# Grognard good...grognard bad



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 23, 2010)

From various threads here, and one on the Piazza....
Folk tend to use "grognard" in different ways:

1) Lover of an older edition/setting of their fave game.

2) Pig headed twit. Either so stubborn he simply won't or can't try anything else fairly, Or, unable to graps that the nostalgia and original wonder of a new thing can never be repeated and is thus more in love with the emotions of their first gaming days, than actual facts.

I think here, many folk use version #1. I use #2, because if someone likes an "Older version", that's their issue not mine and causes me no grief, no biggie  It's like preffering Mozart to Wagner, or VampireTM to D&D, or whatever. it doesn't need a "Name" they are just "Joe who likes 1st ed", if we're talking of (A)D&D.

I had a huge love of 1st ed D&D, it was awesome, so fresh, fun etc!
But same goes for many things for your first time, that time/experience is always precious 
But I've enjoyed each iteration of D&D since then. To me, D&D has improved, like anything, over time. I have some complaints, of course, nothing's perfect.
I feel a lack of fluff, of diversity, of amount of various worlds/ideas supported has limited it, and I'm still narked off about Dungeon/Dragon.
but time, moves on...to me, D&D isn't simply the mechanics, it's a whole lot more.

I'm a "grognard" in that I love the older settings. 
Ebberon didn't do much for me, I ran games sort of like that style anyway. But I have no objection to it.

3rd Ed Realms was extremely well made, the 3rd ed FRCG is an amazing book...but I love the very first Realms boxed set, because it's how I see the Realms: "_Forgotten"!, _very unexplored, mysterious, and I just adore the art/design, it evokes the setting to me which later ones don't (especially the 3rd boxed set which I hate, ick).

Dark Sun originally was outstanding, but like many folks, the forced metaplot by TSR/novels etc then 2nd boxed set that "un-mystified" that which was best left mysterious, nah that I completely ignored and left otu of my games.

Spelljammer was just so weird, beautiful, "High adventure" and capable of humour that I adored it  I also loved swashbuckling long before Cpt Jack Sparrow was around, lol, "The Crimson Pirate" and Captain Blood being huge favourites of mine.

Planescape, this one's more awkward. I think losing the Factions, that "belief is king" and otehr philosophical aspects was very bad, it lost a lot of what made it "special". 
I don't like the Planes as a "huge mega dungeon" OMG I hate that. it completely misses the point as far as I'm concerned. It's like playing Ravenloft without scaring the pants off the players and making it Monty Haul.
Oh, and sorry DiTerLizzi fans, I loathed his style of art, lol many though I know loved it, hey, each to his own.
But I adored the _concepts _in the orginal setting.
4th ed improved somethings, worsened others with the Planes. I think the Philosophy and factions of original Planescape and the 4th ed Dawn War can both be present.

Original Ravenloft was great, but all the changes...oh no, no thanks, that was change for the sake of change.  I'd have gladly paid for more new realms etc, but not messing the whole thing up.


Grognard good...grognard bad....

Companies need to sell products to keep in business. For D&D to survive, it must sell more stuff. So like it or not, new editions, acessories and settings, are vital to the thing well all love.

By re-releasing 4th ed Dark Sun, WOTC does everyone a good turn.

But here's something I think WOTC is making a huge failing in:
Not catering to more grognards, or....just folk who want something different.
Some people just preffer 1st ed. or 2nd, or 3rd. This is not a bad thing! 

the huge amount of output in the later TSR days, I think was NOT a bad thing. D&D needs a lot of "stuff" to support, to attract, to give folk DIFFERENT things to see and like. Just because I or you don't like a module, doesn't mean it isn't one Joe will adore and campign around for the next 10 years.


Dragon Magazine and the DDI stuff should support the older editions, thus cementing the good will of those sticking ot other versions. They have money to spend and may well have kids who one day may play 6th edition....

As I've been throwing out my old Dragon magazines, sigh, I've been reading through them, and I see the huge difference between them and the very sad item Dragon mag is today.
Old Dragon mag, especially in it's latter period, had a huge wealth of articles, product reviews, humour and other stuff that made it feel _PART OF A COMMUNITY_ and not merely "chunks of stuff".

I'm not getting at the individual articles in today's Dragon, which are often good  but at the failure to realize that an online item allows for a much larger amount of content and the necessity for Dragon magazine to be a powerful item in the D&D community, which it sure can be, as it once was.
At the moment it's...mostly dribs and drabs, soem exicitng, but...no coherence!
It' snot got the strength and flavoursom breadth it had to really reach out to folk.


Then we have the behaviour of WOTC itself, firing or losing people the community respects so damn often. That's not good, it doesn't build rappor, trust etc. The reasons maybe genuine, but with the "coproate speak" used when such occur....not good.

In effect, WOTC is _making _folk be grognards (good and bad), IMHO, and not embracing them back.

If Dragon/Dungeon mag and DDI had articles for earlier editions and co-operation with sellers of the earlier versions, the community spirit would _improve_.
as pdfs, Dragon mag could have a huge  amoutn of content. It could have money making _RPG _adverts again. 
I LOVE seeing lots of various game related stuff, from minis to soundtracks, dungeon furniture to markers.

*Every new edition of D&D will make more grognards*...
unless this is realized, and they are kept included as part of the D&D family...then all it does is help erode the game!

Folk who preffer an older version or setting who feel deliberately sleighted by corporate policy decisions that have little "human warmth", may become the "bad" grognards we can all do without, or just "good" ones who buy old books off Ebay or pdf adventures etc from 3rd parties, rather than keep D&D's continued presence alive.


Just some obervations from, the neo-grognard in the Twilight Zone!


----------



## Mark (Jun 23, 2010)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> I'm a "grognard" in that I love the older settings.
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> ...





Indeed (and well said all around).  One of the biggest of the PR blunders of WotC in recent years was the blanket removal of PDFs from the market based on their citing of newer books being pirated in some quarters.  There inability to convert some fans to the newest edition was a foregone conclusion but the ending of their relationship with those past fans by cutting off sales of PDFs of previous editions was simply foolish.  I'm not their target for 4E (I periodically play and sometimes pick up a product that is more edition neutral) but I was someone who would still purchase older PDFs.  I would do this just to read and enjoy them, since I do not run older edition games, although I do play in some at conventions.  I'm still perplexed by the decision and what was gained by no longer selling the older edition PDFs.  It will be fascinating to someday hear the thought process behind the decision (and you know that someday someone will spill the beans, even if only anonymously, regarding who made the various PR blunders).


Anyway, grognard is still, to me, the traditional gaming definition of a pre-RPG wargamer (though the older wargamers I know would not include any wargamer who since took up RPGs as amoung the ranks of grognards).  From my POV, any RPGer who shows signs of grognardishness is termed a neo-grog.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 23, 2010)

Yeah, it's sort of funny to see it applied to RPGers.

On the other hand, Napoleon's old soldiers might have thought it funny to see it applied to people who merely played wargames about Napoleon's old soldiers.

What it literally means is "grumbler", I think (but pardon my French if I'm wrong).


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 23, 2010)

Simple test.

If you can get someone to take the position of "Fun!  I don't play this game for _fun_, sonny-boy!", they are the grognard.

The grognard hates new games because they are not exactly like the old games.

Playing old games does not make you a grognard.  Hating people getting rid of rules they don't think are fun is grognard.  Thinking that harsh arbitrary rules are manly is grognard.  Thinking that you must endure pointless frustration before you deserve to have fun is grognard.  Not wanting new people to join the hobby because they are the wrong sorts of people is grognard.

This is why I mean when I say grognard.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 23, 2010)

As to commerce ...

I've got my skepticism, but I reckon it may well be that what WotC has been doing is the way to maximize profits.

In any case, maximizing profits is not necessarily identical with any other thing -- including the long-term existence of D&D in any form.

It is indeed a drag that the PDFs are gone. With OD&D in particular, as well as some modules, the scarcity of originals makes for collectors'-item prices.

Going beyond that, though, we have the OGL and SRD and "retro-clones" in addition to the original books that are more readily available.

Basically, the futures of the old games are passing into the hands of fans. As the professional industry associated with them falls by the wayside, the hobby comes to prominence.

Rather, it _returns_ to prominence. The hobby is where it all began, whence the industry came. It is the Once and Future King of gaming.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 23, 2010)

In gamer speak I believe it means those who entered the roleplaying hobby through wargames. This is kind of an interesting definition because someone who learns about D&D through somebody at their weekly Flames of War game would be a grognard. Kind of funny actually.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 23, 2010)

Silverblade said:
			
		

> But here's something I think WOTC is making a huge failing in:
> Not catering to more grognards, or....just folk who want something different.
> Some people just preffer 1st ed. or 2nd, or 3rd. This is not a bad thing!



People who prefer AD&D1, AD&D2, or D&D3 (or OD&D, B/XD&D, or BECMID&D) *have* those games. WotC doesn't need to cater to those folks; those folks already have years of material for those editions.

Bullgrit


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 23, 2010)

IMO, the "good" use of Grognard means someone who has played the game for years, and brings their years of experience to the table to benefit the whole gaming group.

The far more common use, and the derisive usage, means someone who hates the new game because it's not the game they used to play years ago.  So a "stupid Grognard" would be someone who loathes 4E because it's not 1st edition AD&D, and basically considers anyone who likes 4E to be a kid/mmo player/etc.  Conversely, someone who just says "4E is not for me, so I don't play it" (i.e. most of the veteran players here) is NOT a Grognard, because they aren't going on a rant about how all the newfangled stuff is dumbing down the game, or worse how 4E isn't really D&D at all.

So basically the bad kind of grognard hates something because it's new, and tries to proselytize to others to see his stance, and typically resorts to insults or baseless arguments to show why new = bad, old = good.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 23, 2010)

http://www.alanemrich.com/Writing_Archive_pages/grognard.htm

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]*Grognard:* a soldier of Napoleons' Old Guard; a veteran soldier; grumbler (French) - Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed

[/FONT][/FONT]  [FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]*Grognard:* (slang) an experienced wargamer - John Young, _Strategy & Tactics_ magazine 
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 23, 2010)

Basically, from what I've seen, someone who self-identifies as a "grognard" is someone who has drawn a line in the sand, demarking where they stand; anyone on the other side of the line is against them, whether the anyone knows or cares to be.

Usually, that line is drawn before AD&D2.

Bullgrit


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 23, 2010)

Out of curiosity...

"Grognard", from Wikitionary:

*ENGLISH*

*Etymology* From French _grognard_ (“‘old soldier’”)
*Noun* grognard (_plural_ grognards)

An old soldier.
(_games, slang_) Someone who enjoys playing board wargames.
(_computer games, slang_) Inside the computer game development industry, a game fan who will buy every game released in a certain genre of computer game (RTS, or computer role-playing game, etc.).

*FRENCH*

*Etymology* French _grognard_, "grumbler" from Fr. _grogner_ 1. snarl 2. grunt 3. growl 4. grumble _râler_ 5. gripe _râler_ and Fr. _grognon_ 1. grouch 2. curmudgeon.
*Noun* grognard _m._ (_plural_ grognards)

an old veteran soldier; specifically of the grenadiers of the Imperial Guard (Grenadiers à Pied de la Garde Impériale); an old complaining soldier


Reference: Napoleonic Military Glossary : The Napoleonic Guide :


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 23, 2010)

I consider myself a grognard, having played since around '79 and enjoying any old chance to grumble about something.  

As far as games go, you won't find me playing Basic, 1E or 2E; I prefer 3.5/Pathfinder.  Not fond of 4E at all.  At the same time, I've just gotten into playing Savage Worlds and nWoD (and L5R 3E) before that.  So I'm still learning and playing new games all the time.

It goes to prove, that like alignments, grognard is a tendency, not a rule.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> Simple test.
> 
> If you can get someone to take the position of "Fun!  I don't play this game for _fun_, sonny-boy!", they are the grognard.




So, there are none?!?!?!  



> Thinking that you must endure pointless frustration before you deserve to have fun is grognard.




You mean like long, grindy combats before you can get back to the exploration?  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> People who prefer AD&D1, AD&D2, or D&D3 (or OD&D, B/XD&D, or BECMID&D) *have* those games. WotC doesn't need to cater to those folks; those folks already have years of material for those editions.




Indeed.

Expecting WotC to cater to you is no more rational than WotC to expect you to cater to them.

In neither case is the expectation likely to end well.


RC


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You mean like long, grindy combats before you can get back to the exploration?




Not biting flamewar bait, but a 4e grognard (which will undoubtedly exist when 5e comes out), would say that REAL gamers can take long combats, and if its taking you too long to kill monsters maybe you just don't have the SKILL that it takes to pull it off.

A non-grognard might offer encounter construction advice or possibly some house rules.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 23, 2010)

I'm a self-confessed leap-grognard, as I skipped 2e and have no interest in 4e. I started with Basic in 1979. 3.5e/d20 is my current game of choice.



Mark said:


> One of the biggest of the PR blunders of WotC in recent years was the blanket removal of PDFs from the market based on their citing of newer books being pirated in some quarters.




Especially with the success of the iPad. The newest update allows for PDF viewing directly in the iBooks app. Better yet, WotC could let Apple or Lulu convert the older PDFs into ePub format and sell them via the iBookstore.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> Not biting flamewar bait, but a 4e grognard (which will undoubtedly exist when 5e comes out), would say that REAL gamers can take long combats, and if its taking you too long to kill monsters maybe you just don't have the SKILL that it takes to pull it off.






That's fantastic.  I've given out too much XP in the past 24, but I'll have to try to remember to come back & hand you some for this.



> A non-grognard might offer encounter construction advice or possibly some house rules.




Why wouldn't a grognard offer encounter construction advice or possibly some house rules?


RC


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 23, 2010)

What do you call the guys that jump at the chance to play any new edition and all of a sudden claim that the previous edition was full of problems as if the newer edition won't be? Are they Grognads?

Sorry, I just wanted an excuse to say "nads".


----------



## Papa-DRB (Jun 23, 2010)

You forgot part of the definition...

Napoleon Bonaparte's name for old veteran soldiers; specifically the Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard (Grenadiers à Pied de la Garde Impériale). *They were the soldiers who were old enough to know what was going on, but junior enough in rank not to be able to affect it, and constantly complained about it.*

Many years spent in corporate America taught me that... Especially the last part.

-- david
Papa.DRB



Pbartender said:


> Out of curiosity...
> 
> "Grognard", from Wikitionary:
> 
> ...


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Why wouldn't a grognard offer encounter construction advice or possibly some house rules?




Because if you're whining that the combats are too long then you obviously don't have the skills for a game like 4e, and should try sucking less.  REAL MEN know how to take it and don't whine and cry that combats take too long.

Substitute 4e for game they are grogging over, and combats too long for, well, pretty much anything.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, there are none?!?!?!




Oh, I don't know.  You get people non-ironically complaining about The Tyranny of Fun.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 23, 2010)

Let's get really old school.

All games, entertainments and works of fiction are at best a distraction. Frivolous, useless, immoral fripperies. At worst they are taking you straight to Hell.

Work and education, both temporal and spiritual, are the only commendable activities. Sex should, of course, only be undertaken for the purpose of making babies, not pleasure. Really it's just another form of work. That's the way I see it, anyway.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 24, 2010)

Oryan77 said:


> What do you call the guys that jump at the chance to play any new edition and all of a sudden claim that the previous edition was full of problems as if the newer edition won't be? Are they Grognads?
> 
> Sorry, I just wanted an excuse to say "nads".




hehe well somewhat true for me 
each edition, near the end, has driven me nuts with problems, so the house rules build...
Alas, can't play at moment, sigh, or I'm sure I'd be working on 4th ed house rules, lol.
I honestly couldn't play far into Baldur's Gate2, wich I finally got last year, 'cause the 2nd ed ruleset was driving me batty!
_"So, my uber high Int wizard can't get a damn spell to actually LAND on these bozos?! This makes no sense! GAAAAAH!" _ hehe 

_G'NADS!_ 


Doug
let me guess, you have:
a) an infant who's the human equivalent of an IED packed with nitroglycerine and...stuff
b) a terrible Two, who's like a drow Matron on crystal meth.
c) An adolescent who needs sent to Hannibal Lecktor's version of "Hogwarts"
eh?


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 24, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> You get people non-ironically complaining about The Tyranny of Fun.



It's a bird! It's a plane! It's *Melan*'s point whizzing by!

"Fun!  I don't play this game for _fun_, sonny-boy!" is a stilted and misleading interpretation of "tyranny of fun," right up there with, "4e, the mmo of ttrpgs!"


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 24, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> It's a bird! It's a plane! It's *Melan*'s point whizzing by!
> 
> "Fun!  I don't play this game for _fun_, sonny-boy!" is a stilted and misleading interpretation of "tyranny of fun," right up there with, "4e, the mmo of ttrpgs!"



I know what Melan's point was.  But it still fits firmly under the heading of grognardia.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 24, 2010)

I'm just really burnt out of too many rules changes and so much material and the pressure to buy the great really super expensive stuff that I can't afford anymore.


----------



## amnuxoll (Jun 24, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Basically, from what I've seen, someone who self-identifies as a "grognard" is someone who has drawn a line in the sand, demarking where they stand; anyone on the other side of the line is against them, whether the anyone knows or cares to be.
> 
> Bullgrit




I usually don't agree with anything Bullgrit says but this I think statement (above) is the gem of this thread.  I think it's dead on.

:AMN:
(grognard)


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 24, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> But it still fits firmly under the heading of grognardia.



. . . to you.

For me, it's a look at some aspects of game design, how they've changed over time, and how proceeding along a different design path produces different experiences at the table.

Y'know, kinda like what this guy did.

It's not about venerating older games. It's about mining the history of gaming for ideas which continue to resonate right now.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 24, 2010)

I am a True Grognard, by which I mean, of course, that I am French, and happen to like vintage gaming.


----------



## unan oranis (Jun 24, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, I don't know.  You get people non-ironically complaining about The Tyranny of Fun.




Is that a thread still going ... after two years?  WTF...  is there some legend behind it?  Kripes thats insane.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> Because if you're whining that the combats are too long then you obviously don't have the skills for a game like 4e, and should try sucking less.  REAL MEN know how to take it and don't whine and cry that combats take too long.
> 
> Substitute 4e for game they are grogging over, and combats too long for, well, pretty much anything.




I think you're making that up.

Sure, some people like the style of combat 4e produces.  They like the attention to the type of detail WotC chose to focus on.  They like minis and battlemaps.  They are not really concerned with how long combat takes.  In many ways, they are prime candidates to recruit for wargames.

