PDA

View Full Version : What are the qualifications for being a grognard?



2D8HP
2018-09-30, 01:04 PM
A recent post:
...I mean I know we''re all grognards here.... has inspired me to ask: what qualifies you as a grognard?

I believe a grognard is a "grumbling old soldier" (Canadian readers please correct my limited French!), and once upon a time the term was used for those who had played Napoleonic era wargames before the fantasy adventure game fad started, but now they're three components to achieve grognard-dom.


1) Age: The longer ago since you've been born, the more likely you will have achieved grognard-ness.

2) Experience: Some time having played table top fantasy adventure games and/or wargames is required (this is the "soldier" part).

3) Complaining: You have to grumble.

So how to put this in practice? :

A chipper grandparent who's played Monopoly, but not any adventure or wargames, even Chess or Risk, and goes through life smiling isn't a grognard (in-my-stunningly-humble-opinion!).

One playgrounder:
If I want a fantasy war game I have a basement collection on rules, terrain, and miniatures from some almost 60 years of playing “toy soldiers” but I want the FRPG to layer in the experience with the environment as a priority. may not complain much but he has enough wargame and fantasy adventure game experience to qualify as a "grognard" (IMSHO).

Most of us posting to this Forum don't have as many years of experience but, speaking for myself, I believe that I have complained enough to make up for it and be called a grognard.

Can someone who started even later, with say 3.5, play at the table and complain enough to achieve grognard-ness?

Well yes, in a thread from 2016 a playgrounder posted:
[...]Some grognards from 3.5e who were angry at the transition started a thread early on accusing the developers[....]

[....]the thread got enough attention that WotC buckled. Since buckling to grognards is what WotC does best.

I think that enough playing and complaining can vault someone up to grognard-ness even if they started with 4e or Pathfinder and are still in their 20's, but I don't think a teenager can qualify, no matter how much they complain, but where's the cut off?

What do you feel are the minimum qualifications?

Ignimortis
2018-09-30, 02:03 PM
In my experience, grognards are not necessarily old, but they are usually experienced in the "older" games, so they are, indeed, more often older than the median.

However, the grumbling is the actual important part: as far as I've seen, grognards are defined mostly by their adherence to "realism" over "fun", saying that old rules need to be kept as they were not because they work better, but simply because "older is better". They also tend to disproportionately value roleplay over mechanics - grognards are the people who would unironically say "I'm playing Steve the Mighty, not a human barbarian" when asked about their build, and sneer at the slightest mention of people wanting to know how to do X who won't accept "ask your DM" as the only valid answer. If you don't complain and grumble and disparage other players' playstyles, then you're not a true grognard.

There are other types of unpleasant people to talk to about games, but grognards, IME, are like that.

Telok
2018-09-30, 02:59 PM
Foe me it's when you have several systems laying around and a new system or version comes out. You look at what you have, look at the latest thing, and realize that the latest thing isn't doing anything that's really new or different and it's not doing anything significantly better. Then you grognard when you say so and others disagree because they generally only know the old systems by reputation and rumor.

Yora
2018-09-30, 03:00 PM
I think the main requirment is lots of uses of "Back in my day..." and "kids these days...".

And the insistance that everything was better before 1976 or so.

EggKookoo
2018-09-30, 04:28 PM
Maybe an alternative to 3) Complaining is 3) Know-it-all? Some grognards don't kvetch, they just know better than everyone else.

I certainly and most unironically do not refer to myself...

Seto
2018-09-30, 04:46 PM
Not many qualifications. Just experience. As you say, grognards is what Napoleon called his soldiers. As you also say, the word comes from "grogner":"to grumble". However as far as I know, Napoleon used it as an affectionnate nickname. For as much as they grumbled or contested, they still faithfully followed him into battle after battle.
It may have developed some negative connotations today, but I'm not sure the word necessarily implies them out of context. For my part, I would use it neutrally - a grognard, in Napoleonian wars as in D&D, is someone who has taken part in many campaigns before.

Knaight
2018-09-30, 04:54 PM
Then you grognard when you say so and others disagree because they generally only know the old systems by reputation and rumor.

I'm on board with this definition. More specifically, I'm on board with using the grognard descriptor for anyone who feels like the only reason anyone might like newer games is because they just don't know better, summarily dismissing the idea that people who like new systems might prefer them despite also being familiar with newer systems.

Darth Ultron
2018-09-30, 06:33 PM
Well, I say:

Age I think I would disqualify age right off the bat. While it is true that many grognards are physically and biologically old, this in by itself has nothing to do with anything. Grognard is a world view and mindset, and you can have it at any physical biological age. You can be a ''old soul" at any age.

Experience Like age, this does not exactly fit. While you could broaden this to ''life experiences", the real word that fits best here is Maturity. And again, this is not tied to a physical biological age as we are talking about mental maturity. Things like: the ability to delay gratification, is unshaken by flattery or criticism and are secure in their identity, they possesses a spirit of humility, their decisions are based on character not feelings and they are teachable: They don’t presume they have all the answers. The wiser they get the more they realize they need more wisdom.

Complaining Well, this one is just pure negativity. And sure the haters that are gonna hate will simply say ''anything someone says that they don't like is complaining". Really, what we want to say here is someone who has a lot of wisdom that they wish to share with others, so Educator is a good word here.

So my qualifications are:
1.Wisdom
2.Maturity
3.Educator

At the most basic a grognard is just someone who likes and plays an old game (that is one that came out more then a couple years ago or 4 evers! to some people) instead of the ''fancy new game"(especially the one all the Kidz are playing).

Of course, that 'basic' definition is not enough as if it was true, the people would just play the game they like and no one would know. So you need to add the vocal part, the above Educator part: where they want to share their wisdom and experiences with others to help them.

Of course, just as someone is wise, mature and wishes to educate does not say anything else about them. For example, they might not have social graces or might not be a people person.

And this is even more true with their ''target audience": the younger, immature, ''new'' players. As will always be true with such people: anything someone says that they don't like even a bit will be met with crazy feelings of hostility(see the definition of mature, above).

Tell a younger, immature, ''new'' player anything about their ''super new, super awesome 4ever" game that is not undying praise and agreement with what they think....and they let their feeling over ride them and go right for the defensive personal attack.

And this is even more true in the 21st century as people are so thin skinned that they treat even a singe word as equal to the worst thing imaginable.

ExLibrisMortis
2018-09-30, 07:47 PM
I, being a 3.5 adept, am a grognard when playing 5e, because I keep complaining (at least internally) about 5e being so impoverished compared to 3.5. You can barely get anything to work at all! (No, please don't respond to that...)

To me, the archetypical grognard grumble is about the inferiority of newer editions/games to older editions/games. Related grumbles will cement a strong grognardy reputation, but that's the core that everything else relates to.

hymer
2018-10-01, 04:07 AM
Not many qualifications. Just experience. As you say, grognards is what Napoleon called his soldiers. As you also say, the word comes from "grogner":"to grumble". However as far as I know, Napoleon used it as an affectionnate nickname. For as much as they grumbled or contested, they still faithfully followed him into battle after battle.
The way I was told it, grognards were Napoleon's oldest, most experienced, and most faithful soldiers (the 'Old Guard'). He would not have tolerated any grumbling from anyone he didn't find extremely useful.


I, being a 3.5 adept
You can't be! That's an NPC only class!

Willie the Duck
2018-10-01, 08:50 AM
What do you feel are the minimum qualifications?

Much like the Wil Wheaton definition of geek, it is self-declaration, no exceptions. You are a grognard if you say you are. Since the word has no actual cachet (anyone here more impressed by someone else because they are a grognard?), needlessly labeling yourself as one has no value.

Besides, even if it had some age or age-of-first-playing delineation, it is a deresolution of a more informative measure. It is like labeling oneself as being a member of the Baby Boom, Gen-X, Millenial, etc. -- you are taking a continuous measure ('I was born in 19AB, and started TTRPGing in 19CD'), and turning it into a broad categorical ('I started gaming before/after the cutoff for grognardhood'). As a measure of informing someone's gaming-generational-experience, it would be relatively useless, even if we all agreed upon some cutoff dates.



I, being a 3.5 adept, am a grognard when playing 5e, because I keep complaining (at least internally) about 5e being so impoverished compared to 3.5. You can barely get anything to work at all! (No, please don't respond to that...)

If you do not want people to respond to (genuinely irrelevant to the issue at hand) edition warring, don' edition war.

Slipperychicken
2018-10-01, 03:58 PM
I consider people to be grognard-potentials if they cut their teeth on a game which is either 11+ years old or 2+ editions old.

Complaining is not strictly a necessity for grog-status, but it's a strong point toward it. I consider 'comparing your old game favorably against more recent games' to fit that qualification as well. Someone who grew up on AD&D but doesn't obsess over that era of roleplaying might avoid grogdom for some time.

I think there should be an experience minimum, measured in years of reasonably-consistent play. I want to give a number between 5-10 years of play. That time need not be consecutive, nor contain a great frequency of game-sessions (I'd say a single session would let a given calendar-month count toward the time), nor does it need to be focused on any one system in particular. A grog must have experience to deserve the title.

Mental maturity is not a requirement. Grogs can be exceedingly immature, and while that is an unfortunate thing and not to be encouraged, immaturity alone cannot expel people from the ranks of grogdom.

I'm not sure if an age minimum is called for. I'm on the fence about it.

RedWarlock
2018-10-01, 07:24 PM
“Grognard” is, in my experience, a pejorative term. Some folks take it back as a term of pride, but mental maturity is by no means a requirement, especially when it’s a term used to describe those who complain and disrupt others’ enjoyment of the gaming experience.

Darth Ultron
2018-10-01, 08:00 PM
“Grognard” is, in my experience, a pejorative term. Some folks take it back as a term of pride, but mental maturity is by no means a requirement, especially when it’s a term used to describe those who complain and disrupt others’ enjoyment of the gaming experience.

Grognard only gets the bad rap from the Newbies. It kinda goes like this:

Newbee: "Wow 4E is the super best awesome game ever and lets me 'pew pew pew' all day long!"

Other Guy-"It not that great of a game"

Newbee-"Oh, what-Ever...what do you know Grognard

Or the class 3E one:

Poor Player Post-"Guys I really need help...I want to make a lawful good assassin by the Almighty Rules on page 77 say I can't. Does anyone know a 'special rule' or a way I can do this in the rules?

Other Gamer-"well, it's your game...so just do whatever you want and ignore that ''suggestion in the book".

Hostile Player-"Be quiet Grognard, I only want to have an Official By the Rules game, not your 'just make up stuff way'!

Cluedrew
2018-10-01, 08:57 PM
Quite simply, someone who's favourite system is a system that is older and is fading in popularity or is part of a gaming movement that has faded in popularity. Many found it when it was popularity and have seen the changes and hence tend to be older. I suppose one could be a grognard retroactively, but then it would not have really faded in popularity for you so maybe you just like a less popular game.

