So, are we "grognards" yet? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : So, are we "grognards" yet?

Pika...

2012-07-18, 10:31 PM

Hecuba

2012-07-18, 10:37 PM

Flickerdart

2012-07-18, 10:39 PM

It's only been what, five or six years since first party 3.5 went out of print? I don't think we can really call ourselves grognards until that number hits 10 at least.

Pika...

2012-07-18, 10:42 PM

What? A reprint?!?! :smalleek:

And I know of no companies still doing 3.5. Only Pathfinder. :(

P.S. I just bought myself the reprinted 1ed books. Does that then resurrect your generation from grognard status? LoL

It's only been what, five or six years since first party 3.5 went out of print? I don't think we can really call ourselves grognards until that number hits 10 at least.

Eh. I can see that.

Psyren

2012-07-18, 11:05 PM

I sure felt like one when I saw people raving over 4e, an edition I would never enjoy. Then I realized that all my friends had simply switched to Pathfinder and I felt young again :smallcool:

eggs

2012-07-18, 11:05 PM

Ehh. The fact that third parties are still printing stuff and they're doing a reprint saves 3.5 from full grognard status in my mind.
If that ruled the term out, would anybody be a grognard after all the retroclones?

Keneth

2012-07-19, 12:23 AM

And I know of no companies still doing 3.5. Only Pathfinder. :(
You say "only Pathfinder" like they (and third party publishers) aren't releasing at least a dozen new books every year (not counting adventures). :smallbiggrin:

The-Mage-King

2012-07-19, 12:47 AM

Please. I've been a grognard since I started playing 3.5, and I was like 14, then. :smalltongue:

metabolicjosh

2012-07-19, 12:52 AM

WE NO FLAMIN WARZ
Gol Bal Qu Orc Chief
So don ot start nothing and maybe just maybe there wont be a hold out.

Ravens_cry

2012-07-19, 01:37 AM

You say "only Pathfinder" like they (and third party publishers) aren't releasing at least a dozen new books every year (not counting adventures). :smallbiggrin:
There is even third party stuff for Pathfinder. The concept of what party that counts as really makes my head-ache.
There truly ain't no sanity clause.

Keneth

2012-07-19, 01:46 AM

There is even third party stuff for Pathfinder.
That's what I was referring to, actually. And relations of the same type don't stack. Third party material for third party material is still third party material. As a D&D player you should know how to stack things. :smallbiggrin:

Aquillion

2012-07-19, 01:48 AM

I heard 5.0 is coming up.

I smiled hearing that, realizing that the upcoming fourth edition "holdouts" will be saying the same things about 5.0 that we said about 4.0, and that the 1.0/2.0 crowd said about 3.0/3.5, and maybe even that the Basic players said about 1.0/2.0. They will fight a new, but identical, edition war just like we did against the 4.0 crowd, and etc, etc, etc.That's not true at all.

I was here for most of the changes you mention (well, not here on this forum, but around and playing D&D), and the change to 4e was very different and much more contentious than all the others.

There's several reasons (the complete removal of the D&D spell system was a huge factor -- that had been basically the same and composed of the same spells right back to the first edition, and many people played D&D purely because they liked that spell system). Even aside from spells -- in general, from the very first edition of D&D right up to 3.5e, you could take any core, single-class character and carry them from edition to edition, and they'd play basically the same way. A few things changed -- sure, elf and dwarf aren't classes anymore -- but thieves, mages, fighters, and clerics have played more-or-less the same across all editions, and 4e totally broke that.

4e was, basically, a different game, whereas all prior editions were attempts to update the original game -- sometimes drastically, yes, with different systems for advancement and different details like that, but there was always a core focus on keeping the gameplay fundamentally the same, and 4e discarded that.

I'm not even saying that that's a bad thing or a good thing, it's just a thing. You can argue over whether 4e was good or bad or whatever -- I think it was clearly a well-made game in many respects -- but saying "oh, it was just another edition change" misses the severity of how it changed and the reason why there are still people who play 3.5e. That is not something that happened before, not on anywhere near this scale. I saw the previous edition changes as they happened, and generally, people just happily moved on to the next edition when they finished their current game, updating their characters as necessary.