But there is a real difference between saying "This is a feature, not a bug" and "REAL MEN know how to take it and don't whine and cry that combats take too long".

After all, there are quite a few folks who, when WotC said 3e combats were taking too long, were right there on the bandwagon, who also find 4e combats -- although taking the same amount of actual time -- to be perfectly fine.  It matters what you're getting for the time you put in.

No, the only place this comes up AFAICT is the idea that Bad Things can happen to your character.  There is a segment of gaming that prefers (to varying degrees) to control what Bad Things happen to their characters, and a segment of gaming that prefers (to varying degrees) to let the dice fall where they may.  And, by this, I mean the dice being able to dictate that Bad Things happen, not that the dice can fall, but the rules protect you from Bad Things happening instead.

Of course, there is a lot of perception that allowing Bad Things to happen is considered wrongbadfun by a lot of folks, including the designers of 4e.  Thus, all the talk about how unfun SoD is, or SoS, etc.

You are right that "I find that an important part of the fun" is a better answer than the one that typically arises, from either direction.  But the type of answer that typically arises is no better from the "new game" side than from the "old game" side.

IMHO, and IME.  YMMV.



Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, I don't know.  You get people non-ironically complaining about The Tyranny of Fun.




Hold on.  Is that an argument that the game isn't played for enjoyment, or that the kind of enjoyment endorsed by WotC with its current game isn't what the author actually finds "fun"?  

The first would support your point.

The second would support mine.



RC


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think you're making that up.



That seems a bizarre claim to make.  In more generic terms, that's the heart of edition wars right there.  Are they made up too?  Your own post (further down) describes that same behavior except with old and new editions in reverse.  Surely, you're not claiming that only one side of the edition war is at fault with denigrating the taste and playstyle of the other?

Or maybe you're just quibbling with the specifics of his example, which he made no bones about making up on the spot.  It seems to me that the specifics of the example are immaterial; they're just there to illustrate what he means when he says 'grognard' (which is very similar to how I use the word most often).


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But there is a real difference between saying "This is a feature, not a bug" and "REAL MEN know how to take it and don't whine and cry that combats take too long".



Of course there is.  That's the whole point of creating this example.  That difference is the difference between being a grognard and not being a grognard.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Hold on.  Is that an argument that the game isn't played for enjoyment, or that the kind of enjoyment endorsed by WotC with its current game isn't what the author actually finds "fun"?
> 
> The first would support your point.
> 
> The second would support mine.



It was an argument that the game, by fostering what its audience today apparently finds fun, is destroying the values that make gaming great, is contributing to gamer delinquincy and bad gaming, is destined to "destroy the hobby," isn't really what the customers want (because they just don't know what's actually good for them,) and is generally loitering around on Melan's lawn playing its music too loud.

The non-ironic Tyranny of Fun argument is the epitome of grognardiana, dressed up in a literate fashion to give it the illusion of legitimacy.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 24, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> . . . to you.
> 
> For me, it's a look at some aspects of game design, how they've changed over time, and how proceeding along a different design path produces different experiences at the table.
> 
> ...




Oh, a smart grognard has a few points.  And I never disputed that.  But it still amounts to a "Damn kids.  Get off my lawn.  In my day we never had help having fun.  We walked twenty miles, up hill each way.  And we liked it."

If he'd just been looking at how the game had changed without anything about fun being tyrannical, and saying that he enjoyed the previous version then he'd have made all the same good points without being a grognard.  (Or What Hobo Said.)



unan oranis said:


> Is that a thread still going ... after two years? WTF... is there some legend behind it? Kripes thats insane.




... You're right.  Scary.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Of course there is. That's the whole point of creating this example. That difference is the difference between being a grognard and not being a grognard.
> 
> It was an argument that the game, by fostering what its audience today apparently finds fun, is destroying the values that make gaming great, is contributing to gamer delinquincy and bad gaming, is destined to "destroy the hobby," isn't really what the customers want (because they just don't know what's actually good for them,) and is generally loitering around on Melan's lawn playing its music too loud.
> 
> The non-ironic Tyranny of Fun argument is the epitome of grognardiana, dressed up in a literate fashion to give it the illusion of legitimacy.




I believe the largest obstacle to understanding is believing that there is universal definition of fun. All jokes of "fun is for wimps" aside, I find it hard to believe that even the most hidebound grognards around play in a manner which they find to be unenjoyable. The fun in any game is to be found in the people, not the system. No game book can or should try and define what fun is. Those that try fail on some level or another. 



Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, a smart grognard has a few points. And I never disputed that. But it still amounts to a "Damn kids. Get off my lawn. In my day we never had help having fun. We walked twenty miles, up hill each way. And we liked it."
> 
> If he'd just been looking at how the game had changed without anything about fun being tyrannical, and saying that he enjoyed the previous version then he'd have made all the same good points without being a grognard. (Or What Hobo Said.)




IMHO fun only approaches being tyrannical when an attempt is made to objectively define it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> That seems a bizarre claim to make.  In more generic terms, that's the heart of edition wars right there.  Are they made up too?




Nah.  The "heart of the edition wars" is the supposition that, when someone claims a preference that varies from the baseline of edition X, fans of edition X automatically assume that the person making the claim is simply doing so to slam edition X, or to be "cool", or whatever.  Anything other than the supposition that the statement is valid at face value.



> Your own post (further down) describes that same behavior except with old and new editions in reverse.  Surely, you're not claiming that only one side of the edition war is at fault with denigrating the taste and playstyle of the other?




Are we talking about the Bad Things example?  I don't believe that either side is stating their preference simply to slam the other, to be "cool", or whatever.  I assume that, despite the diatribe that arises, the base of what is happening is, in fact, people stating what they honestly believe.

Moreover, if the same behaviour happens with both the newer and older editions, how can "grognards" necessarily be fans of older editions?  Or do you propose that "grognards" and "newnards" are somehow different?



> That difference is the difference between being a grognard and not being a grognard.




That difference is what I am questioning the existence of.



> It was an argument that the game, by fostering what its audience today apparently finds fun, is destroying the values that make gaming great, is contributing to gamer delinquincy and bad gaming, is destined to "destroy the hobby," isn't really what the customers want (because they just don't know what's actually good for them,) and is generally loitering around on Melan's lawn playing its music too loud.
> 
> The non-ironic Tyranny of Fun argument is the epitome of grognardiana, dressed up in a literate fashion to give it the illusion of legitimacy.




I wonder if Melan would agree with your summary?  

I rather suspect not, and that you are reading his post in a rather uncharitable light.

AFAICT, the core of Melan's post is:

All in all, what we are seeing is the emergence of a philosophy that denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play.  Attempting to "protect" gamers from their own mistakes will not result in better games - it will limit self-expression, the freedom of creativity and hinder the natural and easy learning process most of us have gone through. It will subtly, although of course not completely, shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment. The roleplaying hobby will be poorer for it, and it can also be expected to experience slow and continuous shrinkage as it becomes apparent to people that passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment offer much better alternatives than sitting around a table and rolling polyhedral dice.​
Which seems, to me, to be a valid concern.

There is no argument at all about the rules being bad; the argument seems to be about market forces AFAICT, and how they have influenced the presentation of the game.  Far from claiming that 4e "isn't really what the customers want", it seems to be suggesting that "what the customers want" isn't necessarily what makes the best game.

The argument boils down to:  "Lowering the bar for success perforce lowers the heights that can be attained."  At least as I read it.  And I would argue that this is, in fact, true.

Whether or not 4e _*actually*_ lowers the bar is, obviously, a different argument.  Or, as Melan put it:  "I don't claim to be universally right. These are my subjective conclusions based on browsing through the core books and having read a good number of message board discussions, particularly ENWorld."  He goes on to agree, more than once, that his opinion of 4e is not necessarily accurate.  This is an IF/THEN statement of sorts.  IF his perception is valid, THEN this is the result he foresees.  IF you don't think his perception is valid, THEN neither should you find his conclusions valid.

However, he is very clear that he is talking about the difference between how he defines "fun" and how WotC does:  "I just find it likely that 4e will nudge the hobby in a direction I personally dislike. That will have marginal effects on my own gaming, but it will be annoying in online discussions."

This is, therefore, not an argument that the game isn't played for enjoyment, but rather that the kind of enjoyment endorsed by WotC with its current game isn't what the author actually finds "fun".  Which supports my point.

I would, therefore, suggest that you are colouring the post the way you wish to in order to make it fit the point you wish to make.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> IMHO fun only approaches being tyrannical when an attempt is made to objectively define it.




Which is, AFAICT, where the post title comes from.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I believe the largest obstacle to understanding is believing that there is universal definition of fun. All jokes of "fun is for wimps" aside, I find it hard to believe that even the most hidebound grognards around play in a manner which they find to be unenjoyable. The fun in any game is to be found in the people, not the system. No game book can or should try and define what fun is. Those that try fail on some level or another.
> 
> IMHO fun only approaches being tyrannical when an attempt is made to objectively define it.



I've played with plenty of people who took a while to grasp the concept of "playing the game the way that we think is fun" is more important than "playing the game right", so it's worth making the point in a rulebook.

And I think claiming that WotC is trying to objectively define fun is probably the most uncharitable take on that you could take; they tried to give examples of what they thought most people would think of as fun vs. not-fun.

I think a reactionary screed against that, by someone who hadn't even experienced the game, and who cited ENWorld discussions as "evidence" for his conclusions, is ridiculous.  If the whole point of the rebellion against the Tyranny of Fun is that Melan (or whomever) is upset that WotC is trying to define fun in a way that he doesn't like, well holy cow, that's ironic.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nah.  The "heart of the edition wars" is the supposition that, when someone claims a preference that varies from the baseline of edition X, fans of edition X automatically assume that the person making the claim is simply doing so to slam edition X, or to be "cool", or whatever.  Anything other than the supposition that the statement is valid at face value.



Yes.  That's what I said.  You're taking my general statements and then nitpicking them and say the same thing, basically.  We're in agreement.


			
				RC said:
			
		

> Moreover, if the same behaviour happens with both the newer and older editions, how can "grognards" necessarily be fans of older editions?  Or do you propose that "grognards" and "newnards" are somehow different?



Yes.  Grognard has picked up (actually, already had it; I guess failed to lose it would be more accurate) an association of being old and crusty.  Newnards can't be grognards by definition, even if their behavior really is virtually identical.


			
				RC said:
			
		

> I wonder if Melan would agree with your summary?
> 
> I rather suspect not, and that you are reading his post in a rather uncharitable light.



I rather suspect not too, because my summary is that it's an inane argument that uses rather literate language to give it the illusion of legitimacy without actually having any legitimate substance behind it.


			
				RC said:
			
		

> AFAICT, the core of Melan's post is:
> 
> All in all, what we are seeing is the emergence of a philosophy that denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play.  Attempting to "protect" gamers from their own mistakes will not result in better games - it will limit self-expression, the freedom of creativity and hinder the natural and easy learning process most of us have gone through. It will subtly, although of course not completely, shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment. The roleplaying hobby will be poorer for it, and it can also be expected to experience slow and continuous shrinkage as it becomes apparent to people that passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment offer much better alternatives than sitting around a table and rolling polyhedral dice.​
> Which seems, to me, to be a valid concern.



Which seems to me to be exactly what I said... except in more literate terms to make it appear to be a valid concern rather than a bunch of speculative and unsubstantiated, unsubstantiable BS that the subsequent two years or so has not born out.


			
				RC said:
			
		

> He goes on to agree, more than once, that his opinion of 4e is not necessarily accurate.  This is an IF/THEN statement of sorts.  IF his perception is valid, THEN this is the result he foresees.  IF you don't think his perception is valid, THEN neither should you find his conclusions valid.



Which is good, but I'm talking about the initial screed, which has become a kind of niche manifesto of sorts in gamer-related internet groups.  That he's softened his approach fom the initial rant is a good thing, but it doesn't actually change the content of the initial manifesto either.


			
				RC said:
			
		

> This is, therefore, not an argument that the game isn't played for enjoyment, but rather that the kind of enjoyment endorsed by WotC with its current game isn't what the author actually finds "fun".  Which supports my point.



I'm not arguing your point.  I'm going off in a slightly different direction.


			
				RC said:
			
		

> I would, therefore, suggest that you are colouring the post the way you wish to in order to make it fit the point you wish to make.



I certainly don't have any _wish_ to see Melan as some kind of grumpy old grognard.  In fact, before I read that post (when it was new, or at least newish) I had no idea Melan was of that persuasion at all, and thought he was something completely different.  I don't see any other way in which the post _could_ be read, based on the content of just the post itself.  Also, I'm not trying to even make any point, I'm just pointing out that the Tyranny of Fun is a poorly constructed screed full of wishful thinking, bizarre falsehoods about 4e, bizarre falsehoods (or at least they don't jive with my experience at all) about gamers in general, bizarre assertions about human behavior in general, and baseless speculation.  From this pool of highly dubious (to put it charitably) "evidence" he creates a conclusion that I obviously don't agree with.  But I'm not making a point, I'm just disagreeing with his.  And I say this as a non-fan of 4e, even.

I suggest that your subsequent discussions (with Melan himself, it looks like, based on your post above) has colored your interpretation of what the initial Tyranny of Fun manifesto _actually says_.  I never read the whole thread.  The first post set the tone, and I found it tiring quickly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I think a reactionary screed against that, by someone who hadn't even experienced the game, and who cited ENWorld discussions as "evidence" for his conclusions, is ridiculous.




That's a position that I would certainly find rational.



Hobo said:


> We're in agreement.




Huh.  Good thing I "nitpicked" then, because that isn't what I got from what you wrote.

EDIT:  Went back and reread the exchange.  I see it now!  



> Newnards can't be grognards by definition, even if their behavior really is virtually identical.








> I suggest that you're subsequent discussions (with Melan himself, it looks like, based on your post above) has colored your interpretation of what the initial Tyranny of Fun manifesto _actually says_.




Nah.  I just read the post, and the follow-ups on page 1 & 2.  Easy enough to do, and wonderful for providing context.

One has to remember that the sole purpose of the InterWeb is to answer the question "Just how stupid am I?" for each and every one of us.  Sooner or later, we get to look back at some post, or some blog entry, from a new perspective....and we get our answer.

Even if I often fail to follow my own advice, I do know that a charitable reading of any post is almost always the best course to take.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I've played with plenty of people who took a while to grasp the concept of "playing the game the way that we think is fun" is more important than "playing the game right", so it's worth making the point in a rulebook.
> 
> And I think claiming that WotC is trying to objectively define fun is probably the most uncharitable take on that you could take; they tried to give examples of what they thought most people would think of as fun vs. not-fun.
> 
> I think a reactionary screed against that, by someone who hadn't even experienced the game, and who cited ENWorld discussions as "evidence" for his conclusions, is ridiculous. If the whole point of the rebellion against the Tyranny of Fun is that Melan (or whomever) is upset that WotC is trying to define fun in a way that he doesn't like, well holy cow, that's ironic.




If something has to be pointed out explicitly as being fun (or not) then chances are that it won't be to someone. It's knd of like having to explain a joke in order for it to be funny. 

The material itself will either contribute to the fun or not depending on the tastes of the players. Coming out and saying "this is fun" in a rulebook just gives false legitimacy to the dumbing down accusations tossed out by the grognards. The joke almost writes itself:

4E players are SO stupid.

How stupid ARE they?

They are SO stupid that their rulebooks need to remind them what fun is. 

Ba-doom-pa!



This is what happens when someone tries to define what is fun " for most people" in a game rules reference manual. 

A Dragon magazine article published as an opinionated viewpoint could have made the same observations without being seen as tyrannical.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> A Dragon magazine article published as an opinionated viewpoint could have made the same observations without being seen as tyrannical.




And has been, many times, through many editions, with no clear concensus on what "fun" is.


RC


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, the core of Melan's post is:
> 
> All in all, what we are seeing is the emergence of a philosophy that denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play.  Attempting to "protect" gamers from their own mistakes will not result in better games - it will limit self-expression, the freedom of creativity and hinder the natural and easy learning process most of us have gone through. It will subtly, although of course not completely, shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment. The roleplaying hobby will be poorer for it, and it can also be expected to experience slow and continuous shrinkage as it becomes apparent to people that passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment offer much better alternatives than sitting around a table and rolling polyhedral dice.​





Hobo said:


> It was an argument that the game, by fostering what its audience today apparently finds fun, is destroying the values that make gaming great, is contributing to gamer delinquincy and bad gaming, is destined to "destroy the hobby," isn't really what the customers want (because they just don't know what's actually good for them,) and is generally loitering around on Melan's lawn playing its music too loud.



I think that's a pretty fair summary, actually.

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I think that's a pretty fair summary, actually.




Only if you assume that "what its audience today apparently finds fun" is what WotC says is fun.  My experience on EN World is that many 4e players enjoy things that are described as not fun in the rulebooks, and that many 4e players engage the game in a level far beyond what WotC defines as "fun".

(Of course, this might tend to disprove Melan's conclusion about the effectiveness of telling end users what is "fun" or "not fun".)


RC


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Only if you assume that "what its audience today apparently finds fun" is what WotC says is fun.  My experience on EN World is that many 4e players enjoy things that are described as not fun in the rulebooks, and that many 4e players engage the game in a level far beyond what WotC defines as "fun".
> 
> (Of course, this might tend to disprove Melan's conclusion about the effectiveness of telling end users what is "fun" or "not fun".)
> 
> RC



False distinction.  WotC's not saying something is or is not canonically fun; it's simply focusing on "what the audence today apparently finds fun."  Seriously, it's a silly difference, mostly based on intentional and selective misreading of the 4e DMG's example about talking with gate guards.

-O


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Only if you assume that "what its audience today apparently finds fun" is what WotC says is fun.




You don't have to assume that. 

You just have to assume the designers put the game together based on what they felt was fun, and what they felt their audience felt was fun.

There's no need to assume correct or incorrectness at all.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 24, 2010)

Scribble said:


> There's no need to assume correct or incorrectness at all.




Well said. If only the designers shared this sentiment, there would be less conflict.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Well said. If only the designers shared this sentiment, there would be less conflict.




I pretty much assume anyone who puts a game together has a thought on what is fun and what is not fun, and are building said game based on that opinion. Sometimes their opinions differ from mine.

Why should this create conflict?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

Not sure, but it sure seems to whenever anyone suggests that they disagree with the designers........?