Some are quite content with their place and don't mind that the result of the world has moved on (although they may still grumble lightheartedly). Other try to beat others into submission with ideas and strategies from when the gene was still half formed. So it can be positive, natural or negative. We have examples of all three.

RazorChain
2018-10-02, 12:02 AM
A recent post: has inspired me to ask: what qualifies you as a grognard?


For me it's when I'm starting to feel old. I put together a group couple of years ago with relatively new players...and I became the GM on the virtue of experience....none of them wanted to GM for the guy who had been playing for 30 years and GMing for 27 years


It's when you make remarks from gaming culture and no one gets what you are talking about because you are referancing things that happened before your players were born.

Like mentioning Baldur's Gate and your players were toddlers when the game came out

Then you go on a tirade how Magic the Gathering destroyed gaming culture in '93-'94 because all tables at the local gaming store were taken by those darn Magic Nerds.

Or when you mention systems nobody has heard of on the virtue of how old the systems are.

Or when you tell people that once Elf was a class!!!

Mr Beer
2018-10-02, 12:17 AM
It's simply someone who says the old version was the best version.

There are ancillary implications e.g. that the assertion is based on nostalgia rather than objective merit, that the grognard is metaphorically waving a stick at kids on his lawn, that the grognard is baffled by the profusion and variety of modern RPGs etc.

But the 'old ways are the best' is the core of grognardism.

Mordaedil
2018-10-02, 01:33 AM
It's a very confused term at this point in time is all I know for sure.

I only started being interested in D&D during the 3rd edition era so I can't call out on what was considered grognard prior to that, but I imagine it was wargamer types, not D&D edition enthusiasts. Most people seemed to agree that AD&D 2nd edition was perfect, so I have no real idea.

But with regards to the 3rd, I only really saw it pop up after 3.5 released, referring to people insisting 3rd edition was crap and that people should just deal with negative AC and THAC0. That said, I didn't personally encounter too many people insisting this, but it was a thing I heard from time to time.

When 4th edition came out is when I heard grognard be thrown around extensively. Something Awful forums started their grognards.txt pulling awful quotes from online boards with frankly terrible opinions about edition wars and generally if you still held some interest in 3.5 edition for whatever reason, you were just named a grognard for that.

When Pathfinder released, it became sort of the "grognard game release", despite immediately becoming more popular.

When 5th edition, or D&D Next as it was called at the time, got released the people adamant about 4th edition jokingly referred to themselves as "now we're the grognards" and they lament the loss of the balance of 4th edition as a great one.

I have heard some refer to 5th edition players as grognards too now, sooo...

It's a very confused term and everyone is a grognard.

Willie the Duck
2018-10-02, 08:09 AM
It's a very confused term and everyone is a grognard.

I think that maps to the rest of life pretty well. I distinctly remember at age 17 or 18 already feeling nostalgia, like a large part of popular culture was marketed at people younger than me, and that I was already 'old and in the way.' Extrapolate that to TT RPGs, and you have people who are still in the current edition already feeling like the old guard. Maybe it happens the instant you move from being someone who is just trying the game, to someone who considers themselves 'a player of the game' or a 'gamer' or whatnot. You are invested in it, thus you feel a sense of ownership, thus you see new people coming in as the other.

Rhedyn
2018-10-02, 08:40 AM
1) Age: The longer ago since you've been born, the more likely you will have achieved grognard-ness.

2) Experience: Some time having played table top fantasy adventure games and/or wargames is required (this is the "soldier" part).

3) Complaining: You have to grumble.

1) Over 30, you don't have to be old but you can't be young anymore

2) At least 10 years of weekly session (so one session per 2 weeks). If you play every week, you still need to have played for 10 years. If you only play once of month, then you need to have played for 20 years. This is how one gets Tenure.

3) I would say this only requires, "The old ways are best" even if you don't complain about new stuff, you know that they are inferior.


So I leave some room for 3e/4e Grognards, but they had the option of something else as a kid and they must have been very committed to 3e/4e.

NorthernPhoenix
2018-10-02, 12:12 PM
My definition is pretty much "old people who complain a lot and ramble about how things used to be"

Pex
2018-10-02, 12:46 PM
It's when you make remarks from gaming culture and no one gets what you are talking about because you are referancing things that happened before your players were born.



<shudder>

I joined a game a few years ago playing a Noble Sorcerer named Ricardo. As I was speaking with the DM establishing my family background I joked his last name was Montalban. He said ok, marked it in his notes, and continued the collaboration. I was dumbfounded. He hadn't a clue who Ricardo Montalban was. He was younger than me but still out of college age. I could accept not knowing about Fantasy Island or "rich Corinthian leather", but c'mon. He's "Kaaaaaaaaaaahn!" The name meant nothing to him, so my character remained Lord Ricardo Montalban.

Willie the Duck
2018-10-02, 01:06 PM
<shudder>

I joined a game a few years ago playing a Noble Sorcerer named Ricardo. As I was speaking with the DM establishing my family background I joked his last name was Montalban. He said ok, marked it in his notes, and continued the collaboration. I was dumbfounded. He hadn't a clue who Ricardo Montalban was. He was younger than me but still out of college age. I could accept not knowing about Fantasy Island or "rich Corinthian leather", but c'mon. He's "Kaaaaaaaaaaahn!" The name meant nothing to him, so my character remained Lord Ricardo Montalban.

From his perspective, why should he? Even if he watched ST (the original series), why would he know a specific character who showed up as a villain in a single episode of the show and in one of the movies is supposed to be important? The fact that the "Kaaaaaaaaaaahn!" guy is a cultural touchstone is only the case because he's also the Fantasy Island and rich Corinthian leather guy. Otherwise, he's just a guy who played a specific villain on a specific show. The show he watched on Nick at Night from the 60s was probably Batman, and he would have laughed his ass off when you cast a magical ward on the western wall and made a 'Adam and Burt' comment.

I am reminded of the show Angel (already a pretty dated reference) where the centuries-old vampire detective and his 20-something allies are interviewing a green-skinned demon. The demon says, "and the name's Lorne, but I don't use it much." Vampire says, "oh right, Lorne Green." "What?" (looking at 20-somethings) "Lorne Green? Bonanza? Nothing? Show was on for like 20 years? Okay, now I feel old"

hymer
2018-10-02, 04:35 PM
My definition is pretty much "old people who complain a lot and ramble about how things used to be"
Well, in my day, we didn't have such sloppy definitions. We had to look things up in dictionaries, too, not this inter web thing the young use nowadays. And we liked it! ;)

Seto
2018-10-02, 04:48 PM
I am reminded of the show Angel (already a pretty dated reference) where the centuries-old vampire detective and his 20-something allies are interviewing a green-skinned demon. The demon says, "and the name's Lorne, but I don't use it much." Vampire says, "oh right, Lorne Green." "What?" (looking at 20-somethings) "Lorne Green? Bonanza? Nothing? Show was on for like 20 years? Okay, now I feel old"

Heh, Angel is awesome.

Devils_Advocate
2018-10-02, 05:15 PM
Complaining Well, this one is just pure negativity. And sure the haters that are gonna hate will simply say ''anything someone says that they don't like is complaining".
Serious question: What does it mean to complain, if it doesn't mean to express dislike?

Anyway, I disagree with your qualifications. By those standards, you don't qualify as a grognard! Painting the "New School" side of the Edition Wars as juvenile, biased, low-attention-span "kidz" is as much of an emotionally immature, hostile, defensive, personal attack as painting the "Old School" side as out-of-touch, biased, nostalgia-blinded geezers. It's not wise and it's not educational. But such Complaining About Young People perfectly fits the narrative of a Fallen Golden Age, wherein The Old Ways Are The Best Ways. Now that's grognard!


Mental maturity is not a requirement. Grogs can be exceedingly immature, and while that is an unfortunate thing and not to be encouraged, immaturity alone cannot expel people from the ranks of grogdom.
Quite.


If you do not want people to respond to (genuinely irrelevant to the issue at hand) edition warring, don' edition war.
Edition warring is relevant, though, as "grognard" seemingly refers to a position in edition wars. That said,

I didn't start the fire
Just opted to lean in
And pour gasoline in
I didn't start the fire
So if you think it's lame
I'm not the one to blame

... but, seriously, not endorsing one edition or playstyle over another, just saying that emotional maturity isn't proportional to the age of one's preferred edition or preferred playstyle any more than it is to one's own age.

Pex
2018-10-02, 05:20 PM
From his perspective, why should he? Even if he watched ST (the original series), why would he know a specific character who showed up as a villain in a single episode of the show and in one of the movies is supposed to be important? The fact that the "Kaaaaaaaaaaahn!" guy is a cultural touchstone is only the case because he's also the Fantasy Island and rich Corinthian leather guy. Otherwise, he's just a guy who played a specific villain on a specific show. The show he watched on Nick at Night from the 60s was probably Batman, and he would have laughed his ass off when you cast a magical ward on the western wall and made a 'Adam and Burt' comment.

I am reminded of the show Angel (already a pretty dated reference) where the centuries-old vampire detective and his 20-something allies are interviewing a green-skinned demon. The demon says, "and the name's Lorne, but I don't use it much." Vampire says, "oh right, Lorne Green." "What?" (looking at 20-somethings) "Lorne Green? Bonanza? Nothing? Show was on for like 20 years? Okay, now I feel old"

Get off my lawn.

Darth Ultron
2018-10-02, 06:11 PM
Serious question: What does it mean to complain, if it doesn't mean to express dislike?

Again, like I mentioned, this is a maturity thing. It is possible to say something negative about something without it being ''complaining''. It is what immature people do: as soon as you say something they say ''your a complaining grognard" and then cover their ears.



Anyway, I disagree with your qualifications. By those standards, you don't qualify as a grognard!

Sure I do.

1.Wisdom: I'm a Font of Wisdom
2.Maturity: I'm mature (I meet the: " the ability to delay gratification, is unshaken by flattery or criticism and are secure in their identity, they possesses a spirit of humility, their decisions are based on character not feelings and they are teachable")
3.Educator: I have the will and desire to help others and share what I know...it is why I post. Also I know I'm often a Lone Voice that does not agree with ''Everyone".


[QUOTE=Devils_Advocate;23410363]
But such Complaining About Young People perfectly fits the narrative of a Fallen Golden Age, wherein The Old Ways Are The Best Ways. Now that's grognard!
Quite.

Though that is the young bias, right?

And, see, it is not about a ''fallen golden age'', it is more about a mindset, as I said. A grognard has no problem making up stuff....as opposed to the others that are Stuck in the Rules. A grognard gives no thought to ignoring a book suggestion...as opposed to others that are Stuck in the Rules.

