I just posted this to my blog, but since that's more of a space for my personal thoughts than a public forum, I thought I'd repost it here. It's a bit inflammatory because of the religious stuff, but I hope people will look beyond that and understand that I mention religion to be comparative, not critical.
Game designer James Maliszewski has compared OD&D holdouts to the Amish: they're willfully ignorant of current trends and like to just keep playing their game without any newfangled contraptions like "thieves" and "weapon proficiencies." 1E holdouts are likewise compared to Puritans: they know about the changes in the game and have a jolly good time telling everyone and anyone who will listen why it is inferior and wrong.
I'd like to extend his metaphor a little bit. I think that the 3E "grognards" are a bit like the mega-church attending evangelical Christians. They're basically trying to marry a righteous devotion to an original text with a world that is so far removed from the original text as to make it extremely abstruse. In the same way that it cracks me up to see the current Conservative Christian movement rail against the "War on Christmas" when the Puritans -- who are, at least arguably, their antecedents -- made laws banning the celebration of Christmas, I'm amused when I see people arguing that 3E represents the "true" spirit of DnD. Or that 4E will chuck everything that makes DnD what it is out the window.
DnD was created as a rules set for playing war games with wizards and goblins. A lot of Leiber, Vance, Howard etc., concepts were ported (sometimes wholesale) into the game and some Tolkien was grafted on, and that was the game. But it became something else. DnD became its own genre distinctly removed from those authors. With that process, DnD influenced and was influenced by numerous other sources. 3E was, when it came out, the most recent iteration of those influences. It had some Leiber, Vance, and Howard still, but it also had some anime. And some Indiana Jones. And a ton of other stuff, most of which I probably don't recognize. In essence, DnD had built its own self-referential mythology that separated itself by several orders of magnitude from its own source material. Of course that process didn't start with 3E, and it won't end with 4E, but each edition change represents a sort of punctuated equilibrium in that process.
I really don't know if I'll switch to 4E. It does seem that a lot of changes are being made from the 3rd edition of the game and I don't know whether I'm ready to make all of those changes. I do know, however, that I don't consider 3E to be the litmus test of what is and isn't DnD and that 4E will be just as much DnD as any other edition. There are plenty of arguments against any particular gaming group converting to 4E (e.g., enjoyment of the current rules system, an unwillingness to spend more money on new books) but claiming that 4E is in someway a betrayal seems to me to be, on the face of it, ludicrous.
El Skootro
*edited for clarity's sake
He's limited the rationale of why someone would want to stay with 3e to something petty and indefensible. If you focused that myopically, what he wrote makes decent sense. It's just not true, and stepping back to see the bigger picture... really asking 3e grogs why they feel the way they feel might have enlightened him a bit. Kudos for all that comparative sh!t though. He must be very impressed with himself.
He's limited the rationale of why someone would want to stay with 3e to something petty and indefensible. If you focused that myopically, what he wrote makes decent sense. It's just not true, and stepping back to see the bigger picture... really asking 3e grogs why they feel the way they feel might have enlightened him a bit. Kudos for all that comparative sh!t though. He must be very impressed with himself.
I think you misread. He made the comparison to the Amish and the Puritans, I extended it to 3E and evangelical Christians. And I fully expect to get roasted pretty hard for it on these boards, but I didn't post it because I wanted to "troll," I posted it because I wanted to provoke thoughts and discussion.
El Skootro
He should work for WotC. He sounds even more condescending and arrogant than they do, and that's saying a lot.
Again, sorry if I didn't make it clear, but the above are my opinions and suppositions, not anyone else's. I stole a metaphor and extended the heck out of it.
Sorry for the confusion.
El Skootro
I think something as simple as preferring a game system over another because its what you played when you were younger, was blown way out of proportion by the author. I think they went into it far deeper than it is. Mechanically, I think 3.5 is a superior system and I play it. There is however, a lot I don't like because it gives me that "it's not D&D feel for me". I started out playing 1st edition and most of my best memories are there because the concept of gaming was new at the time. Thus, I enjoyed it more! I think for most people, this really is the issue.
