What Makes Someone a Grognard?


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

A few prerequisites for being a grognard:

1. A beard
2. Fingers stained orange from Cheetos
3. You are never without a Mtn Dew
4. At least 50 years of age.

Ah, then I definitely don't make the grade.

1. Stubble at times, but usually clean shaven.
2. That is just gross.
3. Mountain Dew tastes like where dreams go to die.
4. Missed it by 4 years.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Diet Pepsi Max is superior to Mountain Dew now, but back then MD ruled.

Sovereign Court

Kthulhu wrote:

A few prerequisites for being a grognard:

1. A beard
2. Fingers stained orange from Cheetos
3. You are never without a Mtn Dew
4. At least 50 years of age.

That's funny, because I'd have used 3 of those 4 to define video gaming "roleplayers".

Obviously the 4th involves still living in one's parents' basement.

"Fatbeard" "Grognards" may have negative stereotypes; don't you whippersnappers go thinking you don't either!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have been playing for too many bloody years, and you know what? The games ARE better these days. That doesn't mean the old games were without merit... But still. Things are so much better now.

Grand Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:

A few prerequisites for being a grognard:

1. A beard
2. Fingers stained orange from Cheetos
3. You are never without a Mtn Dew
4. At least 50 years of age.

What, so no female grognards? Pffft.

Also, Cheetos and Mountain Dew? That's just icky, man. Maybe when I was in my 20s...

The cool thing about grognards is that we come in all shapes and sizes. We are not so easily culturally defined. It's more of a 'spirit of an older gamer' kinda thing (plus grumpiness).


Wait, I thought the dorito dew thing was exclusive to MLG. You mean it's in the tabletop area too?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The trouble with grognards not liking newer games is when the presumption is that they do it out of hand.

Tales from the grognard:
I started with gamma world, them picked up becmi, then 2e, then heroes unlimited and ninjas and superspies just as 2e was starting to do silly things like spelljammer and class 'kits' and I had to bail because it felt like they were publishing to make money and not make good content anymore... We played rifts for about 10 world books before it became clear that they were also on a treadmill of producing for the sake of revenue instead of quality content. We stepped back to heroes unlimited and ninjas and superspies because they seemed like systems that didn't have silly mdc and that Kevin wasn't interested in changing or 'messing with' or 'growing'...

Sure we dabbled in cyberpunk and shadowrun and warhammer and a few dozen more, finding new ways to do things and then finding new ways not to do things... Most of the newer games had trouble feeling like the thought was put into them that was put into 2e because truth be told, it probably wasnt. 2e was built from over a decade with 1e, learning what worked and what didnt. It was also changing the paradigm to a system that without battle mats and minis was in fact more 'free of form' and less expensive to play. Palladium is also battlematless so the only thing you had to buy were the books and dice. It was the cheapest entertainment you could get.

I'll admit I didnt touch 3.0 at all, and I did join a group that was messing with d20 and 3.5... I thought 'oh god... battlemats and minis... But I gave it a shot, sank a few hundred bucks, and sure enough, all that battlemat baggage came right back in spades. It took less than three minutes for me to write off 4e, and Aquisitions Incorporated is showing that at least Chris Perkins doesnt think too much about the battle mat for computational reasons for the most part... Theater of the mind for the most part but minis for visual reference. Loose. Fiat but generous. Doesnt let the crunch get in the way of the game. I can dig it. He even says 'getting back to how the game was meant to be played.'

Grognardia misconstrued:
So though I'm definitely a grognard, I'm a bit of a simulationist sandboxer and low level montyhaul gm... Players should be the focus and players should have plenty of 'emergency back doors' to escape a bad sitiuation. I don't run modules because that's someone else's story... Players ultimately choose what direction their story goes so modules inherently don't work... I dont adhere to

the idea that 'gm is god... like it or go home'
the gm's job is to kill you
rules are set in stone and the book is always right (I find new gamers do this WAAAY more often)
(arguing about RAW vs RAI vs My own personal RAI takes up more time than the actual hobby itself... its like a secondary game...)
encounters should only be presented that the party could handily deal with if they chose to simply fight.

I don't like any of the newer systems, but I wont tacitly say that every new idea is a bad idea... I like the idea of armor as damage reduction... I do like certain rolls being opposed, but not things pick pockets... There are certain things that you can now roll for that I entirely don't think should have 'skills' or 'rolls' attributed to them... Like perception. If you can 'train' to not be surprised... that violates the whole definition of surprise. 'Training for the unexpected' is conceptually hillarious to me, but in a bad way.

'Point buy' does do a pretty good job of keeping people from feeling like they got a raw deal on attribute rolls. But the reason I'm into such silly old systems is because the new solutions come with bad news that outweighs the good of their intent.

There are new things that are ok... but a lot of new things are not better and I don't just say that idly.

With palladium I saw a really broad range of skills going up at a set rate and there was no agency to choose to focus more on one skill than another, which seemed bad... Then I got into 3.5 and while it let you put points into skills, it was obvious by the limits they put on skill points that 'in playtest people probably abused the mechanic to become a 10th level acrobat and completely ignored skills like 'swim' or 'take shit' or the like, which people seem to naturally gravitate towards. So for me the mechanic of giving people the chance to put points into skills ended up being a 'not good mechanic'... Philosophicaly good from a player agency point of view, but functionally bad in that people have a hard time not abusing it with narrow focus and minmaxy schtick. Thats the nature of game design... The design intent and the user experience do not line up in a satisfactory way even with the best of intentions. Thats why I'm still an ad&d 2e and heroes unlimited and ninjas and superspies player and tend to balk at newer mechanics.

