this way, if they didn't care about 4th Edition, why would they actively and purposely come onto a board, post their thoughts and observations, and basically make themselves an inviting target for others?
> 
> The rhetorical answer of course, is that they ARE interested in a 4th Edition but are NOT pleased with the proposed changes.  The question Mearls and Co. have to answer is how to meet both audiences expectations.  Most of the "grognards" around here are not saying No to Dragonborn, Golden Wyvern Adept, Teifling history, Eladrins, or whatever.  They are saying No to the way they are being presented to us.
> 
> ...




Thank you. I could not have voiced it better.

The way 4e is presented by some people feels like the old soviet union. To me at least, that is a large part of the problem, even if not the whole story.


----------



## see (Dec 9, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game.



Consistently, the answer is no, it won't.

What, you disagree?  _Show me evidence._  I see a lot of people just declaring that the changes will attract new players, and then saying that opposing the changes is bad for the game.  But they offer nothing but bare assertions that the changes are going to attract new players; nobody shows any evidence.  If you're going to say that grogonardism will hurt D&D by resisting the change, you first have to show that your changes will increase its appeal.

The thing is, you can't.  You don't have any evidence that the changes will make the game more appealing, just an opinion.  At least the New Coke team had the evidence of taste tests.

I, on the other hand, think I have reasonable evidence — not proof, no, but not mere opinion — that monkeying with the flavor of the game is putting the game at risk.  

Look at the last thirty years and notice that every fantasy RPG that wasn't Dungeons & Dragons didn't do nearly as well.  Notice, too, that Forgotten Realms, which was the default flavor AD&D 2e setting, did better than all the other flavors tried.  Look at the 3e era, when everybody and his brother had a chance to publish their own alternate flavor game using the compatible rules.  Over and over again, the one thing proven by the last thirty years of pen-and-paper RPGs is that _nothing_ is as appealing as default flavor (A)D&D.  

And 4e deliberately abandons that legacy for something new, something untried.  Maybe it'll work.  I hope it works, even though I don't like it.  But I expect that it'll be lucky to be as popular as 3e, and I'm worried that it'll flop so badly that Hasbro decides to kill the line and not even bother with a Fifth Edition.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 9, 2007)

There is a foundational problem with the 4e for new players angle: new players by definition aren't playing 3.5 and don't appreciate the "improvements." 4e will have to stand on its own two feet. Yet 4e seems to be billing itself as a unique fantasy experience, which is traditionally not a selling point for a mainstream frpg.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 9, 2007)

see said:
			
		

> Over and over again, the one thing proven by the last thirty years of pen-and-paper RPGs is that _nothing_ is as appealing as default flavor (A)D&D.




Except that flavor has changed consistently over that 30 years, since once upon a time there were no elf paladins (or non-human ones, for that matter), nor dwarf wizards. Halflings were once chubby Tolkein refugees, and now are kender-cousins. Trying to say nothing has changed in the flavor in the past 30 years just means you haven't been paying attention.

And Wizards has the advantage of things like professional market research, while we have the benefit of limited ancedotal evidence.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 9, 2007)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> First, let me say that I deeply respect the opinions of our most veteran players and DMs. A recent poll of ENworld showed that over 80% of members played 1st edition. This seems really bad for the hobby as a whole. If you started playing the game when it first came out, this means you would be in your forties by now. Why is this bad? Well, I can tell you as someone who is 22, forty seems really old. There is a generational gap (or two) between the majority of players and people who are just now playing the game for the first time. Since it seems that have the greatest numbers, and greatest disposable income to spend on the game, they have the most say within the gaming community on how the game advances (or doesn’t).  If the hobby is going to survive as a whole, then it needs to attract new, young players and DMs.
> 
> There has been a lot of hate concerning 4E. I would say that the sides stand at about 50/50. Why has this divided our community? Because WOC is changing things to appeal to new gamers? Guess what? If you want there to be a game in 20 years, then they have to attract new gamers.
> 
> So, before you start to rant in threads about how this and that are not how they did it back in the day, ask first "is this going to attract new players"? If the answer is yes, then its good for the game. Start looking at you children and nephews, at those punk kids across the street. What would it take to get them to start gaming?





No one I know "hates" 4E. WE just all agree it isn't going to be a game we will like better than what we play now.

What do my kids play? The same things I have, 2E, 3E, L5R d20, L5R 2E, and now L5R 3E, Mutants and Masterminds 2E, Shadowrun 4E, Traveller, Synnibar, RIFTS, Paladium Fantasy, GURPS Fantasy 4E, Castles and Crusades, C&C Wild West, and others I'm forgetting.

Not to mention Hero Scape, Axis and Alllies, Playstations games, X-box and X-Box 360 games, Football, Baseball, and some Basketball.

My kids and I spend tons of time together.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 9, 2007)

> Except that flavor has changed consistently over that 30 years, since once upon a time there were no elf paladins (or non-human ones, for that matter), nor dwarf wizards. Halflings were once chubby Tolkein refugees, and now are kender-cousins. Trying to say nothing has changed in the flavor in the past 30 years just means you haven't been paying attention.



Minor tweaks, akin to removing level limits.  Dragonborn, eladrin, and so-called-"warlords" in the core are in a completely different league to the examples you cite.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 9, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Minor tweaks, akin to removing level limits.  Dragonborn, eladrin, and so-called-"warlords" in the core are in a completely different league to the examples you cite.




Not really. Established for years in all of those worlds, you had no elf paladins, because only humans could be paladins. Suddenly, out of the blue, the world is full of paladins of Corellon Larethian, and dwarves, who once had a spell resistance bonus and were unable to become wizards, are suddenly able to sling fireballs. Hell, the FR even had a metaplot event for it. Kobolds go from being goblinoids originally to being reptilian in AD&D. New classes and races have been introduced to core books and removed from core books. Assassin, Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer, Half-Orcs and Gnomes are all examples of that.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 9, 2007)

> Not really.



I know it's subjective, but so far as I'm concerned: Yes really.  Very much really.

Tweaking the flavour of some established races does not even begin to compare with dumping in several new, potentially unwelcome ones into the core.  It simply doesn't.


----------



## GVDammerung (Dec 9, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> . . . Unfortunately, grognards tend to be bashers rather than fans.  They tend to have existing ideas about how the game ought to be played, and are usually the ones leading the charge to complain about each and every new release.
> 
> In fact, I'd suggest that the defining feature of the grognard is not age, is not amount of time spent playing, but is that they're a fan who has gone sour, and is now detrimental to the hobby.




Congratulations!  You have spotted a tree and missed the forest!  

Grognards are indeed often times opinionated and this is so because they speak from a position of some experience.  They know to a goodly measure whereof they speak because they have witnessed the hobby's and the game's ups and downs.

More importantly, I believe, many Grognards' voiced opinions come from their passion for the game - the reason they have been around awhile and are still around - the reason they are Grognards.

Grognards are passionate about the game and speak from experience.  You see that as sour grousing.  Sometimes.  But as often as not, passion and experience.


----------



## GVDammerung (Dec 9, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that the idea of the 4th Edition is what is being aggressively campaigned against by the "Grognards."  Rather, there is a subset of players of all ages, with varying degrees of favorite editions who are derogatively coined "grognards" by people.  Think on it this way, if they didn't care about 4th Edition, why would they actively and purposely come onto a board, post their thoughts and observations, and basically make themselves an inviting target for others?
> 
> The rhetorical answer of course, is that they ARE interested in a 4th Edition but are NOT pleased with the proposed changes.  The question Mearls and Co. have to answer is how to meet both audiences expectations.  Most of the "grognards" around here are not saying No to Dragonborn, Golden Wyvern Adept, Teifling history, Eladrins, or whatever.  They are saying No to the way they are being presented to us.
> 
> ...




Very nicely put!


----------



## GVDammerung (Dec 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> . . .  AFAICT, the big problems some people have with what is being released about 4e can be summed up as follows:
> 
> (1)  Don't like the fluff.  Be it dragonborn, the feywild, or Golden Wyvern Adepts, there is something about the 4e naming strategy that is   -producing.
> 
> ...




QFT.  Very well summed up.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 9, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Tweaking the flavour of some established races does not even begin to compare with dumping in several new, potentially unwelcome ones into the core.  It simply doesn't.




Gnomes and half-orcs weren't in original D&D, nor were most of the classes in later editions. They were all new, potentially welcome additions to the core (like the half-orc, who came to the party in 1st edition and left in 2nd edition to make another appearance in 3rd). While 1st edition was much more flavored by the fantasy of the 60s and 70s, 2nd edition was initially more flavored by historical medieval stuff (all the examples given for classes in 2nd edition are real-world folk heroes and such, like Friar Tuck and Charlemagne). Changes like that happen in each addition, so this is nothing new.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 9, 2007)

> Gnomes and half-orcs weren't in original D&D, nor were most of the classes in later editions.



Not quite true - the paladin and monk (mystic) were OD&D prestige classes, and I think the druid too.  Gnomes are indeed a new addition, but fit the overall theme of demihumans, and critically aren't monsters (ala dragonborn) or D&Disms (ala "eladrin").  "Eladrin", being a contrived D&Dism of a name without the mythological meaning of the word "gnome", don't slot in so easily.

As for half-orcs, good riddance IMO.  Why they couldn't have taken half-elves with them is a mystery, although I suspect it might have something to do with a flavour-as-afterthought measure like "game needs a leader race to fill a slot in our crunch matrix of roles".


----------



## Greylock (Dec 9, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Not quite true - the paladin and monk (mystic) were OD&D prestige classes, and I think the druid too...




I don't think Prestige Classes is the word you are looking for. In OD&D they were full character classes.