Devils_Advocate
2018-10-02, 07:38 PM
"The problem started with supplementary material at the end of 2nd Edition's life cycle, but it really reared its head with that newfangled 3rd Edition! Accursed 3rd Edition, which tore the flavor of Dungeons & Dragons out of AD&D to use in a new, different, 'modern' design, bereft of the heart and soul of true D&D! Back in my day, there was none of this nonsense about 'consistent, unified mechanics' or 'clear, comprehensive rules'! The rules were a big, ugly pile of kludges, and they were only suggestions! BAD suggestions! No one expected the rule -- the suggestion, mind you! -- for anything to be any good, so no one questioned the DM making up whatever the DM pleased! But with 3E came an entire culture of... of... of TRYING TO HAVE GOOD RULES! But a good rule should be followed, unless one can provide good reason to ignore it, and that way lies 'player agency' at the cost of Dungeon Master control! Back when players expected the rules to be vague and ill-considered, no one complained about 'DM fiat'. AND IT WAS BETTER THAT WAY."

Darth Ultron, perhaps you should consider that maybe you like certain design choices due to factors like familiarity and nostalgia rather than because they're in any way objectively superior. (You might also want to consider at some point that design choices can only be judged based on how they conform to a set of preferences, and thus "objectively superior" is a nonsense concept, but baby steps.)


Again, like I mentioned, this is a maturity thing. It is possible to say something negative about something without it being ''complaining''.
What's the difference? How do you decide whether a negative opinion qualifies as "complaining" or not? The impression that I'm getting is that you consider it complaining if and only if you disagree with it. (If you dispute that claim, can you give counter-evidence in the form of complaining you agree with or non-complaining that you disagree with?)


1.Wisdom: I'm a Font of Wisdom
Many fools consider themselves wise. This is one of those areas in which one should be skeptical of one's self-assessments.


2.Maturity: I'm mature (I meet the: " the ability to delay gratification, is unshaken by flattery or criticism and are secure in their identity, they possesses a spirit of humility, their decisions are based on character not feelings and they are teachable")
Humility? Really? That's... not evident from your posts in this thread, to say the least.


3.Educator: I have the will and desire to help others and share what I know...it is why I post. Also I know I'm often a Lone Voice that does not agree with ''Everyone".
I have little doubt that many crackpots describe themselves in similar terms. Here we see another self-assessment, this time of your correctness. Saying that someone "knows" rather than just "thinks" something means that they believe it and it's true. But of course you think your own beliefs are true; that's what it means for them to be your beliefs!


Though that is the young bias, right?
No, just recognition of a long-running meme.

Arbane
2018-10-02, 08:10 PM
If you think RPG design peaked in 1977...you might be a grognard.
If you unironically called D&D 4th Edition "World of Warcraft" without having ever played either...you might be a grognard.
If you insist that instant death traps are a vital part of roleplaying...you might be a grognard.
If you think no character can be anything but a shallow caricature unless they've been played from first level to eleventh over the course of a decade...you might be a grognard.
If you've ever tied yourself in logical knots by treating game-rules as physics...you might be a grognard.
If you've ever insta-killed a character who was at full hitpoints just because of 'realism'...you might be a grognard.
If you are deeply offended by any RPG that FORCES adventurers to be competent at adventuring...you might be a grognard.
If you think non-random character generation is munchkin bait for the instant-gratification ADHD kiddies...you might be a grognard.
If you think tracking individual iron spikes, torches, copper pieces, and spell components is the stuff of GRIPPING FANTASY ADVENTURE...you might be a grognard.

I could go on, but this is plenty for now.

Cluedrew
2018-10-02, 08:19 PM
My definition is pretty much "old people who complain a lot and ramble about how things used to be"I think this is about it. I might leave out the explicate old, if you were old enough to see how things were that is probably old enough. And the complaining can be in jest, it seems to be their all the time. It has kind of become its own joke now.

Arbane
2018-10-02, 08:24 PM
If you've been playing the same campaign for the last two decades... you might be a grognard.
If you have produced more than 200 pages of houserules for AD&D... you might be a grognard.
If you think rolling on random tables is the ultimate form of creativity... you might be a grognard.
If the correct way to go through one of your adventures is roughly the same tactics as American troops clearing a Viet Cong tunnel... you might be a grognard.
help I can't stop

Darth Ultron
2018-10-02, 08:28 PM
Darth Ultron, perhaps you should consider that maybe you like certain design choices due to factors like familiarity and nostalgia rather than because they're in any way objectively superior. (You might also want to consider at some point that design choices can only be judged based on how they conform to a set of preferences, and thus "objectively superior" is a nonsense concept, but baby steps.)

Well, this is where the Maturity part comes in: the ability to separate something you just ''like" from something that is ''good." Immature folks do the ''if I like it, it must be good".



What's the difference? How do you decide whether a negative opinion qualifies as "complaining" or not? The impression that I'm getting is that you consider it complaining if and only if you disagree with it. (If you dispute that claim, can you give counter-evidence in the form of complaining you agree with or non-complaining that you disagree with?)

Well, complaining is the immature reaction: you see something, don't like it, and say negative things...that is a complaint. In general they are direct and superficial: ''I don't like the 3E attack, because I like THAC0(familiarity and nostalgia).



Many fools consider themselves wise. This is one of those areas in which one should be skeptical of one's self-assessments.

True enough.



Humility? Really? That's... not evident from your posts in this thread, to say the least.

All four posts?



I have little doubt that many crackpots describe themselves in similar terms. Here we see another self-assessment, this time of your correctness. Saying that someone "knows" rather than just "thinks" something means that they believe it and it's true. But of course you think your own beliefs are true; that's what it means for them to be your beliefs!


Odd that you throw in ''correctness'' out of no where. I say share and help...you jump to 'correct'?

I think it is safe to say I often have a Lone and Unique option from other posters in any given thread topic.

And I think your coming from the idea that ''self assessment" to a person means ''I'm always wrong"....and, again, that is a bit odd.

I see a grognard not as ''an old complainer talking about the golden age" and more of a "wise experienced educator that shares what they know".

Take the classic:

Clueless DM: "Help, player Bob is a jerk! He ruins my game! What can I do? Help!"

Nearly Everyone- "Just talk to Bob"

Me-"Kick Bob out of your game."

Mr Beer
2018-10-02, 08:49 PM
Take the classic:

Clueless DM: "Help, player Bob is a jerk! He ruins my game! What can I do? Help!"

Nearly Everyone- "Just talk to Bob"

Me-"Kick Bob out of your game."

Yeah but this 'typical' conversation can only be fairly characterised in this manner by inserting your idiosyncratic definition of 'game ruining jerk' into Clueless DM's description of the problem.

Devils_Advocate
2018-10-02, 11:40 PM
Well, this is where the Maturity part comes in: the ability to separate something you just ''like" from something that is ''good." Immature folks do the ''if I like it, it must be good".
What does calling something "good" mean in this context, if not that you like it? If I call something "good", I mean that it's something I approve of, or at least that it's something that someone approves of or something that results in something that someone approves of.

I suppose that approval isn't quite the same thing as liking and that I've thus answered my own question here, but you might have a different answer.


Well, complaining is the immature reaction: you see something, don't like it, and say negative things...that is a complaint. In general they are direct and superficial: ''I don't like the 3E attack, because I like THAC0(familiarity and nostalgia).
Hmm, I suppose that "criticism" would be the more sophisticated counterpart to mere complaining, then?


Odd that you throw in ''correctness'' out of no where. I say share and help...you jump to 'correct'?
I didn't "jump to" that "out of nowhere". I explained, but seemingly not well enough, so let me try again.

In standard usage, people only "know" truths. So Tom can know that the sun is very hot, but he can't know that it's below the freezing temperature of water, because the sun isn't below the freezing temperature of water. Tom can believe that the sun is below the freezing temperature of water, but this belief is not knowledge because it is false.

Of course, we all consider our own strongest beliefs simply to be true, and thus known. We tend to simply state such beliefs, or to call them true or knowledge. "I think" and "I believe", then, serve as caveats; if you're really confident of an assertion, normally you just say it! So if you're only comfortable stating that you believe something, presumably there's non-trivial doubt as to whether that belief is true.

So when you refer to sharing what you "know", you're referring to sharing opinions that you're confident you're correct about, if you're using the word "know" normally.

In retrospect, I probably should have grouped this with my response to your self-assessment as wise, since "wise" and "knowledgeable" seem at least pretty close together. Maybe listing it like it was a separate point was confusing when it was pretty much the same point. Kind of basically repeating myself there. (Saying the same thing, over and over, in repetition... okay, I'll stop now.)


I think it is safe to say I often have a Lone and Unique option from other posters in any given thread topic.
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan


And I think your coming from the idea that ''self assessment" to a person means ''I'm always wrong"....and, again, that is a bit odd.
I don't know how I'm supposed to parse that. Please rephrase the above if you wish me to understand.


I see a grognard not as ''an old complainer talking about the golden age" and more of a "wise experienced educator that shares what they know".
Given the apparent consensus that the word is used to mean the former, it would appear that your definition is incorrect. (If you think that usage of a word disagreeing with your definition means that the usage is wrong, then... that would not surprise me, at this point.)


All four posts?
Um, YES? Where in this thread do you think you've demonstrated humility in any way?

Look... Are you seriously not aware that the Dunning–Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) was basically common knowledge well before it was officially established as "the Dunning–Kruger effect"? It's a punchline. (http://bash.org/?364782) Saying things like "I'm a Font of Wisdom" tends to be taken as a sign of foolishness. If you profess to be wise, and mature, and that you don't presume that you have all the answers, and you're humble... and you don't seem to be aware of the irony involved in proclaiming your own humility, especially along with a bunch of other self-flattery... then you come off as exceedingly lacking in self-awareness.

And when other remarks of yours seem out of keeping with your boasted qualities, that then seems like confirmation of the initial impression of you as full of yourself, all the more so if you can't see why anyone would see your statements as anything but a confirmation of your perceived virtues. (Frankly, at this point, I practically expect that you think you're right because you're so clever and that you must be quite clever to be right about so many things, or something similarly circular.)

So, in case you're not just trolling, I'm telling you that that's how you come off, or at least have in this thread. I'm pretty sure that that's not just my personal impression. Not completely sure, mind you, so you might want to poll people on the subject. (Poll people who agree with you about subjects other than yourself, so they're not biased against you by conflicting opinion.)


Take the classic:

Clueless DM: "Help, player Bob is a jerk! He ruins my game! What can I do? Help!"

Nearly Everyone- "Just talk to Bob"

Me-"Kick Bob out of your game."
See, this is the sort of thing I was talking about. I'd expect an educator good at delaying gratification to try to teach a player what the player is doing wrong, not to immediately resort to the proverbial nuclear option.

(Even better would be to talk with the whole group of players about everyone's expectations for the game, and try to see whether those expectations can't all be met somehow, probably via a change in Bob's behavior, but possibly also via other things. But that seems like it might be a bit much to expect from you.)

Darth Ultron
2018-10-03, 02:09 AM
What does calling something "good" mean in this context,

Yes, I'm pointing out that ''like'' and ''good'' don't automatically go together...especially by ''I like it" = "whatever I like is good."