Feats were supposed to give fighters variety for their arsenal, but the user experience was 'air breathing mermaid'... this is all stuff he should be able to do without taking a feat for it. Design goal and user experience at odds with each other. Battlemat mechanics make it more effective to simply root your ankles to the dirt instead of having a battle that ranges all over, unified dice mechanics handle non uniform odds in uniform ways, dice pools can turn a critical from a 1 in 20 situation into a one in 216 situation, and confirming criticals turns it into a one in 400 situation, making combat less peaky and more flat... quadratic damage for mundanes makes for rocket tag so fights dont have any dramatic tension... feat trees require you to build your character backwards so you dont take a less than ideal path to your final destination, locking you into the 'one right build' instead of giving you options... Fate points either give you a licence to do something spectacular which you should be able to do without a fate point, or they are used to 'undo' a silly death that shouldnt have happened in the first place... Stacking bonuses felt like putting points right in the player's agency... How could that be a bad thing? Stacking is the only way to go and some folks can be pretty binary about players bringing less than the ideal build to the table... So many design ideas that were meant to be good with consequences that are... not so good. Rules heavy systems designed to take the 'evil fiat power' from 'bad gms' when what really needed to happen was people just not letting bad gms keep being gms... Knowledge skill rolls and perception rolls and 'opposed stealth checks' I'm looking at you... *shudder*. Shadowrun's deckers are a great idea... Less great in execution as it's fundamentally using the rules to split the party. Half your table is spectators now... That's the 'good intention' of something that sounds fun, and bad 'execution' in that its now boring every player but the decker. Or you're not decking so the decker spends the whole session watching someone else's movie.

The point is that I don't just grognard my way out of liking these new systems... I've used them and I don't think the good that they bring is commesurate with the bad that they bring... All well intentioned experiments to be sure, but they all carry more baggage than the solutions they provide. Thats just how things work out. I don't dismiss them idly without examination.

Its a wider rant than it needed to be but the point is not only that theres a reason I prefer 'silly old systems', but that those same reasons apply to a much larger range of problems with supposedly 'newer' 'better' mechanics. There's a reason that despite the criticism that often comes up about the games I like is the same old sturm and drang every time, they are some of the only systems that have survived decades without rewrites from the ground up.

a modern complication created by a modern mindset:
And don't get me started on THACO... friggin... You have a number to hit something middle of the road. If the armor class of your enemy is crap, his armor class is the 'bonus' that you get on your roll to hit him. As his armor gets better your bonus gets lower... That isn't 'confusing hard math'. BAB changes that math in literally no way at all. It just turns all the subtraction into addition for folks who have a hard time wrapping their head around subtraction...

If you have trouble wrapping your mind around THACO then we don't get to complain when schools these days are switching to common core. Common core is trying to get people to 'understand' numbers so they dont think of subtraction as 'more complicated' than addition.

I gotta get off this soapbox... I'm gettin more ruffled than I prefer again... Keepin it civil... keepin it civil.

But yeah... I may be a grognard, but its not the 'murder every pc by surprise because its fun' kinda grognard. And my grognard ways are not built of 'idle nostalgia' but from putting the nose to the grindstone and seeing when the 'design goal' and the 'user experience' don't line up when they should.

The grognard as a perjorative is simply mislabeling a person who critiques the newfangled fangles without proper examination... The reverse equivalency would be similar to saying 'you couldn't know how much better 2e was because you haven't been gaming long enough to have played it enough to judge...'

I'm pretty sure modern gamers do like more modern games. I do find it telling that those games need to be rewritten every few years though.

I'm really looking forward to Pathfinder's Unchained book because its like 'we're doing to do some things that our community might find insane... but it might be just the kinda crazy thats a good thing. Still had to get someone's permission to put out a book like that though. I honestly look forward to seeing what new ideas can come out of paizo's designers unshackled. It may finally be great ideas that work well. It might just be another batch of things that sound better than they play. I'd give better odds to the latter but thats because I've been playing so long. Doesn't stop me from coming back hopeful.

Watching Chris Perkins gm Aquisitions Incorporated makes me hopeful. Probably helps a little that everyone at the table is a writer, but nobody is getting mired up in minutiae or challenging rulings, and no ruling is so objectionable as to be worthy of challenge. Pretty smooth table. I've become a big fan of Chris Perkins and Rothfuss watching those games and some of their other interviews.

But imagining how those chandelier tactics would be handled at half the battle matting, rules lawyering gaming tables I've been at. *shudder*.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
I have been playing for too many bloody years, and you know what? The games ARE better these days. That doesn't mean the old games were without merit... But still. Things are so much better now.

I agree, save that I worry about a decay in thinking, or more precisely, the growth of an ordered and visibly coherent culture of gaming/gamers, and there shouldn't be one. That's the only thing that's worried me - not growth, but stultification at the hands of Johnnies-come-lately who don't get it and can't be bothered to try to get it, but insist on taking control and "improving" it in ways that are in fact the farthest thing from improvements (and we've seen what happens when this mentality gets its way; it was called 4E).