Perhaps you are thinking of another edition.


----------



## rounser (Dec 9, 2007)

> In OD&D they were full character classes.



I could have sworn you needed X levels in fighter or cleric before qualifying, or somesuch.  But it's been a long time since I cracked those books.

Or are you referring to the white box D&D books, rather than BECMI?

But you're right, the expression "prestige class" only came about as of 3E.  I'm using the term as a descriptor of what they effectively were.


----------



## Ty (Dec 9, 2007)

I *think* they had both actually.  I'd have to do some very serious digging in the hermetically sealed boxes stored away in a dry basement area but I recall both mechanisms where they were classes in of themselves and a transition class similar to the old 1st Edition Bard where you had to have X classes levels.


----------



## Thurbane (Dec 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (1)  Don't like the fluff.  Be it dragonborn, the feywild, or Golden Wyvern Adepts, there is something about the 4e naming strategy that is   -producing.
> 
> (2)  Disbelief in the claims being made.  When WotC says that the game will be faster to run (but examples complicated combats with more foes), or says that each class will be more distinct (but wizards can wear armour and everyone can heal), etc.  Some folks, myself included, feel that this is "hope they were born yesterday" marketting.
> 
> ...



I've been avoiding the 4E area of these forums recently, precisely because of topics like "Are Grognards killing D&D?"...but I just had to post to say, well said RC...I think you've hit a lot of nails squarely on the head.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 9, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> As for half-orcs, good riddance IMO.  Why they couldn't have taken half-elves with them is a mystery, although I suspect it might have something to do with a flavour-as-afterthought measure like "game needs a leader race to fill a slot in our crunch matrix of roles".



This comes across as: major changes are inherently bad, unless they're changes I agree with. If you don't think they should be making major changes (like adding or deleting races), then you should be against them removing half-orcs and half-elves.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 9, 2007)

> This comes across as: major changes are inherently bad, unless they're changes I agree with. If you don't think they should be making major changes (like adding or deleting races), then you should be against them removing half-orcs and half-elves.



No, it comes across as "4E isn't the only edition I don't think got everything right with regard to core races."

Unlike certain others, I don't go pro-everything or anti-everything a given edition has to offer.  And I don't pretend to be 100% objective - no-one can be about subjective stuff like this - but I do think some of my arguments hold enough water to not be easily dismissed, as the seemingly undiscriminatingly pro-all-that-is-4E cavalry keep trying to do, for some mysterious reason.

In other words, if you want Edition Wars (as your consistent position seems to be on this board), I'm not your huckleberry.


----------



## epochrpg (Dec 9, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that the idea of the 4th Edition is what is being aggressively campaigned against by the "Grognards."  Rather, there is a subset of players of all ages, with varying degrees of favorite editions who are derogatively coined "grognards" by people.  Think on it this way, if they didn't care about 4th Edition, why would they actively and purposely come onto a board, post their thoughts and observations, and basically make themselves an inviting target for others?
> 
> The rhetorical answer of course, is that they ARE interested in a 4th Edition but are NOT pleased with the proposed changes.  The question Mearls and Co. have to answer is how to meet both audiences expectations.  Most of the "grognards" around here are not saying No to Dragonborn, Golden Wyvern Adept, Teifling history, Eladrins, or whatever.  They are saying No to the way they are being presented to us.
> 
> ...




This is the best post on the subject I have ever seen and 100% sums up my feelings on the issue.  I hope the "grognard haters" read this before they lay into the "how dare you question anything 4e or WotC does" dead horse again.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 9, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> I *think* they had both actually.  I'd have to do some very serious digging in the hermetically sealed boxes stored away in a dry basement area but I recall both mechanisms where they were classes in of themselves and a transition class similar to the old 1st Edition Bard where you had to have X classes levels.



BECMI had paladins and druids as proto-Prestige Classes.  A mid-level Fighter could become a Paladin, Knight, or Avenger, or remain a Fighter.  There were some modest benefits for Paladin and Avenger, minor ones for Knight, but you kept the Fighter XP table, attack table, and saving throws. Oh, and you couldn't own land.  A mid-level Cleric could become a Druid, with 4 new spells per level and some special abilities and restrictions, but otherwise much like the cleric.  These options appeared in the Companion Set.
BECMI also had monks and assassins as base classes; Mystics and Headsmen, as they were called, appeared in the Masters Set.


----------



## Stereofm (Dec 9, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> BECMI had paladins and druids as proto-Prestige Classes.  A mid-level Fighter could become a Paladin, Knight, or Avenger, or remain a Fighter.  There were some modest benefits for Paladin and Avenger, minor ones for Knight, but you kept the Fighter XP table, attack table, and saving throws. Oh, and you couldn't own land.  A mid-level Cleric could become a Druid, with 4 new spells per level and some special abilities and restrictions, but otherwise much like the cleric.  These options appeared in the Companion Set.
> BECMI also had monks and assassins as base classes; Mystics and Headsmen, as they were called, appeared in the Masters Set.




What is BECMI ? 
Basic Edition ? and ?


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Dec 9, 2007)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> What is BECMI ?
> Basic Edition ? and ?



Basic Expert Companion Master Immortal

This was a separate edition from AD&D referred to as D&D. Can't remember exactly when this edition started (early 80s for sure), but it was after AD&D (a.k.a 1E) in the late 70s. The reference was to the different level ranges. I remember Basic covered levels 1-3... I forget the rest... I think Immortal was levels 36+. Pretty reminiscent of 4E's Heroic/Paragon/Epic breakdown actually. Each level range was covered by a different boxed set.

I'm sure someone will come along and correct any errors I've made, but the general gist of what I've said is correct.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 9, 2007)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> What is BECMI ?
> Basic Edition ? and ?




Basic Set
Expert Set
Companion Set
Master Set
Immortal Set

All with covers by Larry Elmore. My favourite version of D&D.

/M


----------



## Oldtimer (Dec 9, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Or are you referring to the white box D&D books, rather than BECMI?



Mourn, Tquirky, and Greylock all said "original D&D" or "OD&D". This is not BECMI that they're talking about, but the original edition first published in 1974.

The "white box D&D books" would actually be a kind of misnomer, since the first three printings used a wooden imitation box. The fourth printing switched to a white box.

Hence the name OD&D for it.

And it had the classes Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric, Thief, Paladin, Ranger, Illusionist, Druid, Monk, Assassin, and Bard (though only the first three were available in the original boxed set).


----------



## Greylock (Dec 9, 2007)

Someone from either here or one of the other major forums created this page:

http://web.fisher.cx/robert/rpg/dnd-id/

An illustrated guide to D&D editions.


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 9, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Someone from either here or one of the other major forums created this page:
> 
> http://web.fisher.cx/robert/rpg/dnd-id/
> 
> An illustrated guide to D&D editions.




I'm a great fan of WAR, but looking at the covers from 1991, the second covers from 1978 and the first covers from 1989, the actual 4E covers suck.


----------



## Navior (Dec 9, 2007)

Ulorian said:
			
		

> Basic Expert Companion Master Immortal
> 
> This was a separate edition from AD&D referred to as D&D. Can't remember exactly when this edition started (early 80s for sure), but it was after AD&D (a.k.a 1E) in the late 70s. The reference was to the different level ranges. I remember Basic covered levels 1-3... I forget the rest... I think Immortal was levels 36+. Pretty reminiscent of 4E's Heroic/Paragon/Epic breakdown actually. Each level range was covered by a different boxed set.
> 
> I'm sure someone will come along and correct any errors I've made, but the general gist of what I've said is correct.




Basic: Levels 1 - 3
Expert: Levels 4 - 14
Companion: Levels 15 - 25
Masters: Levels 26 -36

Immortals had a separate advancement system. The original Immortals set had six ranks: Initiate, Temporal, Celestial, Empyreal, Eternal, and Hierarch. Except for Initiate, each rank had six levels: Novice then levels 1 to 5. Initiate had no levels.
The Wrath of the Immortals boxed set later massively revised the rules for Immortal characters. Immortals now had levels from 1 to 36 like mortals. The ranks were still there at every six levels (Initiate levels 1 - 6, Temporal levels 7 - 12, etc.)


----------



## Clavis (Dec 9, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And Wizards has the advantage of things like professional market research,...




Oh, you mean the same kind of professional market research that brought us New Coke?

Anybody whose ever been in marketing, and is honest about it, can tell you that mostly it's just making educated guesses. It's *not* a science, and is certainly subject to the same "tell them what they want to hear" pressure that affects the entire corperate culture.


----------



## Oldtimer (Dec 9, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Someone from either here or one of the other major forums created this page:
> 
> http://web.fisher.cx/robert/rpg/dnd-id/
> 
> An illustrated guide to D&D editions.



Well, he's a bit off with OD&D. It was first published in 1974 and he's illustrated it with a box cover from 1975...  

_(Trying to be the ultimate grognard)_


----------



## Wanderer20 (Dec 9, 2007)

The comparison from soviet Russia has sense, they just give a scrap of information and you are allowed only to praise them. Or shut up.

  After reading for monthes in this forum (that unlike the WotC one allows one to speak ill of 4E without be silenced "because he damages the community"), I agree with those who said the 4E SRD is already 90%-95% written, and they put, for instance, 4 feats in the excerpt while they could put 40; the basic feats, the one the system is built on, cannot be changed at this point if the release is May (much more than the basic feats, in facts).

  So why hide informations you could give? My answer is obvious: it would have damaged the sales (the same way speaking bad of 4E damages them, I suppose).

  And why revealing the system would damage sales? Rhetoric question.

  It is not a matter of bashing, "grognards", miscalculations, lack of excerpts, or anything else.

