D&D stereotypes you can't stand

[Libertad]

I have to admit, I didn't think this was a live issue anymore.  Although I guess it shouldn't surprise me.  I know I still have some pretty strong anti-Pathfinder feelings.

Well, we've all got our likes and dislikes, although non-stop complaints generally create a negative atmosphere.  there's also the fact that Edition Warriors often have an unhealthy fixation on editions they dislike.

Example: there are bad feelings towards 3rd and 4th Edition on several AD&D message boards, but discussion of those editions isn't tolerated because it just opens up old wounds and steers the forums in a more hostile direction.  It's kind of like the difference between saying "I'm not fond of this game, and here's why" and obsessively throwing yourself into every 4E thread to get into Internet slap-fights over the same damn issue again and again.

[littha]

Edition Warriors are still a mobilized fighting force, if grognards.txt is anything to go by; the difference is that they've retreated to small Internet bastions where their elitism's tolerated/encouraged.  And some of them don't really understand the own Edition they so adore.

Aren't we basically the bastion for 3.5? There is a sentiment around here that pathfinder and 4e are the devil if you read some of the threads (not that I am a fan of either myself)

[veekie]

Well I'm a PF (sorta) fan, I play it, it works, it has gaping flaws which I acknowledge and/or mock mercilessly. No reason to jump into a game and then doing the same though.

Other than the mandatory bitching session when you realize you A) need grapple rules B) yes they are still bad.

[Libertad]

Aren't we basically the bastion for 3.5? There is a sentiment around here that pathfinder and 4e are the devil if you read some of the threads (not that I am a fan of either myself)

Yeah, we're a 3.5 stronghold, but Edition Warring is more about focusing on games you hate and just not letting go.  It's the difference between acknowledging the flaws of games you love and/or other games, and insulting the tastes and intelligence of people who play games you hate.

I think this picture perfectly captures the Edition Warrior mindset:

(click to show/hide)

[Unbeliever]

^ that seems reasonable.  I mean, no one tramps out with their reasons for despising 4E or PF unless someone solicits them, which is probably the difference between "strong opinions" and "edition warrior." 

[Terminus Est]

Here's one that bugs me, though I'm not sure it's exactly a stereotype.

"Why am I making a huge fuss over a minor issue? It's called roleplaying, duh!"
We have a guy in our group who does this constantly. To be blunt, he's not much of a roleplayer, more a beer and pretzels type who happens to enjoy a good story . . . but whenever he does seem to put on his robe and wizard hat it always seems to be to argue and be obstructionist over some minor bullsh** and that's when he suddenly start talking about his God (him being a cleric) who wouldn't like this or demands whatever or who knows what.

If he were consistent about being so devoted in his theism it'd probably be a lot less annoying . . . but really, it just seems like he picks random, insignificant things to suddenly get all pious about because he thinks being inconvenient is roleplaying.

[Sinfire Titan]

Aren't we basically the bastion for 3.5? There is a sentiment around here that pathfinder and 4e are the devil if you read some of the threads (not that I am a fan of either myself)

Grognardism isn't decrying an edition in general, it's decrying an edition while playing that edition.

[Libertad]

Aren't we basically the bastion for 3.5? There is a sentiment around here that pathfinder and 4e are the devil if you read some of the threads (not that I am a fan of either myself)

Grognardism isn't decrying an edition in general, it's decrying an edition while playing that edition.

Not necessarily; I think it refers to D&D fans of earlier editions who complain about later editions in an obnoxious manner.

[Keldar]

The only consistent definition of grognard I've seen is simply someone who prefers an outdated edition of the game.  Which makes me laugh my ass off to see all the grognards around here hurl it like a dire insult.

[Prime32]

The only consistent definition of grognard I've seen is simply someone who prefers an outdated edition of the game.  Which makes me laugh my ass off to see all the grognards around here hurl it like a dire insult.

I would have said it's the difference between "There used to be a shop there that sold the best bread I ever tasted" and "Get off my lawn".

[Unbeliever]

The only consistent definition of grognard I've seen is simply someone who prefers an outdated edition of the game.  Which makes me laugh my ass off to see all the grognards around here hurl it like a dire insult.