You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?" "He picked up a piece of Truth," said the devil. "That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend. "Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him organize it." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Grand Lodge

Vincent Takeda wrote:
I started with gamma world, them picked up becmi, then 2e, then heroes unlimited and ninjas and superspies just as 2e was starting to do silly things like spelljammer and class 'kits' and I had to bail because it felt like they were publishing to make money and not make good content anymore...

Back in the day, you must have only played 2nd edition for just a few months before transitioning to those last two games, as 2nd edition AD&D itself, along with the Spelljammer boxed set, and the introduction of character kits (with the publication of the Complete Fighter's Handbook) all came out in the latter half of 1989... :-P

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
EvilTwinSkippy wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

A few prerequisites for being a grognard:

1. A beard
2. Fingers stained orange from Cheetos
3. You are never without a Mtn Dew
4. At least 50 years of age.

What, so no female grognards? Pffft.

Also, Cheetos and Mountain Dew? That's just icky, man. Maybe when I was in my 20s...

The cool thing about grognards is that we come in all shapes and sizes. We are not so easily culturally defined. It's more of a 'spirit of an older gamer' kinda thing (plus grumpiness).

Female grognards? They might exist. But they're like dwarves, even the females have beards.

Possibly orange beards formed from Cheetos crust.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well it wasnt that we stopped playing it. It was more that we stopped blindly buying every single thing they published... Would be interesting to try to recreate the timeine of this particular grognard...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm... I'm over 50 (56), started playing miniatures and board wargames in the 1960s (Napoleonics included), Chainmail in 1971, D&D from 1974 on, beard, ah d@mn it. My beard is silver, brown and red. Looks like a cat that was run over by a car. I shave as a result. And I'm not an @ssh@t who hates "new" games. *sigh* Grognard status was so close... I could grow the beard (even if it meant scaring animals and small children) but I'm not sure I can be grumpy enough and dismissive of other peoples gaming likes / dislikes... and I even like some new games. And some old games too. Oh well.

*edit* Cheetos and Mountain Dew, check. Well, Diet 7-Up now... still, the beard and the lack of attitude... *sigh*


Remember Role Aids {tm}? That junk right there was Grognard all the way dude!
. . .
I have no opinion on who is or is not a Grognard, but do appreciate house rules; take that as you will.


Have plenty of Role Aids products. Fantastic stuff.

I consider myself a grognard, though only been playing since 1981 or so.

I don't regard the older editions as being very good anymore - my brother does, but he's stuck in the rose-colored halcyon mindset, and doesn't play that much of anything anymore.

I like 3.5 and PF, and endlessly tinker and homebrew and occasionally publish stuff. No system is inert or set in stone...

No crotchety stick in the mud here, except perhaps for a severe dislike of clikstiks.


Well I've discovered I'm in no way, no how, a grognard from this thread.

Heck, from the way people are speaking here I'm starting to think I may be one of the youngest people on these forums!

Old is old?

Don't let Cheetos near my books...

Prefer Mellow Yellow these days to mtn Dew, or give me a Root Beer.

I guess I'm just not a grognard....

Then again, I didn't know Napoleon personally either.

I do have a copy of the Original D&D rules though...even played it!

And a copy of B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e and even 5e!

I also have Warhammer 1e, 2e, Rifts, Palladium, Middle Earth Quest, and MORE!!!!!

I have experience with all of them! I would think that matters to a degree more than how old one is...at least I'd think it would!

But, then maybe not.

I play wargames with a friend...well on and off again friend. They sound like they might qualify as a Grog though.


Wow. Nope. Game by game there's just no way I can paint a history of my personal experience... I'd weeded through over 40 games in my first decade of gaming... All that is before feng shui or Rifts even existed.... Might be easier for me to do a history by gaming engine than specific games... I'll keep workin on it...

Suffice to say first game experience: Gamma world 1983.
becmi and forgotten realms from 84 to 89
Played and rejected in that timeframe: justice, marvel, merp, paranoia, heroes unlimited 1e, rolemaster 2e, dc heroes, doctor who, pendragon, conan, masters of the universe, judge dredd, gurps, marvel advanced, mechwarrior, warhammer frp1e, star wars, bts, batman, gurps supers, and shadowrun...

Said yes to gamma world, becmi, forgotten realms (I guess it was 1e at the time), and ninjas and superspies... and 2e from the decade of 1984 to 1994... At that point its easier to talk about gaming engines than individual games. Kept playing 2e until about 1998. After the wotc debacle I gave up on them for a long while. I'd been doing heroes unlimited since the revision in 87... By 1998 heroes unlimited came out with 2e and a year later ninjas and superspies got revised and rifts was in full swing by 1990.

Sometimes revisiting history can be painful. Can't believe I'm as old as skittles, rubic's cube, dayquil and the food pyramid.


Wow. Nope. Even parsed by engine there's just still too much... Just the words 'I dont like dice pool mechanics' covers like... over 80 percent of the prevalent modern gaming systems... I'm just gonna have to stick with 'specific parts of systems' that keep me away from them.