  If you want to praise WotC or 4E, whatever your reasons, do it. But feel free to remember that everyone is entitled to his opinion, and everyone has the right to express it, even if doing so hurts your feelings or expectations.


----------



## Aeolius (Dec 9, 2007)

10 pages of replies? Way to go, Grognards!

Take that, 4e! "Get back in there!, down down down!, go go go!, mine mine mine! YAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!"


----------



## Mortellan (Dec 9, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> 10 pages of replies? Way to go, Grognards!
> 
> Take that, 4e! "Get back in there!, down down down!, go go go!, mine mine mine! YAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!"




Classic Daffy Duck quote there Aeolius. How fitting for a Grognard topic.


----------



## Wanderer20 (Dec 9, 2007)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> Classic Daffy Duck quote there Aeolius. How fitting for a Grognard topic.




  I suppose in my previous topic I could have called your like "immature children" and remain politically correct


----------



## carmachu (Dec 9, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> That's been said ever since C&C was being developed. "Real soon there's going to be a game that is more D&D than D&D and then WotC are going to feel the hurt!"
> 
> It hasn't happened yet. Might it happen a few years down the line?
> 
> ...





The same has been said about games workshop...their too big, too much of a market giant, too much market share. And while thier still on top, they arent nearly as healthy an robust as they once were. 

Did one single small company kncok them down? Nope...but what is and has happened is deasth by a thousand cuts. each small one takes a bite, and those bites add up as costomers are dissatisfied.

Wotc might want to take a lesson.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 9, 2007)

carmachu said:
			
		

> The same has been said about games workshop...their too big, too much of a market giant, too much market share. And while thier still on top, they arent nearly as healthy an robust as they once were.
> 
> Did one single small company kncok them down? Nope...but what is and has happened is deasth by a thousand cuts. each small one takes a bite, and those bites add up as costomers are dissatisfied.
> 
> Wotc might want to take a lesson.



D&D will never be as dominant as it once was. There are relatively few barriers to entry into the RPG market. So smaller companies can pop up, take a small slice of WotC's market, and there's really not a thing WotC can do about it.

D&D was first, and is still the biggest RPG, but it is inevitable that it will slowly decline in market share, given the nature of the market. Not WotC's fault, and little they can do about it.


----------



## Ty (Dec 9, 2007)

I would disagree with you on that bit of pessimism Fifth.  

The barriers to entry to market have been minimized with respect to publishing due to Adobe and online distribution but that is an overall small piece of the pie in the RPG industry.  A large amount of capital and investment is necessary to transition D&D from a niche entertainment publishing company to having an actual entertainment product line.  If they keep relying on print books and edition updates alone, they will of course, lose their market to the niche players that are scrapping at their heels (niche publishers like yours of course).

What the brand manager here is failing to do is to create or find a new market for D&D.  Yeah, the movies did fantastic didn't they?  Same with D&D Online.  There has been a pretty consistent failure by TSR, WotC, and Hasbro to provide creative additions to their core business with a high level of quality and customer satisfaction.  Part of the reason for this of course, is the same problem GW had; they're the big kids on the block like GM used to be.


----------



## carmachu (Dec 9, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> D&D will never be as dominant as it once was. There are relatively few barriers to entry into the RPG market. So smaller companies can pop up, take a small slice of WotC's market, and there's really not a thing WotC can do about it.
> 
> D&D was first, and is still the biggest RPG, but it is inevitable that it will slowly decline in market share, given the nature of the market. Not WotC's fault, and little they can do about it.





That may be true. but there are things to do to mitigate the decline. I see a parrallel between them and Wotc. Its not a perfect one, mind you, different items here and there, but overall it is like watching a trainwreck in slow motion for a second time.

No one cannot deny Wotc is a business, and a need to make money. BUT...I'm saying alienating your veteram base and banking on the new comers isnt always the best option in a niche market. GW tried that and they're in the bad position their in now....word of mouth, especiallly from the established is their best advertising.

*shrug* wil it backfire? Will it succed in making D&D even bigger? Dont know....I do know I've seen this rollercoaster before......and would issue a caution to those that are certain that 4e will bring in new folks  by the truckload.....shutting down your critics, the gognards because...well pick whatever reason, isnt the smartest thing.(doesnt mean their right either, or dont have their own issues, but swallowing it all without critical thinking doesnt seem wise.)


----------



## carmachu (Dec 9, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> What the brand manager here is failing to do is to create or find a new market for D&D.  Yeah, the movies did fantastic didn't they?  Same with D&D Online.  There has been a pretty consistent failure by TSR, WotC, and Hasbro to provide creative additions to their core business with a high level of quality and customer satisfaction.  Part of the reason for this of course, is the same problem GW had; they're the big kids on the block like GM used to be.





Dissmissing the veterans was one of GW's bigger failures. It wasnt the only one, and they're reversing the trend, but its damage done.

Doesnt mean your veteran base is always right, nor get what they want...but their absolute dismissal of criticism and concerns isnt right either. the title of this thread shows that attitude....


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 9, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> What the brand manager here is failing to do is to create or find a new market for D&D.  Yeah, the movies did fantastic didn't they?  Same with D&D Online.




I doubt that the brand manager has any say so over those particular things - I'd love for Rouse to answer that question. The first D&D movie rights were acquired before WoTC even existed and they had virtually no input or creative control over the film. I would highly doubt that they had any sort of 'yes/no' authority on the second one; it's very rare that producers allow that to happen. I suspect they're much like book authors: the dealings happen at a higher level and they have to sit there and watch what happens just like we do.

I dunno how much yes/no input they had to D&D Online but again I would expect it to be minimal.


----------



## Ty (Dec 9, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I doubt that the brand manager has any say so over those particular things - I'd love for Rouse to answer that question. The first D&D movie rights were acquired before WoTC even existed and they had virtually no input or creative control over the film. I would highly doubt that they had any sort of 'yes/no' authority on the second one; it's very rare that producers allow that to happen. I suspect they're much like book authors: the dealings happen at a higher level and they have to sit there and watch what happens just like we do.
> 
> I dunno how much yes/no input they had to D&D Online but again I would expect it to be minimal.





That's why I referenced the generic term "brand manager" which they came up with (I'm more familiar with the term Program Manager, but whatever) rather than any specific individual.  Corporations of all stripes are notorious for placing one person in charge of program as its "champion", telling them to increase the brand value, and then burning them in the end with hackneyed and trite business B.S. that is not the fault of the actual "brand manager."  I don't lay the fault at any one person's feet alone.  It's merely an observation of stumbles by the company from a business perspective.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 9, 2007)

D&D can't be killed.  As you would expect of any abomination that emerged from a sea of Gygaxian narrative and the Blackmoor hit location charts, it is one tough beast.  Cutting off the head and feeding the corpse to lawyers didn't work, so that should tell you something right there.  Weighting it down with rules bloat and throwing it into the Sea of Bankruptcy didn't work.  The atrocity of TWO D&D movies couldn't even slow it down.  It's like the DM's pet NPC, it will keep coming back. 

MAYBE there's a secret ritual encoded in the 1E DMG that will do the job (my hunch is that it involves the d12), but you probably need a party of 6-10 20th-level Grognards, plus retainers, to make that ritual work.


----------



## Roland55 (Dec 9, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> D&D can't be killed.  As you would expect of any abomination that emerged from a sea of Gygaxian narrative and the Blackmoor hit location charts, it is one tough beast.  Cutting off the head and feeding the corpse to lawyers didn't work, so that should tell you something right there.  Weighting it down with rules bloat and throwing it into the Sea of Bankruptcy didn't work.  The atrocity of TWO D&D movies couldn't even slow it down.  It's like the DM's pet NPC, it will keep coming back.
> 
> MAYBE there's a secret ritual encoded in the 1E DMG that will do the job (my hunch is that it involves the d12), but you probably need a party of 6-10 20th-level Grognards, plus retainers, to make that ritual work.




You forgot the mandatory artifact.  The ritual will never work without the proper artifact.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Dec 9, 2007)

I guess my quetion is in the definition of "Grognard".  

As an antecdote..
First, a little about me:
I'm a 34 YO male, freelance writer by trade.  I've lurked on ENWorld for about 4 years or so. I've been a fantasy reader since I was little(everything from Leiber to Moorcock, Tolkien to Lovecraft, Jordan to Goodkind.) I've also been a D+D player since I was little kid, though my interest is primarily in modules and settings, rather than new "crunchy" bits.

That out of the way...
I currently play in two groups.

My Thursday night group is pretty easy-going, and are always up for trying a new system or setting.  Our _primary_ setting is Age of Worms, though we've decided to try "Savage Tide", "Pathfinder", and "War of the Burning Sky" in the future.

The group of 7 ranges in age from 19 to 40, with most falling in the median range of late-20's, early-30's.  Most started during 2nd Edition, though the younger people were inagurated with 3.5.  We all enjoy each other's company, and hang out outside the game.  We hahve shorter sessions, and don't always accomplish alot, but I never regret the time spent.

The other group?
Is a "Midnight" group.  Much more rules-oriented and productive gameplay-wise, but not quite as much fun overall.  The ages are more consistently mid-30's, and most have been RP'ing consistnely since 1E.

In terms of upgrading?
My Thursday group seems to be unanimously of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school, preferring to stay with the current edition of D+D (though we do try different settings and systems from time to time), whereas the Saturday group can't stop talking about the newest tidbits of 4E.


So, who, if anyone in this example, would be considered a Grognard?  Could you consider a teenager who cut his teeth on 3E but doesn't want to upgrade to 4E a grognard?  

What about me, who has been playing since 1E but is strangely apathetic about 4E?