That didn't happen in 4e. You couldn't update your character to 4e at all.

Now, another major issue was the OGL, which allowed people to continue publishing 3.5e stuff.

But either way, WotC realizes that 4e caused a schism -- that's why they're saying one of their big focuses in 5e is to recapture dissatisfied 3.5 players.

Ravens_cry

2012-07-19, 01:53 AM

That's what I was referring to, actually. And relations of the same type don't stack. Third party material for third party material is still third party material. As a D&D player you should know how to stack things. :smallbiggrin:
Not in Legalese.
Now that should be the language of devils.
Also, there is a third-party and a first-party, is there a second-party?

*.*.*.*

2012-07-19, 02:22 AM

a second-party?

Stuff printed by Non-WotC companies, but are endorsed by Wizards and/or bare the D&D logo?

only1doug

2012-07-19, 02:24 AM

Perhaps the player base are the 2nd party?

the 1st party creates the game,
the 2nd party buys the game,
the 3rd party creates new material for the game that was made by the 2st party and purchased by the 2nd party.

Killer Angel

2012-07-19, 04:21 AM

4e was, basically, a different game, whereas all prior editions were attempts to update the original game -- sometimes drastically, yes, with different systems for advancement and different details like that, but there was always a core focus on keeping the gameplay fundamentally the same, and 4e discarded that.

I believe this was the main reason for the editions' war; otherwise, we would have testified a similar thing also with the passage from 2nd ed to 3.0, but the discussions never reached such a magnitude.

Not in Legalese.
Now that should be the language of devils.

Isn't already so? :smalltongue:

Keneth

2012-07-19, 05:02 AM

Also, there is a third-party and a first-party, is there a second-party?

Perhaps the player base are the 2nd party?
I'm inclined to agree. The official game developers are the first party, players are the second party, and people who contribute to the game from the outside are the third party. Of course the designations change according to the context that defines the relations.

Pika...

2012-07-19, 06:12 AM

That's what I was referring to, actually. And relations of the same type don't stack. Third party material for third party material is still third party material. As a D&D player you should know how to stack things. :smallbiggrin:

I meant there is no actual 3.5 material being printed, only stuff for Pathfinder. PF =/= 3.5 for many of us.

BShammie

2012-07-19, 08:23 AM

Yup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_source), the second party is the consumer.

only1doug

2012-07-19, 08:40 AM

Yup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_source), the second party is the consumer.

So, we have plenty of 2nd party material (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15).

The Glyphstone

2012-07-19, 08:45 AM

That's what I was referring to, actually. And relations of the same type don't stack. Third party material for third party material is still third party material. As a D&D player you should know how to stack things. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, but which rules do we use. By D&D rules, stacking third party and third party would make it 5th-party sources, because 3+3=5.
Else, it could be 3+3=6th-party, or 3^2=9th party...

Kish

2012-07-19, 08:46 AM

So, we have plenty of 2nd party material (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15).
Except that while you're a second party while buying material and while playing someone else's material, while you're making it you're a third party.

Togo

2012-07-19, 08:47 AM

If that ruled the term out, would anybody be a grognard after all the retroclones?

I'm still converting my old D&D basic set modules into more modern editions so that I can use them. I'm pretty sure noone is reprinting them.

Incidently, I was rereading one of basic set modules, The Lost City X2, and they were using a glossary system, whereby unfamiliar words or terms were put into bold text for explanation at the back of the book.

One of the terms was character interaction. The author put in a small paragraph to explain what this was, for those people who may not have encountered it in a D&D module before. :smallamused:

The other weird encounter was the group of 1st level magic-users. Each one had one spell memorised, and there were 12 of them - one for every 1st level spell in the game.

Marlowe

2012-07-19, 08:51 AM

Why on earth would we want to be "grognards"?

The term originated from Napoleon, who used it to describe "Those old veterans who complain about everything, but are still dumb enough to do anything I say."

Then it was applied (by themselves) to old-style Tabletop historical wargamers, who now seem to be replaced by 40K whores suckers everywhere I go.

Then AD&D players apparently stole it. I don't doubt the literal meaning (grumblers) works fine, but it's now completely removed from its original context.