So when you refer to sharing what you "know", you're referring to sharing opinions that you're confident you're correct about, if you're using the word "know" normally.

Yes?





"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan

Well, not to go against Dr. Sagan here...but he is using the ''1950's" school taught Columbus lie...right? He was taught the old lie of ''everyone" thought the world was flat and ''only" Columbus was so brave and brilliant to ''sail the ocean sea and prove everyone wrong". And, really, if you know anything about Columbus other then he..was the first European of his time to make landfall in what would be called North America... ..but you would know he was NO ''genius. "




I don't know how I'm supposed to parse that. Please rephrase the above if you wish me to understand.

I'm saying your doing the Thing Generation Y started with them saying ''everything I know is wrong..so I should say and do nothing..I'm wrong, wrong wrong" and then protecting that to ''everyone is wrong..so no one should do anything ever." Basically it's a cheap way to shut down communication ''we are all wrong, lets just be quiet".



Given the apparent consensus that the word is used to mean the former, it would appear that your definition is incorrect. (If you think that usage of a word disagreeing with your definition means that the usage is wrong, then... that would not surprise me, at this point.)

Yet again proving my point that what I think is Lone and Unique.



Um, YES? Where in this thread do you think you've demonstrated humility in any way?

Well, I have only made a couple posts....it's a bit much to try and ''see'' something in a couple posts. If you are ''X'' it does not mean you type it every other word. So, sure if you take a small sample of a couple posts in one thread you might not find ''X", but that does not mean anything.



then you come off as exceedingly lacking in self-awareness.

I think you might be reading way too much into what I type. It is very common.

I type 'font of wisdom' and you read something else....



And when other remarks of yours seem out of keeping with your boasted qualities, that then seems like confirmation of the initial impression of you as full of yourself, all the more so if you can't see why anyone would see your statements as anything but a confirmation of your perceived virtues. (Frankly, at this point, I practically expect that you think you're right because you're so clever and that you must be quite clever to be right about so many things, or something similarly circular.)

Guess I might need a break down of what you ''thought" you read when you read what I typed.



So, in case you're not just trolling, I'm telling you that that's how you come off, or at least have in this thread.

I well know it is how I 'come off'. I type some words...and people ''see'' many things in them.



See, this is the sort of thing I was talking about. I'd expect an educator good at delaying gratification to try to teach a player what the player is doing wrong, not to immediately resort to the proverbial nuclear option.

Well, this is more philosophy or life style. In your way of thing you will never ''need'' to use the nuclear option as you will ''always find another way". And that is a fine way of thinking...but it won't always work, so you might have to do a lot of ''ways" or even ''give up".

My ''nuclear option" is 100% successful.



(Even better would be to talk with the whole group of players about everyone's expectations for the game, and try to see whether those expectations can't all be met somehow, probably via a change in Bob's behavior, but possibly also via other things. But that seems like it might be a bit much to expect from you.)

I don't agree that would be ''better" in the real world. The average jerk like Bob won't change...no matter how much to ''talk" to him. Really, for a good game for everyone, it is just best to get rid of Bob. And we could do a whole thread on ''what to do with jerk players".

hymer
2018-10-03, 02:29 AM
Get off my lawn.
Well put! :smallwink:

Devils_Advocate
2018-10-03, 03:26 AM
"Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works." (https://xkcd.com/1028/)


Yes, I'm pointing out that ''like'' and ''good'' don't automatically go together...especially by ''I like it" = "whatever I like is good."
That does not answer my question. What do you mean by "good"?


Yes?
... Hence "correctness" was not "thrown in". As I've explained twice, now.


Well, not to go against Dr. Sagan here...but he is using the ''1950's" school taught Columbus lie...right? He was taught the old lie of ''everyone" thought the world was flat and ''only" Columbus was so brave and brilliant to ''sail the ocean sea and prove everyone wrong". And, really, if you know anything about Columbus other then he..was the first European of his time to make landfall in what would be called North America... ..but you would know he was NO ''genius. "
Well, Sagan doesn't even actually call Columbus a genius there, but I guess you have a bit of a point. Columbus was basically a screw-up who got lucky because his personal mistake sort of cancelled out a common mistake that he got from others.


I'm saying your doing the Thing Generation Y started with them saying ''everything I know is wrong..so I should say and do nothing..I'm wrong, wrong wrong" and then protecting that to ''everyone is wrong..so no one should do anything ever." Basically it's a cheap way to shut down communication ''we are all wrong, lets just be quiet".
That's the first I've heard of that supposed "thing". Anyway, I'm not doing that. I do think that doubting one's own judgement is part of being mature, though.


Yet again proving my point that what I think is Lone and Unique.
And wrong, in this case. And, like, not even in a valuable way that generates important insights. It's just, like... (http://qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2490)


Well, I have only made a couple posts....it's a bit much to try and ''see'' something in a couple posts. If you are ''X'' it does not mean you type it every other word. So, sure if you take a small sample of a couple posts in one thread you might not find ''X", but that does not mean anything.
But you've been the opposite of humble, with the way you've been talking yourself up as falling under your absurdly positive alternate definition of "grognard", and your condescending, mocking descriptions and caricatures of people you disagree with, and so on.


I think you might be reading way too much into what I type. It is very common.

I type 'font of wisdom' and you read something else....
I read "Font of Wisdom". Which is what you posted. With the capital letters. I went back and checked.

Was that supposed to be a pun? I don't see how fonts are relevant.


Guess I might need a break down of what you ''thought" you read when you read what I typed.
I could quote all of your posts, but you can go back and read them easily enough without me doing that.


I well know it is how I 'come off'.
Oh, good, I was worried that you were unaware.


I type some words...and people ''see'' many things in them.
It's possible to make certain inferences based on the assumption that you believe the things you type.


Well, this is more philosophy or life style. In your way of thing you will never ''need'' to use the nuclear option as you will ''always find another way".
No. I don't think that at all. I just think that it's worthwhile to try other things first. You seem to disagree.


And that is a fine way of thinking...but it won't always work, so you might have to do a lot of ''ways" or even ''give up".

My ''nuclear option" is 100% successful.
You seem impatient, and that seems a bit at odds with how you've previously described yourself.

But now it seems like maybe you mean to indicate that your previous self-descriptions weren't intended to be taken seriously? I'm not super good with subtext, so maybe I'm the social retard here. (Well, it did occur to me that you were trolling, but not that you were joking... Maybe it's just that I don't recognize obvious trolling as a joke?)


I don't agree that would be ''better" in the real world. The average jerk like Bob won't change...no matter how much to ''talk" to him.
How do you know that someone is "just an average jerk" without talking to him? Not that I think a real person is anywhere close to a perfectly average anything, mind you, but that's a separate consideration.

Mordaedil
2018-10-03, 05:06 AM
Darth Ultron is infamous on these boards for his controversial posting mannerism, moving of goalposts and creation of strawmen and using alternative definitions of words he insists everyone ought to use because that is the only way he will accept them.

I don't think he's bad at listening, he's very intentional in what he does, however.

But maybe you'll have better luck with him. No offense.

Cluedrew
2018-10-03, 07:19 AM
"Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works." (https://xkcd.com/1028/)I like that quote, although it is a lot clearer on the matter than the comic itself is.

And someone beat me to the Darth Ultron PSA. You have to be going for something a bit more subtle than a straight answer to make any conversation with him worth it.

2D8HP
2018-10-03, 07:46 AM
...Darth Ultron, perhaps you should consider that maybe you like certain design choices due to factors like familiarity and nostalgia rather than because they're in any way objectively superior....


I'm not Darth Ultron, but I'll totally cop to this, the closer game rules are to 1977 "blue book" Dungeons & Dragons, or to 1978 RuneQuest the easier it is for me to remember the rules as those rules are imprinted in my mind in a way that say 1977 Traveller or 1989 Shadowrun (both of which I remember having great fun playing) are not.


help I can't stop


But you did stop! :frown:

Willie the Duck
2018-10-03, 09:32 AM
Many fools consider themselves wise. This is one of those areas in which one should be skeptical of one's self-assessments.
Humility? Really? That's... not evident from your posts in this thread, to say the least.

infamous on these boards for his controversial posting mannerism, moving of goalposts and creation of strawmen and using alternative definitions of words he insists everyone ought to use because that is the only way he will accept them.
I don't think he's bad at listening, he's very intentional in what he does, however.


There are more than a few people who post (here and pretty much every forum I go to) as if* they believe they are in the top tier of gamers in terms of intellect, maturity, knowledge, gaming skill, or the like. I'm of the opinion that someone truly of said tier** wouldn't bother with these forums, and certainly wouldn't be so insecure as to need to try to convince others here (whom they act as if* are their inferiors) that they possessed said qualities. Regardless, consider them just like garden variety trolls--if there is a way to engage them in which you get something out of the discussion, do it. Otherwise, ignore them. You are not going to magically 'call them out' so hard that something will change. They know that others are unimpressed with them and frustrated with their posting style.
*I frame it that way because I have no doubt that a portion of which are doing so as a form of posturing/performance art/whatever, rather than really believing it.
**With regards to gaming or topic contained here. They/you may well be the cream of the crop at your job, as a parent, what-have-you. Real life is not relevant here, AFAIC.

Darth Ultron
2018-10-03, 01:37 PM
That does not answer my question. What do you mean by "good"?

I'm talking about how the typical immature person sees something ''new'' and jumps on it as if it the best thing 4ever! They only like it, and think it is good, as it is new. They can't look at it from the outside. New=I like it=it must be the best most good thing 4ever(as I would not like it if it was not).



Well, Sagan doesn't even actually call Columbus a genius there, but I guess you have a bit of a point. Columbus was basically a screw-up who got lucky because his personal mistake sort of cancelled out a common mistake that he got from others.

I'm a Sagan fan too. But this is a good example of ''a smart person is not an expert on everything".




That's the first I've heard of that supposed "thing". Anyway, I'm not doing that. I do think that doubting one's own judgement is part of being mature, though.

Self doubt is more a sign of weakness then any level of maturity. I don't doubt anything I type...if I did, I would not type it.




And wrong, in this case. And, like, not even in a valuable way that generates important insights. It's just, like... (http://qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2490)

So, your saying that because you don't like it, it is wrong?




But you've been the opposite of humble, with the way you've been talking yourself up as falling under your absurdly positive alternate definition of "grognard", and your condescending, mocking descriptions and caricatures of people you disagree with, and so on.

Yes, I have the...yet again...Lone and Unique positive definition of grognard. You don't like it, so it's wrong...



It's possible to make certain inferences based on the assumption that you believe the things you type.

No it's not. This is clearly proven any time someone tries.

I type what I mean, plain and simple. If you ''infer" things...that is your problem.




No. I don't think that at all. I just think that it's worthwhile to try other things first. You seem to disagree.