I would have said it's the difference between "There used to be a shop there that sold the best bread I ever tasted" and "Get off my lawn".

Y'know, I was about to type the "get off my lawn" analogy, too. 

Whether or not grognard is an insult kind of depends on the context; e.g., I occasionally refer to myself as a grognard.  Many of the things that motivated this thread are somewhat grognardy tendencies.  They are correlated with, but not constitutive of, grognardism. 

[sirpercival]

(click to show/hide)

Grognard is as grognard does.

[Libertad]

Y'know, I was about to type the "get off my lawn" analogy, too. 

Whether or not grognard is an insult kind of depends on the context; e.g., I occasionally refer to myself as a grognard.  Many of the things that motivated this thread are somewhat grognardy tendencies.  They are correlated with, but not constitutive of, grognardism.

With the anger of 4th Edition fans realizing that their mechanics won't make a return in D&D Next, would it be accurate to say that 5th Edition has turned us all into grognards?

[Unbeliever]

I don't think so.  Mostly b/c I think Keldar's definition is imprecise. 

There's a difference between "has opinions/judgments about RPGs" and being a grognard. 

[linklord231]

Grognards are people who think that people who play any edition other than their favorite* are having badwrongfun. 

*Only applies to older editions.  People who think this about the current edition are something else.  I believe the term as it applies to d&d now is "4vengers."

[sirpercival]

Grognards are people who think that people who play any edition other than their favorite* are having badwrongfun. 

*Only applies to older editions.  People who think this about the current edition are something else.  I believe the term as it applies to d&d now is "4vengers."

I think this is the big difference.  For people who play 4E and love it, I'm happy for them.  I just don't care for it personally.  Therefore, I am not a grognard.

[veekie]

Grognards are people who think that people who play any edition other than their favorite* are having badwrongfun. 

*Only applies to older editions.  People who think this about the current edition are something else.  I believe the term as it applies to d&d now is "4vengers."

Not quite I think.
Grognards are people who think that playing any other way but the way they do is badwrongfun. They don't acknowledge other modes of play as valid, which naturally attracts old-edition stalwarts(it's only a small step from defending your favorite edition, to considering it the One True Game). Even in a live edition there can be grognards, they're just a lot less visible when everyone else is playing in a similar way.

[Jackinthegreen]

Grognards are people who think that playing any other way but the way they do is badwrongfun.

Reminds me of BB actually.

Even without that reminder, I can definitely say I'm not a Grognard.  How does someone else's game that I'm not participating in affect me?  It doesn't unless I make a judgment about it, and since I don't care and don't make judgments, it's all hunky dory.

[caelic]

Sir Axebeard; the drunken berserker usually a dwarf with some kind of martial class. frequently wields either a hammer or axe. fights as if he were some kind of berserker and tries to fight in every circumstance. even if it wouldn't be beneificial. motivated solely by experience points and wealth. gets drunk and picks up tavern wenches for his own Hedonistic purposes. writes chaotic neutral on his character sheet, he can wield a 2handed weapon, a 1handed weapon and shield, or 2 1handed weapons, but they usually are either axes or hammers, or at least have the head of one. frequent surnames involve the word, axe, hammer, beard, or any combination of the three.

...and always, ALWAYS speaks with a thick faux-Scottish accent for some reason.  Seriously, when did Groundskeeper Willie become the patron deity of the Dwarves?

[TiaC]

Sir Axebeard; the drunken berserker usually a dwarf with some kind of martial class. frequently wields either a hammer or axe. fights as if he were some kind of berserker and tries to fight in every circumstance. even if it wouldn't be beneificial. motivated solely by experience points and wealth. gets drunk and picks up tavern wenches for his own Hedonistic purposes. writes chaotic neutral on his character sheet, he can wield a 2handed weapon, a 1handed weapon and shield, or 2 1handed weapons, but they usually are either axes or hammers, or at least have the head of one. frequent surnames involve the word, axe, hammer, beard, or any combination of the three.

...and always, ALWAYS speaks with a thick faux-Scottish accent for some reason.  Seriously, when did Groundskeeper Willie become the patron deity of the Dwarves?

I played a Sir Axebeard once. Of course, he was actually a Psion(telepath) focused on subtle manipulation.