Seriously, why do we want it?

only1doug

2012-07-19, 08:52 AM

Except that while you're a second party while buying material and while playing someone else's material, while you're making it you're a third party.

Nope, when selling it you are third party, if you make it for your own use you are still the 2nd party.

Kish

2012-07-19, 09:04 AM

Nope, when selling it you are third party, if you make it for your own use you are still the 2nd party.
If the distinction is money, that's quite an arbitrary line to draw.

If it isn't, you linked to a forum full of things posted for the benefit of other people--that is, full of things made by third parties and offered to second parties--not to a DM's private my-homebrew-world-which-hosts-my-game-and-no-others folder. (Not that I accept the classification system you're arguing for for anything other than this paragraph; "Game-creator, material-user, material-maker" makes far more sense as a classification system to me than "game-creator, material-buyer, material-seller.")

only1doug

2012-07-19, 09:20 AM

If the distinction is money, that's quite an arbitrary line to draw.

If it isn't, you linked to a forum full of things posted for the benefit of other people--that is, full of things made by third parties and offered to second parties--not to a DM's private my-homebrew-world-which-hosts-my-game-and-no-others folder. (Not that I accept the classification system you're arguing for for anything other than this paragraph; "Game-creator, material-user, material-maker" makes far more sense as a classification system to me than "game-creator, material-buyer, material-seller.")

IMO most homebrew is created for the benefit of the person doing it (something they would like to play or have played in their campaign) and posted for fine tuning and advice (and if other people want to use it thats fine too). To me the distinction between 2nd party and 3rd party would be the reason for creating it, "I made this to work in my games" is 2nd party whereas "I made this to work in your games" is 3rd party.
Someone asking for homebrew to fix a specific issue is also 2nd party as the homebrew is being created to the 2nd party specification.

Lord_Gareth

2012-07-19, 09:38 AM

IMO most homebrew is created for the benefit of the person doing it (something they would like to play or have played in their campaign) and posted for fine tuning and advice (and if other people want to use it thats fine too). To me the distinction between 2nd party and 3rd party would be the reason for creating it, "I made this to work in my games" is 2nd party whereas "I made this to work in your games" is 3rd party.
Someone asking for homebrew to fix a specific issue is also 2nd party as the homebrew is being created to the 2nd party specification.

I homebrew for the lulz. What party is that?

(Not kidding)

only1doug

2012-07-19, 09:48 AM

I homebrew for the lulz. What party is that?

(Not kidding)

my stab at a definition for that:

If you are distributing it for your benefit then it is 2nd party (i.e. you are making it for your own use, even if that use is purely intellectual).

If you are distributing it for the purpose of other people using it in their games then it is 3rd party.

kyoryu

2012-07-19, 09:49 AM

Palanan

2012-07-19, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Keneth
Third party material for third party material is still third party material. As a D&D player you should know how to stack things.

Third-party once removed?

:smalltongue:

.

Synovia

2012-07-19, 12:04 PM

Ehh. The fact that third parties are still printing stuff and they're doing a reprint saves 3.5 from full grognard status in my mind.

I don't know. My vision of a grognard is someone who looks at the new edition and looks for justification not to play it, as opposed to going in with an open mind and seeing what its good at.

I think 4E could still be in print and you could be a 4E grognard.

But either way, WotC realizes that 4e caused a schism -- that's why they're saying one of their big focuses in 5e is to recapture dissatisfied 3.5 players.

I think this is a huge mistake on WotC's part. I play in a 3.5 group, but kind of like 4E's rules.

3.5 is broken as all hell. Playing a non-caster is pretty much a waste of time if there are casters playing. Playing a tier3 caster is pretty much a waste of time if there are T1 casters playing. Yet, if you talk to a good chunk of my group, they think 3.5 is perfect.

You're not going to sell a new edition to them. Period. They've got pretty much all the books, etc. You have to give them something significantly different for them to even be interested, and they're most likely going to say "ewww, change". They're just simply not prospective customers anymore.

4E clearly pissed off a lot of older players, but it brought in a ton of new ones. I think those are the people they need to focus on. Keep the players who are open to system changes (which a good percentage of people playing <4E aren't), and try to bring new people in.