----------



## ancientvaults (Jun 24, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Basically, from what I've seen, someone who self-identifies as a "grognard" is someone who has drawn a line in the sand, demarking where they stand; anyone on the other side of the line is against them, whether the anyone knows or cares to be.
> 
> Usually, that line is drawn before AD&D2.
> 
> Bullgrit




I would say that you should look into prescription lenses then! 
I write a daily oldschool blog and run Pathfinder as well. We did try 4e, but it was a bit more than we were interested in, however, I am a staunch advocate of playing any game that you like, any edition in which your group has fun? That is the perfect game; new, old or sideways.


I am a grognard, we mostly play oldschool games (S&W/LL, with Pathfinder as well) but not only do I see nothing wrong with newer editions, at the local comic shop I will be organizing the roleplaying and you know what? I will encourage 4e to be run right next to my game. Do I have to? Absolutely not. I could be a jerk and buy enough retro-clones to fill a shelf, but I want to encourage people to roleplay in whatever manner they want to.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not sure, but it sure seems to whenever anyone suggests that they disagree with the designers........?




I don't really agree that just disagreeing with the designers sparks "conflict."


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not sure, but it sure seems to whenever anyone suggests that they disagree with the designers........?



... people shrug and say that it takes all sorts.  Or that the designers did indeed make some mistakes.  *Cough*Skillchallenges*cough*

On the other hand, when people say that the designers _designed things wrong_.  _That's_ when you run into trouble.  Because 4e is a good game that people have a lot of fun with - and from a mechanical perspective there's no rival out there that covers the same ground.  So when you say 4e is a bad game you really are accusing people of having BadWrongFun.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 24, 2010)

unan oranis said:


> Is that a thread still going ... after two years? WTF... is there some legend behind it? Kripes thats insane.




Hell hath no fury like a fanboy scorned.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is what happens when someone tries to define what is fun " for most people" in a game rules reference manual.
> 
> A Dragon magazine article published as an opinionated viewpoint could have made the same observations without being seen as tyrannical.



Or... it could have just not been seen as tyrannical in the first place.  Does it really need to be explicitly stated that, "Hey, these examples are _just_ examples.  Clearly different people have different tastes, and some people may enjoy different things more than others."  I kinda thought that wasn't said, because it goes without saying.  It shouldn't _need_ to be said.

Melan's screed, in that context, comes across as little more than, "ZOMG, they didn't _specifically_ call out my tastes as potentially fun to some people!  Help!  Help!  I'm being repressed!"  Classic case of bruised ego.  "Why won't WotC acknowledge me and my tastes already?"

Common sense would indicate that it's much more likely that they just couldn't cover all tastes, so they picked a few examples that they thought to be most common.  Also, the idea of it being "tyrannical" if your tastes get left behind by the mainstream is just silly anyway.  

I mean, I could go on and on about the tyranny of fun in the RIAA who've been trying to promote pop music like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Taylor Swift on me, rather than acknowledging that Depeche Mode _circa_ 1986-7 or so was _clearly_ the high point of Western pop music, and the more mainstream pop music deviates from that, the more they are contributing to the death of Western civilization, bad music in general, and the death of the entire musical industry.  But I don't; I just listen to older music, and underground music that's more to my taste.  If I were to seriously make that rant, people in general would just think I was an idiot.

Why that same rant applied to gaming is taken seriously by anyone is beyond me.  I'd like to think that there's some interesting or valid points in there, but I just don't see them.  All I see is a bunch of insane hyperbole that amounts to, "I don't like this game, and it doesn't cater to my tastes as well as some other, past games have done.  People who like this game are bad people, and shouldn't be allowed to game."


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I mean, I could go on and on about the tyranny of fun in the RIAA who've been trying to promote pop music like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Taylor Swift on me, rather than acknowledging that Depeche Mode _circa_ 1986-7 or so was _clearly_ the high point of Western pop music...




TYRANT!

How can you not mention the importance of The Cure!?!

Your music tastes are obviously broken, and promoting a music culture that doesn't understand how much they really like angst.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 24, 2010)

This entire discussion reminds me of this song:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eagbog8_MGI]YouTube - Blue Man Group (feat Dave Matthews) - Sing Along[/ame]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

(Shrug)

Pick two bands -- one you really like, one you really do not like.

Imagine that I buy the rights to the band you really like, decide that from now on the band you do not like is going to go by the name of the band that you liked.  And I am going to market it as the same band.  Moreover, I am going to cease sales of the material of the band you really liked.  You know, the early stuff.

Then I am going to write in the liner notes of the new CDs that the stuff the old band didn't do well is "good music" and the stuff that it did do well is "ungood music".

If you honestly examine your response to that, you should understand why some folks are upset with what is happening to D&D now.

(Shrug)

I'm not upset -- I have the OGL and RCFG -- but I certainly understand why some people are.



RC


----------



## Herschel (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, the core of Melan's post is:
> All in all, what we are seeing is the emergence of a philosophy that denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play. Attempting to "protect" gamers from their own mistakes will not result in better games - it will limit self-expression, the freedom of creativity and hinder the natural and easy learning process most of us have gone through. It will subtly, although of course not completely, shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment. The roleplaying hobby will be poorer for it, and it can also be expected to experience slow and continuous shrinkage as it becomes apparent to people that passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment offer much better alternatives than sitting around a table and rolling polyhedral dice.​Which seems, to me, to be a valid concern.
> 
> There is no argument at all about the rules being bad; the argument seems to be about market forces AFAICT, and how they have influenced the presentation of the game. Far from claiming that 4e "isn't really what the customers want", it seems to be suggesting that "what the customers want" isn't necessarily what makes the best game.
> ...




There are some HUGE holes in that argument though.

1. What's good for the game _as defined by a stubborn fan of an older edition _is not an objective measure for what's really good for the game. As far as we know, nobody plays forever and without new gamers coming in, the game itself dies. By that measure alone, what the market wants_  IS_  what's good for the game.

2. "The bar for success" _as defined by a stubborn fan of an older edition_ is also not an objective measure of "success" in a game. What is "success"? Not getting your character killed? Or waxing the baddie? If it's the latter, than the newest edition _RAISES_ the bar precipitously. No more "save or die" to abolish risk. Remember those first level wizards who had to run from random pieces of pocket lint? teh one thing they could stand up to was a kobold. Now that shifty little bastage can kick the fighter's backside.

3. There have always been mechanics for protecting player characters from their mistakes. Raise Dead/Reincarnate/Resurrection methods have been around if you think failing to roll a save is a "mistake". Increased durability in both characters AND monsters has happened as teh game advanced. Just look at the sample characters between 1E and 2E modules long before 3E and 4E.

I could go on and on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

Sure.

I didn't say he was right.  I did say that "Lowering the bar for success perforce lowers the heights that can be attained" is true; I did not say that Melan demonstrated that the bar had been lowered.

I was responding to the idea that grognards want to play games that are not "fun".  IMHO the set of people who want to play "unfun" games is either 0 or so close to 0 as to make no practical difference.

And that Melan's post was not an example of someone wanting "unfun" games, as was claimed upthread.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 24, 2010)

Apparently, the purpose of this thread has become turning 'grognard' into an insult.

There is of course a clear and present need for such a rhetorical weapon in the noble project of waging 'edition war'.


----------



## ancientvaults (Jun 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Apparently, the purpose of this thread has become turning 'grognard' into an insult.
> 
> There is of course a clear and present need for such a rhetorical weapon in the noble project of waging 'edition war'.




And it doesn't bother this grognard at all. People who get worked up over a particular edition of a game need to step outside for a while and enjoy the sunshine. Or just play the game that they like.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

Speaking of resisting change....I very much doubt that those mean old grognards who are resisting change would have said "Boo" about 4e had it been named "Wizard of the Coast's Fantasy Game" instead of "Dungeons & Dragons".  

They certainly haven't said "Boo" about Cubicle 7's Doctor Who game, or RCFG.  

So why not fully embrace change, and change the name of the game?  Solves everyone's problems, right?  Right?  

Oh, it doesn't?  Oh, you think WotC needs the value generated by the games those grognards play?  Maybe 4e would sell less without the cachet of earlier editions?  Those same games that focus on the things that are now "unfun"?



The problem is that this game can be -- and often is -- played in both directions.  So much better, IMHO, to just accept that some people aren't going to like the same games you like.  And are, sometimes, going to be vocal about it.

Feel free to slag RCFG.

It could use the attention.  



RC



--


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I was responding to the idea that grognards want to play games that are not "fun".  IMHO the set of people who want to play "unfun" games is either 0 or so close to 0 as to make no practical difference.
> 
> And that Melan's post was not an example of someone wanting "unfun" games, as was claimed upthread.



Fair enough.  I was never arguing that, and I agree that the Tyranny of Fun manifesto isn't an example of playing unfun games, despite the title.

It is, rather ironically though, a strikingly potent example of badwrongfun argumentation.


Ariosto said:


> Apparently, the purpose of this thread has become turning 'grognard' into an insult.
> 
> There is of course a clear and present need for such a rhetorical weapon in the noble project of waging 'edition war'.



It's a bit disingenious to pretend that this thread is turning some word into an insult that never was one before.  Talking about french soldiers during the Napoleonic war is all well and good, but _in the context of the gaming community_ grognard has been around for a long time, and has had consistent negative undertones for well over 15-20 years at least; since the beginning of the internet.  Again, at least.  I'm being conservative to be cautious.

It's also had plenty of folks turn around, wear the label like a badge of honor and "reclaim" the label, to a certain extent, but this thread isn't doing anything except retreading discussions on Usenet from 1993.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 24, 2010)

Scribble said:


> TYRANT!
> 
> How can you not mention the importance of The Cure!?!




Pffftt! _Joy Division_ is the one true post-punk band. All other bands are just pale imitations of the real thing.

Ou-the bad kind of grognard-rph


----------



## Mallus (Jun 24, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Pffftt! _Joy Division_ is the one true post-punk band. All other bands are just pale imitations of the real thing.



You know, I kinda like _New Order_ better... 

Mal -thought's from above hit the people down below- lus.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking, it was necessary for WotC's designers to trash-talk D&D as "not fun". Not to have done so would have marked them as the sort of craven surrender monkeys who might even shirk from going into someone's house and putting down the decor and cooking, then calling the hostess's baby an ugly monkey.

Not only is aesthetics the moral equivalent of morals, but failure would have given aid and comfort to the enemies of the root of all good that is capitalism.

The signal difference between capitalism and communism, of course, is that capitalism depends on consumers making choices on the basis of blind brand loyalty.

Where would we be if the brand name "D&D" had such a reliable referent that people could like or dislike the product on the same basis as characterized previous batches of product released under that label? What if something could be distinguished as something different by being called something different?

Why, then people would be able to choose products on the basis of their particular merits. That would be some sort of "demand-side" economics, obviously disastrous!


----------



## Mallus (Jun 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Raven Crowking, it was necessary for WotC's designers to trash-talk D&D as "not fun".



Neither was it necessary for some people to be so thin-skinned and blow that completely and obscenely out of proportion. 

I mean, so long as we're talking about unnecessary things...


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> (Shrug)
> 
> Pick two bands -- one you really like, one you really do not like.
> 
> ...



Not unlike Island Records vs. Virgin Records era Ultravox, really.

Of course, later, it all got rereleased on remastered CD, so it all worked out in the end.

Maybe that's the moral of the story after all.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So why not fully embrace change, and change the name of the game?  Solves everyone's problems, right?  Right?




They did... They called it Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2010)

Scribble said:


> They did... They called it Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.



I hear they wanted to call it Dungeons and Dragons Vista, but Microsoft beat them to the punch.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> It's a bit disingenious to pretend that this thread is turning some word into an insult that never was one before.  Talking about french soldiers during the Napoleonic war is all well and good, but _in the context of the gaming community_ grognard has been around for a long time, and has had consistent negative undertones for well over 15-20 years at least; since the beginning of the internet.  Again, at least.  I'm being conservative to be cautious.
> 
> It's also had plenty of folks turn around, wear the label like a badge of honor and "reclaim" the label, to a certain extent, but this thread isn't doing anything except retreading discussions on Usenet from 1993.




Hmmm. I must be on the wrong internet. It's only been comparatively recently (the last 10 years and particularly during edition wars) that I've been hearing grognard used negatively. Most often, I had been hearing it as a generally positive term to indicate being a gaming hobbiest for a long time (particularly in wargaming, but also in RPGs too).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

Scribble said:


> They did... They called it Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.




That's not a real change.  For a really new name they should have called it "Zobonga".  See?  Change fully embraced.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Jun 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> That's not a real change.  For a really new name they should have called it "Zobonga".  See?  Change fully embraced.
> 
> 
> RC




Sure it is. The designers indicate in the book they are "Building upon the design of previous editions."

Calling it 4th edition embraces change, without diminishing credit to prior work done.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2010)

Nah.  They should slaughter that "sacred cow".


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 25, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, a smart grognard has a few points.  And I never disputed that.  But it still amounts to a "Damn kids.  Get off my lawn.  In my day we never had help having fun.  We walked twenty miles, up hill each way.  And we liked it."
> 
> If he'd just been looking at how the game had changed without anything about fun being tyrannical, and saying that he enjoyed the previous version then he'd have made all the same good points *without being a grognard*.



So apparently "grognard" is synonymous with "hater."

Convenient when you can define those with whom you disagree so conveniently. Tell me, how comfortable are you with the term, "4tard?"


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 25, 2010)

Nah, that would be marketing folly.  Of course they're going to use the D&D brand equity, while also advertising that this is a "shiny new version" of it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Nah, that would be marketing folly.  Of course they're going to use the D&D brand equity, while also advertising that this is a "shiny new version" of it.




SO, you're a "Brand Identity" grognard?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2010)

You know, folks, the tone in here isn't cool.  It really ought to be cool.

So, I'm going to ask everyone to take a half-step back and take a breath, and recommend that before you next hit "Submit Reply" you stop and ask yourself whether what you're about say (and how you say it) is beneficial or not.  Thanks.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 25, 2010)

unan oranis said:


> Is that a thread still going ... after two years?  WTF...  is there some legend behind it?  Kripes thats insane.



LOL Epic thread. 1246 posts as of this moment.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 25, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> SO, you're a "Brand Identity" grognard?



Yeah, sorry... I have no idea what that even is supposed to mean.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 25, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Tell me, how comfortable are you with the term, "4tard?"



It's 4oron and 3tard.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jun 25, 2010)

So where would "happy with what I have"/"recovered from shiny new toy syndrome" fit? Am I still a grognard if this describes me, or do I have to tell the dang kids to git off my lawn first?


----------



## Obryn (Jun 25, 2010)

Zhaleskra said:


> So where would "happy with what I have"/"recovered from shiny new toy syndrome" fit? Am I still a grognard if this describes me, or do I have to tell the dang kids to git off my lawn first?



It depends!  Are you filled with angst and/or melancholy when other groups are having fun with shiny new games that you don't personally like?

-O


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jun 25, 2010)

Obryn said:


> It depends!  Are you filled with angst and/or melancholy when other groups are having fun with shiny new games that you don't personally like?
> 
> -O




It used to be that. Now I'm just like "Ok, have fun, not my thing." Especially when I see shiny new games being run and played in a manner that keeps my interest at zero.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 25, 2010)

Zhaleskra said:


> So where would "happy with what I have"/"recovered from shiny new toy syndrome" fit? Am I still a grognard if this describes me, or do I have to tell the dang kids to git off my lawn first?



That's really a misconception.  Even if you're not old and grumpy, I've never understood why you'd want kids hanging out on your lawn.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 25, 2010)

Zhaleskra said:


> It used to be that. Now I'm just like "Ok, have fun, not my thing." Especially when I see shiny new games being run and played in a manner that keeps my interest at zero.




Zhaleskra, recovered grognard.

See kids, there is hope if you fall into grognardism.  

One issue I want to take up, as it is a favorite of the self-professed grognard, is the 'play skill' mentioned in the quotes from the Tyranny of Fun thread.  The position espoused there says that harsh play, where the GM kills, cripples, destroys items, or in other ways damages characters for the slightest miscalculation will have a Dungeons and Bootstraps effect, creating players who are highly skilled.

I disagree completely.  I don't consider "Being paranoid and memorizing the Monster Manual" to be skilled play.  In my game it would be dysfunctional play, as the properties of monsters would not be as published and certain death is not waiting around every corner.  I don't think those things bring fun experiences.  Nothing against those that do, but saying that this is 'skilled play' and my way is 'mediocrity' is explicitly saying 'my game is right and yours is wrong'.

Which also, is the heart of grognardism.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 25, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> One issue I want to take up, as it is a favorite of the self-professed grognard, is the 'play skill' mentioned in the quotes from the Tyranny of Fun thread. The position espoused there says that harsh play, where the GM kills, cripples, destroys items, or in other ways damages characters for the slightest miscalculation will have a Dungeons and Bootstraps effect, creating players who are highly skilled.
> 
> I disagree completely. I don't consider "Being paranoid and memorizing the Monster Manual" to be skilled play. In my game it would be dysfunctional play, as the properties of monsters would not be as published and certain death is not waiting around every corner. I don't think those things bring fun experiences. Nothing against those that do, but saying that this is 'skilled play' and my way is 'mediocrity' is explicitly saying 'my game is right and yours is wrong'.
> 
> Which also, is the heart of grognardism.




Yes it is indeed a shame that such things as common sense, logical thought process, and problem solving ability are referenced as some sort of "player skill". 

This stuff used to be part of just, well.. regular gameplay.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 25, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> I don't consider "Being paranoid and memorizing the Monster Manual" to be skilled play.  In my game it would be dysfunctional play, as the properties of monsters would not be as published and certain death is not waiting around every corner.





ExploderWizard said:


> Yes it is indeed a shame that such things as common sense, logical thought process, and problem solving ability are referenced as some sort of "player skill".



Wow.  Worst.  Paraphrase.  Ever. 


			
				Expolder Wizard said:
			
		

> This stuff used to be part of just, well.. regular gameplay.





			
				maddman said:
			
		

> Nothing against those that do, but saying that this is 'skilled play' and my way is 'mediocrity' is explicitly saying 'my game is right and yours is wrong'.
> 
> Which also, is the heart of grognardism.



Are you tag-teaming on purpose to make this point?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 25, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Wow. Worst. Paraphrase. Ever.
> 
> 
> Are you tag-teaming on purpose to make this point?