I think you misread. He made the comparison to the Amish and the Puritans, I extended it to 3E and evangelical Christians. And I fully expect to get roasted pretty hard for it on these boards, but I didn't post it because I wanted to "troll," I posted it because I wanted to provoke thoughts and discussion.
El Skootro
Dude, I know it was him. I wasn't aiming that at you in third person, man.
Edit: Oh I see what you're sayiiiiiiiiiing... oops.
Sorry Skoot. I'm in editing mode on a manuscript and getting fuzzy headed from overwork. My comprehension ain't wot it otta be.
I've done absolutely nothing to further any good discussion on this rather interesting post.
|
Not nearly condescending enough, and potentially offensive to millions of megachurch-goin' folk who have insane amounts of political power. Bear in mind that Mike Huckabee is prepared to unleash the unparalleled fury of Chuck Norris on anyone who talks smack about persons of faith! Also remember that Chuck Norris can impregnate menfolk with a roundhouse kick to the head (he's denied this, but anecdotal evidence is overwhelmingly in support of this Fact about Chuck Norris), so I'm sure you don't want to be risking that dire fate!
Instead, we 'grognards' should be compared to neanderthals, rubbing colored dirt and berry squeezings on the walls of our dank caves, willfully refusing to accept modern artistic concepts such as proportion or perspective. There is no chance that any neanderthal will take offense at this characterization, as they are all dead, and none of them are likely to buy 4E anyway. No market segment will be potentially offended, particularly not a market segment that is *very* fond of advertiser boycotts, burning books and publishing tracts about the 'evils' of D&D as a slippery slope to Satanism and suicide.
Also, examine the word 'grognard.'
Grog - cheap pirate swill, as likely to make you blind as get you drunk.
Nards - male genitalia.
So, clearly, calling us 'grognards' names like 'beernut' or 'whiskeydick' would be more appropriately derisive, and yet topical, slyly insinuating that we grognards suffer from a state of muddle-headedness that results in impotence.
|
Also, examine the word 'grognard.'
Grog - cheap pirate swill, as likely to make you blind as get you drunk.
Nards - male genitalia.
So, clearly, calling us 'grognards' names like 'beernut' or 'whiskeydick' would be more appropriately derisive, and yet topical, slyly insinuating that we grognards suffer from a state of muddle-headedness that results in impotence.
Hmmm...I'm definitely more of a whiskeydick than a beernut. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm more of a gintaint, or does 'nard' not go that far?
He should work for WotC. He sounds even more condescending and arrogant than they do, and that's saying a lot.
In a debate, a personal attack results in the immediate loss of the argument. These are his views, and he should be afforded the right to speak his mind.
On that token, I agree that grognard-ism is what has been hurting a lot of D&D discussion for the last long while, and I believe that it would be better to wait until the whole product is in front of us than to make biased arguments on what little knowledge has been handed down thus far.
I don't think the megachurch/Amish argument is very accurate, but neither do I think it is entirely without merit. I would only say that the grognards are folks who have enjoyed their time with an older version of the game, and are either afraid or reluctant to change. They do not want to support the new rules or the company responsible for the new rules, as they feel, wrongheaded though it may be, as if they are being told that their old game does not "cut it" anymore. This feeling eventually becomes the typically grognardesque argument "they promised there wouldn't be a new edition" and the grognard view that Wizards of the Coast are hiding in their ivory towers, and that they won't budge from their own game.
Are the grognards all wrong to feel this way? No. Yes, it is a short-term inconvenience to learn new rules, and Wizards IS trying to make money with the new edition (of course they are: capitalism, baby!). However, I also feel that the grognards should, in the interests of fairness and open discussion, wait for all the facts to be in before passing judgement.
|
|
This reminds me of the episode of South Park where a man from the ancient past is found frozen in a block of ice. He was from way back in 1996! He couldn't handle all of the great changes that had happened since his time.