Fitz10019

2012-07-19, 01:28 PM

D&D Online uses 3.5e rules, so technically WotC is still producing new 3.5e material with every new element made for that player community.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-19, 01:43 PM

Devils_Advocate

2012-07-19, 04:14 PM

the change to 4e was very different and much more contentious than all the others.

4e was, basically, a different game, whereas all prior editions were attempts to update the original game -- sometimes drastically, yes, with different systems for advancement and different details like that, but there was always a core focus on keeping the gameplay fundamentally the same, and 4e discarded that.

I'm not even saying that that's a bad thing or a good thing, it's just a thing. You can argue over whether 4e was good or bad or whatever -- I think it was clearly a well-made game in many respects -- but saying "oh, it was just another edition change" misses the severity of how it changed and the reason why there are still people who play 3.5e.
I've seen much the same thing written about 3E vs. AD&D, years before 4E came out. The poster listed several differences between 3E and "D&D" (because 3E isn't D&D, you see) to back up his position.

At some point in the future, will someone say "Up until 6th Edition, D&D was still the same game, but then they went and tacked the name 'Dungeons & Dragons' on to something completely different"? And then illustrate his point by listing significant differences between 6E and "real D&D", i.e. all prior editions? This looks like a pretty likely possibility to me!

I see two objective perspectives on this, depending on what one takes "same game" to mean. Either the original Dungeons & Dragons was one game and all following editions are merely similar games, or all of the editions are just different editions of the same game. Because they're all still Dungeons & Dragons, just different editions.

If a game features player characters in a fantasy world advancing by overcoming dangerous challenges, most often combat or maybe traps; and if that game includes races, classes, levels, experience points, the six ability scores, alignments, monsters, treasure, magic items, dungeons, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... then it strikes me as just a little bit silly to say that it is "fundamentally different" from... well, from all of the games with which it has a wide array of commonalities and which are blatantly basically the same thing.

Those who divide editions of D&D into two categories should realize that they're looking at things from a connoisseur's perspective (http://xkcd.com/915/). Saying that two editions of Dungeons & Dragons are "wildly different from each other" is likely to make someone who doesn't play pen & paper RPGs -- or, heck, someone who mostly plays pen & paper RPGs centered on social interaction in which fights to the death are consistently things to be avoided because they are likely to get you killed -- look at you like you're a huge nerd (and a picky one, at that) at best, and quite possibly like you're completely off your rocker. AND WITH JUST CAUSE.

The most obvious mark of edition elitism, I think, is to say that an edition you dislike is all about combat and loot rather than roleplaying, man, as if your favored edition of D&D isn't also a dungeon exploration tactical wargame with roleplaying clumsily tacked on and largely optional. If you do this, then rest assured that you are a grognard in spirit, even if you're bashing on an earlier edition.

Hecuba

2012-07-19, 04:48 PM

The most obvious mark of edition elitism, I think, is to say that an edition you dislike is all about combat and loot rather than roleplaying, man, as if your favored edition of D&D isn't also a dungeon exploration tactical wargame with roleplaying clumsily tacked on and largely optional. If you do this, then rest assured that you are a grognard in spirit, even if you're bashing on an earlier edition.

I think this is true to a point, but keep in mind that there can some times be significant ways in which mechanical changes can influence roleplaying. For example, the introduction of certain charisma based skills like diplomacy essentially created mechanical rules for what had been considered the province of roleplaying prior thereto.
Put another way, the wider the scope of the rules, the greater the breadth of situations where the expected tool is not roleplay.

The scope element here is important: 4e, for example, has combat rules of far greater depth than 3e, but does not really have significantly wider scope. If you think that 4e limits your role play over 3e, I'm more than a little inclined to ask how.

NeedsAnswersNao

2012-07-19, 07:38 PM

D&D Online uses 3.5e rules, so technically WotC is still producing new 3.5e material with every new element made for that player community.You mean this non-canon video game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%26d_online)?

The Glyphstone

2012-07-19, 07:51 PM

You mean this non-canon video game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%26d_online)?

That is made by Turbine Inc. under license, not WotC?