For me the ad&d and non mdc palladium systems are a green light
Fate and dice pool systems are a red light
Storytelling/storyteller systems are all a big red light for me.
I'm almost totally over every unified dice mechanic system...
And the door is still open for me on things like rolemaster, savage worlds, and MEGS...


I blame music and TV shows.


Egad. The year I was born they introduced The Fonze, the Fourth Doctor, the Knights who say Ni, the Black Knight (its just a flesh wound!), Leatherface, Miss Piggy, and Mechagodzilla and the Lamborghini Countach...

Little house on the prairie, Shazam, the six million dollar man, and picture pages.

Speaking of the fonze... I wonder which year it was that the idea of 'being cool' developed... Google dont fail me now.

hmmmm...

Thanks wiki. I do sort of mean the version of cool that equates to preppy ennui...


I blame the Neolithic Revolution. All that sedentary behavior led to this.


I played Panzer Leader by the light of a lantern as a Boy Scout at camp around the same time I was starting to play D&D. I feel pretty much a grognard compared to a lot of snarky whippersnappers around here.


My definition of dangerous things to hear someone say that makes me think they are too 'old school'.

6) Wasn't percentile strength just the best idea ever.

5) I miss descending armor class and THAC0.

4) I don't like these new skill roles. I prefer the old make a Wisdom check stuff.

3) This point buy stuff seems too fair. Roll 4 and take the best 3 is the way to go.

2) What is this stealth and perception thing. I liked when my 3rd edition rogue had to learn like 6 skills that equated to perception and stealth.

1) I miss the grappling, overbearing and pummeling tables. This CM stuff makes too much sense and seems to go too quickly. Same with the bend bars/lift gates percentatge and all those cool percentile thief skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hit 3.5 or more out of 6 on your too grognard scale then. I like THACO and unopposed percentiles of bend bars/thieves skills. I hate perception rolls, but do not wish for the 3.0 version either. I prefer the old older more narrow saving throws of 2e as well though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

percentile strength was AWESOME. Still is.

I prefer Descending AC and THACO over half a dozen modifiers added in to figure out if you hit or not.

I don't like these new skill roles. I prefer the old make a Wisdom check stuff. (by the way, WTH is a skill role. I know skills, I know non-weapon proficiencies...these were done with stat checks occasionally in older systems, I don't know what this skill role is that was completely covered by WIS in the old systems though)

This point buy stuff seems too restrictive or I guess a better word is bland. Roll 4 and take the best 3 is the way to go. Or you can just roll 3d6 right down the middle and take what you roll. Or, if you want to go with more power, roll 5d6 (2d6+6 in PF).

What is this stealth and perception thing. I liked it when everyone could try to hide and had to roll to hide, but if a Rogue failed that they had an even better ability called Hide in Shadows or Move Silently which meant a second chance which was to roll under a percentile dice and meant they could do the impossible (literally hide in a shadow or move completely silently instead of moving quietly which everyone could roll for.

Okay, I don't miss the grappling, overbearing and pummeling tables. This CM stuff makes too much sense and seems to go too quickly. I did enjoy the bend bars/lift gates percentatge and all those cool percentile thief skills. Especially if one ran them correctly which meant everyone could try things similar, but if the thief failed, whereas everyone else simply failed if they rolled poorly, the thief could then actually use their percentile abilities and have a second chance. At higher levels that chance to succeed was even better then the chance to succeed at the normal hiding or sneaking!


Now, to be fair, here are things that make me worry you may be too 'new school'. I have never heard a grognard every say these things.

7) There is no way the rogue can be skimming from the treasure. He would know it would mess with our WBL.

6) What, I required an eversmoking bottle and snipers goggles to be available to make my build work, you gotta make a town sell me one.

5) Let's just trigger the trap, we know it can't kill us. That is why we got rid of the rogue and replaced him with an extra life oracle to help out the cleric.

4) I rolled a high knowledge roll, you gotta tell me how to defeat the monster.

3) What do you mean, was somebody making a map. A map is a service that must be provided to all characters by the DM.

2) We don't use core races. Why should you when you can be a drow, aasimar, tiefling or minotaur?

1) We don't have to run away, this encounter had to have been CR balanced.

One thing you will never hear old school or new school players say.
1) High level wizards aren't powerful enough. I wish they would make them better at high levels so they can keep up with the martial classes.


Adjule wrote:

To me, a grognard is someone who has been playing something longer than others, and who prefers the version of that something that came earlier than what is out now. Be this people who started playing D&D back in the 70s/80s/(and sometimes even)90s and prefer AD&D over post-2000 D&D/Pathfinder, people who have been playing army-based wargames (like Chainmail or Warhammer) and prefer the older versions, or even video games and prefer an older system (or older version).

Grognard means different things to different people, as is evident in this thread. Some with hostile bile-dripping definitions (like that in post number 2 of this thread), and others with more neutral definitions.

And holy hell that damn nostalgia insult just keeps pissing me off more and more each time I see someone use it. Because there is absolutely 0 reason what-so-ever than anyone could possibly like something older than what is out now than nostalgia. Zero reason. *rollseyes* As I mentioned in other threads: New = good old = bad is about as moronically stupid as old = good new = bad, yet I see more people spout off the first than the second. Both mindsets are stupid to have, but I see more people with the first than the second, and they are more likely to shove it in your face than those with the latter mindset, and in greater numbers.