----------



## Ty (Dec 9, 2007)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> I guess my quetion is in the definition of "Grognard".
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




If you answer any of the following as "Yes" you are a grognard according to the Grognard Destroyers:

1.  If you think that 4th Edition could use some further tweaks or has problems and have voiced that opinion rather than remaining silent.

2.  If you played 1st Edition and find some things were actually okay with 1st Edition.

3.  If you believe sacred cows aren't just monsters for slaughtering with a Golden Wyvern Adept SpinKick Nosebuster move.

4.  If you believe 4th Edition is an attempt to kill the kill the Grognards upon which event, D&D will reign supreme in the world of RPG; whereupon there will be much rejoycing.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 9, 2007)

Roland55 said:
			
		

> You forgot the mandatory artifact.  The ritual will never work without the proper artifact.



Well, it is a _secret_ ritual, and I'm only a 7th-level Grognard, so naturally I'll get some of these things wrong.  But I imagine that in a few more editions, the d12 will be as rare as an artifact...


----------



## Ty (Dec 9, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Well, it is a _secret_ ritual, and I'm only a 7th-level Grognard, so naturally I'll get some of these things wrong.  But I imagine that in a few more editions, the d12 will be as rare as an artifact...




Pfft, 7th level?  You don't even have retainers yet!  You gotta get to 9th level for that.  At least I'm getting my 3sp per person per year off my holdings.  Cookie if you get the class that got 3 sp per person.


----------



## rounser (Dec 9, 2007)

> D&D can't be killed. As you would expect of any abomination that emerged from a sea of Gygaxian narrative and the Blackmoor hit location charts, it is one tough beast. Cutting off the head and feeding the corpse to lawyers didn't work, so that should tell you something right there. Weighting it down with rules bloat and throwing it into the Sea of Bankruptcy didn't work. The atrocity of TWO D&D movies couldn't even slow it down. It's like the DM's pet NPC, it will keep coming back.
> 
> MAYBE there's a secret ritual encoded in the 1E DMG that will do the job (my hunch is that it involves the d12), but you probably need a party of 6-10 20th-level Grognards, plus retainers, to make that ritual work.



Well gentlemen, if that fails...we _could_ nuke it.  

But I suspect it would just reform in 1d4 rounds, and be radioactive to boot.


----------



## Hairfoot (Dec 10, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> 2.  If you played 1st Edition and find some things were actually okay with 1st Edition.



Yes.  For some reason, the Grognard Destroyer campaign seems to hinge on the notion that experienced D&D players, having seen the great ideas and flaming wrecks of previous edtions, have no worthwhile views about what makes the game good or bad.



			
				Ty said:
			
		

> 3.  If you believe sacred cows aren't just monsters for slaughtering with a Golden Wyvern Adept SpinKick Nosebuster move.



"Three nosed otter lotus punch combo!"
"Aiiieee!  Heavenly brick swims ketchup river!"  Kchung!
"Double secret lentil flail kick!"  Swoosh!

Another term for "sacred cows" is "things that have remained in D&D because they're good and people like them".  Slaughtering them en masse to appeal to an audience appreciative of wirework Jet Li films and Streetfighter video games may yet backfire.


----------



## Thurbane (Dec 10, 2007)

I can't seem to find the post now, but whoever claimed there was no backward compatibility of 2E to 1E, was absolutely wrong.

I started playing the Red Basic set and AD&D 1E around the same time, in 1984 or so (I'm now 35). When 2E came out, our regular group adopted it right away. One of the big drawcards for us was it's back compatibility with AD&D 1E.

Our 2E game often included a lot of 1E crunch, and we would often run 1E modules with 2E characters. Converting something from 1E to 2E, or vice versa, was a simple and intuitive process that rarely took more than a few minutes.

When our group resumed after a hiatus, there was a lot of debating about whether we should stick with 2E or move to the current set (3.5). Of our group of 5, 3 were 1E/2E veterans, 1 had only played a smattering of 2E but mostly 3E, and 1 was new to D&D altogether.

So we bit the bullet, and went to 3.5. After a lot of initial skepticism, we all eventually grew to like 3.5 (although various DMs still used houserules for a more 1E/2E feel). The major stumbling block for me, was trying to resume my established 2E campaign world, as the various crunch changes made it difficult to easily port over to 3.5. But I got there eventually, and was glad after I did.

I can assure everyone here, I won't be repeating the process with porting it to 4E. WotC have made it abundantly clear that there will no real guidelines to conversion, nor the system designed with ease of conversion in mind. The fluff is also getting so drastically altered it will seriously impinge on the tone (and even crunch) of my homebrew.

I can live with that - but it does mean that my primary group won't be contributing any finances to the future of D&D through any 4E products. If that's an example of a "grognard" killing D&D, then guilty as charged, I suppose. My disposable cash flow will go into supplements and adventures pitched at 3.5 gamers by various publishers. Does this mean I want to see 4E fail, or am telling people not to buy it? Not at all...

Also, add me to the group that doesn't buy into the fact that 4E will net a significant number of new gamers. Various other systems who have upgraded editions over the years have failed to woo me with promises of a relaunch. If I wasn't interested in Yakmaster 3E, Yakmaster 4E Colossal Editon (now with more Yaks) is hardly likely to win me over. Neither, I suspect, is it any more likely to draw in new P&P RPGers.

Couple this with the withdrawal of hard copy monthly periodicals, and the inferred reliance on a web based subsciption to keep up with the latest ed, and I suspect the "future of D&D" is on shaky ground. As many others before me have said, there is nothing wrong with looking for ways to rope in new gamers, but to do it at the risk of alienating hardcore fans with disposable income is bordering on commerical suicide.


----------



## Orius (Dec 10, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> D&D will never be as dominant as it once was. There are relatively few barriers to entry into the RPG market. So smaller companies can pop up, take a small slice of WotC's market, and there's really not a thing WotC can do about it.




I'd not say it's because of small RPG publishers, but the fact that there's many more entertainment options available.  Particularly video games.  They didn't exist back when Gary and Dave first worked out the original rules.  Pong emerged around the same time D&D did, but of course it took many years for them to get to the point where they could seriously compete with RPGs.  

While I don't believe video games will totally kill the traditional RPG (well until we get holodecks and can do LARPs the right way ), there's a lot of things that electronic RPGs and MMOs will be able to do as well as a traditional RPG, particularly the number crunching.  The main advantage that traditional RPGs like D&D still have is their open-endedness.  They're limited not by their programming, but by the imaginations of their players.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Dec 10, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I can't seem to find the post now, but whoever claimed there was no backward compatibility of 2E to 1E, was absolutely wrong.




I mentioned the term "Backwards Compatibility" in my post.  However, I totally agree with you... it was super easy to go from 1E to 2E.  IMHO 2E wasn't so much a new edition as much as a somewhat streamlined and clarified (I use those terms loosely) version of 1E.  There were enough people who liked the THAC0 system that they went to it instead of the Attack Matrices.  I honestly can't remember any other major changes besides THAC0 though... the classes had a few tweaks, Rangers lost their access to Mage spells and Bards became a core character class but that was about it until the "Complete ________ Handbooks" came on the scene with the Kit options.  I still don't think 3.X is all that backwards compatible and 4E looks to be somewhat backwards compatible with 3.X but forget about going back to 2E and 1E.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 10, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> I don't think Prestige Classes is the word you are looking for. In OD&D they were full character classes.
> 
> Perhaps you are thinking of another edition.



well kinda.

to be a paladin (Supplement I Greyhawk 1975) you needed to be lawful and have a cha 17.

prereqs tend to be prestige.

the only classes that didn't have prereqs were Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic User... and then Thief with Supplement I Greyhawk too.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2007)

tenkar said:
			
		

> Uhm, if you knew the rules as a consumer before release, what would be the purpose of  WOtC releasing them?




IF it is true that the reason that D&D is the brand leader is because "everyone knows how to play it" THEN it follows that making sweeping changes to the way the game is played is likely to damage the new edition's following in favour of the old.  Especially, if you accept the reasoning from WotC previously quoted, if non-baseline material acts mainly to advertise baseline material and make it more popular.

RC


----------



## tenkar (Dec 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IF it is true that the reason that D&D is the brand leader is because "everyone knows how to play it" THEN it follows that making sweeping changes to the way the game is played is likely to damage the new edition's following in favour of the old.  Especially, if you accept the reasoning from WotC previously quoted, if non-baseline material acts mainly to advertise baseline material and make it more popular.
> 
> RC




I'm not too sure about that.  Most players I know are "rules junkies".  The 3.5 core rules and the 3.5 core plus official supplements are almost 2 different games.  I haven't even touched on the use of 3rd party supplements.  Yet all these "games" are still D&D.

I am sure WotC is going to lose some players that will prefer to stick with 3.5, and who can blame them with the amount of material and resources that has hit the market over the past 8 years or so.  I suspect that the number of holdouts will diminish with time... gamers are drawn to new edition releases like moths to a flame... whether or not they get singed this time around has yet to be seen.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2007)

Ifurita'sFan said:
			
		

> The facts are summed up in a very simple sentence.
> "All marketing and sales activity in a hobby gaming genre eventually contributes to the overall success of the market share leader in that genre."
> 
> Meaning that if everyone knows your rules and plays by them... then you're going to stay #1. But just like the old "which came first the chicken or the egg" argument...That means you NEED a support network of gamers who are established to stay #1 and who know the rules of your game. You don't stay #1 without the network of vet gamers, and you need vet gamers to stay #1.
> ...




This is what I was trying to get at, worded far better than my poor attempt.    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2007)

tenkar said:
			
		

> I'm not too sure about that.  Most players I know are "rules junkies".  The 3.5 core rules and the 3.5 core plus official supplements are almost 2 different games.