More accurate to say I will go with the one that has the highest chance for success. And my way works 100%.

You are doing the typical ''what ifs". Like what if the Bob question has 15 'other' things about it? Well, sure, if the question was a paragraph long with lots of details..that can change an answer. Might be fun to do a ''what about Bob thread" just to see the answers...




You seem impatient, and that seems a bit at odds with how you've previously described yourself.

I'd say direct and focused. My game starts at 6pm, and 6:01 everyone is fully immersed in the game play. I don't like wasting hours goofing around and watching you tube videos during a game.



But now it seems like maybe you mean to indicate that your previous self-descriptions weren't intended to be taken seriously? I'm not super good with subtext, so maybe I'm the social retard here. (Well, it did occur to me that you were trolling, but not that you were joking... Maybe it's just that I don't recognize obvious trolling as a joke?)

Maybe?



How do you know that someone is "just an average jerk" without talking to him? Not that I think a real person is anywhere close to a perfectly average anything, mind you, but that's a separate consideration.

I guess you can talk to someone to confirm they are a jerk, but it's a bit of an unnecessary step.

Lets take a Bob example: Bob's PC immediately latches onto something about another PC(often the younger, shy one), usually their race or “they act funny”, to justify constantly taunting them, insulting them, bossing them around, and shouting them down during in-character debates with words like “You don’t get to talk, freak! Shut up!”

Now, see, the above is more then enough ''evidence" for me to kick Bob out of the game without talking to him.


There are more than a few people who post (here and pretty much every forum I go to) as if* they believe they are in the top tier of gamers in terms of intellect, maturity, knowledge, gaming skill, or the like. I'm of the opinion that someone truly of said tier** wouldn't bother with these forums,

Odd you think the ''top tier people" would just hide in a corner somewhere.

Mordar
2018-10-03, 03:37 PM
Get off my lawn.

Always solid, but I prefer "Mow my lawn." Also acceptable is "Wash my car."

On the main topic, I think grognard is one of those fun labels that can be pejorative or laudatory...kind of like "Blackhawks fan". Wait, no...that's pejorative or loutatory. Nevermind. Maybe more like "detail oriented".

I do believe age is a factor, because grognards need to have been around the block a few times, game milieu speaking, and that takes decades of play. So 3.x pundits/advocates are not automatically grognards (though they may be) just because there have been 2 more editions since then. Experiencing old things for the first time in a modern era doesn't suffice...that just makes one a recreationist. Or one of those steampunk people. So I say "Had to have been there when X first came out, where X is *at least* first edition of Shadowrun, Vampire or any other major RPG that pre-dates Magic.

I believe there are other important gates to being a grognard...perhaps having to buy RPGs from the tiny section of Waldenbooks...or buying a Dragon magazine below issue 60 when it first hit the shelf. Also having to actively defend yourself from accusations of devil worship (assuming you are not, in fact, a devil worshipper, or devil worshipper adjacent). Other things might include having started playing when pop-tops were a thing, or when your group-mate was a shift manager at McDonalds and packed a cookie box full of Monopoly tickets for the group so they could eat for free for like two months.

There are more...but it occurs to me you should be mowing my lawn, not badgering me about definitions and qualifications.

- M

Devils_Advocate
2018-10-03, 04:07 PM
I'm not Darth Ultron, but I'll totally cop to this, the closer game rules are to 1977 "blue book" Dungeons & Dragons, or to 1978 RuneQuest the easier it is for me to remember the rules as those rules are imprinted in my mind in a way that say 1977 Traveller or 1989 Shadowrun (both of which I remember having great fun playing) are not.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Why you like something doesn't change whether you like it, and doing something because you like it seems generally pretty reasonable to me. (Whether you enjoy something seems to me directly equivalent to whether it's good for entertainment, and to what other end does one play a game?)


But you did stop! :frown:
I, too, appreciate the comedic stylings of Jeff Foxworthy.


I'm talking about how the typical immature person sees something ''new'' and jumps on it as if it the best thing 4ever! They only like it, and think it is good, as it is new. They can't look at it from the outside. New=I like it=it must be the best most good thing 4ever(as I would not like it if it was not).
1. No one likes everything new. Such individuals only exist in your imagination, if that.

2. That still doesn't answer my question. What's the difference between something "good" and something that's "not good"? Normal usage seems to be that "X is good" means the same thing as "I approve of X". Do you mean something different, and if so, what?


Self doubt is more a sign of weakness then any level of maturity.
I don't think that being open to the possibility that you might be wrong about something is "weak". We should acknowledge that we fall far short of omniscience.


So, your saying that because you don't like it, it is wrong?
No, I'm not saying that.


No it's not. This is clearly proven any time someone tries.
They're not necessarily accurate inferences.


I type what I mean, plain and simple. If you ''infer" things...that is your problem.
It's not a problem. When you make a statement, you either believe it or you don't, so you either you believe what you state or you're being insincere in some fashion (whether it's an attempt at deception, sarcasm, or whatever). You can only sincerely describe yourself in positive terms, for example, if you actually have the relevant positive opinions about yourself. That's not strawmanning, it's drawing logical conclusions.


You are doing the typical ''what ifs". Like what if the Bob question has 15 'other' things about it? Well, sure, if the question was a paragraph long with lots of details..that can change an answer.
There are details to the situation whether or not those details are provided. A poster not giving any of the specifics doesn't mean that Bob is the uninstantiated platonic form of a jerk. A blank map does not correspond to a blank territory.


Maybe?
Well, I'd expect you to know how you meant the things you said to be taken...


I guess you can talk to someone to confirm they are a jerk, but it's a bit of an unnecessary step.

Lets take a Bob example: Bob's PC immediately latches onto something about another PC(often the younger, shy one), usually their race or “they act funny”, to justify constantly taunting them, insulting them, bossing them around, and shouting them down during in-character debates with words like “You don’t get to talk, freak! Shut up!”

Now, see, the above is more then enough ''evidence" for me to kick Bob out of the game without talking to him.
I get that there's a prevalent assumption that it's only acceptable for the GM's characters to be hostile to the PCs, but it seems weird to me to fault someone for not taking for granted that hostility between player characters is hostility between players. If Bob acts okay out of character I'd take that as an indication that he's not acting out of malevolence, and try to get him up to speed on the group's social standards.
Sure, it's easy to write someone off as not worth your time, but under that approach I'd have just said to myself "Wow, this Darth Ultron sure seems like too much of a conceited blowhard for an exchange between us to be productive", and we wouldn't even be having this conversation!

Are you suggesting that that's what I should have done? If so, there certainly seem to be people who agree with you, but that seems like a bit of an odd position for you to take. Kind of hypocritical to keep participating in this conversation if you maintain that it shouldn't be happening.

Being overzealous about "cutting toxic people out of your life" can make you the "toxic person" of a social circle. He who fights jackasses should see to it that he himself does not become a jackass. Have you considered that encouraging a strongly anti-jerk philosophy might not be in your self-interest? I'm getting a bit of a Miko vibe from you.


You are not going to magically 'call them out' so hard that something will change.
Oh, I don't expect for that to happen.


Darth Ultron is infamous on these boards for his controversial posting mannerism, moving of goalposts and creation of strawmen and using alternative definitions of words he insists everyone ought to use because that is the only way he will accept them.

I don't think he's bad at listening, he's very intentional in what he does, however.
But what motivates that behavior, if it doesn't convince anyone of anything but his disingenuousness? When someone behaves normally, it's presumably for normal reasons. With other behavior, I basically have no clue (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3abPnEEGE). A perplexing enigma presents itself. What hints will be revealed next?!

Find out next time, on... "Is This Person Trolling, Crazy, Or Both?"!

Mr Beer
2018-10-03, 04:53 PM
"Grognard" is more pejorative than otherwise, but there's nothing wrong with self-identifying as a "grognard" and promoting the term in order to reclaim it. Fight the prejudice!

2D8HP
2018-10-03, 05:09 PM
...I believe there are other important gates to being a grognard...perhaps having to buy RPGs from the tiny section of Waldenbooks...or buying a Dragon magazine below issue 60 when it first hit the shelf.


I grew up in Berkeley, California and D&D was sold not far from my Junior High School on Telegraph Avenue at a store called "Gambit" which was right by the "Best of Two Worlds" comic book store, so no Waldenbooks for me, but the first issue of "The Dragon" I bought was #22

https://www.rpg.net/pictures/cache/picthumb11452-medium.jpg,

but issue #33

https://www.rpg.net/pictures/cache/picthumb11611-medium.jpg was already on the shelf, both of which I bought at a new store started by two Gambit employees called "Games of Berkeley" which was on Addison Street, just off Shattuck Avenue (I hope that they're still in my mom's basement, but I'm doubtful of that)

A GoB still exists (on Durant Avenue now) and they have Order of the Stick printbooks, but "The Dragon" magazine is gone.

I miss it.

Mordar
2018-10-03, 05:28 PM
I grew up in Berkeley, California and D&D was sold not far from my Junior High School on Telegraph Avenue at a store called "Gambit" which was right by the "Best of Two Worlds" comic book store, so no Waldenbooks for me, but the first issue of "The Dragon" I bought was #22

https://www.rpg.net/pictures/cache/picthumb11452-medium.jpg,

but issue #33

https://www.rpg.net/pictures/cache/picthumb11611-medium.jpg was already on the shelf, both of which I bought at a new store started by two Gambit employees called "Games of Berkeley" which was on Addison Street, just off Shattuck Avenue (I hope that they're still in my mom's basement, but I'm doubtful of that)

A GoB still exists (on Durant Avenue now) and they have Order of the Stick printbooks, but "The Dragon" magazine is gone.

I miss it.

You fancy kids and your fancy specialty game shops make me sick. I bet you could probably even buy individual dice at such places.

Bah. Stop throwing my newspaper in the bushes.

- M

2D8HP
2018-10-03, 05:45 PM
You fancy kids and your fancy specialty game shops make me sick. I bet you could probably even buy individual dice at such places.


Yep, proper ones that went 0 to 9 twice, not those accursed modern non-platonic sold d10's!


Bah. Stop throwing my newspaper in the bushes.

- M


Never!

Hedge dive (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DWEgCxxAWVU)!

Cluedrew
2018-10-03, 06:14 PM
There are more than a few people who post (here and pretty much every forum I go to) as if* they believe they are in the top tier of gamers in terms of intellect, maturity, knowledge, gaming skill, or the like. I'm of the opinion that someone truly of said tier** wouldn't bother with these forums,I'm going to disagree on this point. There is always more to learn, although it might slow down it should never stop. Plus you can help others, a couple of the greats I know answer a lot more questions than they ask. Here your other point stands strong, they don't need to justify that they are good or why you should listen to what they say, they provide advice that stands on its own.

Darth Ultron
2018-10-03, 07:56 PM
1. No one likes everything new. Such individuals only exist in your imagination, if that.

Ok, but they do exist right?