The last quote you attributed to me was not actually mine.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 25, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> I don't consider "Being paranoid and memorizing the Monster Manual" to be skilled play.  In my game it would be dysfunctional play, as the properties of monsters would not be as published and certain death is not waiting around every corner.



Yeah, I agree with this. It seems wrong to me that 'skilled play' should be attached to a particular, highly gamist, play style.

Skilled play can take many forms. To me, the skillful player is the one who is good at entertaining all the other participants, not the uber-cautious guy who, frankly, I find boring.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Yes it is indeed a shame that such things as common sense, logical thought process, and problem solving ability are referenced as some sort of "player skill".
> 
> This stuff used to be part of just, well.. regular gameplay.




*shrugs*

It could also be summed up conversely as spending vast amounts of time (time more well-adjusted people spend on jobs and social encounters) holed up in your mother's basement examining every rule and combo ad nauseum so you can cover up for a lack of quick thinking is no replacement for skill. 

You can put a negative spin on it all you want any way you want, in the end it's just working to create stereotypes in a forum where many complain about said stereotypes. 

Gamer hypocrisy is no less than political hypocrisy, we just get to roll more dice and don't have groupies or interns.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The last quote you attributed to me was not actually mine.



Ah, whoops!  Feexed.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 25, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Yeah, I agree with this. It seems wrong to me that 'skilled play' should be attached to a particular, highly gamist, play style.
> 
> Skilled play can take many forms. To me, the skillful player is the one is a good at entertaining all the other participants, not the uber-cautious guy who, frankly, I find boring.




Of course it won't let me give you XP twice in the same thread.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 25, 2010)

Herschel said:


> *shrugs*
> 
> It could also be summed up conversely as spending vast amounts of time (time more well-adjusted people spend on jobs and social encounters) holed up in your mother's basement examining every rule and combo ad nauseum so you can cover up for a lack of quick thinking is no replacement for skill.




Agreed. Studying character optimization techniques, and rules information is not, IMHO a good use of time.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Agreed. Studying character optimization techniques, and rules information is not, IMHO a good use of time.




Nothing in gaming is a good use of time.  We are wasting our lives, every one of us.  

The question is whether or not it is a fun waste of time, or an enjoyable one.  Heck, that paranoid, think before you act or get crushed kind of game can be fun.  That's pretty much how I run Call of Cthulhu, one of my favorite games.  I just don't think that its the only way to game.  Sometimes I want players to feel free to try crazy stuff or charge in damn the torpedoes.  Depends on the genre and feel you're going for.

Good Idea: Grabbing a six inch piece of wood and charging at a monster in Buffy: the Vampire Slayer
Bad Idea: Grabbing a six inch piece of wood and charging in at a monster in Call of Cthulhu

The difference is the grognard will claim the latter to be 'skilled, thoughtful play' and the former to be Tyranny of BadWrongFun.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 25, 2010)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> Nothing against those that do, but saying that this is 'skilled play' and my way is 'mediocrity' is explicitly saying 'my game is right and yours is wrong'.




If you're playing the same game, then 'skilled' is indeed 'right' and 'mediocrity' is 'wrong'.

If you're playing different games, then I think the _intended_ meaning is "Game B is a pathetic substitute for Game A, utterly devoid of what I find engaging."

Once again, we run into the problems inherent in claiming simultaneously that "the game remains the same" and that "it's not unfun, which it used to be in all the ways that 'grognards' mistakenly call fun."


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 25, 2010)

People play games different ways.  One AD&D GM would run gritty screw-you-over survival, while the other runs gonzo space lasers and wereweasels riding giant snails.  Both playing the same game, only you claim one of them is playing it wrong.

Please, tell me about other ways that I game wrong, I'm interested to know.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 25, 2010)

The attempt to paint all old-style challenging play in absurd "killer DM" terms is obviously not going to fly with anyone who is, even if not better informed, at least possessed of a modicum of common sense.

It would be of similarly little service to paint WotC's games with an unrealistically broad brush.

There are particular things that were by design changed, and the designers' own addressing of those received considerable attention. Moreover, the designers themselves, I think, took the initiative in "connecting the dots" to draw general principles, to paint a portrait of an overall philosophy guiding the work.

The words of fans, about what they like in the new and dislike in the old, were also informative.

That's where Melan got the impressions that he found displeasing. It is hardly news that a great many other people -- whatever they might think when judging it as a hypothetical "something else" -- likewise do not find 4e a satisfying replacement for previous editions of the premier fantasy role-playing game.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> The attempt to paint all old-style challenging play in absurd "killer DM" terms is obviously not going to fly with anyone who is, even if not better informed, at least possessed of a modicum of common sense.



Would a modicum of common sense also allow you to stop tilting at strawmen?  Maddman's definition of grognard, which is one which I more or less approve of, does not encompass all old school players or old school playstyles.  Only you are insisting that it must in this post right here.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Maddman's definition of grognard, which is one which I more or less approve of, does not encompass all old school players or old school playstyles.




AFAICT, it doesn't encompass _*any*_ old school players or old school playstyles.

I suspect Bigfoot will hold a press conference announcing his existence before I actually see one of these so-called "grognards".

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 25, 2010)

> Would a modicum of common sense also allow you to stop tilting at strawmen?




The 'strawmen' are those you all incessantly raise, trying to make us think that some statement about Something Completely Different has something to do with the context at hand.

4e is not the whole of "gaming", or any other such vague agglomeration. 4e is a particular game product, designed to do things that the designers have made pretty explicit.

If you have no rational response to what people actually say, then please at least show enough respect for our intelligence not to get huffy when we point out factually the gulf between your rhetoric and what is actually under discussion.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 25, 2010)

For example ...



maddman75 said:


> The position espoused there says that harsh play, where the GM kills, cripples, destroys items, or in other ways damages characters for the slightest miscalculation will have a Dungeons and Bootstraps effect, creating players who are highly skilled.
> 
> I don't consider "Being paranoid and memorizing the Monster Manual" to be skilled play.




Citation?

I did not see that actually being espoused there. I see maddman75 choosing words of his own, and then attributing them to someone else.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 25, 2010)

At the end of the day, people should just realize these facts:

1. 4E is for AD/HD videogamers.
2. 3E is for friendless losers.
3. 2E is for wimps who couldn't handle demons in the game.
4. 1E was for OCD gamers who needed to add pointless bits of minutia to..
5. OD&D, which is just a pale excuse in the shadow of the greatest RPG of all time.

Behold, the glory of M.E.R.P. 
Warning: If you take any part of this post seriously, you might be a grognard.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 25, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Would a modicum of common sense also allow you to stop tilting at strawmen?  Maddman's definition of grognard, which is one which I more or less approve of, does not encompass all old school players or old school playstyles.  Only you are insisting that it must in this post right here.




Yes, for clarity, I'm not calling everyone who likes old school gaming a grognard.  I'm claiming those that say anything else is going to destroy the hobby, or that this kind of gaming is the One True Way, are grognards.

You want examples?  Go read theRPGsite, or Grognardia, or countless other sites where such people gather.  You can pretend that they don't exist all you want, but they're there.

I don't have to point at anyone in this thread.  The thread was saying 'what is a grognard'.  I'm explaining the term as I understand it.  I have not accused anyone of being a grognard explicitly.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 25, 2010)

There is, I think, a pretty basic self-centered but genuine misunderstanding that gets turned into a misleading rhetorical misrepresentation.

From the thread at theRPGSite, post #485:


			
				Imperator said:
			
		

> I'm quite mystified by the notion that one must 'endure' some things to get the fun, and that there is some hard work that needs to be done to be a real gamer. What's wrong with the game being fun from minute one for some people?




This is projection. People attribute their own views of X as "not fun", as something to "endure" onto other people to whom X _is part of the fun_.

That projection, codified and made "official" in overturning the definition of a particular pastime, is what Melan called the Tyranny of Fun.

It is the tyranny of _someone else's_ valuation, a valuation that is Anti-Game X, over the views of those who happen to be Pro-Game X fans.

It is the same sort of 'tyranny' one might expect if the standards of figure skating were to replace those formerly applied to the National Hockey League. Figure skating is fine if one's taste is so inclined, but it is not for the sake of boredom that a segment of the population prefers hockey.

One can pretty well predict where one might expect to find agreement or disagreement with the proposition that doing away with (what fans would call) hockey, replacing it with figure skating, would be an improvement.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 25, 2010)

Grognard: "Someone said my idea of fun isn't fun!  WAHHHHHHH!"


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 25, 2010)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> Yes, for clarity, I'm not calling everyone who likes old school gaming a grognard. I'm claiming those that say anything else is going to destroy the hobby, or that this kind of gaming is the One True Way, are grognards.




Yes, as I observed earlier:

The enterprise is one of turning 'grognard' into an insult.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Yes, as I observed earlier:
> 
> The enterprise is one of turning 'grognard' into an insult.




It was all insulty when I found it.  Now its old school gamers complaining that these new games aren't doing it right at all.  Before that it was wargamers complaining that these roleplayers weren't doing it right at all.  Before that it was Napoleon's Old Guard complaning that these new soldiers weren't doing it right at all.

It may be applied to different groups, but the meaning has not changed.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> The 'strawmen' are those you all incessantly raise, trying to make us think that some statement about Something Completely Different has something to do with the context at hand.



I know exactly what a strawman is, and your example is a classic example of it.  Or are you trying to make some kind of pedantic (and false) distinction between a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (the so-called sweeping generalization fallacy) and a strawman?


			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> If you have no rational response to what people actually say, then please at least show enough respect for our intelligence not to get huffy when we point out factually the gulf between your rhetoric and what is actually under discussion.



Your response is to post a strawman, argue about whether or not it is a strawman, and then demand a citation for personal experience, and you have the nerve to say that to me?  Really?


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 25, 2010)

maddman said:
			
		

> "It was an insult when I found it".




Former ignorance is no excuse. Those who insist on insulting uses of certain other names belonging to groups of people would very quickly with such behavior bring down the wrath of moderators here -- and in other contexts might even find that "fighting words" are not considered part of a guaranteed freedom of speech.

However acceptable a provincial prejudice might be in the province, venturing into more cosmopolitan climes calls for adjustment of one's behavior.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 25, 2010)

Allow me to be the first unabashed, self-professed grognard to post in this thread.

I like old games.  I generally prefer old games to new games.  There are some exceptions.  But the exceptions tend to be games that are out of the mainstream and self-consciously "old school."  

I personally don't give a damn what anyone else plays.  I don't frequent threads on this board in which 4e (or 3.xe, for that matter) specific topics are being discussed.  Some of the general D&D discussion and historical discussion that takes place here is of a very high level.  Also - shockingly, I know - I like to stay somewhat current on "current events" in gaming.  If anyone can find any time I've posted anything negative about 4e beyond the fact that it simply doesn't interest me, let me know.  I'll retract it and post a public apology.  

If you come over to K&KA and start slagging on O(A)D&D or claiming how 4e is so much better, I would react poorly and post something nasty.  I try very hard to ignore you when some of you do it here.  Frankly, I just expect some nastiness towards older editions here.  For what it's worth, it's nowhere near as bad now as it was about 5 or 6 years ago.  

I realize that my gaming tastes are so far out of the mainstream - and have been for about two decades now - that it's unrealistic to hope that larger game companies are going to cater to me.  Fortunately, there are a ton of smaller game companies run by like-minded gamers who do cater to me, and over the last 5 years or so, I've had more new gaming materials interest me than in the fifteen years prior.  Right now, it's a real, real good time to be a grognard.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 25, 2010)

um, wow, I wasn't trying to create such angst ya know folks 

as said, to me, liking an older edition, and being a "grognard" _who won't try anything else fairly_, are totally different things!
if you like 1st, 2nd or 3rd, fine, no skin off my nose, it's all D&D to me  That's _normal_. That's just being a "1st edition, 2nd ed or 3rd ed fan".

But decrying and attacking something 'cause it's new is just crazy, that is worthy of being called a "grognard", 'cause it has been _earned_, lol.

however, others use the term "grognard" in different fashion, again, as said. To them it just means "Old school version", no denegration.

Every edition will spawn more "old schoolers", who preffer "their fave version". This is not a bad thing!! 

however, WOTC needs to cater to them, so yes stopping the pdfs etc was hugely damaging, but we also need to try and stop folk retreating into "bunker down to hell with new fangled stuff!" outlooks. 
Not aimed at Enworlders, but ya know what I mean, I get so exasperated when some berk moans about a new edition he hasn't even given a fair shot at, or played with jerks who ruined it for him.

D&D is NOT going to stop at 4th ed, 5th or hopefully 100th edition! Why should it? It's a living growing thing in effect.
new generations want to play it. the company to survive must keep selling new versions, and folk come up with new tweaks all the time.

if folk _and _WOTC insist on playing "Only their version!" well, groups will get smaller..and smaller...


now, who wouldn't want to see a new WOTC-official 1st ed...Fiend Folio II ?
2nd ed updated DMG with the *gaming hints and tips for the DM* from the 4th ed DMG 1 and 2, which are actually damn good and apply to any edition, hm?
etc


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 25, 2010)

I actually don't think grognard is an insult, it just means a fan of an older edition of a game. Or a slightly more accurate definition might be -"prefers an older edition of a game to the current edition."

One can associate a lot of other stuff with grognards, such as being older than fans of the current edition. And those associations are bound to lead to positive or negative feelings in different individuals. But the word itself has no such connotations, imo.

I'm not a grognard. I like new things. To some extent just because they are new. I feel there can't be a downside to having more choice. The old stuff is still there if you want it.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 25, 2010)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> But decrying and attacking something 'cause it's new is just crazy, that is worthy of being called a "grognard", 'cause it has been _earned_, lol.




You've actually seen this?  I mean I've never seen someone state they don't like 4e because... "it's new.".  Now what I have seen is someone say they don't care for the new races or the new fluff, which IMO, is a totally valid oppinion to have.  Personally I prefer the Great Wheel and Planescape to what 4e has... does that mean I don't like it because it's new?  I thought it just meant I prefered one something over another something.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 26, 2010)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> as said, to me, liking an older edition, and being a "grognard" _who won't try anything else fairly_, are totally different things!




Why do I have to try out 4e or anything else?  If I'm perfectly happy doing what I'm doing, why do I have to try to new thing before continuing to do what I was doing before in order to avoid being labeled with a word you consider being a pejorative?  (And I still don't think "grognard" is pejorative.)



> But decrying and attacking something 'cause it's new is just crazy, that is worthy of being called a "grognard", 'cause it has been _earned_, lol.




Who decries anything just because it's new?  I like older D&D, but don't like newer D&D, but I buy plenty of newer game products (much to Goodman Games and others' pleasure, much to my wife's displeasure).  The issue isn't, and never is, new game versus old game.  It's game I like versus game I don't like.  



> however, WOTC needs to cater to them, so yes stopping the pdfs etc was hugely damaging, but we also need to try and stop folk retreating into "bunker down to hell with new fangled stuff!" outlooks.




Just because we're not particularly interested in what WotC has to offer in terms of D&D, doesn't mean we're bunkered down.  If you were to actually spend some time reading some of the "old school" blogs and websites, such as Grognardia, you'd see a fairly substantial portion of the webspace is given over to reviewing and even creating _NEW_ material.  

Personally, WotC's conception of what D&D should be is so obviously different from mine that I have a hard time believing that anything they put out that was aimed at the other "mes" out there would grab a hold of us.



> Not aimed at Enworlders, but ya know what I mean, I get so exasperated when some berk moans about a new edition he hasn't even given a fair shot at, or played with jerks who ruined it for him.




And I get exasperated anytime anyone's complaints about older versions basically boils down to, "My DM was 12 and didn't have the slightest idea of what he was doing."  There's a lot of ignorance out there, and it doesn't seem to have an edition preference.



> D&D is NOT going to stop at 4th ed, 5th or hopefully 100th edition! Why should it? It's a living growing thing in effect.
> new generations want to play it. the company to survive must keep selling new versions, and folk come up with new tweaks all the time.
> 
> if folk _and _WOTC insist on playing "Only their version!" well, groups will get smaller..and smaller...




Of course, the remedy to this is to not put out edition after edition after edition, and instead try to get an "evergreen" edition into every house in America...  but that's a subject for another tread.



> now, who wouldn't want to see a new WOTC-official 1st ed...Fiend Folio II ?
> 2nd ed updated DMG with the *gaming hints and tips for the DM* from the 4th ed DMG 1 and 2, which are actually damn good and apply to any edition, hm?
> etc




I've got 1e compatible monster books that have come out recently.  Monsters of Myth and Malevolent and Benign.  Both are very good.  Anyone remotely interested in 1e style monsters should pick them up.  If I want the 4e DMG advice, I can always - y'know - buy them, just like the 4e DM can still go back to the great advice in the 1e DMG.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 26, 2010)

In the gaming context, I think a bit of grumbling about the latest fashion -- especially about the latest fashion in complaining that the old school is "not fun" -- tends to go with the territory whether or not it should be a prerequisite for the badge of 'grognard'.

A certain guy who is a decade or two older than me and has been into fantasy gaming since maybe before Dave Arneson's proto-D&D -- but prefers 4e rather vehemently, actually -- might get the 'grognard' label in a non-D&D context almost just for _understanding_ what one is talking about.

What I mean is that, even if he avers that he would rather play the latest computerized confection, that he just doesn't have any more what it takes for a hex-and-counter battle or a grand miniatures campaign, there may be evident delight in his recollection of the days when he _was_ an avid player.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 26, 2010)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> The issue isn't, and never is, new game versus old game.  It's game I like versus game I don't like.




Ditto. I wonder whether even people talking that line buy it.

I don't expect a fan of Advanced D&D to like, say, _Tunnels & Trolls_ just because it's older than AD&D. I don't expect a fan of either to dislike _Stormbringer_ because it's newer.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 26, 2010)

I'm what people call a grognard. I love OD&D and AD&D. I don't care for the most recent edition of the game. 

Here's the shocker: I love playing/running the New World of Darkness. I love what Mongoose did with RuneQuest II. Aces & Eights is a game made of Win. 

I posit that the only people pretending that grognards hate on stuff just because it's new are people who are not grognards themselves, and actually do not understand what they are talking about (that, or they willfully smear people disagreeing with them, which is well, lame). 

Take that as you will.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 26, 2010)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> as said, to me, liking an older edition, and being a "grognard" _who won't try anything else fairly_, are totally different things!