Devils_Advocate

2012-07-20, 12:29 AM

I think this is true to a point, but keep in mind that there can some times be significant ways in which mechanical changes can influence roleplaying. For example, the introduction of certain charisma based skills like diplomacy essentially created mechanical rules for what had been considered the province of roleplaying prior thereto.
Put another way, the wider the scope of the rules, the greater the breadth of situations where the expected tool is not roleplay.
It seems that you're treating game mechanics as an alternative to roleplaying, rather than as a basis for roleplaying. E.g. "In AD&D, there were fewer rules covering social interaction because you were expected to roleplay that, man" as opposed to "In AD&D, there were fewer rules covering social interaction because it was all about killing monsters and collecting treasure instead of roleplaying, man". (Note the assumption that only social interaction is roleplayed. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html))

Contrast both to a game like Exalted, where a character's actual personality -- not just her skill at jerking people around in various ways -- isn't treated as something separate from the rules any more than anything else, and thus it's impossible to create a character without fleshing out her personality. And where even giving as little thought to your character's personality as possible would not only be unusual but would take a deliberate effort for a normal player, like avoiding thinking about how your dude for a D&D game is going to kill dudes, dude.

Not that how you're gonna kill dudes isn't important in Exalted, too. It's just that stuff outside of combat is also given serious, non-half-assed consideration. Like, you're not left wondering what you're supposed to roll to convince someone you're telling the truth when you actually are telling the truth, and the world doesn't radically change the moment anyone with powerful magic actually uses it in an intelligent fashion. The actual game design is by no means less frequently problematic than D&D's, but there's a difference in focus.

Hecuba

2012-07-20, 02:56 AM

It seems that you're treating game mechanics as an alternative to roleplaying, rather than as a basis for roleplaying. E.g. "In AD&D, there were fewer rules covering social interaction because you were expected to roleplay that, man" as opposed to "In AD&D, there were fewer rules covering social interaction because it was all about killing monsters and collecting treasure instead of roleplaying, man". (Note the assumption that only social interaction is roleplayed. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html))

Contrast both to a game like Exalted, where a character's actual personality -- not just her skill at jerking people around in various ways -- isn't treated as something separate from the rules any more than anything else, and thus it's impossible to create a character without fleshing out her personality. And where even giving as little thought to your character's personality as possible would not only be unusual but would take a deliberate effort for a normal player, like avoiding thinking about how your dude for a D&D game is going to kill dudes, dude.

Not that how you're gonna kill dudes isn't important in Exalted, too. It's just that stuff outside of combat is also given serious, non-half-assed consideration. Like, you're not left wondering what you're supposed to roll to convince someone you're telling the truth when you actually are telling the truth, and the world doesn't radically change the moment anyone with powerful magic actually uses it in an intelligent fashion. The actual game design is by no means less frequently problematic than D&D's, but there's a difference in focus.

I don't disagree that rules can form a solid basis for role-playing (nor than Exalted is a good example of that path: in my experience, storyteller and variants tend to do far better for encouraging roleplaying than any D&D iteration).

However, in prior editions of D&D, role-play was an explicit resolution mechanic for uncovered elements. While this isn't heavily dealt with in the core presentation, it's readily aparent from the modules.
A Dozen and One Adventures gives a some good examples of this treatment: social elements were included in every adventure, with resolution available only in terms of roleplaying guidence for the DM.
Even the introduction of NWP-- which studiously avoided anything that allowed direct social resolution-- was controversial (and it's section in the DMG ripe with warnings about limiting role playing).

3e removed this element without replacing it. Roleplay is not mechanically linked to something like stunting to layer it on top of elements resolved by other means. At the same time, the scope it's prior role is reduced because it is no longer the default resolution for social issues. All that is left is roleplaying XP awards.

This is not to say that you cannot roleplay 3rd edition well. Instead, I'm merely noting that there is some merit to the idea that it system changes can indeed change the emphasis placed on roleplaying (even in something like D&D which gives far less systemic incentive to role play than other systems).

Crasical

2012-07-20, 05:14 AM

I play (and enjoy) 3.5, pathfinder, and 4e (Though admittedly I'm starting to find Pathfinder more to my taste than 3.5 is, though I enjoy some of the fiddlier bits of 3.5 that let me get away with ridiculous nonsense).