2. That still doesn't answer my question. What's the difference between something "good" and something that's "not good"? Normal usage seems to be that "X is good" means the same thing as "I approve of X". Do you mean something different, and if so, what?


I'm sure the problem is just your definition of good...but that would be a whole thread itself.



I don't think that being open to the possibility that you might be wrong about something is "weak". We should acknowledge that we fall far short of omniscience.

But, again, your jumping. Self doubt is one thing and ''being open to the possibility that you might be wrong about something" is another. It's two different things.



You can only sincerely describe yourself in positive terms, for example, if you actually have the relevant positive opinions about yourself. That's not strawmanning, it's drawing logical conclusions.

What? Why ''can't" a person describe themselves in negative terms? Plenty of mature people can do that.




Sure, it's easy to write someone off as not worth your time, but under that approach I'd have just said to myself "Wow, this Darth Ultron sure seems like too much of a conceited blowhard for an exchange between us to be productive", and we wouldn't even be having this conversation!

It happens all the time. Really.



Being overzealous about "cutting toxic people out of your life" can make you the "toxic person" of a social circle. He who fights jackasses should see to it that he himself does not become a jackass. Have you considered that encouraging a strongly anti-jerk philosophy might not be in your self-interest? I'm getting a bit of a Miko vibe from you.

Not that I know who that is...

But, really, your saying ''well just keep toxic people around and welcome them with open arms and let them ruin your life". It is very much true: I don't agree with that.


Oh, I don't expect for that to happen.



What hints will be revealed next?!

Find out next time, on... "Is This Person Trolling, Crazy, Or Both?"!

Mental wounds still screaming
Driving me insane
I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train (Crazy and Railroading....)



I'm not Darth Ultron, but I'll totally cop to this,

I think a good example of a ''bad negative" Grognard would be the one that demands that ''D&D must be played with lots and lots of Tables and Charts!"

While the "good positive" Grognard can admit...Great Ceasar's Ghost was that a night mare!

Pages and pages of tables, just to roll ''to hit" for each character...was bad. THACO was bad....oh the days of ''ok the orc is in chain mail so AC 5, and your THAC0 is 20, you need a 15 to hit.

Thankfully someone posted the ''reverse THAC0" in DRAGON....where you just do it in reverse : oh look just have the orc put on chain mail and make the ac 15...then you just need to roll a 15 to hit.

And that is what they used for 3E. And the 3E way is much better.




I'm going to disagree on this point. There is always more to learn,

It's even on my mature list above :)

Willie the Duck
2018-10-03, 08:57 PM
Odd you think the ''top tier people" would just hide in a corner somewhere.

That would be odd, but I don't think that.


I'm going to disagree on this point. There is always more to learn, although it might slow down it should never stop. Plus you can help others, a couple of the greats I know answer a lot more questions than they ask. Here your other point stands strong, they don't need to justify that they are good or why you should listen to what they say, they provide advice that stands on its own.

There might be exceptions. I just think there would be selective factors against. There's a little learning done here, and a lot of everything else. Lots of it stuff that people who are downright great at this, and know it, and are secure in the knowledge, don't need to hear. But my main point is that if you think you are a big dog on campus around here, or you see someone trying to make themselves appear that way, bet dimes on doughnuts against.

And I agree, the one or two people who I'd call the top of the heap here are not the ones trying to make sure others think of them as such, but instead just quietly and methodically making suggestions and handing out advice as it seems reasonable.

Cluedrew
2018-10-03, 09:30 PM
I just think there would be selective factors against. There's a little learning done here, and a lot of everything else.Well I'm glad they are here. For the second part, I do spend a lot of time shifting through threads looking for ones I can learn stuff from. And contributing to Quotes You Can Build a Character Off Of, because that is just fun. I like learning and talking about role-playing games and there just isn't enough of a role-playing game community in my physical community for that and I haven't found a better online one so... here I am, looking for and occasionally trying to create good thought provoking topics.

KorvinStarmast
2018-10-03, 10:19 PM
Much like the Wil Wheaton definition of geek, it is self-declaration, no exceptions. You are a grognard if you say you are. .that's part of it. IMO, to get the proper grognard badge you need to play OSR games and prefer them, +, you need to dislike what WoTC did with the game.

I am old, and have played the game since three little books, but I have not found an OSR group to play with, nor do I particularly want to. WoTC did some things good for D&D, and some things bad for it. (Overly rules conscious is bad, but the rationalization of bonuses, chargen, and a whole bunch of reorganization was good).

One of my few hard complaints with the WoTC era is Charisma as a spell casting stat. I had adapted to it, but I still dislike it intensely due (in part) to my formative years in the game using Charisma for something quite different. (For my money, MAR Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne Psychic Aibilty score for spell casting was a good idea, in 1975, and is still a good idea.. but it did not seem to catch on). But the fact is, the game and its genre have shifted. The hiring of lots of soldiers and helpers, and the collecting of key henchmen fell out of the game somewhere between 2d and 3d edition.

5e is a good game. I like it. It brought me back to the hobby, and to the game.

Grognards have no time for rules lawyers, among other things.

As to the charge of 3.x spawning more rules lawyers: that is probably overstated. We had that problem with rules lawyers as far back as I can remember into the mid 70's. Dave Arneson was dealing with them as far back as his early days of running campaigns out of his notebook. Gygax had clear guidance on punishing rules lawyers in the AD&D 1e DMG thanks to his experiences at the game table. There is no question about it: rules lawyering during play screws up the game, no matter what edition you play.

Just as fresh dog crap always has stink, D&D will always have rules lawyers.

2D8HP
2018-10-03, 11:33 PM
....5e is a good game. I like it. It brought me back to the hobby, and to the game....


5e brought me back to the hobby as well (I quit in '92), and as much as I like to grumble (XP should be for lootin' not just muderin'!) I'm enjoying 5e (just got Dragon Heist and it looks AWESOME!), but my long absence from the hobby that has me doubt my grognardelyness.

I started as a DM in '78 (albeit with my little brother as my main player), as a player in '79 with a LBB's + AD&D Monster Manual using DM (good times!), bought my first issue of The Dragon in 1980 (and then got back issues!), starting playing other adventure games in 1979 or '80 as well (Villains & Vigilantes would be the first after D&D, unless Arduin counts), but.....

....because of my long absence from the hobby I fear that I probably have less total at the table time than most regular posters at the Playground thus my query of qualifications.

My further shame is my failure to get my son into D&D. He enjoyed playing some of my old DUNGEON! board game with me, and when he expressed an interest in D&D (especially the Tomb of Horrors) after reading "Ready Player One" (which I probably should do as well), I lept into action, brought out my old books, bought some new ones (which is how I came to play 5e) and...

....he prefers playing Magic the Gathering and video games with his friends :redface: :frown:.

He also made fun of The 7th Yoyage of Sinbad when I put it on the TV (though strangely not the Adam West Batman)!

Even though he's the age I was when I saw it, I don't feel right having him watch my other favorite D&D-ish movie Excalibur because of some of it's "mature" content, but I'm also scared that he just won't appreciate it either (also, despite what I may say about the Grail quest scenes, my wife may slap me upside my head!).

And I'll never be as good a DM as my second GM (the little brother of my first DM) who died a couple of years ago and I miss him, what was, and what I missed (now I got a tear).

Oh well, I guess I'll read another thread and post a grumble about something or other not being proper D&D!

Darth Ultron
2018-10-03, 11:36 PM
Well I'm glad they are here. For the second part, I do spend a lot of time shifting through threads looking for ones I can learn stuff from. I like learning and talking about role-playing games and there just isn't enough of a role-playing game community in my physical community for that and I haven't found a better online one so... here I am, looking for and occasionally trying to create good thought provoking topics.

Me too :)

I'm all about provoking thought.

Gemini Lupus
2018-10-04, 12:15 AM
First off, lots of good discussion and great insight as to what it means to be a grognard.

I have been called a grognard myself, as well as an “old-school” gamer. Disclaimer: I’m approaching 30 and Pathfinder is my main game. Anyway, I was chatting with some friends from Grad School and we were talking about the different editions of D&D/Pathfinder, specifically about the upcoming play test of Pathfinder 2. I’ve decided that I’m not even gonna bother with looking at the game, because I’ve invested so heavily into Pathfinder and 3.5 and created homebrew and house rules to the point that I simply have no interest in playing in systems outside of Pathfinder. I’m actually glad Pathfinder 2 is coming out, because it means once I have all the books, I’m never going to have to buy new books again. I sometimes play 5th, but it’s not that great, I find myself bored at the lack of mechanical complexity - I learned 3.0 when I was 11, 5th is just too simple; I refer to it as Basic D&D to Pathfinder’s AD&D.

One particular friend, who actually *is* an old schooler, played since ‘76, then told me that I have officially become “old school,” because I’ve come to the point where: I refuse to change editions, modified the system I do play, and complain about new systems not being as good as the older edition I play. Truly, it was an honor to be ranked among the old school crowd.

If I could, I would change my ranking to Grognard in the Playground.

Ignimortis
2018-10-04, 10:15 AM
If you think RPG design peaked in 1977...you might be a grognard.
If you unironically called D&D 4th Edition "World of Warcraft" without having ever played either...you might be a grognard.
If you insist that instant death traps are a vital part of roleplaying...you might be a grognard.
If you think no character can be anything but a shallow caricature unless they've been played from first level to eleventh over the course of a decade...you might be a grognard.
If you've ever tied yourself in logical knots by treating game-rules as physics...you might be a grognard.
If you've ever insta-killed a character who was at full hitpoints just because of 'realism'...you might be a grognard.
If you are deeply offended by any RPG that FORCES adventurers to be competent at adventuring...you might be a grognard.
If you think non-random character generation is munchkin bait for the instant-gratification ADHD kiddies...you might be a grognard.
If you think tracking individual iron spikes, torches, copper pieces, and spell components is the stuff of GRIPPING FANTASY ADVENTURE...you might be a grognard.

I could go on, but this is plenty for now.


If you've been playing the same campaign for the last two decades... you might be a grognard.
If you have produced more than 200 pages of houserules for AD&D... you might be a grognard.
If you think rolling on random tables is the ultimate form of creativity... you might be a grognard.
If the correct way to go through one of your adventures is roughly the same tactics as American troops clearing a Viet Cong tunnel... you might be a grognard.
help I can't stop

Please, carry on. If I could upvote that, I would do so twice.

hymer
2018-10-04, 11:53 AM
One particular friend, who actually *is* an old schooler, played since ‘76, then told me that I have officially become “old school,” because I’ve come to the point where: I refuse to change editions, modified the system I do play, and complain about new systems not being as good as the older edition I play.
Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grognard) agrees pretty much with this way of seeing it.