You might be able to relate to this, then. . . personally, when I catch a preview for a new movie, sometimes I just know I never, ever want to see that thing. I mean, maybe you've never experienced this. So, substitute whatever works for you, if that's the case.

So it goes with games, at times. I don't need to play 4e in order to be 100% certain that it's not the game for me. In fact, I went further than I have with many RPGs, and actually read the first three core books - skimming a little, naturally - thanks to my friend in the main FLGS here. 




> But decrying and attacking something 'cause it's new is just crazy, that is worthy of being called a "grognard", 'cause it has been _earned_, lol.



If I saw anything of that nature, I'd be right there with you, in righteous indignation.  If I even cared enough to be.




> Not aimed at Enworlders, but ya know what I mean, I get so exasperated when some berk moans about a new edition he hasn't even given a fair shot at



Well, see above. Also, I don't think it does a game (or the gamers who like it) any favours, when criticism is shut down / mocked / discouraged. It makes it/them seem rather. . . well, _fragile_. Not the most desirable image for the market leader and its adherents, one might presume.

As for WotC needing to cater to players of older editions? No, I don't think so. More than that, I don't believe they would have the right approach anyway. Plenty of people are already doing a superb job with these undertakings, and what WotC "needs" to do, well. . . that'd be up to their own marketing department, management or whoever else. Focusing on 4e and 4e only seems the smartest move, *now*, to me. A bit late to go backpedalling, as it were. And frankly, the money wouldn't be there, but in the new game, overwhelmingly. And good will gestures in that regard? Hm, no, _definitely_ too late there.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 26, 2010)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Aces & Eights is a game made of Win.




I agree, but people who think an RPG needs to do everything with a Universal Mechanic might find it made of mind-blowing stuff (and not in a good way).

But that kind of ideological pucker is not uptight, because only the unfashionable preference can be uptight.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 26, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> It's 4oron and 3tard.



Shows you how much attention I actually pay to this.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 26, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> Grognard: "Someone said my idea of fun isn't fun!  WAHHHHHHH!"



You'd like that to be true, wouldn't you?


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 26, 2010)

I couldn't care less what anyone plays, I just hate it when a constructive discussion goes south due to thread crapping about irrelevant nonsense. I've never seen the point behind the term grognard anyway and I hate to say this, but 99% of the time I usually see it used in the same context as the word "idiot" would be. Personally it's what people write and not what terms they label themselves with that I pay attention to.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 26, 2010)

> I get so exasperated when some berk moans about a new edition he hasn't even given a fair shot at



What's a fair shot?

I have watched people getting subjected again and again to moving goalposts. How much money and time and energy does someone have to flush down the drain to be "allowed" to dislike 4e?

How much should the 4e fanatics be required to invest in other games before they are entitled to make such demands?


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 26, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> How much should the 4e fanatics be required to invest in other games before they are entitled to make such demands?




I played 3rd and 3.5 for around 5 years total, with a variety of different approaches before concluding it was utterly terrible and ceasing it to play it any further (Call of Cthulhu and various World of Darkness games replaced it for me). I played 2nd edition for the better part of eight years, actually I still like 2nd edition and I would love to play a few games of it just for amusement (I will never ever play 3.5 again).

Usually I've given anything quite a good shot before decided I did or didn't like it to be honest. With PnP RPGs so much is reliant upon the DM running the game or just the general enthusiasm of the people you have playing with you it can be very hard to judge. Usually I make sure I read the core rulebook first and at least play using whatever "core" rules are available.

When I started playing 4E I suspected it sounded really stupid, but it was worth a shot seeing as I hadn't played DnD in a long time by that point. I originally bought just a players handbook and a DMG - not much of an investment to be honest and got some people together. I figured I would have to DM anyway and so I did, but actually after around a month 4E really grew on me. My players were all having fun and I found the combat system very much to my liking. When I don't want combat I don't play DnD, always had that attitude and hence the multitude of systems I own that are very good at anything to do with not fighting things.

I never liked 4Es skill challenge system off the bat and thought it was utterly worthless. That Wizards have tried to address that is a good thing, but overall I've adapted my own system and so I quite enjoy it. The primary point here is that I made a small investment - even in NZ monies - then played the system for around 2-3 months (meeting every weekend was around 12 sessions). 

For most games I give a suitable amount of time if I think I have some interest in them. Motivation to play something else comes from:

1) Wanting to bother playing it

2) Getting a group who wants to play it

3) Playing it.

Where I have not done 1, 2 and 3 together I don't comment on a system. I might make some general comment that I'm not interested in it, but if I'm not interested in something I never make posts about it. Being disinterested in something does not equal disliking it. People who have at least played 4E for more than a few sessions can say whatever they want - albeit so long as that is based on what they said they played. People who haven't even played 4E _or any system for that matter_ I just write the opinions off of because I just don't care what they think.

If you haven't played something, I really don't care if you "dislike" it and especially if the reasons don't even make sense to anyone who has played the system under discussion (90% of the time or more in my experience). Your opinion is irrelevant no matter what the particular system is under discussion. You can say "I don't have any interest in this" and that is a perfectly fair opinion. When people just start making up random nonsense about a system they "dislike" is truly the issue for me. Such "dislike" is usually is full of logical holes that anyone who has actually _played it_ can drive trucks through, I have no problems just writing whatever they think off without debate.

So I think it's a simple answer to your question. If you've at least played the game that is more than enough. If such arguments are at least framed in the context of those experiences that is even better. Making up random nonsense to prove arguments based on absolutely zero idea what you are talking about is pure threadcrapping. Just spare everyone the effort and just say "It doesn't sound like its for me" or just don't post in threads you supposedly have no interest in.

I mean, this isn't difficult to do as somehow I resist the temptation in posting in all the threads about 3.5 or so that I dislike because I have no worthwhile commentary to add to the topic. I don't know how I do it though, but somehow - and god willing - _I manage_.


----------



## Melan (Jun 26, 2010)

Since I was asked for a definition in a PM...



> The *Tyranny of Fun* phenomenon, concisely summarised:
> 1) Equating 'fun' with 'positive reinforcement' to the neglect of other ways to have it - some of which involve adversity, effort, minor inconvenience or, yes, short/long-term failure.
> 2) Redesigning games to codify this understanding of customer satisfaction and cutting elements construed as 'unfun', which makes the game more focused - but also feature-poor and less satisfying for people who have their fun in a different way.
> 3) Often wrapped up in rhetorics of 'progress' as inevitable and basically beneficial, traditional gaming practices as an impediment before having fun and appeals to the authority of 'professional game designers'.
> ...




I posted basic examples from the 4e PHB here, and had more to say on the subject here and here, with ideas on how to deal with the problem here. Since my point has been discussed to hell and back since I made it in 2006 (way before 4e was even announced*), attacked with _way_ stronger language than the admittedly ranty, although largely tongue-in-cheek originals ever had, and had significantly more screentime on the Internet than I ever intended for it, I have little personal interest in rehashing it further, and would rather spend my time constructively. So there.

__________________
* Coincidentally, I don't think the Tyranny of Fun is a 4e- or even D&D-specific problem; rather, it says something about popular entertainment in general - I see some of the same problems and debates in computer games (particularly the transformation of 'immersive sim' games and console vs. PC arguments), and potentially elsewhere.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 26, 2010)

Melan said:
			
		

> I have little personal interest in rehashing it further




I can agree that wouldn't be worth it from reading what you write.


----------



## Melan (Jun 26, 2010)

Oh look! An _insult_!


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 26, 2010)

Melan said:


> Oh look! An _insult_!




Oh look, the pot wants to call the kettle black.



> Having read even more ENWorld since it has come back up, I can say with  confidence that the effects are already prominent. 4th edition is  strongly in support of the folks previous editions and gaming practice  referred to as 'bad players', and their perspectives are currently  dominant in gaming discourse.



Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a bad player and has ruined _everything_. Plus if it wasn't for those damn kids at the cotton mill we'd have got away with it too. Either way, I do agree with you that rehashing this out any further won't be useful to anyone if that is your starting attitude. Don't you agree?


----------



## Melan (Jun 26, 2010)

Yeah, that was inconsiderate and I should have worded it more tactfully. Then again, I hadn't the faintest idea people in 2010 would still be discussing a random edition wars post I made in 2008 on what bothered me at that time. So what? Should I apologise two years and a shitload of personal attacks later? To whom? ENWorld? Circvs Maximvs? Gleemax? Grognards.txt? You?

Get real. Nothing I said would ever stop the hypocrites looking for an excuse to play Internet judge, jury and executioner, while the people interested in actually considering what I had to say will be able to do just that irregardless of the style. I don't have the time or wish to stand in the way of either. So there.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 26, 2010)

Imaro said:


> You've actually seen this?  I mean I've never seen someone state they don't like 4e because... "it's new.".




I have actually seen this.

I know three people offline whom have personally mentioned to me that they absolutely hate 4E because it is "new".  These particular three people have not played 4E either.  I got the impression these individuals are very proud of their ignorance about 4E, and have no shame about admitting it in public.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 26, 2010)

It's almost as bad as people who won't give something like 2nd edition a try because "It's too old". Actually one of the awesome things I got last year from my IRL group was they found a copy of the 1st edition red box. Once we get back together I intend to have 2-3 sessions where we play some 1st edition DnD. That was the first edition I played of DnD and I think it would be great for them to see some old style DnD.

The Tomb of Horrors seems very appropriate.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 26, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> One issue I want to take up, as it is a favorite of the self-professed grognard, is the 'play skill' mentioned in the quotes from the Tyranny of Fun thread.  The position espoused there says that harsh play, where the GM kills, cripples, destroys items, or in other ways damages characters for the slightest miscalculation will have a Dungeons and Bootstraps effect, creating players who are highly skilled.
> 
> I disagree completely.  I don't consider "Being paranoid and memorizing the Monster Manual" to be skilled play.  In my game it would be dysfunctional play, as the properties of monsters would not be as published and certain death is not waiting around every corner.  I don't think those things bring fun experiences.  Nothing against those that do, but saying that this is 'skilled play' and my way is 'mediocrity' is explicitly saying 'my game is right and yours is wrong'.
> 
> Which also, is the heart of grognardism.




The first few D&D games I played in, were with DMs whom were very dictatorial and who enjoyed killing off characters repeatedly.  At the time, these were individuals who were older than me, and had an extensive wargaming background.  It was as if they were playing D&D/AD&D like a wargame, where one side was playing "god".

By the time I was DM'ing my own D&D/AD&D games, I was somewhat more lenient in comparison.  After a few years of DM'ing, I was using more and more random tables for which I had the players doing the rolling to determine the outcome (ie. monsters, treasure, etc ...).  The players knew what exactly were in the tables, since I allowed them to see the tables.  (For a long time I didn't use a DM screen).  They knew exactly what they were getting into.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 26, 2010)

ggroy said:


> I have actually seen this.
> 
> I know three people offline whom have personally mentioned to me that they absolutely hate 4E because it is "new". These particular three people have not played 4E either. I got the impression these individuals are very proud of their ignorance about 4E, and have no shame about admitting it in public.





Hey, to each his own... but I've never seen that given as a reason on this board or on the other rpg boards I visit.  If anything I've seen it used by 4e fans to discredit or dismiss the opinions of those who don't like some of the new things that have been added to D&D... sorta like the whole... "if you don't like 4e, you're just one of those people who don't like change."... Which is used as a broad grouping that allows fans of 4e to easily dismiss the opinions of those who have issues with parts or all of 4e.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 26, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Hey, to each his own... but I've never seen that given as a reason on this board or on the other rpg boards I visit.  If anything I've seen it used by 4e fans to discredit or dismiss the opinions of those who don't like some of the new things that have been added to D&D... sorta like the whole... "if you don't like 4e, you're just one of those people who don't like change."... Which is used as a broad grouping that allows fans of 4e to easily dismiss the opinions of those who have issues with parts or all of 4e.




For one person in question, I know for a fact this person does not acknowledge the existence of anything D&D/AD&D beyond 1983/1984.  Dismissals of 2E, 3E/3.5E, 4E back when they were considered "new", is very consistent with this person's MO.  (I've known this person for 20+ years).


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 26, 2010)

Melan said:


> Yeah, that was inconsiderate and I should have worded it more tactfully. Then again, I hadn't the faintest idea people in 2010 would still be discussing a random edition wars post I made in 2008 on what bothered me at that time. So what? Should I apologise two years and a shitload of personal attacks later? To whom? ENWorld? Circvs Maximvs? Gleemax? Grognards.txt? You?
> 
> Get real. Nothing I said would ever stop the hypocrites looking for an excuse to play Internet judge, jury and executioner, while the people interested in actually considering what I had to say will be able to do just that irregardless of the style. I don't have the time or wish to stand in the way of either. So there.




Irregardless is not a word. 

Carry on.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 26, 2010)

Guys guys guys....

Can't we all just get together over a huge pot of spaghetti?

Mixed with baked shrimp instead of meatballs?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 26, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Guys guys guys....
> 
> Can't we all just get together over a huge pot of spaghetti?
> 
> Mixed with baked shrimp instead of meatballs?




BLASPHEMY! How dare you mix spaghetti with baked shrimp instead of meatballs, which is the one true spaghetti meat addition.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 26, 2010)

Legacy
Supergame
Other Suns
Powers & Perils
Living Steel
SenZar
F.A.T.A.L.

Remember, kids, you've got to play it first. For 2-3 months? (That's a goal post I've previously seen moved, along with how many books you need, for 4e.)

Even going only through 1985, there are too many old RPGs to expect a 'grognard' to have played them all. With Internet publishing, new games probably match that in a year.

I think it's pretty reasonable to sort things into classes -- including "stinks to me just from reading a precis" -- without undertaking the unrealistic task of playing them all.

Where I have seen quite prominently an insistence on plain chronological superiority is among those fixated on the notion of "progress" in RPG design, confusing changes in fashion with objective improvement. Those who are familiar with the early scene, that of the 1970s-80s, are accustomed to there being _a wide variety of things at once_, different things for different tastes -- including the taste for one kind of thing on one occasion and another kind on another day.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 26, 2010)

Ariosto said:
			
		

> Remember, kids, you've got to play it first.




Yes, to form an educated and coherent opinion on them I would. I have of that list only played FATAL and it is god awful in numerous ways. Nothing else takes my interest in the least though and as I don't ever feel to express an opinion on a game system I know nothing about why would I bother?

It's like you read my post, took random bits out of it and somewhere along the line completely failed to understand any of the points I made.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:
			
		

> It's like you read my post, took random bits out of it and somewhere along the line completely failed to understand any of the points I made.




I could say the same thing of your post. However much time you have spent playing however many games you didn't like, there are orders of magnitude more that you have not played at all.

My post was about the fellows I have seen getting told, "Oh, no, you have to play it at least X months." And then, "Oh, no, you must get Books X, Y and Z _and_ a DDI subscription." And then, "Well, maybe we could take your opinion seriously if you would only buy another $140 worth of books before passing judgment."

That's just obnoxious!

It's also damned hypocritical, coming from people who insist on principle that old games are just trash, _because they are old_.

That's what my post was about.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 26, 2010)

I don't think that the changes Melan saw coming and disliked -- things that had been encroaching for decades, really, just making more headway -- are likely to spell the end of the industry.

One could point to a correspondence between similar changes and the decline of the computer adventure game. On the other hand, one might wonder whether the changes actually _prolonged_ the genre's commercial viability. One might ask whether there were/are other and older problems continuing to plague it in addition to challenges presented by more recent developments in technology and market demographics.

The popularity of 'quiche' after WW2 was largely in forms at least apparently lighter on animal fat than the original, with cheese added but with a lot of vegetables, which led to the saying that "real men don't eat quiche".

Such a flourishing of something that is the same in name, but different in substance, may indeed be the future of FRP (or at least of D&D).


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 26, 2010)

Aristo said:
			
		

> However much time you have spent playing however many games you didn't  like, there are orders of magnitude more that you have not played at  all.



You remember that point I made, where you shouldn't take random bits of my post and then miss the actual point I was making.

Please start doing that.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 26, 2010)

Aegeri, how about you stop going out of your way to see "random bits of your posts" where they are not? How about letting folks make _their own_ points clear, without it needing to be all about you?

For crying out loud, *you* quoted my post, which was not addressed to or quoting or otherwise having jack to do with you, and wrote beneath it at length about how long you played this game, and another, and yadda, yadda, yadda.

So, you think that is some kind of argument or something? Fine. You can argue with yourself.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Irregardless is not a word.
> 
> Carry on.




Grammar grognard 

Seriously, the point isn't if you like or dislike 4e, its if you consider those who do to be 'lesser' gamers.  That is the heart of grognard.  I don't really like 4e all that much, its a good game, and I consider it to be the least terrible version of D&D, but I appreciate that it does what it does very well.

Game design *does* evolve.  There are features of newer games that older games lack, because no one had thought of them.  Specifically

- Consistant resolution mechanics
- Mathematics that works in an intuitive fashion (best example oWoD vs nWoD, in certain situations in oWoD the better you were at something the more likely you were to get a critical failure)
- Improvement in layout and presentation
- More extensive playtesting
- Focus on what the game wants to deliver

Old games can have their charm, and occasionally you'll get a glimpse of a newer style mechanic in an old game.  I recently played Boot Hill, which is a cowboy game for folks who think Call of Cthulhu is far too soft and cuddly on your characters.  But there's a mechanic in there, when someone gets a lethal shot on you, you can roll Luck.  If you make it, you aren't killed but just slightly wounded.  The *player* must come up with some way that they narrowly escaped death, and cannot repeat one they've done before.

That sounds almost forgey, and its right there in the middle of a game that's as old school as you can get.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 26, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> Seriously, the point isn't if you like or dislike 4e, its if you consider those who do to be 'lesser' gamers.  That is the heart of grognard.



I think you have a point, but I think you go wrong in asserting that the term grognard should and can only be used in a pejorative sense.

Good grognard: "I play older game X and I'm not interested in looking at, playing or discussing newer games because I think newer games are lame. Now get off my lawn."

Bad grognard: "I play older game X and anyone who doesn't play game X and instead prefers newer game Y or any of its derivatives is a bad player, with a short attention span, who just can't handle the challenge of playing game X with the real men."

Some people are reading what you are writing and getting "If you are a grognard, you are the bad kind of grognard", whereas what I think you are saying is "The term grognard should only be applied to the bad kind of grognard". Neither, IMO, is accurate. Grognards, just like every other group of poeple, have their good and bad elements. Grognard doesn't have to be a pejorative term.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 26, 2010)

> Seriously, the point isn't if you like or dislike 4e, its if you consider those who do to be 'lesser' gamers.  That is the heart of grognard



Actually, that's pretty insulting.