That cuts me deep! To be a grognard simply because I started playing so long ago...

Well then, grognard reporting in. Where is the emperor so that I may complain?

Agree with you on the criticisms of the "New = good, old = bad" and I can see the reverse as a problem as well. The issues I have with those insisting the new is the best and the old is horrible by its very nature, essentially and irrevocably, mostly comes down to two dimensions - function and experience.

Function, in that I really like when mechanics work. I am additionally thrilled when they are quick and the rules are not woefully complicated, or require adjudication or lengthy discussion. Does it float (the system), how fast is it, is it faster than editions at present, or recently?

Experience, do those critics of the past gaming systems have experience with the systems they are criticising? Are they just going off hearsay and jumping on the hate the old games bandwagon (not very fun parties)? These are important questions and asking them can get some illuminating responses if you can get an honest answer. Now if they have experience, what worked, what didn't work in their games (ties to function again of course)? If people have shared experiences they can stop being so hateful and bring up the merits they experienced, and not just a long whine of flaws and complaints about systems decades ago.

If an earlier game has problems in functioning, then criticism and rejection is most certainly warranted and I'll listen. If a new player has scorn for the past, but little or no experience of what they are talking about, then of course I won't listen.

Despite all this, game on I say. The truth is in the pudding and there are many starstones in older systems.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

percentile strength was AWESOME. Still is.

I prefer Descending AC and THACO over half a dozen modifiers added in to figure out if you hit or not.

I don't like these new skill roles. I prefer the old make a Wisdom check stuff. (by the way, WTH is a skill role. I know skills, I know non-weapon proficiencies...these were done with stat checks occasionally in older systems, I don't know what this skill role is that was completely covered by WIS in the old systems though)

This point buy stuff seems too restrictive or I guess a better word is bland. Roll 4 and take the best 3 is the way to go. Or you can just roll 3d6 right down the middle and take what you roll. Or, if you want to go with more power, roll 5d6 (2d6+6 in PF).

What is this stealth and perception thing. I liked it when everyone could try to hide and had to roll to hide, but if a Rogue failed that they had an even better ability called Hide in Shadows or Move Silently which meant a second chance which was to roll under a percentile dice and meant they could do the impossible (literally hide in a shadow or move completely silently instead of moving quietly which everyone could roll for.

Okay, I don't miss the grappling, overbearing and pummeling tables. This CM stuff makes too much sense and seems to go too quickly. I did enjoy the bend bars/lift gates percentatge and all those cool percentile thief skills. Especially if one ran them correctly which meant everyone could try things similar, but if the thief failed, whereas everyone else simply failed if they rolled poorly, the thief could then actually use their percentile abilities and have a second chance. At higher levels that chance to succeed was even better then the chance to succeed at the normal hiding or sneaking!

I have fond memories rabbit punching an enemy to death. Rolling that rabbit punch over and over. Good table.


GM Tribute wrote:

3) This point buy stuff seems too fair. Roll 4 and take the best 3 is the way to go.

To be fair wasn't 4d6 drop low made official (not optional) right at the very start of new school systems (3e)? And it continues to be the core stat generation or one of the core ones where point buy is made available. It is a feature of new school games and a huge improvement over the old 3d6 method. It may have been an option and a house rule back in old school times but it is a feature of new school.


Auxmaulous wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Dice only exist to make noise, the GM should ignore them.
I see this way more in the "scripted death" games of today than I ever did back in the "let the dice fall where they may" sandbox days.

I'm guess that wraith is weighting the "do whatever it takes to make a good/engaging game" attitude of the earlier editions vs. the general harshness you (and I) are associating with those systems HD.

But I am with HD on this one - only in the post 2e era has their really been a push for "make the players happy, even if it means running a death-less game/ignore bad dice rolls" vs. the older style of "just roll up a new guy".

So ignoring dice as it factors into player potential death/unhappiness seems more new school than old school. To this grognard at least.

I think it falls on both sides depending on how a GM is or is not a killer GM. No, I am not saying that all grognards are killer GM's but most self-professed grognards that I have seen online have some of the attributes on my list according to them. Of course this could be a case of a local minority giving a bad impression for the rest of the grognards.


Aranna wrote:
GM Tribute wrote:

3) This point buy stuff seems too fair. Roll 4 and take the best 3 is the way to go.

To be fair wasn't 4d6 drop low made official (not optional) right at the very start of new school systems (3e)? And it continues to be the core stat generation or one of the core ones where point buy is made available. It is a feature of new school games and a huge improvement over the old 3d6 method. It may have been an option and a house rule back in old school times but it is a feature of new school.

It was Method I in 1E AD&D. Certainly not a house rule.

The start of that section says

Quote:
While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy -- which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it recommended that following systems be used.

Technically, it's optional, but it's the first option and there is no default that it replaces. The other 3 suggested options, by the way, are:

II: 3d6 12 times arrange the best six as desired.
III: 3d6 six times for each stat in order
IV: 3d6 in order for 12 characters, pick one.

Note that 3d6 in order is not one of the options.