THEN you don't accept the IF statement, which is cool.  But, since the IF statement came from WotC, I wonder if they've changed their mind about it, forgotten about it, or what?  More curious about what the thinking behind this one is than anything else.    

RC


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 10, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> Another term for "sacred cows" is "things that have remained in D&D because they're good and people like them".  Slaughtering them en masse to appeal to an audience appreciative of wirework Jet Li films and Streetfighter video games may yet backfire.




You know that the reason we use that term is that is means 'something *unreasonably * immune to criticism', don't you? Many of the sacred cows of D&D were not there by any reasonable purpose or design; they 'just happened' and then no-one saw any reason to change them. Given that TSR didn't listen to it's customers, we have no way of knowing that people really were all that much in love with many of the sacred cows from '78 through '99 but I'd say that 'saw no reason to change them' is a major part of that blind spot.

Given that WoTC has a marketing department and that they solicit customer feedback and act upon it, we can reason that a significantly large portion of the D&D audience in fact does not want many of the sacred cows around any more.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I've been avoiding the 4E area of these forums recently, precisely because of topics like "Are Grognards killing D&D?"...but I just had to post to say, well said RC...I think you've hit a lot of nails squarely on the head.





Don't worry.  You'll get better.


----------



## tenkar (Dec 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> THEN you don't accept the IF statement, which is cool.  But, since the IF statement came from WotC, I wonder if they've changed their mind about it, forgotten about it, or what?  More curious about what the thinking behind this one is than anything else.
> 
> RC




The thinking behind 4e is twofold I think:

1 - A perceived need to clean up 3.0 / 3.5 which has grown into an unwieldy beast with a mountain of supplements and new rules over the past 8 years.

2 - A financial need to sell more core books.

I think "1" is a justification for filling the need in "2".

That doesn't mean I don't think the 4e rules won't be a great set of rules (i don't know yet one way or the other), I just think that the driving reason for getting the rules out now is more financial then anything else.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2007)

tenkar said:
			
		

> The thinking behind 4e is twofold I think:
> 
> 1 - A perceived need to clean up 3.0 / 3.5 which has grown into an unwieldy beast with a mountain of supplements and new rules over the past 8 years.
> 
> 2 - A financial need to sell more core books.




If all they were doing was (1) to perform (2), then I would probably be goshdarn happy with 4e.  However, there's more to it than that.  Indeed, they could perform this operation without damaging the basics, or product identity, at all.

RC


----------



## tenkar (Dec 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If all they were doing was (1) to perform (2), then I would probably be goshdarn happy with 4e.  However, there's more to it than that.  Indeed, they could perform this operation without damaging the basics, or product identity, at all.
> 
> RC




I'd hazard a guess that the major revamp has much to do with a desire to distance 4e from the 3.5 OGL.  A major reason for the success of 3.5 is also a leading cause of it's demise.

Don't be surprised if the 4e OGL is a lot less "bendable" then the 3.5 OGL.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2007)

tenkar said:
			
		

> Don't be surprised if the 4e OGL is a lot less "bendable" then the 3.5 OGL.





Don't be surprised if that is a deal breaker for customers who _like_ the concept of the OGL.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If all they were doing was (1) to perform (2), then I would probably be goshdarn happy with 4e.  However, there's more to it than that.  Indeed, they could perform this operation without damaging the basics, or product identity, at all.



They can't just clean it up for the sake of streamlining it, because everybody knows they'll once again bog it down with splatbook power creep.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

D&D has already had a massive revamp that was conducted in large part to clean up 2.0/2.5, which had "grown into an unwieldy beast with a mountain of supplements and new rules."  Power creep and increased complexity had led me away from 2E; I had flipped through Skills & Powers but never bought it.

3E comes along and it is much streamlined.  A simplified mechanical system and a more elegant multiclassing system were good enough that I could tolerate the return of the half-orc, monk, and barbarian, none of which I really welcomed.  I loved MANY of the mechanical changes that made 3E simpler and/or more like the BD&D I grew up on.  No more weapon speed, modifiers vs. armors, or different damage vs. large opponents; ability score charts much more like BD&D; no exceptional strength.  But then the same thing happened again, the splatbook power creep and increasing complexity.

If WotC were now to admit "Yeah, 3E made the same mistake that 2E did with splatbook power creep and increasing complexity, so we have 4E to clean all that up," you KNOW the response would be "But you're just going to do it again in 4E."  Splatbooks sell.


----------



## Counterspin (Dec 10, 2007)

Brother Maclaren : I don't think the splats really increased the power level, at least not within the party.  Primary casters rule the roost with or without them.  But I don't understand why people view the splats so negatively.  I personally enjoy the splats, because while I don't feel like I need any help producing settings, I do like big chunks of new mechanics to sink my teeth into.
What would you suggest as an alternative business model for D&D?  TSR is in many circles viewed as collapsing because it over fractured its market with too many settings, and it seems like setting books are the only other real option.
And then, as a separate question, what is it that you would like to see replace splats?


----------



## Ifurita'sFan (Dec 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IF it is true that the reason that D&D is the brand leader is because "everyone knows how to play it" THEN it follows that making sweeping changes to the way the game is played is likely to damage the new edition's following in favour of the old.  Especially, if you accept the reasoning from WotC previously quoted, if non-baseline material acts mainly to advertise baseline material and make it more popular.
> 
> RC




I pointed out that exact thing. 

The VP at WotC, in an interview, specifically STATED that the reason D&D is #1 is because over time there has been a buildup of gamers who know how to play it, that know the rules of the game. 

It's a ubiquitous gaming system... like windows is a ubiquitous OS for computers in the workplace. 

But that therefore implies than any major changes to the game system actually HURT their standing as #1. That's because if they change it, they no longer have a core group that can play the game because the rules will no longer be familiar to them. 

This is the reason that Grognards (the well established fan base that pours money into the game system buying new supplements and has the disposable income now to do so) ARE important to D&D. That and a single grognard has two or three times the spending power of a single new young player. Young players = cash strapped usually. And thus contribute less to the bottom line.

Will 4e bring in more new blood than old it loses? I don't know... it'll be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Dec 10, 2007)

*Are grognards killing D&D? No, the strange market is.*

To actually reply to the topic title -- specifically, are Grognards killing D&D, my opinion is, no.

If D&D is dying, and I'm not sure that it is (despite my and my gaming group's defection to FUDGE    ), it's because of the very nature of the RPG industry itself. The publishers -- WOTC included -- are IMO in a cleft stick.

On the one hand, the only thing that sells are *systems*.  Typical RPG consumers don't buy adventures, campaign settings, campaign setting supplements, and similar products. 

On the other hand, how many times can you revamp a system which does pretty much the same thing? And since the only books that sell significantly enough to pay the rent and keep the place running are *system books*, the *only* supplements which make economic sense to print are splatbooks that *expand the system*. Yet at the same time, you can only add so many rules before the system becomes a cumbersome, confusing mess that disgusts the customer base, drives some of them away, and makes the others frustrated and suspicious when you finally sweep away the mess with a new edition (which then repeats the process). 

In other words, the books whose printing would allow infinite fresh material without expanding on the original, streamlined system (campaign settings, adventures, etc.), while giving the company what it needs to continue on with, don't sell. So they're not made.

The RPG industry is sort of upside-down. There's an endless proliferation of system, and almost no material to use the system with -- precisely because people will buy so-called 'crunch' even if it's stifling the game, and eschew so-called 'fluff' even though it's what would allow the RPG industry to flourish _without making endless iterations of increasingly cumbersome systems_.  

To use a somewhat imprecise analogy, it's like people would buy DVD players but would NOT buy DVDs to play in them. In that case, you'd see all the companies coming out with revisions and add-ons for the players, and couldn't find a DVD anywhere, because there would be no money in them. 

If people would buy 'fluff,' then a more-or less definitive ruleset would emerge, capping the amount of 'crunch' and removing the need for new editions. That way, they could concentrate on -- "here's our new, innovative, exciting game world where you can have fascinating adventures" -- instead of on "here's how we're handling Armor Class and non-combat skill synergies in version 388.45 of the bureaucratically maddening rules system."

I believe it's a fundamentally self-destructive business model forced on the companies by the upside-down buying habits of the people they have to sell to, who are fixated on 'crunch' and eschew 'fluff.' It remains to be seen how long they can keep the impossible juggling act going, that's all. 

If anything kills D&D, in short, it'll be the customers losing patience with a flawed business model which their buying habits have imposed on those who make products for them.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 10, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Brother Maclaren : I don't think the splats really increased the power level, at least not within the party.  Primary casters rule the roost with or without them.



That wasn't my experience in the campaign I ran from levels 2-12, for several reasons due to my group of players, the PC builds, and the monsters the party faced.  The barbarian dominated in damage output, the ranger was second, and the casters were left in the dust.  The ClericZilla never happened in my game; the long setup time made it unfeasible in most circumstances (fortunately, the wizard had foresaken conjuration, so this party never did the scry-buff-teleport routine).

But regardless, the splats DID increase the power level of the PCs relative to the monsters. This means you need tougher CRX monsters, which means new players can't expect to thrive with core-only PCs because the new CRX monsters are so much tougher than they used to be.  So they need to buy the splats, and then new and improved splats come out to push the arms race further along.  In the first round of 3.5 splats, the caster splats were certainly the worst, with Divine Metamagic and those awful orb spells.  



			
				Counterspin said:
			
		

> But I don't understand why people view the splats so negatively.  I personally enjoy the splats, because while I don't feel like I need any help producing settings, I do like big chunks of new mechanics to sink my teeth into.
> What would you suggest as an alternative business model for D&D?  TSR is in many circles viewed as collapsing because it over fractured its market with too many settings, and it seems like setting books are the only other real option.
> And then, as a separate question, what is it that you would like to see replace splats?