A grognard is NOT a lesser gamer. Simply somebody who has their own style and prefers older games.

There should be absolutely no shame in that.

It's like someone saying "if it's old it's useless we must only go with the new fad".

And all fads come and go. Some just stay a while longer than others.

When 5e comes out a few years down the road, the 5e people will be calling the 4e grognards. Then 6e will be calling 5e grognards. Then 100e will be calling 99e grognards.

And it's tiresome. We all have different tastes and styles. Let us be and let us be ourselves.


But you see, the thing is, when things change too much the people who think like this will become tired of change too, and will be just as resistant to those changes as "grognards" are to theirs.

And it's mystifying. Because gamers are not very acceptable in normal society. Being outcasts we should know what it means to be tolerant.

But I guess "being right is serious business".

How disappointing.

And you know what? In my town the word gamer is just another way of saying "fat lazy person who just sits in front of a computer all day long and does absolutely nothing with their lives and has no girlfriends".

So please, stop it with the grognard junk and be more tolerant of each other. 

Because if we aren't tolerant of each other then there is no tolerance period.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 26, 2010)

You have misread his sentence he's not saying grognards are lesser gamers, he's decrying people who think liking 4E makes you a lesser gamer and equating this with certain grognards.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 26, 2010)

Baloney. 

A grognard is somebody who hates 4e and refuses to play new games.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 26, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> Game design *does* evolve.  There are features of newer games that older games lack, because no one had thought of them.



Consequently, there are features of older games that new games lack.

Features which some people might still find today enjoyable. That there are trends of evolution in game design, nobody I think would deny it. That  there is inherently more variety in games today for people to choose from is likewise an unquestionable boon of our times. That these design trends lead to some games being "obsolete", or that there would be an objective "Progress", a "bettering" or "steady improvement" of game design over time, however, is highly questionable to say the least.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 26, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Baloney.
> 
> A grognard is somebody who hates 4e and refuses to play new games.



I'm considered a grognard, since I play OD&D and First Ed AD&D before all other editions of the game at this point. I like New WoD games, RuneQuest II, Aces & Eight. I'm a BRP Call of Cthulhu guy, but I'm curious about Trail of Cthulhu in actual play, and I like CoC d20. I love Star Wars d6 and Star Wars Saga. I could go on. Your statement is de facto disproved, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 26, 2010)

No it's not, as far as I'm concerned. 

A grognard is somebody who does not play new rpgs.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 26, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> No it's not, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> A grognard is somebody who does not play new rpgs.



Your definition is thus specific to your opinion, as far as you're concerned. I daresay that in this instance, your opinion does not reflect a consensus on the question of what a Grognard is, and is not. Far from it.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 26, 2010)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> There are features of newer games that older games lack, because no one had thought of them.  Specifically




Before getting into those specifics, let us note that you are committing an error that one might have hoped would be too obvious by now. The notion that it is sensible to judge on the basis of chronology has been pretty soundly deprecated, *precisely as the supposedly defining and damning flaw of the 'grognard'!*



> - Consistant resolution mechanics



 What, like "toss a coin to settle any question"? Yes, obviously it could not be the case that people _considered and rejected_ it in favor of tailoring 'resolution mechanics' to the situation at hand, could it?



> - Mathematics that works in an intuitive fashion (best example oWoD vs nWoD, in certain situations in oWoD the better you were at something the more likely you were to get a critical failure)



 That's _more_ intuitive?? Yeah, it's a real shame nobody thought of that before Mark Rein*Hagen. (Or was it part of the Ghostbusters game?)

Rolling a handful of dice? T&T, 1975. Counting "successes"? Tons of wargames rules-sets before then (including D&D-progenitor _Chainmail_). 'Exploding' dice? T&T, 1975.

I would say that the great recent advances have actually been in making things even more _counter-_intuitive. It's pretty easy to figure odds in OD&D, even for combinations of rolls. Nowadays, designers seem to consider it not complicated enough if it doesn't require advanced maths -- of which they tend then to demonstrate the tenuousness of their own grasp!



> - Improvement in layout and presentation



I don't see this _at all_, I am afraid, in terms of what "people have thought of". Good design principles tend to go back a long time. Whether people can afford to apply them is another matter. Heck, computer and printing technology has facilitated publication of a lot of horrible design!


Do you mean to insist that, say, the sometimes nearly illegible style of 3e D&D was better than all prior graphic art? How does that fit in with WotC dumping it and going back to an old-fashioned use of type and white space with 4e?

What has this to do with the fact that many of the people who produce or enjoy, e.g., *OSRIC* and *Knockspell* call themselves 'grognards'? What has it to do with the fact that James Maliszewski, co-proprietor of Rogue Games and creator of, e.g., _The Cursed Chateau_ and _Thousand Suns_, also writes the 'Grognardia' blog?

How does, e.g., Greg Bell fit into this scheme of "every day, in every way ..."? Do you think Gygax never _thought of_ replacing him before TSR had the budget for folks such as those who illustrated Supplement III? Is the Thomas Kinkade-ish work of Larry Elmore superior to the phantasmagoria of Erol Otus except as a matter of personal preference?

Is Wayne Reynolds a 'better' artist than Peter Mullen? Is he even better than Frank Frazetta, better still than Howard Pyle, and ever so much more better than Michelangelo? 



> - More extensive playtesting



The Blackmoor dungeon campaign began in late 1970, and D&D was published in 1974. The first DMG was released in 1979, Gygax having continued revision of the same basic framework along with additions and revisions that had been published in the Supplements and The Strategic Review/The Dragon. TSR-D&D continued to refer back to that work in later editions, rather than "reinvent the wheel". Millions of people played the games.

Maybe some p&p RPGs get more playtesting today, and if so then good on that. On the other hand, I have seen an awful lot of errata.

In any case, it is just incredible naïveté to suppose that more extensive playtesting is something "no one had thought of" prior to whatever it is you have in mind!



> - Focus on what the game wants to deliver



"The game" lacks volition. It is the designer who wants to deliver something -- and focus on that is what design _is_. This claim of yours is just total nonsense.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 26, 2010)

> Your definition is thus specific to your opinion, as far as you're concerned. I daresay that in this instance, your opinion does not reflect a consensus on the question of what a Grognard is, and is not. Far from it.




Nope, that only applies to you, not to me. The consensus is a grognard is is somebody who doesn't play new rpgs.

And your statement is entirely ironic concerning a very recent post about tolerance and being right is serious business.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 26, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Nope, that only applies to you, not to me. The consensus is a grognard is is somebody who doesn't play new rpgs.



Nope. Your definition is specific to your own bias, sorry to say.



Diamond Cross said:


> And your statement is entirely ironic concerning a very recent post about tolerance and being right is serious business.



I really don't care much about "serious business" memes that make geeks somehow claim they're "less geek" than "these geeks, you know, the ones who are _really_ geeks, you know?". Whatever. I'm not "normal", whatever "normal" is supposed to be. Sue me.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 27, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Nope. Your definition is specific to your own bias, sorry to say.
> 
> 
> I really don't care much about "serious business" memes that make geeks somehow claim they're "less geek" than "these geeks, you know, the ones who are _really_ geeks, you know?". Whatever. I'm not "normal", whatever "normal" is supposed to be. Sue me.





Nope, it's just your opinion that is specific to your own bias, sorry to say. This is fun.

Your name is now Sue. Since your name was changed to Sue, you have been Sued.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 27, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Guys guys guys....
> 
> Can't we all just get together over a huge pot of spaghetti?
> 
> Mixed with baked shrimp instead of meatballs?




Ummm, NO! 

Have you learned nothing from EnWorld? The red sauce is mixed with ANCHOVIES! 

Sheesh!


----------



## Herschel (Jun 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> ... that allows fans of 4e to easily dismiss the opinions of those who have issues with parts or all of 4e.




Except "your" opinion is not relevent to that group though and should be dismissed, henced avoiding conflict and/or "feeding the trolls". Trying to impress one's opinion on that group is what some say is the mark of a grognard. Yes, one's negative, irrelevant opinion (forcibly) interjected in to a discussion about the positive aspects of the topic at hand is the heart of grognardia. (regardless of the topic at-hand)


----------



## Obryn (Jun 27, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> This is fun.



No, sadly, all the fun has been sucked out of this thread.

-O


----------



## BrokeAndDrive (Jun 27, 2010)

This thread is pleasing to the Ebon Dragon.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 27, 2010)

At the moment, this thread seems to be going nowhere mighty fast.  It seems to have devolved from discussion to bickering.  

So, let's make it simple - the bickering is going to stop now.  We'd prefer it would stop by your collective exertion of common sense, politeness, and good taste.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 27, 2010)

I got back into gaming after a thirteen-year hiatus with 3.0 _D&D_, which I played for a few years. I'm not a big fantasy fan, however, and I quickly gravitated to d20 _Modern_ when it came out. I played _Mutants and Masterminds_, some _Sidewinder: Recoiled_, some d20 _CoC_, a little _Grim Tales_.

One day I got to thinking about the _1001 Characters_ supplement for _Traveller_ (the "classic" tag is superfluous). I discovered the FFE reprints and picked them up, and after flipping through those pages I hadn't seen in almost twenty years, I realized how much I still liked the system. I put together a _Traveller_ one-shot, which lead to a (regrettably short) campaign.

When Mongoose announced it acquired the _Traveller_ license, I was cautiously optimistic: a new edition which coincided with the release of a couple of new lines of _Traveller_ minis plus the ongoing support from BITS made for a _Traveller_ renaissance which sounded pretty good.

I didn't really pay much attention to the playtests, though there was a dice mechanic which didn't really appeal to me, but I picked up the _'goose Trav'_ core rules a couple of months after they were released. I was disappointed with quite a bit of it; it seemed like they'd taken most of the variant rules published for _Traveller_ in the Eighties, in the run-up to _MegaTraveller_, and made them core, frex armor-as-DR and unified skill mechanics. The new combat system missed both the simplicity of the LBB system and the tactical complexity of _Snapshot_.

My disappointment was even worse with _760 Patrons_: it wasn't a book of patron encounters at all, but rather a book of random encounters, some of which might involve patronage but most of which do not. The book didn't provide what I wanted from a book of patron encounters for _Traveller_.

Here's the thing: I didn't dislike _'goose Trav'_ because it was new, or because it represented a change. I don't like it because I don't like it. The final product gives me less of what I want than the original. It incorporates rules I didn't like for _Traveller_ twenty years ago, and rules I don't like for any roleplaying game now.

That doesn't make it a bad game; it simply makes it a game I don't care for.

The problem is, when I say that I prefer _Traveller_ to _'goose Trav'_, I immediately get 'grognard' thrown in my face as an epithet. It doesn't seem to matter that I have what I think are informed reasons based on experience for preferring the older edition to the newer one. No, as some posters have done in this thread, it's enough for me to say that I don't care for the newest edition to be insulted for what I prefer, by taking a word which long had at worst neutral, usually favorable connotations - I'm an actual gaming grognard, getting my start with tabletop miniatures wargames back in the mid-Seventies, years before I ever heard of _D&D_.

So I say to all of you who want to make grognard an insult: you can't have that word. It doesn't mean what you think it does, and it won't mean what you want it to, no matter how hard you work to make it so.

And for the record, I have no opinion on 4e. Never played it, never even cracked open one of the books, and not because it's new, not because it's different, but because I don't like fantasy roleplaying games nearly so much as I do other genres. If there's a 4e-based modern system, I'll give it a look, and if it knocks my socks off I'll play it happily. But if it doesn't, I have plenty of older games which I still enjoy, and if you feel the need to insult me over that choice, well, that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## Ranes (Jun 27, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> The problem is, when I say that I prefer _Traveller_ to _'goose Trav'_, I immediately get 'grognard' thrown in my face as an epithet. It doesn't seem to matter that I have what I think are informed reasons based on experience for preferring the older edition to the newer one. No, as some posters have done in this thread, it's enough for me to say that I don't care for the newest edition to be insulted for what I prefer...




I had the same problem with Trav. I've bought numerous editions over the years but found none as satisfying as the original. I checked out the Mong version and found it wanting, for reasons similar to your own. The thing is, I'd been telling some of the younger members of our D&D group about Traveller and they were keen to play it. When Mong edition appeared, some of them snapped it up. They didn't have anything (Traveller-wise) to compare it to and were mostly accepting of it. I had to bite my tongue so many times so as not to spoil others' enjoyment. After every game, I'd be asked how it compared to the original. I was almost relieved when the ref moved away and wound up the game.

I wish I still had my little black books.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 27, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Except "your" opinion is not relevent to that group though and should be dismissed, henced avoiding conflict and/or "feeding the trolls". Trying to impress one's opinion on that group is what some say is the mark of a grognard. Yes, one's negative, irrelevant opinion (forcibly) interjected in to a discussion about the positive aspects of the topic at hand is the heart of grognardia. (regardless of the topic at-hand)




What are you talking about? I'm talking about the way opinions are mischaracterized so that they can be more easily dismissed as "nonsense" when in fact it is the very reasoning behind this dismissal that is "nonsense".

You however are creating some hypothetical situation which I in no way commented on, full of assumptions that I haven't stated... so have fun with that imaginary situation (When was it established that this only happened in "positive" threads... and if you don't want to hear the negative and positive, well why are you posting something in a discussion forum?) and the "nonsense" it allows one to use as justification for closed-mindedness (is that a word?? ). As far as "the heart of grognardia" goes... so now I'm a grognard (or a troll) if I don't drink the kool-aid that 4e is the do-any-and-everything, one true perfect game?  Sometimes I think alot of my negativity towards 4e is related to some of it's fans as opposed to the game itself.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 27, 2010)

There you go trying to be offended. And you turn around using incendiary terms like "drinking the kool-aid" saying that people who like 4E are mindless sheep. My comment wasn't directed at you, if you read it properly, but apparently if the shoe fits....

And no, your opinion doesn't matter for 4E to anyone who likes it, nor does my or anyone's opinion of 3E matter to those who like it. It works for any game, any platform.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 27, 2010)

Apparently, my previous warning was somehow unclear.

*Stop bickering.  Stop getting personal.  *

That should be clear.  No?  Well, let me give you some inducement to understanding:  One person has already gotten booted from the thread.  Next person who continues with argument gets a vacation from the site.

Consider your words carefully before you hit submit.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 27, 2010)

sigh, sorry, wasn't my intent to start a war :/


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 27, 2010)

Well, just keep in mind, _being right is serious business_. That is always what starts a war.


*Mod edit*:  And failing to let it go is what makes the war continue.  So, everyone, do your part, and _let it go_.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I think it's pretty reasonable to sort things into classes -- including "stinks to me just from reading a precis" -- without undertaking the unrealistic task of playing them all.



Agreed.



Ariosto said:


> Where I have seen quite prominently an insistence on plain chronological superiority is among those fixated on the notion of "progress" in RPG design, confusing changes in fashion with objective improvement. Those who are familiar with the early scene, that of the 1970s-80s, are accustomed to there being _a wide variety of things at once_, different things for different tastes -- including the taste for one kind of thing on one occasion and another kind on another day.



I agree that chronology is not a measure of superiority. At least in my opinion, Rolemaster is in many respects - though not all - a better game than HARP, although 20 years or so older. Runequest is just a good game full stop, though older than RM. And I prefer 1st to 2nd ed AD&D.

On the other hand, I think that modern designers have access to a wider range of techniques to apply to their games. Interestingly, applying some of these techniques can help diagnose the failure of chronology to equate to progress - for example, the more sophisticated vocabulary for analysing the game/metagame relationship helps reveal some of the problems with HARP compared to RM.



Raven Crowking said:


> Speaking of resisting change....I very much doubt that those mean old grognards who are resisting change would have said "Boo" about 4e had it been named "Wizard of the Coast's Fantasy Game" instead of "Dungeons & Dragons".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So why not fully embrace change, and change the name of the game?  Solves everyone's problems, right?  Right?



I'm quite happy that WotC kept the name "D&D" for their flagship game, because it helps make the game a financial success, and hence supported with new mechanical and flavour elements, in a way that a different name would probably not have.

I think the "is it still D&D, though?" question is hard to answer because D&D is used by different people to refer to so many different things: mechanics, overall flavour of the game, lists of monsters or treasures or spells, etc.

For many years I GMed Rolemaster and not D&D, and yet the vast majority of threads about D&D play on this website that are not concerned with the minutiae of character building or action resolution mechanics are applicable to my experience with Rolemaster. In that sense, 4e is not a different game, because neither is Rolemaster. Experiences with one edition can be meaningfully compared to experiences with the others.

On the other hand, I regard it as obvious that playing 4e _to its strengths_ will produce a game different from 3E _played to its strengths_. Whether it will be different from a game of AD&D 1st ed or T&T played to its strengths I think is a bit harder to answer, because the strengths of AD&D and T&T are (in my view) less intimately connected to the minutiae of their character build and action resolution mechanics. In that sense, at least, I think they could be meaningfully described as "rules light". 4e is not rules light in the same way - its mechanical minutiae seem to me to push in the direction of a particular sort of gaming experience.



Melan said:


> ideas on how to deal with the problem http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=167673&postcount=1



I think this is going beyond a claim that "I don't like 4e" and more into "4e - like comparable 'modern'/'indie' RPGs - is a damaging cultural influence".

I've got no general objection to diagnosing damaging cultural influences. Personally, I wouldn't be starting with RPGs, which have a pretty minimal influence on the culture, and which, given this minimal influence, I suspect tend to follow rather than lead broader trends. And there's always a risk of causing offence when you diagnose a damaging cultural influence, as such a diagnosis does tend to have implications for the moral calibre of those who participate in, promote and/or enjoy the culural artefact in question. Also, there's the risk of simply appearing to be a reactionary.

Whether "grognard" should be considered a synonym for "RPG reactionary" I'm not sure of. I always thought that "grognard" had at least an ironic hint to it, especially when embraced by those it labels, which is at odds with being genuinely reactionary.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 28, 2010)

The issue at hand is "grognard = bad". It is not really concerned with "old and new games". It is concerned with 'editions' of one particular game.

The insulters, as far as I have seen, do not care how much fun a 'grognard' has playing Small World or Lost Cities, The Stars Are Right or The Isle of Doctor Necreaux, The Campaigns of King David or Unhappy King Charles!, Field of Glory or Lasalle.