I think the first sentence of your quote is referencing 3d6 in order as the "default" (and not recommended) system. It could well have been spelled out as the default in a different book.

Most stats weren't so important in OD&D - although 3d6 in order remains my favourite stat generation system, I think it's less desirable in a system where different stats have wildly differing effects.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I think the first sentence of your quote is referencing 3d6 in order as the "default" (and not recommended) system. It could well have been spelled out as the default in a different book.

Most stats weren't so important in OD&D - although 3d6 in order remains my favourite stat generation system, I think it's less desirable in a system where different stats have wildly differing effects.

It may have been the default in OD&D. It wasn't spelled out as such in the PHB or the Monster Manual, which would have been the only other AD&D books out at the time.

It does look like 3d6 was the method in basic at the time, so that may have carried into the initial assumptions.

Still, it's hard to say that 4d6 drop low was a big change from "old school" in 3.0. At best it moved from "main suggested option".

Though actually, undercutting my argument, 2E had 3d6 in order as the default, with 4d6 drop low a ways down the optional list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi my name is David. I started playing miniature games in 1972, D&D in 1976. I'll see your Role Aids supplements and raise you my Judges Guild ones.

Every Version of this game I play is basically the same, it is Version, D.0

Some of these discussions remind me of that cartoon from the DMG

first guy, "that battle between those other guys is pointless"
second guy, "it better be their both clerics"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I learned to play rpgs with 2e during the 90s, but there're only three things that I miss from that era:

1. Tony DiTerlizzi's artwork, which I didn't begin appreciating until Planescape.
2. All of the amazing campaign settings, particularly Planescape.
3. Healing magic being part of the necromancy school, where it belongs!

Pretty much every other change has been a positive in my book, or at worst neutral, although I do now have a better understanding of why a lot of old school stuff is the way it is, and why many older D&Ders have stuck with pre-2000 editions or switched to retroclones.

I was a 'mayfly' until last year, but am now a happy 4e grognard. ;)

Vincent Takeda wrote:
I prefer the old older more narrow saving throws of 2e as well though.

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Its not the years its the mileage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I learned to play rpgs with 2e during the 90s, but there're only three things that I miss from that era:

1. Tony DiTerlizzi's artwork, which I didn't begin appreciating until Planescape.
2. All of the amazing campaign settings, particularly Planescape.
3. Healing magic being part of the necromancy school, where it belongs!

I didn't start until 3.5 by way of Neverwinter Nights and am pretty near completely happy with PF with 3rd-party additions and some 3.5 port-overs, and I still love these three things. Healing being Necromancy has always been a houserule in my games, and I absolutely ADORE Planescape.

Sovereign Court

Kthulhu wrote:

A few prerequisites for being a grognard:

1. A beard
2. Fingers stained orange from Cheetos
3. You are never without a Mtn Dew
4. At least 50 years of age.

Lets see....

1. Check
2. I haven't had Cheetos since I stopped being a milk drinker....
3. speaking of which, mt dew is for milk drinkers pass the bourbon please.
4. shy by 15 years looks like I don't qualify.


So lets see. At final count for me its Becmi in 84... Forgotten realms in 87... Continued buying becmi and gazetteers like minrothad guilds (technically these are what.. becmi stuff?) and then 2e starting in 1989 and sticking with a 2e forgotten realms situation d&d wise until the debacle of 1998. So about 2 years of becmi, 2 years of forgotten realms before 2e came out, then 9 years of forgotten realms 2e while wading through over 40 other games is the bulk of my formative gaming philosophy years... Then we switched to heroes unlimited revised and ninjas and superspies revised for about a decade, and slowly started replaying 2e when 3.0 came out and proved to not live up to the happy feels of 2e.

Continued experimenting with nearly every new system that came out, but didn't enjoy any of it. In 2010 I found a group that was doing a lot of d20 and 3.5 which turned into my stead group, though the group has only had 3 players that we'd call the steady ones. The 4th man on the field was always a rotating unreliable player and 5 years later that group of 3 is still the same, but we've put 3.5 away, picked up and put down pathfinder, and we're back to heroes unlimited and ninjas and superspies.

So yeah. My official 2e timeframe is more like 33 years (1989-2015 with a gap between 1998 and 2000)... my heroes unlimited and ninjas and superspies timeframe is about 1998 to now so 17 years of that. Third place goes to pathfinder for about 3 years... We havent enjoyed any other system enough to stick with it for more than a year, but we've tried well over 40 games and most of the gaming engines.

I may be a grognard but I'm not a killer gm grognard. Kinda the opposite. I'm a bit of a montyhaul sandbox simulator... Sure you can die, and sure you'll encounter things that are way waaay above your pay grade, but you'll know it was profoundly foolish choices or the dice that finally did you in. If you can avoid profoundly foolish choices, you tended to be more well supplied and more powerful than other folks tended to play.

I even felt guilty being a montyhaul gm in heroes unlimited and rifts since they got such reputations for being munchkins paradise until I found out about exalted... Then I'm like nah... Palladium's system is in fact still pretty low power and high lethality relative to some of the new stuff out there. While there's probably a long list of games I've never played, thats mostly a result of being able to quickly identify them as using gaming engines that I already knew I didnt like.