Darth Ultron
2018-10-04, 12:28 PM
Please, carry on. If I could upvote that, I would do so twice.

could add like:

......If you remember when just about no one knew what ''D&D" or any RPG was (or what an ''RPG was") other then small circles of geeks

......If you remember when ''Game Stores" where few and far between, often like one for the whole county

......If you remember when the world had dozens of brick and mortar book stores, and not just chain stores but mom and pop ones too, and you had to go to each one and browse what they had in stock

......If you remember going to said book store, and finding the item you wanted....but they only had one...and it was opened...and the maps or other such material was missing. Then you had the big choice of buying the incomplete item...or trying to find it elsewhere.

.......If you have been ever asked to leave a book/comic/hobby store and were told ''this is not a library"

.......If you remember when bookstores(like Wadenbooks) had the RPG stuff way in the back, like on a low shelf.....and you remember well when ''suddenly'' they moved the RPG stuff right up next to the register

......If you remember there being lots of used book stores..often with an RPG shelf way in the back...often loaded with old, rare items for like $1

......If you remember not having a nearby store to buy dice from, and you had to buy other games with other dice and use them. Like there was ''Pyramid Oh's" like triangle shaped dominoes had D4's in them

......If a cloth dice bag was a mythical item, and you had to keep your dice in whatever container you had empty when you got them...like a Salt Shaker, Pencil Box, Piggy Bank or even just a zip lock bag.

.......If you remember when few players even had one book...but most had photocopied pages

Willie the Duck
2018-10-04, 01:36 PM
......If a cloth dice bag was a mythical item, and you had to keep your dice in whatever container you had empty when you got them...like a Salt Shaker, Pencil Box, Piggy Bank or even just a zip lock bag.

Was this a dry county or something? No one drank Crown Royal (/had parents who did)? :smalltongue:

hotflungwok
2018-10-04, 01:48 PM
If you think anyone unable to count backwards in their head to figure out what they need to hit has no business gaming, you might be a grognard.
If you think allowing players to buy and sell magic items is the worst kind of mollycoddling and that they should be happy to carry around that 3rd +1 luceren hammer, you might be a grognard.
If you think not having to pay 100gp to ID each and every single magic item found is the second worst kind of mollycoddling, you might be a grognard.
If you think that giving out XP for things like 'good roleplaying' and 'peaceful conflict resolution' is exactly like giving kids participation trophies, you might be a grognard.
If you've ever argued for more than hour, or had an argument escalate to screaming, over the difference of +/-1 to a single roll, you might be a grognard.

Joe the Rat
2018-10-04, 02:03 PM
Was this a dry county or something? No one drank Crown Royal (/had parents who did)? :smalltongue:
Indeed, the true sign of a Grognard is having a fuzzy sack that smells of booze.


...and you keep your dice in a Crown Royal bag.

Knaight
2018-10-04, 02:48 PM
......If a cloth dice bag was a mythical item, and you had to keep your dice in whatever container you had empty when you got them...like a Salt Shaker, Pencil Box, Piggy Bank or even just a zip lock bag.

This is less a grognard thing and more a cheaping out thing (particularly among younger players who don't necessarily have much income because they're teenagers or something).

Also those screw-top parmesan cheese tubes are really solid options for dice. I have a cloth dice bag now, but I'm seriously considering switching back to something like the tube I used back in highschool when I was broker and cheaper.

John Campbell
2018-10-04, 06:01 PM
Was this a dry county or something? No one drank Crown Royal (/had parents who did)? :smalltongue:

Or sewed/had parents who did?

My cloth dice bag is something like 35 years old. My mom made it for me.

Mordar
2018-10-04, 06:46 PM
Or sewed/had parents who did?

My cloth dice bag is something like 35 years old. My mom made it for me.

You kids growing up with things like cloth and dice. Must be nice. All we had was dirt and rocks, and we liked it.

- M

2D8HP
2018-10-04, 06:57 PM
If you pulled cardboard chits (http://20facesoffate.com/throwback-thursday-dice-chits/) out of a bag as "dice" you may be a grognard.
Get those damn d10s off my lawn!

Darth Ultron
2018-10-04, 10:21 PM
This is less a grognard thing and more a cheaping out thing

My point is a bit more about availability. Today it is easy to find a good dice bag, but back in the time before time it was hard. Again, there were few game stores...and even if a book store or comic store carried the books...they often did not have things like dice or dice bags.

Really, back in the Time Before Time, your only real option was mail order (it was a lot like online shopping..but it was all off line). Maybe you could find a company or two that made such game items, and find out the companies address. Then you could mail them a letter(you know snail mail, paper and a stamp) and ask them to send you a free catalog(they were like shopping web pages printed out on paper). Then, maybe you could fill out the order card and order '1 dice bag' and send it away with the payment, by snail mail again. And then just 3 to 6 weeks later, your box with the dice bag will show up at your door.

Of course soon enough there were a lot more game stores(now mostly all gone again) and comic stores did carry accessories. And for a short time...Wizards did have a game store in (almost)every mall: The Keep.

Kinda like

.......If your game group used the 'official' D&D Character Sheets...they were copies. Someone somewhere bought a real pack...and copied them. Then everyone for like the surrounding five counties used the blank copies. And you had to be careful not to use your last one. Of course, even making copies in the Time Before Time, was a huge chore. Maybe a long gone store like Woolworths or Gold Circle had a pay one in their lobby or maybe their was one at a library or school. And you remember running out of blank ones...and then getting replacements...but...someone had wrote something on the sheet like 'Saves: Save Ferris'.

I guess it does depend a bit where you lived. Sure some people in like Big Cities had a game store and copy machines on every corner. Where I was from, making a copy was like: walk mile to train tracks, wait for daily train, ride train into town, walk to the Ben Franklin's Five and Dime Store. Make copies on the copy machine in the back office that was used by the 'tax preparer'. Then walk home (or if you were lucky hitch a ride with someone at least part of the way...back in the Time Before Time you could do this with no danger). Whew...then after that day trip, you have a copy of your character :) .

martixy
2018-10-05, 02:09 AM
Well, I hate slapstick humor and consequently most of what the general D&D playing public categorizes under "rule-of-cool", which I'm pretty sure makes me a grognard.

I don't so much subscribe to "realism", rather to "depth". Which translates to "complexity" in most cases.

mgshamster
2018-10-05, 06:53 AM
My point is a bit more about availability. Today it is easy to find a good dice bag, but back in the time before time it was hard.

Not really. They were called marble bags back then. And pretty easy to find at most toy stores. You'd be hard pressed to find a marble bag these days without going to the internet. If you want one, you'd have to buy a dice bag, which are pretty easy to find at most toy stores.

Rhedyn
2018-10-05, 09:02 AM
If you think that giving out XP for things like 'good roleplaying' and 'peaceful conflict resolution' is exactly like giving kids participation trophies, you might be a grognard.
REAL D&D gives xp for loot, and fighting monsters gives crap xp.

DeTess
2018-10-05, 09:17 AM
You kids growing up with things like cloth and dice. Must be nice. All we had was dirt and rocks, and we liked it.

- M

This. This is what a true grognard sounds like :P

Mordaedil
2018-10-05, 09:44 AM
But what motivates that behavior, if it doesn't convince anyone of anything but his disingenuousness? When someone behaves normally, it's presumably for normal reasons. With other behavior, I basically have no clue (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3abPnEEGE). A perplexing enigma presents itself. What hints will be revealed next?!

Find out next time, on... "Is This Person Trolling, Crazy, Or Both?"!

Closest I've seen is that he's a gimmick poster embracing the "darth" in his username as a reason to be completely disingenuous and vile in his posting.

ExLibrisMortis
2018-10-05, 10:44 AM
Well, I hate slapstick humor and consequently most of what the general D&D playing public categorizes under "rule-of-cool", which I'm pretty sure makes me a grognard.

I don't so much subscribe to "realism", rather to "depth". Which translates to "complexity" in most cases.
All of this! I blame interference of the superhero genre, based on a representative survey (n=1 where n is my sister).

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1528121334-soonish43.png (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/wit)
I don't like superhero movies. At all. Except Watchmen. Rule of Cool is for details, not for the entire friggin' plot.

Mordar
2018-10-05, 11:50 AM
My point is a bit more about availability. Today it is easy to find a good dice bag, but back in the time before time it was hard. Again, there were few game stores...and even if a book store or comic store carried the books...they often did not have things like dice or dice bags.

.......If your game group used the 'official' D&D Character Sheets...they were copies. Someone somewhere bought a real pack...and copied them. Then everyone for like the surrounding five counties used the blank copies. And you had to be careful not to use your last one. Of course, even making copies in the Time Before Time, was a huge chore. Maybe a long gone store like Woolworths or Gold Circle had a pay one in their lobby or maybe their was one at a library or school. And you remember running out of blank ones...and then getting replacements...but...someone had wrote something on the sheet like 'Saves: Save Ferris'.


Not really. They were called marble bags back then. And pretty easy to find at most toy stores. You'd be hard pressed to find a marble bag these days without going to the internet. If you want one, you'd have to buy a dice bag, which are pretty easy to find at most toy stores.

My experience matched what Darth Ultron is saying above. I remember how excited I was to get my first "real" dice bag...I still have it somewhere, threadbare and worn...it was purple and velvety and totally rocked. I'll certainly believe that there were marble bags aplenty available...but I certainly never saw them, other than the "netting" style bags marbles actually came in from the Ben Franklin or little toy section in the local pharmacies.

Going to my first Gen Con in 1984 was a shock to my system (in the best way)...I was staggered by all of the things available in the exhibitors hall...I still remember the giant Chessex (I think it was chessex) dice display. I must have spent $10 on the "grab as many dice as you can for 50 cents" bin. The array of colors and styles was shocking when all you had previously available was the light blue sets that came in boxes that you had to color in yourself with crayons.*

I certainly remember the cool pack of golden AD&D character sheets in their two-sided majesty. It was quite the coup to find the one copy machine (in the hospital my friend's dad worked at) that could crank out two-sided copies.

Ah, good days.

- M

* - If you had to color in your own dice with your little brother's crayons...you might be a grognard.

hotflungwok
2018-10-05, 12:29 PM
A real grognard would have bought his own crayons, used only for coloring in dice.

Mordar
2018-10-05, 01:03 PM
A real grognard would have bought his own crayons, used only for coloring in dice.

Only if said grognard lived in times of plenty. Those kind of rich kids spent their time hobnobbing at the country club, not playing RPGs. However, I would also like to amend my previous statement to include "...taken from the supply at Country Kitchen intended for children to color their placemats...".

- M

Devils_Advocate
2018-10-10, 12:32 AM
Ok, but they do exist right?
... No. Saying that something "exists in your imagination" is a figurative way of saying that you imagine it, not that it actually exists and is located inside your imagination. Your imagination isn't a place, man. It's a mental faculty that you employ.


I'm sure the problem is just your definition of good...but that would be a whole thread itself.
The problem is your definition of good. If you know what you mean, you should be able to just tell me. And if you don't know what you mean, then how can you know that "It's good" doesn't mean "I like it"?