That delight in a new game counts for nothing. Neither does the insulters' dismissal of "old" games just because they were published prior to some date, or are out of print, or are not marketed as widely as (e.g.) WotC-D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I'm quite happy that WotC kept the name "D&D" for their flagship game, because it helps make the game a financial success, and hence supported with new mechanical and flavour elements, in a way that a different name would probably not have.




I'm honestly pretty neutral about that, now that I am playing RCFG.  I can convert a 4e module in about the same time as I can convert a 1e module, in about the same time as I can convert a MERP module, etc.  The label no longer matters.

My point was that the position re: earlier vs. newer editions was inconsistent.  There seems, to me, to be a great desire to be linked by name to the older game while disparaging both it and those who enjoy it.  AFAICT, there is an unspoken argument in the undercurrent of this thread, in effect, "Prefering older editions is an implicit slam against 4e".

IMHO, what get known as the "sacred cows" are often what may be considered the "defining characteristics".  When you remove the defining characteristics, but retain the name, at best you dilute what that name means.

My point was that it is this dilution of identity which, AFAICT and IMHO, is generally actually behind "edition wars".  If 4e had been called WOTCFG, I doubt there would have been enough volleys to consitute even a minor "edition skirmish".

I don't know about you, but I also get tired of "It's new and improved!  And also exactly the same!"  If every discussion of editions devolves from "Look at all these exciting changes!" to "No, nothing has changed" if anyone at all suggests that they don't like some change, then how am I supposed to know what ideas are worth stealing?  



RC


----------



## Scribble (Jun 28, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> The issue at hand is "grognard = bad". It is not really concerned with "old and new games". It is concerned with 'editions' of one particular game.




Personally I think it boils down to Gamers can never seem to even agree on basic definitions of words! 

Is Groganrd defined as: Someone who prefers old versions of games to new ones (for whatever reason.)

or

Is Grognard defined as: Someone who deems new games as being wrongbadfun based solely on the fact that they are new.

We need to go visit The Great Owl.




Raven Crowking said:


> I don't know about you, but I also get tired of "It's new and improved!  And also exactly the same!"  If every discussion of editions devolves from "Look at all these exciting changes!" to "No, nothing has changed" if anyone at all suggests that they don't like some change, then how am I supposed to know what ideas are worth stealing?





I think it's possible for the details to change while the fundamental ideas of what those details are trying to promote remains the same. 

I think the disagreements happen when one person is talking fundamentals and the other is talking details.

As above though- The Great Owl should help.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2010)

"How many licks does it take to get to the centre of a tootsie-pop?"

*That* great owl?

EDIT:  I also think a problem arises when one person is talking about the fundamental ideas not having changed, where the other person sees the fundamental ideas of the previous editions as being very different.  I think that we have to be able to discuss the changes that have actually occured, and their game effects (good and bad, as all changes involve some form of tradeoff....as do the rules they changed from).  What is "fundamental" and what is "detail" isn't always clear (or even often, I would hazard).


RC


----------



## Scribble (Jun 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> "How many licks does it take to get to the centre of a tootsie-pop?"
> 
> *That* great owl?




Nah (Although that one IS wise...)  I'm refering to this one:









> EDIT:  I also think a problem arises when one person is talking about the fundamental ideas not having changed, where the other person sees the fundamental ideas of the previous editions as being very different.  I think that we have to be able to discuss the changes that have actually occured, and their game effects (good and bad, as all changes involve some form of tradeoff....as do the rules they changed from).  What is "fundamental" and what is "detail" isn't always clear (or even often, I would hazard).RC




I can agree with that.  Trouble seems to start when people think the fundamentals and details relate in the same way universally I guess.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2010)

The Secret of NIMH?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The Secret of NIMH?




Indeed!


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 28, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Personally I think it boils down to Gamers can never seem to even agree on basic definitions of words!
> 
> Is Groganrd defined as: Someone who prefers old versions of games to new ones (for whatever reason.)
> 
> ...




Considering no one actually exists who falls under the second proposed definition, I propose we go with the first definition.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 28, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> Considering no one actually exists who falls under the second proposed definition, I propose we go with the first definition.




Shrug.

I'm not trying to say the word is a good word, or that it's appropriately used, or even that it ever really SHOULD be used, or could be used appropriately at all, nor am I seeking to actively apply it to anyone in the thread.

In my own travels I've seen the second use crop up most often. (Aside from some of the new websites using the term.)

Whether or not it really applied to the person it was being applied to? 
Dunno- Probably not though. 

But that just means the person using it was applying it inappropriately, as opposed to the word suddenly having a new meaning.


Also I think your use of the words no one is kind of strong. I'd be willing to bet that somewhere out there there's at least one guy who hates new stuff just because it's new.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> Considering no one actually exists who falls under the second proposed definition, I propose we go with the first definition.



I like things purely because they are new so I don't see why those who have the exactly opposite view couldn't exist. Ggroy said upthread that he knows a number of people like that IRL. After all there are fans of antiques, and what is the one factor linking antiques?

People are way, way too concerned with giving a justification for their tastes in rpging. They feel that their tastes must be based on logic and reason and argument or they are worthless. Not so. Rpgs are entertainment. They only exist because we like them. And our likes, our loves, our passions are all based on emotion.

The emotion, positive or negative, comes first. The argument that comes after is merely a justification for the emotion, not a reason for it.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 28, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> Considering no one actually exists who falls under the second proposed definition, I propose we go with the first definition.




How I wish this were true.

Grognard literally means 'grumbler'.  How is someone a grognard if they aren't grumbling?


----------



## Mallus (Jun 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The Secret of NIMH?




Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH is the One True Version. Any others --for instance, the inferior film adaptation-- are pale imitations.

(am I doing that right?)


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 28, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> Grognard literally means 'grumbler'.  How is someone a grognard if they aren't grumbling?



My son is named William. That doesn't make him the minister of defense for the kingdom of Norway.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 28, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH is the One True Version. Any others --for instance, the inferior film adaptation-- are pale imitations.
> 
> (am I doing that right?)




Once more with feeling please.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 28, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Once more with feeling please.



Hey... that _was_ with feeling. Would it help if I called people who preferred the movie idiots and philistines? 

(It really was my favorite children's book -- why if I had a son I'd saddle him w/the name Nicodemus!)


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> My son is named William. That doesn't make him the minister of defense for the kingdom of Norway.



No, but if, as an adult, he chose to refer to himself as "William the Swift", it wouldn't be unreasonable for people to assume he is locomotively gifted in some way.

Likewise, if gamers who like older games adopt an appelation deriving from a specific historical group and with a previous meaning attached, it isn't unreasonable for people to assume those who choose that name recognize a certain level of similarity between the attitudes of that historical group (i.e. grumpiness and a propensity for complaining about the current state of affairs) and themselves. To insist that "grognard" in a gaming context means and ONLY means "likes older games" is silly. The original usage has nothing to do with liking older things, it's related to grumpiness and complaining. Excluding that part of the meaning when referring to gamers makes the term meaningless. You might as well call gamers who prefer older games "applewagons" or "odelisques". Those terms have as much to do with liking older games as the original usage of "grognard" does.

I, personally, am happy to accept the label of grognard with all of it's attendant baggage. I can be grumpy about things in RPGs I don't like and I accept that I have a propensity to complain long and loud about those things if given half the chance. The only objection I have is the assertion in this thread that complaining automatically equates to putting down other gamers and assuming a position of superiority. That's not part of being a "grognard", it's just being a jerk. There are a lot of grognards who are also jerks. There are a lot of gamers in general who are also jerks. But being a jerk isn't any more inherent to being a grognard than it is to being a gamer in general. (IMHO, YMMV, etc.)


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 28, 2010)

> Make-up, cover up, lighten up...hard face, stark face, lovely face.
> 
> Inner beauty, outer beauty, true beauty...innocence, innovation, interaction.
> 
> ...



contemporary fashion archive

So apparently, Grognard can also be a person's Christian name.

Who'd a thunk eet?


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 28, 2010)

Ourph said:


> No, but if, as an adult, he chose to refer to himself as "William the Swift", it wouldn't be unreasonable for people to assume he is locomotively gifted in some way.



My boy's trending more toward "William the Tall," actually. Maybe even "William the Fair," from all the girls who tell me how beautiful his eyes are.







Ourph said:


> Likewise, if gamers who like older games adopt an appelation deriving from a specific historical group and with a previous meaning attached, it isn't unreasonable for people to assume those who choose that name recognize a certain level of similarity between the attitudes of that historical group (i.e. grumpiness and a propensity for complaining about the current state of affairs) and themselves.



The problem I see with this is that grognard in both its original context _and_ its adopted context among wargamers was intended as an appellation for _veterans_, not complainers _per se_.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> The problem I see with this is that grognard in both its original context _and_ its adopted context among wargamers was intended as an appellation for _veterans_, not complainers _per se_.



I disagree. The original context didn't refer simply to veterans, but to veterans who were experienced enough to notice the mistakes and failings of their superior officers and, thus, sit around grumbling about them. The word literally means "grumbler" (alternately "curmudgeon" or "one who snarls") in French. If the meaning was simply "veteran" then they would have been called "veterans". So,the word implies some level of experience and knowledge, but it has additional meaning beyond that to include someone who is moved to grumble about the current condition of things because they have the knowledge and experience to see that they could be or have been better.

The context as it appeared in gaming (in my experience) was a bunch of (veteran) wargamers complaining about "these newfangled RPG things" and how they were invading and changing the wargaming hobby. So the term grognard was a perfect nickname both because it originated in a context very familiar to wargamers and because the attitude implied by that nickname perfectly described the attitude of the people it was being applied to. It's not as if the people who started using that term didn't know that it meant "grumbler" in French or what that implied about the person being described.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 28, 2010)

Ourph said:


> I disagree. The original context didn't refer simply to veterans, but to veterans who were experienced enough to notice the mistakes and failings of their superior officers and, thus, sit around grumbling about them. The word literally means "grumbler" (alternately "curmudgeon" or "one who snarls") in French. If the meaning was simply "veteran" then they would have been called "veterans".



Forgive me, but I have to call malarkey right there. Does a leatherneck actually support his head on a piece of cured calfskin, or a jarhead have a brain-in-a-bottle?

Grognard is a colloquialism, both in French and in English, and it simply refers to old soldiers or veterans.

Here's an account of how it came to be applied to gamers; I would suggest a quick look at the OED definition which is included on the page.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 29, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Forgive me, but I have to call malarkey right there.



The OED definition you cite has the word "grumbler" right there in the definition. But, please feel free to believe what you want. I'm not feeling particularly grognardly today.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 29, 2010)

> The original usage has nothing to do with liking older things, it's related to grumpiness and complaining.



It has to do with having been in uniform for a long time. Grumpiness and complaining is a given in that circumstance.

The new kid's complaints, though, are probably not going to be about how things are compared with how he remembers them having been in the Old Army (or Navy, or Marine Corps, or Foreign Legion, or what have you).

"Let me tell you about the old ways, when Master Chief played the Playstation 2. Ah, yes, that was, that was ..."

"Four years ago?"

"Yesterday, actually. Booted up _Silent Hill: Shattered Memories_."


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 29, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> "Let me tell you about the old ways, when Master Chief played the Playstation 2.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkF0McZKIw"]Blame Halo 3[/ame]


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 29, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Ourph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but as far as the ORIGINAL context is concerned, you are both wrong.

"Les Grognards" was the name given by Napoléon Bonaparte to the soldiers of "la Vieille Garde" (the Old Guard, literally). They were not only the most experimented men of the Grande Armée, but also the most faithful to the Emperor, who named them so, "Grognards" or "Grumblers" when they complained about their condition of life in the Army. Some of them followed Napoléon until the very end, up to and including the Emperor's exile on Elba.






"_Ils grognaient, et le suivaient toujours_" ("They grumbled, and still, always followed him"), 
Grognards, by Auguste Raffet (1836)


NOW it's a colloqualism, and it literally means a tough-skinned veteran, in a no-nonsense kind of way.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There seems, to me, to be a great desire to be linked by name to the older game while disparaging both it and those who enjoy it.



Well, I make no secret of the fact that I don't particularly enjoy Gygaxian play, that I'm happy to disparage aspects of 3E, and that I'll disparage 2nd ed AD&D at any opportunity. That said, I don't disparage any of the players of those editions, except perhaps those 2nd ed GMs who feel that the game text has given them a licence to railroad in the name of "story".

And as I said upthread, I don't care about the linking by name except that it creates a more vibrant market for the game that I want to play.



Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, there is an unspoken argument in the undercurrent of this thread, in effect, "Prefering older editions is an implicit slam against 4e".



I don't particularly feel that undercurrent, but you're probably more sensitive to it than I am. Conversely, I feel that the Tyranny of Fun posts are pretty clearly more than simply statements of a personal dislike of 4e play. They are critiques of 4e as an undesirable influence on gaming, and perhaps broader, culture. As a fan of 4e, I'm probably more sensitive to that critique than you are.

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't object to such critiques in principle, although they run the risk of being merely reactionary. I don't think they're very helpful on these boards, though, for two reasons: (i) they tend to violate the no-edition-wars rule, and (ii) these boards seem to flourish more when players of a wide range of games and editions treat one another as peers, rather than as cultural enemies.



Raven Crowking said:


> When you remove the defining characteristics, but retain the name, at best you dilute what that name means.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I also get tired of "It's new and improved!  And also exactly the same!"  If every discussion of editions devolves from "Look at all these exciting changes!" to "No, nothing has changed" if anyone at all suggests that they don't like some change, then how am I supposed to know what ideas are worth stealing?



The thing about "It's still the same game" is that for different people, "the game" means different things.

For some, D&D is all about the lists - spells, monsters, items - and the associated tropes. For others, it's the mechanics (polyhedral dice get mentioned a lot), or the style of play.

From WotC's point of view, the lists and some of the tropes are what they have control over (pursuant to copyright law, trademark law, and their general market positioning). Mechanics, on the other hand, come and go and are apt to be replicated by others. So I can see why they stress these things when they insist that the game is the same.

For players who care mostly about these things, the game might really be the same as well. For those who used to play AD&D but who wanted a feel less Gygaxian and more like a serious version of Tunnels and Trolls, 4e might even be the game they were really trying to play all those years ago.

From my own point of view, I can (and have) replicated those lists and tropes in a variety of mechanical systems. For me, what distinguishes 4e from other fantasy RPGs is its mechanics. So for me, the game is definitely not the same - if it was, I wouldn't be playing it!


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 29, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> NOW it's a colloqualism, and it literally means a tough-skinned veteran, in a no-nonsense kind of way.



You know I value your judgement and experience on matters pertaining to French culture, but while the origins make an interesting tale, it's the present colloquial usage, in particular its specific connection to gaming which is recounted in my earlier post, which bears directly on the discussion.







Ourph said:


> The OED definition you cite has the word "grumbler" right there in the definition.



*Ourph*, pulling that completely out of the context in which it's used doesn't reinforce your point.

I'd call it a _faux pas_, but  I don't really believe you took a bad step.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jun 29, 2010)

pemerton said:


> The thing about "It's still the same game" is that for different people, "the game" means different things.
> 
> For some, D&D is all about the lists - spells, monsters, items - and the associated tropes. For others, it's the mechanics (polyhedral dice get mentioned a lot), or the style of play.
> 
> ...




For me, the fun fact is that the game has never been the same. There always were major changes from edition to edition, including the whole truckload of optional rules. THAC0 changed to BAB changed to Attack. The terms AC and Save are still the same, tho.
So imho both statements (it´s the same, it´s not the same) are equally untrue.

@Raven Cowking:

Just wait for it. Should the be an RCFG 2.0 oder (gasp!) an ARCFG, you´ll have your own grognards


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2010)

I'll need neonards first.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 29, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'll need neonards first.




Talk to Wolfman... I heard he has nards...


Or was it nads?


----------



## Ourph (Jun 29, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> *Ourph*, pulling that completely out of the context in which it's used doesn't reinforce your point.
> 
> I'd call it a _faux pas_, but  I don't really believe you took a bad step.



I'd appreciate it if you would refraine from accusing me of being disingenuous for pointing out the flaws in your assertions. For the record, this is the definition from your link...



			
				OED said:
			
		

> Grognard: a soldier of Napoleons' Old Guard; a veteran soldier; grumbler (French) - Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed




Pointing out that the word "grumbler" is right there in the definition isn't taking anything out of context. I've never disagreed that the term grognard implies an "old soldier" or "veteran". In fact, I specifically state that grognard does carry that connotation several times in my posts above. My contention is that it carries additional meaning, based upon the selection of the French word for grumble, "grogner", as its root. The French have a perfectly adequate word for old, experienced soldiers... veteran. The fact that these particular veterans were given a nickname derived from the word grumble implies... well, really, the implications should be self-evident.

As for its current usage in gaming circles, it's entirely possible that the "grumbling complainer" connotation wasn't intended by its original usage, but it certainly has acquired or reacquired that connotation over the years; with good reason if this thread is any indication.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jun 29, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Pointing out that the word "grumbler" is right there in the definition isn't taking anything out of context. I've never disagreed that the term grognard implies an "old soldier" or "veteran". In fact, I specifically state that grognard does carry that connotation several times in my posts above. My contention is that it carries additional meaning, based upon the selection of the French word for grumble, "grogner", as its root. The French have a perfectly adequate word for old, experienced soldiers... veteran. The fact that these particular veterans were given a nickname derived from the word grumble implies... well, really, the implications should be self-evident.
> 
> As for its current usage in gaming circles, it's entirely possible that the "grumbling complainer" connotation wasn't intended by its original usage, but it certainly has acquired or reacquired that connotation over the years; with good reason if this thread is any indication.




Well, funny. That´d mean that the self-respect some people get from being indentified as grognards would crumble when they find out that they´re not being identified as "trusted veterans" but as "plain old grumblers".


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 29, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> You know I value your judgement and experience on matters pertaining to French culture, but while the origins make an interesting tale, it's the present colloquial usage, in particular its specific connection to gaming which is recounted in my earlier post, which bears directly on the discussion.



Hey it's alright, man. I was just talking as far as the true origins of the word are concerned. I agree that, as it is applied to gaming now, the term has travelled a long way since then (though its roots in Napoleonic wargaming are very much there, of course).


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 29, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> Well, funny. That´d mean that the self-respect some people get from being indentified as grognards would crumble when they find out that they´re not being identified as "trusted veterans" but as "plain old grumblers".