My brand of 2e is more of a zeb cook/ed greenwood fan than salvatori... I pretty much stuck to forgotten realms settingwise... I didn't really like any of the other worldbooks like eberron, ravenloft, spelljammer, and all that... I did like planescape though. My characters dont care as much about the fighting as they do the exploration, so intraplanar exploratory expeditions is kinda my main schtick with that system anymore. I put player agency first, setting second, and non player chosen narrative dead last in my design priorities. My campaign design order is 'what do the players want to do first, followed by lets make it a fun setting... I'll avoid cramming a plot down their throats. It only becomes a problem with players that resort to naval gazing and thumb twiddling when a mission or onslought isnt shoved in their faces. I prefer players that have a plan of their own up their sleeve.

Its way more fun for me to create an immersive world that reacts to player actions than it is for me to talk myself into forcing a party on to some prewritten narrative rail. I dont think its a difficult thing to do... But its a difficult thing to *want* to do. I dont want my gm chair to feel like a shepherd dog. So for me its player first, setting second, narrative third.


Started with 1E AD&D, though I had Basic as well, and Expert, but no farther in that chain. Played around with Champions a bit early on too.

Switched to 2E when that came out. Never played any of the official settings though. Always home-brew worlds/campaigns. Started Call of Cthulhu in college. Experimented with GURPS, but never played a lot, though I liked the concept. More Champions (and some other Hero stuff) because a friend liked to run it, but it was never really to my taste.
Drifted away from 2E. Played some Vampire & Werewolf (OWoD), Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Star Wars (d6).
Amber Diceless was a big favorite, but a lot of work and I don't get to play it as much as I'd like.
Came back to play some 3.0 when that came out and some 3.5 as well. Found Feng Shui. One campaign in 4th, that went well, but wasn't really to our taste. Pathfinder. A PbP of Barbarians of Lemuria, that I'd like to try more of.
Plenty of other one-shots and failed experiments along the way. And others I've bought and read, but never played.

Favorites are probably Cthulhu, Amber and Feng Shui, with strong nostalgic link to various D&D versions - which keep me coming back, but leave me frustrated.

But, I've never really been looking for the One True System. I like different ones for different purposes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, having had Gary Gygax as a DM and run many of his modules, he was considered a killer DM. Hardly anyone survived a Gygax run Queen of the Demonweb Pits. He told me I gave my players too many 'breaks', and I was considered a tough DM.

Having participated in the AD&D tourneys of old at Gen Con, they were extremely tough. I remember going through Dwellers of the Forbidden City, and tons of people were mashed in the first encounter.

Old school players figured characters could die or go insane if you are playing Call of Cthulhu. Living through the adventure was its own reward. Now character deaths are frowned upon even more than handing out less than WBL in treasure.

But, I believe the Pathfinder Core Rules are truly incredibly well done. The Core Rulebook is quite amazing, and reminds me of the power of the old Black DMG.

And, I forgot another thing about old schoolers, psionics. I did not think psionics were done well. But Dreamscarred Press has done an amazing job with psionics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Tribute wrote:

Well, having had Gary Gygax as a DM and run many of his modules, he was considered a killer DM. Hardly anyone survived a Gygax run Queen of the Demonweb Pits. He told me I gave my players too many 'breaks', and I was considered a tough DM.

Having participated in the AD&D tourneys of old at Gen Con, they were extremely tough. I remember going through Dwellers of the Forbidden City, and tons of people were mashed in the first encounter.

Old school players figured characters could die or go insane if you are playing Call of Cthulhu. Living through the adventure was its own reward. Now character deaths are frowned upon even more than handing out less than WBL in treasure.

But, I believe the Pathfinder Core Rules are truly incredibly well done. The Core Rulebook is quite amazing, and reminds me of the power of the old Black DMG.

Tournament games were specifically designed to be challenging and weed out characters. They didn't necessarily reflect normal home games.

I never played with Gygax. Didn't go to conventions at all until much later and not often then. But I've heard plenty of stories, much like yours, reinforcing the Gygax=Killer GM theme, and about as many saying pretty much the opposite.

Similarly, my old school experience doesn't reflect the lethality so many talk about and there are still plenty of posters here, not all of them grognards who are plenty proud of how challenging their games are. Quite willing to kill PCs, even if it's not quite as often as legends of the old days.

Of course, my favorite CoC keeper was far happier coming up with new and interesting ways for us to go mad than killing us outright. "There's no fun in death", she'd say. "It's more entertaining to keep you alive and watch you suffer."

Which is roughly my attitude towards death in any RPG. It can happen occasionally, but there are more interesting ways to fail.


I also should point out the influence of the Computer Game Rogue and its derivatives. Roguelikes allowed no saved games, and saving was considered poor form despite the fact that the game was on the superhard difficulty setting. I think it took me 20 tries to defeat Pixel Dungeon (free) on my smart phone. Grognards love roguelikes because you have to maximize your resources to have a CHANCE at making it.

The best modern roguelike I have seen is the Faster Than Light indie sci fi game. I heard many complaining about Darkest Dungeon, but it is not really that bad. It is not close to a Roguelike.

True grognards tend to like Dwarven Fortress because the rules are hard to figure out unless you play a lot and learn the hard way.