There might not be a business model for D&D that would allow them to get the kind of revenues they want and would keep me as part of their customer base.  

I, as a customer, will probably just hop off the edition treadmill and go back to playing by the BECMI rules forever, house-ruled as individual DMs see fit.  I'd like there to be new places to explore and new adventures to have, not new classes or spells or feats.  If WotC were to re-publish the old Gazetteers and modules, I'd buy them if I was running a campaign, but that business model would leave their revenues below what they would like (since there are many gamers who are just players, never DMs).  I like the Mystara setting and am always glad to see more of it; I like modules because, believe it or not, some professional writers have skill at adventure design and plotting that exceeds my own.  And some just have crazy ideas that I'd never have come up with.  Oh, I suppose I might buy some dice or software tools from time to time.  Software tools could be a much stronger business line, such as 3-D dungeon visualizations -- I input my map, the tool converts it to a "PCs' point of view", and I hook that up to the TV for the players to look at as we play.  Visually convey dark and narrow tunnels with flickering torches, grand ballrooms of demented wizard aristocracy -- yeah, I'd pay $50 for a "Virtual Castle Amber".  But I neither need nor want any new mechanics. 

I don't want to ever again buy a book because it will allow me to have a more powerful PC.  I think the game could thrive with less focus on special abilities gained at each level; I know that thinking back to the B/X and early 2e games we played in junior high and high school, the memorable things are the quests and adventures, not the abilities.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 10, 2007)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> To use a somewhat imprecise analogy, it's like people would buy DVD players but would NOT buy DVDs to play in them. In that case, you'd see all the companies coming out with revisions and add-ons for the players, and couldn't find a DVD anywhere, because there would be no money in them.




If the DVD player allowed me to create my own movies and music, I would have little need to buy DVDs. Same thing with RPGs. More people buy crunch than fluff specifically because they can come up with their own fluff much more easily than they can come up with their own crunch. 

Give me two hours and enough inspiration and I'll write up a campaign world outline that will serve my group for a year or more. It's unlikely I could come up with a comprehensive RPG engine if you gave me a year. 

Give me the tools and I can make my own worlds that fit my gaming style. It's very unlikely someone will ever come up with a setting so compelling that it makes me not care about the rules and crunch underneath when I'm the GM.


----------



## Ty (Dec 11, 2007)

Two observations, probably not all that relevant though:

1.  I bought the adventures back in the old days.  Rahasia, Against the Gianst, Slavelords series, etc.  I bought them because they saved me time as a DM.  My friend bought them because we switched off DM'ing.  There weren't splatbooks per se other than the Monster Manual II, Field Folio, and Unearthed Arcana.  Splat came from Dragon or other campaign settings.

2.  Starting with 2nd Edition, D&D seems to have suffered from the "Jump the Shark" syndrome.  I think Skills and Powers was the peak of the optional rules for AD&D 2nd edition where Vancian Magic was finally offered an alternative.  It also marked the real end of TSR.  Frankly, the "Complete X" series Part Deux marks the point where 3.5 jumped the shark.  When is a company going to identify the point where they jump the shark and sink themselves?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 11, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> If the DVD player allowed me to create my own movies and music, I would have little need to buy DVDs. Same thing with RPGs. More people buy crunch than fluff specifically because they can come up with their own fluff much more easily than they can come up with their own crunch.
> 
> Give me two hours and enough inspiration and I'll write up a campaign world outline that will serve my group for a year or more. It's unlikely I could come up with a comprehensive RPG engine if you gave me a year.
> 
> Give me the tools and I can make my own worlds that fit my gaming style. It's very unlikely someone will ever come up with a setting so compelling that it makes me not care about the rules and crunch underneath when I'm the GM.




I think the D&DI is an attempt to alleviate this inherent problem: WotC knows the player base is bigger than the consumer base, and they want to turn that player base into the consumer base.  One way to do that is through the "play anytime, anywhere" promise of the VT as well as the constant crunch update aspect, plus "free" adventure and what not through on-line Dungeon and Dragon (let's face it --  very few people are likely to sign up for D&DI just for the mags, but that has the adavnatge that they are going to see that material as "bonus" content and it will actually increase the customer goodwill).

IF D&DI costs 12 bucks a month, that is the equivalent of every subscriber buying 4 hardbounds a year, _on top of_ books they actually buy and the books bought by the player/customer base that has no interest in the D&DI (i.e. the older folks).  Assuming they don't flub it with terrible technology, it is a brilliant move.

Still, the thing I don't understand is how WotC is going to hook the "new players" that are going to be necessary to replace the 5, 10, 20 percent (or whatever) that feels that 4E just isn't D&D anymore and stays with 3.x because a0 they have more books than they'll ever use, and b) still be able to buy new books because the OGL can't be revoked, so _someone_ is going to support it.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Dec 11, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> If the DVD player allowed me to create my own movies and music, I would have little need to buy DVDs. Same thing with RPGs. More people buy crunch than fluff specifically because they can come up with their own fluff much more easily than they can come up with their own crunch.
> 
> Give me two hours and enough inspiration and I'll write up a campaign world outline that will serve my group for a year or more. It's unlikely I could come up with a comprehensive RPG engine if you gave me a year.
> 
> Give me the tools and I can make my own worlds that fit my gaming style. It's very unlikely someone will ever come up with a setting so compelling that it makes me not care about the rules and crunch underneath when I'm the GM.




True .... and that's precisely the flaw in the whole RPG industry as a business model, which causes the endless production of new editions and massively-inflating splatbook power curves. They're the only things that people will buy, and yet their very production 1) ticks off the consumer base and 2) contributes to the continuation of the edition treadmill, which in turn has the potential to alienate the very people whose buying habits are causing the edition treadmill to exist in the first place.

In a way, it must be the most frustrating industry in the world to work in ....    :\


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 11, 2007)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> True .... and that's precisely the flaw in the whole RPG industry as a business model, which causes the endless production of new editions and massively-inflating splatbook power curves. They're the only things that people will buy, and yet their very production 1) ticks off the consumer base and 2) contributes to the continuation of the edition treadmill, which in turn has the potential to alienate the very people whose buying habits are causing the edition treadmill to exist in the first place.




Obviously, though, it does not. It doesn't tick people off; they love it. That's why the entire way it's done exists in the first place. People want more Cool Stuff and New Stuff and they'll pay to get it. If the way things were done actually ticked people off, they wouldn't buy new crunch books. 

Equally obviously, the procedure itself is not going to alienate a sufficient number of people to matter. Unless a company does something horribly wrong for some reason, they're going to more than make up for the people leaving by attracting a greater number of new customers than they lose. For every person that doesn't buy 4E because (just to pull an example out of the air) elves are no longer short, I'm pretty sure they'll attract an equal number that go 'Thank God elves in D&D are now taller than humans; I can finally play D&D (again)'.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 11, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Obviously, though, it does not. It doesn't tick people off; they love it. That's why the entire way it's done exists in the first place. People want more Cool Stuff and New Stuff and they'll pay to get it. If the way things were done actually ticked people off, they wouldn't buy new crunch books.



But people also get frustrated with the constant revision, of losing things that they used to think were cool.  I'm guilty; I fell for the shiny and bought 2E splatbooks and the early 3.5 splatbooks.  Never again.  I'm ticked off at myself for falling for the lure.

I AM one of those people who contributed to the problem, got sick of it, and is now getting off the edition treadmill.  I don't think I'm the only one.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 11, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> But people also get frustrated with the constant revision, of losing things that they used to think were cool.  I'm guilty; I fell for the shiny and bought 2E splatbooks and the early 3.5 splatbooks.  Never again.  I'm ticked off at myself for falling for the lure.
> 
> I AM one of those people who contributed to the problem, got sick of it, and is now getting off the edition treadmill.  I don't think I'm the only one.




A certain level of customer "fall off" is inevitable. I guess you're just in that group for the 3e to 4e transition.

And you're right, everyone eventually either embraces the ever-changing nature of the game or chooses to "get off the treadmill" in one way or another. However, the "edition treadmill" is only a "problem" if you keep buying every splat book on the market. In terms of money, D&D is actually a pretty low-investment hobby. All my 3e books cost me less than a year's worth of stuff for many of my other hobbies. Ignoring setting-specific stuff, 3e had, what, 40-50 books? If memory serves, there were about a dozen for 3.0 and 3 dozen or so for 3.5. And most of those are VERY optional (some are repetitive).

Even at $40 a piece (and they weren't all that much), that's less than $2000. And by any standard, that's a bargain for 8 years of a hobby.

It's ironic that many people are jumping off the edition treadmill just as WotC seems to be trying to change their business model. _D&D Insider_ sounds like it may be the way for WotC to set it up so that they don't have to constantly deluge the market with supplements just to keep the line profitable.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 11, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Even at $40 a piece (and they weren't all that much), that's less than $2000. And by any standard, that's a bargain for 8 years of a hobby.



It's not about the money.  It's about never having had the chance to use so much of what there was.  I was excited about the chance to play an Aristocrat1/WizardX, solving problems with his Knowledge skills or social skills as much as with his spells.  I was excited about the chance to play an Aasimar Bard/Paladin with Perform (Dramatic Heroism), Inspiring Courage by drawing his sword and shouting "Villain, prepare to face judgment!"  I was excited about the hellreaver PrC from Fiendish Codex II, or the cavalier from Complete Warrior.  I got into the habit of looking at classes and PrCs and getting excited about builds.  No more.  I'm just not going to be interested in new mechanics anymore.  I can play a paladin in BECM, and describe the dramatic challenge as how he casts his Bless spell.  