LOL but that's the thing, my friend. I know the origins of the word and know what it means. I AM French after all. And I take this denomination as a badge of honor, not some mark of shame.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 29, 2010)

double post


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 29, 2010)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Does a leatherneck actually support his head on a piece of cured calfskin



Used to. It was called a 'stock'.



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> ("They grumbled, and still, always followed him"),
> Grognards, by Auguste Raffet (1836)




So, one imagines it was rather a term of affection.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 29, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> Well, funny. That´d mean that the self-respect some people get from being indentified as grognards would crumble when they find out that they´re not being identified as "trusted veterans" but as "plain old grumblers".



Please don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I said, ever, in this thread.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 29, 2010)

Ourph said:


> I'd appreciate it if you would refraine from accusing me of being disingenuous for pointing out the flaws in your assertions.




I see no such accusation.  He didn't doubt your sincerity, merely how applicable your statement was in the argument.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jun 29, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Please don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I said, ever, in this thread.




I don´t. Just reading point and counter-point of the discussion lead me to that idea.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 29, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> So, one imagines it was rather a term of affection.



It totally was on the Emperor's part. Being a Grognard meant that you were part of the elite, one of the faithful who knew Bonaparte on the battle field and followed him everywhere in war.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> That´d mean that the self-respect some people get from being indentified as grognards would crumble when they find out that they´re not being identified as "trusted veterans" but as "plain old grumblers".





Ariosto said:


> So, one imagines it was rather a term of affection.



Exactly. And as I said upthread, there is an element of irony in adopting such a label as term of endearment.

I think that it is this element of irony that creates the space for the term to become a contested one - ie those who don't like the grognards might feel that the tables are in fact turned somewhat, and that the irony consists in the grognards seeing their self-description as grumblers ironic, when in fact (from the anti-grognard's point of view) the self-description is literally true.

Given that this sort of irony is always in the eye of the beholder, it seems silly to think that one could achieve widespread agreement on the real meaning of grognard, when there is widespread disagreement on whether ongoing loyalty to old-school gaming is a good thing or not.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 30, 2010)

Well, I don't care whether a fellow pisses off players of new games. If he's up for a game of _Column, Line and Square_, then that's good enough for me.

He can grumble about how much got cut out of the latest version.

I can grumble right back about how only _grognards_ would deploy all the power of modern digital document processing to produce something that looks ... like a Xerox of a mimeograph of an original produced on a typewriter in the 1970s.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> only _grognards_ would deploy all the power of modern digital document processing to produce something that looks ... like a Xerox of a mimeograph of an original produced on a typewriter in the 1970s.



Encounter Critical and Mazes and Minotaurs? Or did I misunderstand your allusion?

(EDIT: and of course can't give more XP at this time blah blah blah.)


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 1, 2010)

> Encounter Critical and Mazes and Minotaurs? Or did I misunderstand your allusion?




I was referring to CLS3 _(Being the classic rules set "Column, Line and Square", reordered, refurbished, and brought up to date for a new century, by Various Veterans)_.


----------



## ancientvaults (Jul 1, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Well, I don't care whether a fellow pisses off players of new games. If he's up for a game of _Column, Line and Square_, then that's good enough for me.
> 
> He can grumble about how much got cut out of the latest version.
> 
> I can grumble right back about how only _grognards_ would deploy all the power of modern digital document processing to produce something that looks ... like a Xerox of a mimeograph of an original produced on a typewriter in the 1970s.




I am half grognard (I also run Pathfinder and sometimes Barbarians of Lemuria, and the latest CoC) and I find all of the edition whinging to be nonsense. As I have stated before, any game that you and your fellows like is the perfect game, regardless of edition. Just have fun.

However, the jab at production values is rather unwarranted. Check out the pictures of the Lamentations of the Flame Princess rpg  . This game is so retro it can show nipples! On the cover! And it looks pretty snazzy.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 1, 2010)

> However, the jab at production values is rather unwarranted.



In the particular case, it is entirely warranted, albeit slightly exaggerated (e.g., that's probably not typewriter but typesetting getting so carefully duplicated). You can look at CLS3 for yourself.

It's a _joke_, though!

No doubt there are young hipsters who also take "retro style" to such extremes. Most certainly there are high production values, too. Multi-Man Publishing, for instance, inherited a high bar with the Advanced Squad Leader line. Kenzer's old-timer-pleasing Aces & Eights is about as deluxe as deluxe can be. The "retro-clone" RPG scene offers a lot of good-looking work. And even when Jim Raggi's D&D stuff was produced on a tiny budget, it was pretty sharp.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 1, 2010)

ancientvaults said:


> However, the jab at production values is rather unwarranted. Check out the pictures of the Lamentations of the Flame Princess rpg . This game is so retro it can show nipples! On the cover! And it looks pretty snazzy.




Thanks for the link. I will be ordering this.


----------



## ancientvaults (Jul 1, 2010)

@Ariosto: Even as a joke, though, people (like me) can see this as a jab. I really am not into the edition wars and I think that all participants are immature, whether they are 12 or 60.

@Exploder Wizard: James and I might bang heads, but he puts out a solid product. The art on that is beautiful and I will be buying a copy too.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 1, 2010)

> people (like me) can see this as a jab



Ariosto is a known lover of classic D&D, but here he's being accused of taking a jab at those who love classic D&D.

I literally snorted in laughter at this.

Ariosto, welcome to my world. 

Bullgrit


----------



## ancientvaults (Jul 2, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Ariosto is a known lover of classic D&D, but here he's being accused of taking a jab at those who love classic D&D.
> 
> I literally snorted in laughter at this.
> 
> ...





Sorry, I don't keep track of the personalities, likes and dislikes of the 90,553 members of this website.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 3, 2010)

"Classic D&D"?
CLS is for "real" grognards!


Photo from the Yahoo group:


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 8, 2010)

*The G Word*

I think I'm now of the opinion that "grognard" is sort of like the N word: 

It's only okay if you call yourself (or your immediate circle of friends) one. 

_Yea I'm out that Greyhawk, now I'm down in Eberron
right next to Ken Baker, but I'll be Grog forever
I'm the new Ed Greenwood, and... since I played it here
I can play it anywhere, yea, they love me everywhere_

Please don't hate me, Jay Z...


----------



## dagger (Jul 9, 2010)

I guess I am a grognard, because I spent a year playing 4e and spent about 25 bucks total, then went back to 1e and now play Pathfinder.


That pretty much sums up everyone in my game group, all ages 24-39....the most money anyone spent is buying 3 core books. So we gave it a fair shake....



We all spent over 500.00 (each) easy on 3/3.5 though.

I know wizards misses our money, and I would buy old PDFs from them if they are high quality.....*shrug*


----------



## ancientvaults (Jul 11, 2010)

One of the reasons that I love being a grognard is the nostalgia. Back in the late 70's, early 80's, as a little nipper buying those books was amazing. Reading through them and the concepts, it was unlike anything else. Wrestling with playing and being a little too young to understand the DIY aspect of the game. I remember enjoying just reading through the MM, PHB or DMG on hot summer afternoons and early evenings, the idea of gaming was still so new and fresh. 

Now there are video games that simulate roleplaying and pen and paper rpgs coming out of the woodwork, but back then, it was so new, and so weird that is was really an awesome time. Now, rpgs are everywhere, they are not demonized like they used to be and they are rather commonplace in some circles.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2010)

ancientvaults said:
			
		

> Now there are video games that simulate roleplaying and pen and paper rpgs coming out of the woodwork, but back then, it was so new, and so weird that is was really an awesome time.




It was, in a similar way, an awesome time for the video games, and the related field of personal computers, too, eh? 

Now is an awesome time in other ways, in those and other fields.

Somewhere else -- maybe closer than one might think -- is another field not yet even at the 1976 stage. (What it is, I don't know.) Come 2016, perhaps, pioneers will be making for themselves the names that will be legend to a later generation. Maybe a decade and a half later, the age of the entrepreneur starting with little more than his or her own time and energy will probably be largely over, if the business has boomed.

Maybe as long again later, the same technological and economic factors that facilitate a new generation of entrepreneurs will also help an older one do its 'retro' thing. By then, something else will be the next big thing.


----------



## Gort (Jul 12, 2010)

Grognards - ageing has-beens trudging towards inevitable defeat, shame and dishonour following a once-great but increasingly senile and syphilitic cause...

I'm not sure if the whole Napoleonic metaphor is really all that flattering a label.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 12, 2010)

Defeat, perhaps. Shame and dishonor, never.

_Vive le mort! Vive le guerre! Vive le joueur militaire!_


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 12, 2010)

To me, the whole concept of calling oneself, (self-identifying), a [gaming] grognard sets up an antagonistic stance. It also suggests one is sticking to a classic game edition out of duty and loyalty, rather than from a reasoned choice or a considered preference.

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91 (Jul 12, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> To me, the whole concept of calling oneself, (self-identifying), a [gaming] grognard sets up an antagonistic stance. It also suggests one is sticking to a classic game edition out of duty and loyalty, rather than from a reasoned choice or a considered preference.
> 
> Bullgrit




Spin it the way you want to, doesn't make it appropriate or hold true to the historical meaning of the term. You're also suggesting that the grognards' sense of loyalty to Napoleon couldn't be a reasoned choice or considered preference. Given the Corsican's track record of success and fairly obvious competence at points in his career, sticking with Napoleon makes for a pretty smart choice.
Like I've said before, I first heard the term out of a wargaming background, where your sense of the term is pretty much alien.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 12, 2010)

billd91 said:
			
		

> doesn't make it appropriate or hold true to the historical meaning of the term





> Like I've said before, I first heard the term out of a wargaming background, where your sense of the term is pretty much alien.



I was answering to the meaning presented in the first lines of the OP:







> From various threads here, and one on the Piazza....
> Folk tend to use "grognard" in different ways:
> 
> 1) Lover of an older edition/setting of their fave game.
> ...






			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> You're also suggesting that the grognards' sense of loyalty to Napoleon couldn't be a reasoned choice or considered preference.



I'm not suggesting anything about Napoleon's army.

Bullgrit


----------



## Gort (Jul 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Defeat, perhaps. Shame and dishonor, never.




I can't think of many activities more shameful and dishonourable for a soldier than occupying sovereign nations against the will of their people and massacring unarmed protesters, but maybe your standards are different to mine.

*Admin here. Let's be spectacularly clear about this: one of the cardinal rules about EN World is that we don't allow religion and politics. Want to guess which this is? Whatever your beliefs may be, it isn't appropriate to discuss on this site, so p[lease stay far away from the topic in the future.

PM me if this is in any way unclear.

~ Piratecat*


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 13, 2010)

Gort said:


> I can't think of many activities more shameful and dishonourable for a soldier than occupying sovereign nations against the will of their people and massacring unarmed protesters, but maybe your standards are different to mine.



Yes, 'cause that's _exactly_ what I meant.



. . . or _maaaaaaaaybe_ that's not what I was talking about at all?



(Hint: "Long live the dead! Long live the war! Long live *military gamers*!")


----------



## Gort (Jul 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Yes, 'cause that's _exactly_ what I meant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Then I guess my point went over your head somewhere.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 13, 2010)

*Gort, please see the above warning.*


----------



## Umbran (Jul 13, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> To me, the whole concept of calling oneself, (self-identifying), a [gaming] grognard sets up an antagonistic stance.




In my personal experience, someone self-identifying as a grognard is basically _self-depricating_ as an "old coot".  Yeah, he may prefer Abbot and Costello to your newfangled Denis Leary, and he's gonna complain and grumble about the kids on his lawn, but he's mostly harmless - he's grouchy, is all.  All in all, it's someone identifying as having been around for a long while.

The grognard is an old warrior.  I think you're stressing the warrior, when you should be stressing the old.

In the end, what happens when someone self-identifies as... pretty much anything... depends more on you than on them.  Whether or not he intends it to be antagonistic means nothing if you don't take it as antagonistic.  It takes two to tango, remember?  

He's a veteran.  Thank him for his service, listen to his wisdom (if any), and move on.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 13, 2010)

> In the end, what happens when someone self-identifies as... pretty much anything... depends more on you than on them. Whether or not he intends it to be antagonistic means nothing if you don't take it as antagonistic. It takes two to tango, remember?



This . . . makes no sense. If I identify as a good ol' boy, "what happens" depends more on you, than on me?

I'm a long-time D&D gamer. I'm among the oldest and longest playing people on this forum. But I specifically do not consider myself a "grognard" because of the confrontational tone that name gives -- in my opinion, based on what I've read others say they are claiming with that term.



> All in all, it's someone identifying as having been around for a long while.



Simply saying, "I've been around for a long while," is not the same as including:







> Yeah, he may prefer Abbot and Costello to your newfangled Denis Leary, and he's gonna complain and grumble about the kids on his lawn, but he's mostly harmless - he's grouchy, is all.



Regardless of being "mostly harmless," do you enjoy hanging around with someone who is "grouchy"?

So you are basically in agreement with me about the feel of the term, "grognard" -- it's more than just "long-time player".

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91 (Jul 13, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> This . . . makes no sense. If I identify as a good ol' boy, "what happens" depends more on you, than on me?




I think you've been illustrating Umbran's point all along. While I've been pointing out the wargaming use of the term, which Umbran correctly identifies as being self-depricating old cootishness, you've been pretty consistently seeing it in a negative light. Your perception of what a grognard is has been overriding anything else anyone else has said around here about its positive or good-natured uses. From my point of observation, that's exactly what's been happening.

You probably don't want to know what "good ol' boy" connotes to me and the people I interact with in Wisconsin. I'm going to bet it's not nearly as positive as your self-labeling connotations.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 13, 2010)

billd91 said:
			
		

> correctly identifies as being self-depricating old cootishness, you've been pretty consistently seeing it in a negative light.



Dictionary.com:
coot -- a foolish or crotchety person, esp. one who is old.

You both are equating "grognard" with "coot", and you're saying this is a good thing?

I'm agreeing, that yes, from what I've read, especially here, "grognard" is similar to "coot," but I don't see how that is a positive definition.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Jul 13, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> This . . . makes no sense. If I identify as a good ol' boy, "what happens" depends more on you, than on me?




Yep.  At least, in terms of what goes on in internet forums.

You've made a self-identification.  The reason to do that is to set some expectations.  But, the expectations are in my head, not yours.  What effect that identification has on our conversation going forward depends on what I think of good old boys, not on what you think of them, and on how I want to react to you with the new information, now on how you want me to react.

Basically, your self-identification is a chance for me to engage my prejudices.  So, what happens next is up to my prejudices.

My prejudices against grognards (and good old boys) are mild to non-existent.  Your identification doesn't fill me with a whole bunch of expectations of problems.  I'm going to wait for you to blatantly act like aggressive jerk, rather than assume you are one, and read those things into your writing.

If I'm not looking for confrontation, I am notably less likely to find one.

That's something folks on the various sides of "style wars" often fail to recognize - you generally find whatever you're looking for.  If you are looking for a fight, you'll find a fight.  If you're looking for someone with a different set of preferences and tastes to learn from, you'll probably find that.




> So you are basically in agreement with me about the feel of the term, "grognard" -- it's more than just "long-time player".




I think I've been pretty clear - what it means is _in the ear of the listener_.  It is most certainly not universally defined as one thing.  To some it is more, to some it is less.  Some have never heard the term, and for them it is meaningless jargon.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 13, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> You both are equating "grognard" with "coot", and you're saying this is a good thing?




Yep.  I've done some of my best learning at the knees of coots. 

Did you see the Pixar film, "Up".  The main character, Carl Fredrickson, is definitely an archetypal coot, and he was a good person.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 13, 2010)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You've made a self-identification. The reason to do that is to set some expectations.



Is this not *exactly* what I’ve said about self-identifying as a “grognard”?

Our whole discussion here is not:

Me: The term means ABC.

“You”: No, the term means XYZ.


Our discussion seems to be:

Me: The term means ABC.

“You”: No, the term means ABC.


How do I end up getting into arguments with people by saying things they apparently agree with?




> Yep. I've done some of my best learning at the knees of coots.



I have learned (and can still learn) a lot from older and more experienced persons, but I find I have little to learn from “foolish and crotchety” persons.

Bullgrit


----------



## renau1g (Jul 13, 2010)

crotchety doesn't mean that they have little to teach or pass on. Many, many highly educated people I know are crotchety, but that doesn't mean if I don't listen to them I'm not missing out on a huge learning opportunity. 

crotchety [ˈkrɒtʃɪtɪ]
adj
1. Informal cross; irritable; contrary
2. full of crotchets (2 a : a highly individual and usually eccentric opinion or preference)
crotchetiness  n


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 13, 2010)

renau1g said:
			
		

> ...crotchety...



I notice you left off the "foolish" part of "foolish and crotchety".

Bullgrit


----------



## darkseraphim (Jul 13, 2010)

I think the point of labeling oneself a grognard is to make one simple statement:  "I was there."

Kind of an "I shook Sinatra's hand" kind of thing.    Anything beyond that is baggage in one form or another!


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jul 13, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> I was answering to the meaning presented in the first lines of the OP:
> 
> I'm not suggesting anything about Napoleon's army.
> 
> Bullgrit




well, what some folks seem to be forgetting, or not realizing, is that the term can mean DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE! 
this is a general point, not aimed at Bullgrit. 

To me, if you like an older edition for "good" reasons, you are just "old school" or "1st ed lover" etc. _this is not a bad thing to me!! _ It is just their fave/love etc, that is all.
I like AC/DC, some folk like Eminem. 
it is cool.

what is not cool, are nitwits who jsut won't give something new a fair chance. Because life is all about CHANGE like it or damn well not.
hm, it's like the Monty Python sketch with the old gits complaining about how tough they had it when they were a lad! 

Many folk forget that the love of edition "x" is rooted often in youthfull first experience. First loves maybe the most memorable, but they are also often the biggest pains in the backside, _EVAH!! _ lol

anyway. IMHO, WOTC needs to embrace the old school players, too. theya re just as important, because as time goes on, there will be 4th ed "Old Schoolers" then 5th, 6th....etc etc.

what interest might there be in official re-prints or updates of the previous editions, etc?


----------



## carmachu (Jul 13, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> People who prefer AD&D1, AD&D2, or D&D3 (or OD&D, B/XD&D, or BECMID&D) *have* those games. WotC doesn't need to cater to those folks; those folks already have years of material for those editions.
> 
> Bullgrit





But they dont have EVERYTHING those edtions put out. And it costs them nothing to leave the PDF's available for them.


----------