3.5 came out in what, 2004? And you're comparing it to a text written in ancient Babylon? Oh noes! It's almost four years old! It can't possibly be up to date with the changes in our culture and lifestyle! Anyone who still likes it is some kind of fundamentalist whacko!
Instead, we 'grognards' should be compared to neanderthals, rubbing colored dirt and berry squeezings on the walls of our dank caves, willfully refusing to accept modern artistic concepts such as proportion or perspective. There is no chance that any neanderthal will take offense at this characterization, as they are all dead, and none of them are likely to buy 4E anyway.
Actually, good sir, I find this characterization of we neanderthals as doubly offensive. Not only have you constructed an 'us'/'them' binary with negative traits being assigned to those you imagine as 'other' but you have maliciously attacked our artistic endeavours--which, one should note, continue to impress and influence artists of various schools. As for your commment about proportion or perspective, I refer you to the recent work by a Pablo Picasso. He stole that schtick from us.
Furthermore, ponder this, good sir, while we resided in dark and dank caves throwing bones around and telling stories because of a relative lack of choice, you are besieged by a variety of entertainment options but gather with your fellow homo sapiens in dark and dank basements and do approximately the same thing.
I await your apology, Mr Set.
Oh...you did it now Set, you woke up the dead! I wouldn't want to be you right now!
3.5 came out in what, 2004? And you're comparing it to a text written in ancient Babylon?
I was going to make a similar argument but you beat me to it. >(
I think this kind of argument that 3.x people are old-fashioned, "behind the times," etc. is equivalent to 3e people calling 4e people unintelligent cattle who play whatever WotC tells them to. These are poor arguments, meant to incite emotions rather than reason.
|
Furthermore, ponder this, good sir, while we resided in dark and dank caves throwing bones around and telling stories because of a relative lack of choice, you are besieged by a variety of entertainment options but gather with your fellow homo sapiens in dark and dank basements and do approximately the same thing.
Now that's funny.
3.5 came out in what, 2004? And you're comparing it to a text written in ancient Babylon? Oh noes! It's almost four years old! It can't possibly be up to date with the changes in our culture and lifestyle! Anyone who still likes it is some kind of fundamentalist whacko!
Actually, I'm comparing the Bible to the original boxed set from 1974. It's still a stretch, but a bit less of one. My main point is that if you're going to talk about the essence of a text, use the original text. But if you want to draw on meta-texts and secondary sources, you lose the right to be a fundamentalist about the original source.
El Skootro
Which version of the bible? Vulgate (Clementine or Stuttgart)? King James? ;)
I admit, I am a full-fledged member and studying cleric in the Church of the Natrual 20. I run sermons every other Sunday out of my home, and anoint the holy with Mt Dew and Xp wafers. We await the second coming of our lord and savior, Three-Five-Ed, who shall descend from behind his majestic screen and smite the non-believers of the 4th Age!
[/sarcasm]
In all seriousness, comparing D&D to religion is like playing pinata with a 3 ft long firecracker and a hornet's nest. It's a really bad idea, but for those who sit back and watch, it's a hoot.
3.5 came out in what, 2004? And you're comparing it to a text written in ancient Babylon?I was going to make a similar argument but you beat me to it. >(
I think this kind of argument that 3.x people are old-fashioned, "behind the times," etc. is equivalent to 3e people calling 4e people unintelligent cattle who play whatever WotC tells them to. These are poor arguments, meant to incite emotions rather than reason.
And I wasn't making that kind of argument. I'm really only talking about the narrow set of people who refuse to consider 4E because it's "just not DnD anymore". My argument is that by those criteria, 3E isn't DnD either.