I got to play ONE 3.5 character from 1st to 20th level.  One for a one-shot at 14th level.  No other 3.5 PCs.  And I DM'ed a campaign that went from 2nd to 12th.  

There is so much from 3.5 that I had wanted to explore.  Will the 4E paladin be more fun for my style of gaming than the 3.5 one?  Well, not being given enough time to ever play a 3.5 paladin, I'll never know.  Same for cleric, rogue, bard, fighter, and, oh yeah, every single PrC.  Too bad I'll never get the chance to know if those were cool things or not.

It's like I was inundated with material, much of it that looked really fun, but before I got a chance to try it out, it was taken away.  So from now on, I am not going to look for new crunchy material.  It will just get taken away again before I have a chance to explore even 5% of it in a game.


----------



## Hairfoot (Dec 11, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I got into the habit of looking at classes and PrCs and getting excited about builds.  No more.  I'm just not going to be interested in new mechanics anymore.



I've had an interesting journey through 3E.  The whole character-build thing got me by the balls and for a couple of years I just loved the mechanical challenge of it.  Eventually, though, I found that I was creating optimised PCs with stories and flavour built to suit the feat/skill/equipment combo I'd chosen.  The moment I went back to creating character concepts before mechanics, 3E lost a lot of its shine, and I began hankering for older editions.

For that reason, I'm going to be interested in 4E if it provides simplified mechanics that make the game run faster and with less riffling through books for obscure rules.  If it doesn't do that, I'll probably be a permanent C&C or 1e convert.


----------



## Ty (Dec 12, 2007)

Has anyone else here examined some of the proposed "innovations" for 4th Edition on the crunch side in the context of the optional rules proposed in the Unearthed Arcana?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 12, 2007)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> True .... and that's precisely the flaw in the whole RPG industry as a business model, which causes the endless production of new editions and massively-inflating splatbook power curves. They're the only things that people will buy, and yet their very production 1) ticks off the consumer base and 2) contributes to the continuation of the edition treadmill, which in turn has the potential to alienate the very people whose buying habits are causing the edition treadmill to exist in the first place.



I've seen that argument before. But if it were true (companies only producing books people don't really want), then why does the whole industry, as you say, do it? Said industry would quickly die, since the companies would not make any money.

That doesn't seem to respect the customers: maybe they buy that stuff because they actually enjoy it, not because they're sheep who love shiny things?


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 12, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> I've had an interesting journey through 3E.  The whole character-build thing got me by the balls and for a couple of years I just loved the mechanical challenge of it.  Eventually, though, I found that I was creating optimised PCs with stories and flavour built to suit the feat/skill/equipment combo I'd chosen.  The moment I went back to creating character concepts before mechanics, 3E lost a lot of its shine, and I began hankering for older editions.
> 
> For that reason, I'm going to be interested in 4E if it provides simplified mechanics that make the game run faster and with less riffling through books for obscure rules.  If it doesn't do that, I'll probably be a permanent C&C or 1e convert.




I dont see why you can't make characters less now, instead of just numbers.

If anything the current edition fired my creatioon more, due to less cookie-cutters pc, customisation and all. 

Roleplayers customise and optimise also. To fit a concept.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> That doesn't seem to respect the customers: maybe they buy that stuff because they actually enjoy it, not because they're sheep who love shiny things?



I was a sheep who loved the shiny.  I bought 2E splatbooks because I was 15 and liked getting new stuff for my game.  I bought some 3.5 ones for the game I was running, looking for some new ideas for NPCs and for a way to give the PC fighter-types a bit of a boost. 

It was after running a 3.5 campaign, observing the progression of new feats and abilities, the impact of some of those feats, and the evolution of monster defenses, that I just got sick of the arms race.  New editions come out not because the original rules were inherently flawed (even though they were), but because those flawed systems have collapsed completely under the weight of the splatbooks.  

I was part of the problem.  By buying splatbooks, I helped kill 3.5.  I'm sorry.  I will NEVER buy another splatbook again.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 12, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> It's not about the money.  It's about never having had the chance to use so much of what there was.  I was excited about the chance to play an Aristocrat1/WizardX, solving problems with his Knowledge skills or social skills as much as with his spells.  I was excited about the chance to play an Aasimar Bard/Paladin with Perform (Dramatic Heroism), Inspiring Courage by drawing his sword and shouting "Villain, prepare to face judgment!"  I was excited about the hellreaver PrC from Fiendish Codex II, or the cavalier from Complete Warrior.  I got into the habit of looking at classes and PrCs and getting excited about builds.  No more.  I'm just not going to be interested in new mechanics anymore.  I can play a paladin in BECM, and describe the dramatic challenge as how he casts his Bless spell.
> 
> I got to play ONE 3.5 character from 1st to 20th level.  One for a one-shot at 14th level.  No other 3.5 PCs.  And I DM'ed a campaign that went from 2nd to 12th.
> 
> ...




Jesus, you "didn't have time" to play 95% of the content? Sorry dude, but us non-elves aren't gonna wait 160 years per edition for you to get to "experience" everything. ;-)


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 12, 2007)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Jesus, you "didn't have time" to play 95% of the content? Sorry dude, but us non-elves aren't gonna wait 160 years per edition for you to get to "experience" everything. ;-)



Hey, you can go on to 4E if you like, whether or not you've gotten to use all of your 3.5 material.  I'm just not going along.  
If I may ask, how many characters did you get to play in 3.5, and for how many levels?  Do you feel that you had enough time to really explore the system?


----------



## Agamon (Dec 12, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> It's not about the money.  It's about never having had the chance to use so much of what there was.  I was excited about the chance to play an Aristocrat1/WizardX, solving problems with his Knowledge skills or social skills as much as with his spells.  I was excited about the chance to play an Aasimar Bard/Paladin with Perform (Dramatic Heroism), Inspiring Courage by drawing his sword and shouting "Villain, prepare to face judgment!"  I was excited about the hellreaver PrC from Fiendish Codex II, or the cavalier from Complete Warrior.  I got into the habit of looking at classes and PrCs and getting excited about builds.  No more.  I'm just not going to be interested in new mechanics anymore.  I can play a paladin in BECM, and describe the dramatic challenge as how he casts his Bless spell.
> 
> I got to play ONE 3.5 character from 1st to 20th level.  One for a one-shot at 14th level.  No other 3.5 PCs.  And I DM'ed a campaign that went from 2nd to 12th.
> 
> ...




You need to play in my games.  In the last two campaigns (RttToEE and AoW), the 6 players have played 67 different PCs.  I, for one, am sick of all the variation; I've seen everything.  4E is a good reason to get back to basics, if nothing else.


----------



## tenkar (Dec 12, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Hey, you can go on to 4E if you like, whether or not you've gotten to use all of your 3.5 material.  I'm just not going along.
> If I may ask, how many characters did you get to play in 3.5, and for how many levels?  Do you feel that you had enough time to really explore the system?




This is a pointless question as the answer is obvious... with the amount of WotC splats and supplements, let alone 3rd party products, I doubt ANYONE has fully explored 3.5.

I know I haven't... and I certainly never full got use out of all my 2nd edition material.

AD&D 1st edition I probably mined fairly well, but I'm sure I could have played it longer if there hadn't been an AD&D 2e.

So, the question isn't have you really explored 3.5, the real question is: Can I justify moving on to a new edition with the pile of splats, mods, crunch and fluff that I already have for 3.5 (much of which I haven't used)?

There is not enough spare time in my lifetime to use all that I have accumulated during the 3.5 era.  I long for simpler times.  That may be 4e for me, or C&C, or BFRP or even something I haven't found yet.  Currently I feel crushed by the weight of 3.5 (but i have bought alot of 3.5 fluff with the recent sales... fluff is easy to convert


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 12, 2007)

tenkar said:
			
		

> This is a pointless question as the answer is obvious... with the amount of WotC splats and supplements, let alone 3rd party products, I doubt ANYONE has fully explored 3.5.



True, but I imagine that if I had gotten to play 5 or 6 campaigns, bringing a different PC from 1 to 10+ in each one, I'd feel that I had gotten much more mileage out of my 3.5 material.  Not enough to see everything, but enough to decide whether or not it was the system for me.  I played in one outstanding campaign, and I DM'ed one campaign that didn't live up to my hopes (more about player group chemistry and player-DM chemistry than about the ruleset).

I never got to experience the resource management challenges of playing a low-level wizard, the fun of the Indiana Jones Bard, the RP challenge of the hellbred paladin... there was a lot I was looking forward to.


----------



## Ty (Dec 12, 2007)

Not to be a Killjoy Brother, but I'd almost wager going back to basics sometimes is just as enjoyable as trying out the new and untested.  

Our group recently adjusted to a new campaign with literally, a first-timer DM due to the other standard DM's having insane work/life schedules.  All of us with the exception of 1 newcomer to D&D are grognards.  We all basically seem to have agreed not to go too far into prestige classes or strangeness.  Instead, each player came up with a concept, ran with it, and has progressively built their character around that concept.

Surprisingly, we haven't used any Prestige Classes by level 6, only one of us has multi-classed, and we all have stayed with feats out of the PHB, PHB II, and the Complete X Series Part One.  I have to say, we have had an amazingly successful and probably the most enjoyable campaign we've had in years BECAUSE we're going back to the old basics.  We end each session with that same sense of "fun" that the game used to have for us back in our teens and twenties because we've conciously tried to simplify and limit the splat attack.  