Self doubt is one thing and ''being open to the possibility that you might be wrong about something" is another. It's two different things.
No. It's the same thing. Given that I can't be both right and wrong about something, an over 0% chance that I'm wrong means a less than 100% chance that I'm right. Open to the possibility that I'm wrong = over 0% chance of being wrong = less than 100% chance of being right = less than complete certainty that I'm right = doubting my own judgement.


What? Why ''can't" a person describe themselves in negative terms? Plenty of mature people can do that.
Ah, perhaps I phrased that poorly. Maybe I should have used "only can" where I used "can only". I meant that you can't sincerely describe yourself in positive terms unless you actually have the relevant positive opinions about yourself. Is that clearer?


It happens all the time. Really.
Have you considered the possibility that that's because you are, in fact, a conceited blowhard? Like, I get that you probably think that you aren't one, and probably think that you have good reasons to think that you aren't one. But lots of conceited blowhards think that they aren't conceited blowhards, and think that they have good reasons to think so. So that's not especially indicative.

It's really hard to diagnose your own misconceptions, you know? If you were qualified to identify the reasons why you shouldn't hold your incorrect beliefs, you probably wouldn't have them in the first place. See what I'm saying?

Hence the merit of doubting one's own judgement. It allows one's mistakes to be less self-reinforcing.


Not that I know who that is...
Wait, are you are regular on this forum who doesn't read The Order of the Stick (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html)? :O Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'd not have expected it. Or did you just not recognize the name of one of the major characters? It has been an awfully long while since we saw her. (Hardass paladin? Samurai? Slash! slash! slash! slash! slash!? Ringing any bells?)


But, really, your saying ''well just keep toxic people around and welcome them with open arms and let them ruin your life".
No, I'm not saying that. Do you not know what "overzealous" means, or was that a deliberate strawman?



Closest I've seen is that he's a gimmick poster embracing the "darth" in his username as a reason to be completely disingenuous and vile in his posting.
"Vile"? I don't think I've seen anything much worse than playground taunts in this thread, where DU's persona has sometimes struck me as friendly, if delusional. I'd have expected him to be banned by now if he's really all that bad.


One particular friend, who actually *is* an old schooler, played since ‘76, then told me that I have officially become “old school,” because I’ve come to the point where: I refuse to change editions, modified the system I do play, and complain about new systems not being as good as the older edition I play.
The more editions change, the more gamers stay the same. (https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/08/23)


because of my long absence from the hobby I fear that I probably have less total at the table time than most regular posters at the Playground thus my query of qualifications.
You might not qualify as a veteran player, but I'd say that that merely strongly correlates with being a grognard, rather than being the same thing.

If anything, I question whether someone who favors 3E should be considered a grognard. Sure, there's a preference for an older edition over the current edition, but there's also a preference for a newer edition over the oldest editions!

Basically, how contextual and relative is the terminology here? Should one use different terms to describe positions on the relative merits of AD&D and 3E, given that the latter is far from new at this point? For that matter, can someone who prefers 2E to 1E, or even 1E to OD&D, be a true grognard?


Grognards have no time for rules lawyers, among other things.
Hmm....


If you've ever argued for more than hour, or had an argument escalate to screaming, over the difference of +/-1 to a single roll, you might be a grognard.
"It's good that charm person is a first level spell, because it introduces the new player to a very important part of the D&D experience: heated arguments over the rules."
- Lore Sjöberg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZioEd6P6t-c)


As to the charge of 3.x spawning more rules lawyers: that is probably overstated. We had that problem with rules lawyers as far back as I can remember into the mid 70's. Dave Arneson was dealing with them as far back as his early days of running campaigns out of his notebook. Gygax had clear guidance on punishing rules lawyers in the AD&D 1e DMG thanks to his experiences at the game table.
Perhaps attributing rules lawyering to 3E's more legalistic rules confuses cause and effect.


Not really. They were called marble bags back then. And pretty easy to find at most toy stores. You'd be hard pressed to find a marble bag these days without going to the internet. If you want one, you'd have to buy a dice bag, which are pretty easy to find at most toy stores.
Hahaha. :)

Darth Ultron
2018-10-10, 01:28 AM
Have you considered the possibility that that's because you are, in fact, a conceited blowhard? Like, I get that you probably think that you aren't one, and probably think that you have good reasons to think that you aren't one. But lots of conceited blowhards think that they aren't conceited blowhards, and think that they have good reasons to think so. So that's not especially indicative.

Na, not me at all.



It's really hard to diagnose your own misconceptions, you know? If you were qualified to identify the reasons why you shouldn't hold your incorrect beliefs, you probably wouldn't have them in the first place. See what I'm saying?

I do agree it is hard for most people to do so. Not everyone, of course, but most people.



"Vile"? I don't think I've seen anything much worse than playground taunts in this thread, where DU's persona has sometimes struck me as friendly, if delusional. I'd have expected him to be banned by now if he's really all that bad.


Friendly? Me?



Rules Lawyers have been around as long as there have been game rules. Though they did not matter much in D&D before 3E. Remember the older editions simply did not have a lot of rules. So sure, a rules lawyer could do their thing...but only once in a while, when there was a rule.

3E changed all that by adding tons of rules....and maybe worst of all, not editing the books before print. And I don't mean for spelling, I mean the rules themselves.

And there was the huge shift as the typical video game player is used to ''using rule exploits'' in a video game, so naturally they want to do that in all games.

Arbane
2018-10-10, 02:29 AM
If you've ever gotten in an argument with the DM over Consequentialism vs. Deontology in an effort to avoid your Paladin falling... you might be a Grognard.
If you feel that making Paladins fall is mandatory as a DM... you're definitely a jerk, and you might be a Grognard.
If you ever read Knights of the Dinner Table and didn't get what's supposed to be funny... you might be a Grognard.
If you treat testing unidentified magic items like defusing armed nuclear weaponry... you might be a Grognard.
If you think the Rolemaster critical hit/fumble tables are 'too lenient'... you might be a Grognard.

(What's the equivalent of a Grognard for White Wolf games?)

Ignimortis
2018-10-10, 02:48 AM
(What's the equivalent of a Grognard for White Wolf games?)

Intended audience, if the tone of the core book is anything to go by.

All the people I know either play Vampire as street superheroes or magical politicking, with some mixing the two, because it actually works pretty well that way, if you make rules more lenient and won't hit people over the head with Humanity at every possible juncture.

I have never seen people who insist on having a game in which the horror of being a blood-sucking monster is more important than being cool as hell with all your vamp powers, either by beating up people with other people (and occasionally cars) or by engaging in convoluted schemes with mind-reading, mind controls, magic and ghoul servants.

Until I've gone on the internet, of course, and there were lots of WW grog-types, who said that anyone who liked action-y games was a munchkin who should go back to D&D and leave the true art of suffering in the inevitable decay of mortal morality to them.

Mordaedil
2018-10-10, 03:52 AM
"Vile"? I don't think I've seen anything much worse than playground taunts in this thread, where DU's persona has sometimes struck me as friendly, if delusional. I'd have expected him to be banned by now if he's really all that bad.

I do not mean to imply his posting is outright so vile he can be banned for it, but he's implied breaking several faux pas at the table and mistreats his players.

Maybe he is blowing it up and out of proportions and I sometimes agree with stuff he says, but sometimes he says things I cannot fully comprehend a human typed out and thought was rational behavior in a social setting. Maybe he was being facetious, but if you want some reading material for my basis:

It originally sparked in a thread called Railroading and Expectations (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?535813-Railroading-And-Expectations), but he eventually made his thread called Why Sandbox is a meaningless phrase (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550178-Why-Sandbox-is-a-meaningless-phrase). Just, observe the way the discussion there goes and you might see what I mean by my statement.

hotflungwok
2018-10-10, 07:27 AM
If you treat testing unidentified magic items like defusing armed nuclear weaponry... you might be a Grognard.

Or you might be playing Call of Cthulhu.

hymer
2018-10-10, 07:32 AM
Or you might be playing Call of Cthulhu.
Well... I don't know if I should tell you this, but... If you're playing Call of Cthulhu you might be a grognard.

hotflungwok
2018-10-10, 09:44 AM
Well... I don't know if I should tell you this, but... If you're playing Call of Cthulhu you might be a grognard.
How exactly does playing CoC make you a grognard?

Rhedyn
2018-10-10, 09:48 AM
How exactly does playing CoC make you a grognard?
Introduced in 1981, the consensus I've seen is that the game has basically been the same until the 7th edition (2014).

If the game you are playing is essentially 35+ years old, you might be a grognard.

hotflungwok
2018-10-10, 09:51 AM
Introduced in 1981, the consensus I've seen is that the game has basically been the same until the 7th edition (2014).

If the game you are playing is essentially 35+ years old, you might be a grognard.
So children playing Monopoly are grognards?

hymer
2018-10-10, 10:06 AM
So children playing Monopoly are grognards?
Trying to get out of being a grognard means that you might be a grognard. In denial. In Egypt.

hotflungwok
2018-10-10, 10:11 AM
Trying to get out of being a grognard means that you might be a grognard. In denial. In Egypt.
Insisting that someone else is a grognard solely because of the game they play means you might be a grognard.

hymer
2018-10-10, 10:12 AM
Insisting that someone else is a grognard solely because of the game they play means you might be a grognard.
Not caring whether I'm a grognard means I might be a grognard.

Telok
2018-10-10, 10:19 AM
If you kknow exactly which game "20 years of a one joke game (but its still funny)" refers to...

Welcome to the club.

John Campbell
2018-10-10, 10:56 AM
So children playing Monopoly are grognards?

Children playing Monopoly are victims. Someone get those kids Catan or something!

Arbane
2018-10-10, 11:33 AM
So children playing Monopoly are grognards?

If you play Monopoly voluntarily when there's other games available... you might be a Grognard.
(It's really not a good game for fun play - since that's not what it was designed for (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game).)


If you kknow exactly which game "20 years of a one joke game (but its still funny)" refers to...

Welcome to the club.


If you make jokes about Friend Computer, Commie Mutant Traitors, or things being above people's security clearances... you might be a Grognard, and you definitely know about Paranoia

kivzirrum
2018-10-10, 03:09 PM
Intended audience, if the tone of the core book is anything to go by.

All the people I know either play Vampire as street superheroes or magical politicking, with some mixing the two, because it actually works pretty well that way, if you make rules more lenient and won't hit people over the head with Humanity at every possible juncture.

I have never seen people who insist on having a game in which the horror of being a blood-sucking monster is more important than being cool as hell with all your vamp powers, either by beating up people with other people (and occasionally cars) or by engaging in convoluted schemes with mind-reading, mind controls, magic and ghoul servants.

Until I've gone on the internet, of course, and there were lots of WW grog-types, who said that anyone who liked action-y games was a munchkin who should go back to D&D and leave the true art of suffering in the inevitable decay of mortal morality to them.

Maybe you just don't know enough goths?