As I said in my post, there are good reasons for not making the switch to 4E and as of right now I don't think I'll buy into it for some time if ever. I just get riled up when people predict the apocalypse and don't recognize that the game has gone through changes pretty constantly (yes, some much bigger than others -- that's why I referenced punctuated equilibrium) since it's inception. Pick which version you'd like to play and play it. There are now a lot out there. But it's a fool's errand to try and parse out which one is the essential DnD.
El Skootro
|
WRT the religion comparison, which side is actively trying to recruit members to receive money in the offering plate? Which side is the unwashed nation of heathendom who "ultimately will convert, no matter what they say now?" Frankly, your metaphor from that standpoint--the money talks and b*#$#%%& walks standpoint, is backwards.
Grognards for life is an anagram for infrared frog logs. I think that's what we all really need to keep in mind during these troubling times. Can I get an amen?
Grognards for life is an anagram for infrared frog logs. I think that's what we all really need to keep in mind during these troubling times. Can I get an amen?Ribbit, brother. Ribbit.
::Places a fly on Ungoded's tongue and lets him sip at some pond scum.::
|
|
::Places a fly on Ungoded's tongue and lets him sip at some pond scum.::Grognards for life is an anagram for infrared frog logs. I think that's what we all really need to keep in mind during these troubling times. Can I get an amen?Ribbit, brother. Ribbit.
::Cracks open hymnal::
"There's a log, there's a log..."
"In the sweet by and by,
We shall meet on that nice lily pad..."
Jeremiah was a bullfrog, he was good friend of mine.
I never understood a single word he said but I helped him drink
his wine. He always had some mighty fine wine.
Sing it:
Joy to the world
...all the boys and girls now,
joy to the fishies in the deep blue sea
and joy to you and me.
::Places a fly on Ungoded's tongue and lets him sip at some pond scum.::
::Sticks out tongue and waits hopefully.::
I think this kind of argument that 3.x people are old-fashioned, "behind the times," etc. is equivalent to 3e people calling 4e people unintelligent cattle who play whatever WotC tells them to. These are poor arguments, meant to incite emotions rather than reason.And I wasn't making that kind of argument. I'm really only talking about the narrow set of people who refuse to consider 4E because it's "just not DnD anymore". My argument is that by those criteria, 3E isn't DnD either.
Ah, I see - but the following from the OP: "I think that the 3E "grognards" are a bit like the mega-church attending evangelical Christians. They're basically trying to marry a righteous devotion to an original text with a world that is so far removed from the original text as to make it extremely abstruse," may cause confusion.
I think a more apt comparison would be James Bond. The movies have changed, the actors have changed, O is now a woman, etc., etc. Everyone has their favorites. But things change to reflect the pop culture of the time.
In the end though, despite what some "purists" might think - it's still James Bond. The real point of contention then, is 4e so vastly different to consider it not "D&D"? Personally, I don't think so.
Okay, so I've incorporated religion, D&D, and James Bond in one post. Never thought I'd see the day...
EDIT: Oh and, "Let there be D&D on earth, and let it begin with me!"
|
|
I await your apology, Mr Set.
Given that you're prehistoric, I assume you've got the requisite amount of patience that you shall require for this task.
You being extinct and all means that I don't have to say I'm sorry!
And don't sell your people short. Most of the cave paintings I've seen are vastly superior to anything Picasso slapped onto canvas with oddly-shaped wedges of potato in art class.
::Sticks out tongue and waits hopefully.::
::Places a fly on Ungoded's tongue and lets him sip at some pond scum.::
::Deftly sidesteps the launching pink projectile that is Grog's tongue and affixes a tasty fly to it::
Jeremiah was a bullfrog, he was good friend of mine.
I never understood a single word he said but I helped him drink
his wine. He always had some mighty fine wine.
Sing it:
Joy to the world
...all the boys and girls now,
joy to the fishies in the deep blue sea
and joy to you and me.
This and the Kermit song both stand as proof that love of the Great Croaker is a universal concept worthy of embracing. (though you'll get warts)
I fully expect to get roasted pretty hard for it on these boards, but I didn't post it because I wanted to "troll,""I know I'm posting flame bait, but I'm not trying to be someone who posts flame bait." So, what are we to believe? That you were somehow compelled against your will to start trolling?