The only people I really apply the 'grognard' label to are the people in my group who can't seem to stop grumbling and complaining about how superior 3.5 is to 4e (one player) and how much simpler 2e is to them both (The other), so I suppose my personal lexicon is that of 'People who can't stop loudly whining about how much better it was way back when long enough to play the game in front of their noses.'

Tyndmyr

2012-07-20, 06:58 AM

That is made by Turbine Inc. under license, not WotC?

For very, very loose definitions of 3.5 mechanics. For instance, wizards work kind of MMO-like, and are not strongly tied to days the way they are in 3.5.

only1doug

2012-07-20, 07:14 AM

For very, very loose definitions of 3.5 mechanics. For instance, wizards work kind of MMO-like, and are not strongly tied to days the way they are in 3.5.

The wizards magic system uses an upscaled version of the spellpoint system (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) with fixed methods of recharging spellpoints and defined areas of when and where you can change spells Prepared.

Spellpoint recharge methods:
Being in a non PVP or PVE area (slow recharge rate)
Standing in a Tavern (not as slow, can be speeded up with drink)
Using a Rest shrine (returns all)
Drinking a Potion (specific type, comes in a range much like cure potions)
Being targetted by a Cleric using a Turn Undead attempt to recharge spellpoints.

Changing spells:
Immeadiately after using a rest shrine
While in a Tavern

panaikhan

2012-07-20, 07:52 AM

What is a "grognard"?

That said, I have played D&D from the brown-bound soft covers upwards.
I barely noticed the change from 1e to 2e.
I did notice the change from 2e to 2.X ('skills & powers')
The change from 2.X to 3e had me moaning for ages, until there was enough material out.
The change from 3e to 3.5 simply confused everything
I still don't like 4e.
Wizard: Arcane Blast - deal xD6 to every adjacent square
Fighter: Combat Maneuvre - deal xD6 to every adjacent square
Cleric: Divine Strike - deal xD6 to every adjacent square
Thief: Sneaky Attack - deal xD6 to every adjacent square
Paladin: U Mad Bro? - hit your foe, heal your mate.

Peat

2012-07-20, 09:21 AM

I don't feel like I can be a grognard when I've been playing 3.5 and the like for less than a year. It severely restricts my ability to say things like "Back in my day".

Synovia

2012-07-20, 09:45 AM

I don't feel like I can be a grognard when I've been playing 3.5 and the like for less than a year. It severely restricts my ability to say things like "Back in my day".

The word Grognard literally means "groaner" or "complainer". How long you've played has nothing to do with whether or not you're a grognard.

Its got to do with looking to complain about something. There are plenty of people who you could tell hated 4E before they even tried to play a game. Those people are grognards. They made up their mind it was "wrong" without any sort of experience.

Peat

2012-07-20, 10:25 AM

The word Grognard literally means "groaner" or "complainer". How long you've played has nothing to do with whether or not you're a grognard.

Its got to do with looking to complain about something. There are plenty of people who you could tell hated 4E before they even tried to play a game. Those people are grognards. They made up their mind it was "wrong" without any sort of experience.

I'm aware of the original meaning, but was always led to believe that in an rpg context it specifically meant veterans who clung on to their original editions while complaining that all this new-fangled gimmericky was rubbish. In my experience, listening to the veterans in my group, it frequently ends up likethis. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo)

Anyway, regardless, it's not a label that I really feel can apply to me yet.

Ravens_cry

2012-07-20, 10:51 AM

Given D&D's wargaming roots, I believe it comes from the French nickname for elite veterans of Napoleons Imperial Guard, the Old Guard. The term 'Old Guard' itself can have similar connotations.

Kish

2012-07-20, 10:58 AM

I'm aware of the original meaning, but was always led to believe that in an rpg context it specifically meant veterans who clung on to their original editions while complaining that all this new-fangled gimmericky was rubbish. In my experience, listening to the veterans in my group, it frequently ends up likethis. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo)

Anyway, regardless, it's not a label that I really feel can apply to me yet.
You're selling yourself short. You can complain about things being different than they were last week, if you want.