And, Masks of Nyarlothotep was an amazing Call of Cthulhu adventure, and, when run properly, was incredibly hard to survive. I think only two of our original six made it with over fifteen character deaths or forced institutionalizations along the way. I think I finished with 35 sanity.


thejeff wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I think the first sentence of your quote is referencing 3d6 in order as the "default" (and not recommended) system. It could well have been spelled out as the default in a different book.

Most stats weren't so important in OD&D - although 3d6 in order remains my favourite stat generation system, I think it's less desirable in a system where different stats have wildly differing effects.

It may have been the default in OD&D. It wasn't spelled out as such in the PHB or the Monster Manual, which would have been the only other AD&D books out at the time.

It does look like 3d6 was the method in basic at the time, so that may have carried into the initial assumptions.

Still, it's hard to say that 4d6 drop low was a big change from "old school" in 3.0. At best it moved from "main suggested option".

Though actually, undercutting my argument, 2E had 3d6 in order as the default, with 4d6 drop low a ways down the optional list.

I agree with that. In my experience, 3D6 in order was the default, 4d6 drop the lowest was recommended and the silly unearthed arcana method was what everyone wanted to do. I'd hesitate to say there was a "correct" answer.

I think it points to a real difference in games "back then" versus now - there wasn't the same expectations of complete, clear, noncontradictory (!) rules that there is now. In my mind, the whole approach of seeking RAW doesn't really work when looking back that far. Each table did their own thing (and was expected to, given the gaps in the rules). Even AD&D's attempt at codifying the "correct" way to play required huge amounts of DM fiat.

Analysing rule sets from the seventies and eighties based on the metric we use for modern rule sets misses the point, in my opinion. It's a bit like marking down today's games because they don't come with a free VTT (or whatever innovation is going to become de rigeur in thirty years time).


Steve Geddes wrote:


I agree with that. In my experience, 3D6 in order was the default, 4d6 drop the lowest was recommended and the silly unearthed arcana method was what everyone wanted to do. I'd hesitate to say there was a "correct" answer.

I think it points to a real difference in games "back then" versus now - there wasn't the same expectations of complete, clear, noncontradictory (!) rules that there is now. In my mind, the whole approach of seeking RAW doesn't really work when looking back that far. Each table did their own thing (and was expected to, given the gaps in the rules). Even AD&D's attempt at codifying the "correct" way to play required huge amounts of DM fiat.

Analysing rule sets from the seventies and eighties based on the metric we use for modern rule sets misses the point, in my opinion. It's a bit like marking down today's games because they don't come with a free VTT (or whatever innovation is going to become de rigeur in thirty years time).

That's very much true. Not only were house rules common, but it was common not to even realize they were house rules. The rules text, especially in 1E, was difficult at best and a lot of people read the rules, thought they understood them and went with something that seemed reasonable. And then taught it to their players, since players weren't supposed to read the GM rules back then. Then when those players started GMing themselves, they often just followed along with what they'd learned. There were also a lot of changes between 1st and 2nd that many groups missed and just continued with the old way, which probably wasn't quite 1E RAW either.

We still see the same thing, with PF groups still using mistaken interpretations of unclear 3.x rules even though they've actually been slightly changed in PF, all without realizing they're not playing RAW. It's just a lot rarer now.

That's in addition to actual intentional changes and house rules to cover gaps.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I learned to play rpgs with 2e during the 90s, but there're only three things that I miss from that era:

1. Tony DiTerlizzi's artwork, which I didn't begin appreciating until Planescape.
2. All of the amazing campaign settings, particularly Planescape.
3. Healing magic being part of the necromancy school, where it belongs!

Pretty much every other change has been a positive in my book, or at worst neutral, although I do now have a better understanding of why a lot of old school stuff is the way it is, and why many older D&Ders have stuck with pre-2000 editions or switched to retroclones.

I was a 'mayfly' until last year, but am now a happy 4e grognard. ;)

Vincent Takeda wrote:
I prefer the old older more narrow saving throws of 2e as well though.
Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?

I prefer 2e saves, and how brilliant some classes were in certain areas, and absolutely abysmal in others.


Thaco had NO reason to exist


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Better than the modifier sandwich I say. You get better, it is easier and easier to hit Ac 0, which was pretty damn good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Better than the modifier sandwich I say. You get better, it is easier and easier to hit Ac 0, which was pretty damn good.

But those are two unrelated things. You could switch PF to use THAC0, but keep all the modifiers, or you could reverse the scale in AD&D, but not bring in all of 3.x's modifiers.

Which is something like what 5E is trying.

Thac0 wasn't that bad. Better than just the table. Reversing it is simpler and more intuitive.


Scythia wrote:
I blame music and TV shows.

You forgot 'video games'. These damn kids with their Fourth Edition and their World of Warhammercraft and their Pac-Man....

I'd submit that if you think the Tomb of Horrors it the apex of adventure design... you might be a Grognard.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Scythia wrote:
I blame music and TV shows.

You forgot 'video games'. These damn kids with their Fourth Edition and their World of Warhammercraft and their Pac-Man....

I'd submit that if you think the Tomb of Horrors it the apex of adventure design... you might be a Grognard.

What if, like me, you consider RETURN to the Tomb of Horrors the apex of adventure design?

51 to 100 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What Makes Someone a Grognard? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.