Seriously, you need to re-read the definition of the word "troll," because you, sir, are big and green and capable of regeneration.
Big and green?! You're not taking the name of the Great Croaker in vain I hope!
And I wasn't making that kind of argument. I'm really only talking about the narrow set of people who refuse to consider 4E because it's "just not DnD anymore". My argument is that by those criteria, 3E isn't DnD either.
As I said in my post, there are good reasons for not making the switch to 4E and as of right now I don't think I'll buy into it for some time if ever. I just get riled up when people predict the apocalypse and don't recognize that the game has gone through changes pretty constantly (yes, some much bigger than others -- that's why I referenced punctuated equilibrium) since it's inception. Pick which version you'd like to play and play it. There are now a lot out there. But it's a fool's errand to try and parse out which one is the essential DnD.
El Skootro
I can understand you arguement. Saying that 3e is purer than 4e is silly. However, your arguement can lead to an oversimplification. Many of the changes in fluff (and even game mechanics) can be seen as a departure from what has been seen as classic elements of D&D. This does not mean 4e is not D&D, but it does mean that 4e is not the D&D as others have known and enjoyed it. This is an important distinction. To some, 4e is not their style of D&D and that is what they are vocally against, and why they lamient the loss of "their game."
This is very different from saying 3e is the only true D&D and 4e is not D&D.
Warts are how the Great Croaker lets you know he's always with you.
And their removal is a sin against Him. Rejoice in your holy bumples!
At this point, I'd like to say a prayer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that all messageboards be places of true love and pasta-filled.
I like the one I'm coming up with, likening 4e people to brainwashed commie death soldiers of doom.
He knows! Destroy the heathen!
Ah, I see - but the following from the OP: "I think that the 3E "grognards" are a bit like the mega-church attending evangelical Christians. They're basically trying to marry a righteous devotion to an original text with a world that is so far removed from the original text as to make it extremely abstruse," may cause confusion.
I think you edited your post before I got a chance to respond.
I'm very intenionally saying that the Bible has as much relevence for some Christians as older editions of the game have for DnD players. There are always revisions and attempts to modernize the Bible (as Jade mentioned, the Vulgate, the King James Version are examples), and there are always people who draw boundaries and say "This is the definitive version."
Much like I think that some Christians probably think Jesus said "thee" and "thine," I think that many DnD players probably think that thieves were in the original rules (they weren't. They're add-ons). It's okay to be a grognard (or a fundamendalist), but if you're gonna do it, do it full-bore. Wanna play an elf wizard? Tough, that ain't in the rules and if you want to be a wizard, you can only cast spells up to 6th level. That's grognardism. Saying that 4E is getting rid of the spirit of DnD because fireball doesn't do d6/level damage anymore is revisionist grognardism. And revisionist grognardism sucks.
El Skootro
I fully expect to get roasted pretty hard for it on these boards, but I didn't post it because I wanted to "troll,""I know I'm posting flame bait, but I'm not trying to be someone who posts flame bait." So, what are we to believe? That you were somehow compelled against your will to start trolling?
Seriously, you need to re-read the definition of the word "troll," because you, sir, are big and green and capable of regeneration.
You're at least partially right, but I see a difference between getting people's dander up just to do it and being provacative to make a point. I suppose it's all in the eyes of the troll though...
El Skootro
Wait, Kermit can regenerate? But that totally invalidates the entire first Muppet Movie with the whole frog legs restaurant sub-plot!
He must not have been referring to the Great Croaker because, as you say, if frog legs regenerated even some vegetarians might eat them causing them to be in greater demand. McDonalds would offer the filet o' frog gams sandwich. It seems... it seems like hell on Earth.
What's that? What?! Frogs DO actually regenerate?! NO!!!!!!!!!