I guess my point is that I don't think it's the core game that is broken.  I think it's the compounding of rules and power creep of the supplements that has caused the game to breakdown to some extent.  It also is surprising because this is all being handled quite well by a completely newbie DM.  I know this playstyle isn't for everyone but it's made me step back and take stock of what really makes the game fun for my friends and I.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 12, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Hey, you can go on to 4E if you like, whether or not you've gotten to use all of your 3.5 material.  I'm just not going along.
> If I may ask, how many characters did you get to play in 3.5, and for how many levels?  Do you feel that you had enough time to really explore the system?




I played probably a half-dozen characters, only a couple of them for more than a few levels. Certainly not all the fun-looking options out there.

Despite that, I'm really looking forward to 4e. Why? Because there are a lot MORE characters that I've always wanted to play, but which were a pain in the butt under core 3e rules. Even base classes like ranger and paladin look a whole lot more appealing now that they're going to have a focused role in the group, while other classes like wizard and cleric might be a lot more fun now that they (hopefully) won't require keeping track of 80 spell slots at high levels.

You mentioned not ever having played a 3e paladin. Let me ask you, then: why did you buy ANY of those 3e/3.5 supplements before you'd played through all the appealing combinations of the core classes? I'm gonna guess it's because some of the stuff in the supplements looked EVEN MORE appealing. That's why I'm psyched about 4e: hopefully, it'll be even more fun than playing 3.5 with the requisite stack of supplements to make it semi-balanced, and it'll be a lot cheaper!


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 12, 2007)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> You mentioned not ever having played a 3e paladin. Let me ask you, then: why did you buy ANY of those 3e/3.5 supplements before you'd played through all the appealing combinations of the core classes?



Two reasons: 1) my friends had just opened a gaming store, and 2) I was looking for some ideas for the campaign I was running (not the one I was playing in).  I bought CW and CAdv because I was worried the PC fighter-types would fall behind without those (with them, they were utterly dominating); I bought CDiv, CArc, BoVD and FCII for the bad guys.  The campaign I was a player in had started much earlier, and I hadn't bought the books at that time because I as a player was quite happy with the core rules.  I eventually used 2 things from CDiv for my druid (Rapid Spell and Mass Resist Energy) and, yeah, I felt kind of dirty about it.  Like the druid needs more power.  I never even glanced at the SC list for druid spells... 

To a lesser extent, I was academically interested in seeing how WotC was using these books to patch various multiclassing flaws (such as Practiced Spellcaster and some of the CAdv feats).  I was really hoping that these books would fix everything and give 3.5 a nice long life -- the warlock class certainly provided an option for those who hated Vancian magic, while leaving the wizard for those of us who loved it.  Then I realized how much of a mess these books made things (Shock Trooper/Leap Attack, those orb spells, Arcane Mastery, etc.), and I decided to NOT buy any additional splatbooks.

And Ty, I think you're exactly right on simplifying things.  The only games I'll play in the future are core-only 3.5 or BECM (either one house-ruled as the DMs see fit, of course).


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 12, 2007)

That's fair enough Brother Maclaren, but I think we come at this from two different perspectives. I certainly understand the belief that there's a lot more playing left in 3rd Edition. On the other hand, I never expected any number of supplements to prevent there from being a new edition.

Could I have waited another couple years? Sure, I guess. But I was houseruling the hell out of 3e already, and in 2 more years, I'd hardly be playing something recognizable as 3e. It'd still be d20, I'm sure, but I was already looking at _Iron Heroes_ over D&D. And even that was getting some houseruling.

So I guess I'm just ready for a new edition, even though I haven't exhausted the possibilities of the old one. But that's always going to be the case. However, I understand people who decide that they like 3e and decide to jump off the "edition treadmill" here. It happens with every edition of the game. Some of them may eventually come back, and some may not. diaglo, for example, jumped off the edition treadmill LONG ago: he still plays OD&D.

Just curiously, I keep seeing people mention "BECM." At first I thought it was a typo of the shorthand for "Big Eyes, Small Mouth," but I'm now pretty sure that isn't the case. Is it an abbreviation for Basic, Expert, Companion, Master D&D? In other words, it's the stuff that was republished in the _Rules Compendium_.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Dec 14, 2007)

This thread is too good to let die... time for a bump.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Dec 14, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Oh, I suppose I might buy some dice or software tools from time to time.  Software tools could be a much stronger business line, such as 3-D dungeon visualizations -- I input my map, the tool converts it to a "PCs' point of view", and I hook that up to the TV for the players to look at as we play.  Visually convey dark and narrow tunnels with flickering torches, grand ballrooms of demented wizard aristocracy -- yeah, I'd pay $50 for a "Virtual Castle Amber".




Uh, what about just using, you know, imagination? Isn't that, like, the whole point of tabletop RPGs? If you want "Virtual Castle Amber" there's always WoW or DDO.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 14, 2007)

If I live for a million lifetimes, I will never be able to tell all the stories I want to tell.

But until I'm brain-damaged, I will always find a way to tell whatever story I want with the tools I am given.

It's all about finding the right tools for the job.

4e looks like it will be a better set of tools.

If I want the resource management of an early-edition wizard back in the game, well, that's what they make house rules and supplements for. But, really, there's so many other things I want to experience (and new things I want to experience!) that I just can't get that attatched to loosing some things that I once wanted, knowing that if I want them bad enough, I can add them back in (or I can always go back and play a 3.5 game, after all).



> Uh, what about just using, you know, imagination? Isn't that, like, the whole point of tabletop RPGs? If you want "Virtual Castle Amber" there's always WoW or DDO.




That's like saying people who love minis combat should just go play Candy Land or Monopoly or Chess. 

There's a world of difference between "visual aid" and "totally new game."


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Dec 14, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Uh, what about just using, you know, imagination? Isn't that, like, the whole point of tabletop RPGs? If you want "Virtual Castle Amber" there's always WoW or DDO.



Players just like to look at stuff, whether it's a mini, a hand-drawn sketch, the MM picture or whatever.  As good as I am at describing an environment, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Players also seem to be less patient than they were when I was first playing D&D.  Some start rolling their eyes when the descriptions start.  Pictures save time.

I'll likely use in my next campaign the CRPG convention of "on one of the corpses, you find a scrawled map of this part of the dungeon" and hand it out -- because mapping takes TONS of time and rather boring descriptions of corridor lengths.  I was thinking that just flashing on a screen "You see this" would give the players a much better idea of a room than if I were describing it in detail.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 14, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Uh, what about just using, you know, imagination? Isn't that, like, the whole point of tabletop RPGs?




Funny, I thought the point was to have fun.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 15, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Funny, I thought the point was to have fun.




One doesn't exclude the other. One is the "what", the other the "how".


----------



## Alceste (Dec 16, 2007)

I also think 4E will have a better set of tools to convey the stories that I have been telling since I started playing D&D a long, long time ago. The game does need to attract and grab more of an audience.


----------



## PhantomNarrator (Dec 16, 2007)

Ifurita'sFan said:
			
		

> Forgive me for saying this... but I think that this whole thread is something of a flamebait when you look at how it's named.
> 
> Asking the question "Are Grognards killing D&D" is surely not a good way of tamping down the fighting and incivility that's going on in the forums. It could very easily be turned back on you as "Are 4e boosters and MMORPG newbs killing  D&D?" Which is something that I don't think would be well received either.
> 
> ...




Soooooo QFT.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> On the one hand, the only thing that sells are *systems*.  Typical RPG consumers don't buy adventures, campaign settings, campaign setting supplements, and similar products.




I wonder if this really needs to be the iron-bound law people here seem to treat it like. Perhaps consumers would be more willing to buy fluff if so much of it didn't suck so hard. Granted, I'm no expert on the subject but many of the things held up as being "very good" by folks on the boards seem incredibly derivative and unoriginal to me. Not to mention incredibly poorly organized and designed to read like every other fluff book out there, rather than in a fashion that facilitates actually running adventures.

I can't shake the gnawing hunch that a fluff product that's well designed, with a layout that actually facilitates game play, and that contains original, fun and thought provoking material would sell pretty well.


----------



## Dormammu (Dec 16, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I can't shake the gnawing hunch that a fluff product that's well designed, with a layout that actually facilitates game play, and that contains original, fun and thought provoking material would sell pretty well.



More often it just spawns a rabid fan following that stick with the world for decades after it leaves print.  Not every printed campaign setting in the history of RPGs sucks, but none have been commercial successes.  Worlds like Glorantha and Hârn still have very loyal followers out there, and even see things being published from time to time.

It would be nice if Wizards could make a setting at least good enough that it was a break-even product so they could justify it alongside the books that net them cash.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 17, 2007)

Alceste said:
			
		

> I also think 4E will have a better set of tools to convey the stories that I have been telling since I started playing D&D a long, long time ago.



I hope this ends up the case for all of us.  Even if the complete 4e toolkit doesn't get the job done, if it holds some useful tools we didn't have in the box before - or that serve as upgrades to what we did have - it'll be worthwhile.

Lane-"hey, who you calling a toolbox?"-fan


----------



## Reynard (Dec 17, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I can't shake the gnawing hunch that a fluff product that's well designed, with a layout that actually facilitates game play, and that contains original, fun and thought provoking material would sell pretty well.




Personally, I think the "text book" approach to setting and other fluff books has to go.  I think inspiring people requires something more immediate and visceral.  Give me a coffee table style book on FR, say, with great art and things like dwarven epic poems, elven songs, letters home from soldiers during important wars in history and the like and I think you can convey a great deal more about a setting than you can with ten times the wordcount written like an encyclopedia.  Sidebars with mechanical stuff, detailing only those things which deviate from the Core materials would round the thing out.  From there, it is up to the group -- and every groups FR (or whatever) would look different, and that, IMO, is a good thing.


----------

