Grim-n-Gritty: Revised and Simplified

[KenHood]

The larger turned the smaller to goo every time.

Excellent! That's how it should work out.

Did you try the Dexterity as primary attack statistic variant?

---

I agree that the rules don't fit well in a "heroic" game. If that's what you're aiming for, you're better off using the core combat mechanics.

In the "heroic" Old West, gunfights took place at high noon, amidst a cloud of gunsmoke and blaze of bullets. That's core combat mechanics.

In the historic Old West, people were shot in the back or while on the toilet.

The revised GnG rules aim for the latter feel.

---

Size is very important in the RGnG rules. (As it was in the original.)

I reckon you should probably pump the ECL of large characters up by +2 per size category. (Maybe even +3 or +4 per size category.) A similar drop in ECL can occur for small characters.

 

[KenHood]

I have had TPKs, but the fights that engendered them were awesome and took a while to play out, rather than smack dab, body on slab like GnG strives for.

In about 25 years of role-playing, I've had only one total party kill. I can count on my fingers the number of PC's that have permanently died.

The goal of the GnG rules isn't to kill your party. The rules are intended to "raise the bar" on combat, force the use of tactics and stealth, and the like.

For example, in my games, a standard party tactic is ...

1) Ready by door.
2) Open door and cast fireball into room.
3) After explosion, fighters hose room down with arrows.
4) Mage casts vision obscuring spell.
5) Party charges into room and mops up survivors.

I admit: It's a different way of playing than most people.

When we'd play dungeon crawls, the noise of the first fight in the dungeon would use draw out all of the monsters in the place. They'd converge on the PC's and try to cut off retreat. We'd have long, running strategic withdrawals, where the PC's would spend hours of real time on the move.

Once the battle's over, everyone is so relieved to be alive that they dance for joy. They've been holding their breath every time they make a dice roll.

It's stressful. It's difficult. I've had players get so mad at the monsters that the players curse and hurl objects across the room, screaming profanities at imaginary opponents!

But it's also a load of fun. You feel like you've made a major accomplishment when you survive.

 

[Coredump]

Okay Ken, that does it!!

I am a teacher (secondary). If I get a transfer to your school district, will you DM a game for me?? Huh? will ya please...??

 

[Hodag]

GM vs. Players

The main problem I have with the GnG rules is it tends to enforce the "GM vs. Players" concept. I much prefer that an interesting story is told, and heroic action is taken. The PCs are supposed to be exceptional. The purpose of the game is to describe their exploits, not anybody else's.
In answer to your question Ken I just reran it with the Dex variant and the Spryte wasted the Giant with arrows.(Flight + Tiny + Bow=Lethal!)
I am a High School History/Drama teacher and I do NOT want to ever play in Ken's game! No offense meant Ken, it's just not my preferred style of play
I did try the system, and it's not what I'm looking for, but thank you Ken for the effort that you put into it!

 

[mafisto]

The main problem I have with the GnG rules is it tends to enforce the "GM vs. Players" concept. I much prefer that an interesting story is told, and heroic action is taken. The PCs are supposed to be exceptional.

The only case where I can see these rules enforce a "GM vs. Players" environment is when the GM is attempting to punish players with a set of rules. Otherwise, if your campaign is a grim-n-gritty one, where's the conflict? So big creatures kill small creatures more easily - that's a foundation of the campaign and not intended in any way to pit the GM against the party.

From the very beginning Ken has made it clear that G&G is NOT Heroic D&D. I think that ignoring that first and fundamental statement is what gets him (and me!) all riled up. PCs aren't 'supposed' to be anything in my campaign. They are what they are. If they want to slink the shadows and snipe their enemies and set up clever ambushes then THAT is what they're 'supposed' to do. Not some pre-fabricated ideal that, for some reason, has become the status quo.

Finally, having an interesting story does not mean that your players need to be able to walk through fire and get shot up with dozens of arrows and swim through pits of burning acid. That certainly could be an interesting story, but I've read plenty of fascinating tales (George R.R. Martin's Ice & Fire, for instance) where a deep sense of humanity and mortality makes the story even MORE interesting.

I doubt that you intended to be combatative in that innocent little statement, but whole point of the Grim-n-Gritty rules was to challenge the status quo and provide an alternate way of playing the game. So, every time I read "But I want my game to be interesting!" or "I want my players to be heroes!" in response to these variant rules, they'll get nice little essays from myself or other proponents of the system. GnG does not mean that GMs have to hate their players, or spin boring tales, or kill off all of their PCs every session. It simply means that the physical reality of the game takes on more gravity than before.

 

[KenHood]

The main problem I have with the GnG rules is it tends to enforce the "GM vs. Players" concept.

I disagree with this conclusion.

Having played for many years under similar rules-sets with high degrees of lethality, I have not felt a "GM v. Players" concept.

"GM v. Players" is an attitude, not a rule. If the GM is the insecure sort who needs to demonstrate superiority over others by killing their characters, then he or she shall do so regardless of rules set. If the GM is the sort who wishes everyone to enjoy themselves, then he or she will do so regardless of the rules set.

Rules cannot enforce an attitude. Much like law cannot change the heart.

---

An aside comment...
I think many of us have had an experience with a jackass GM who wanted nothing more than to harm his players. I think many of us can see the obvious potential for such a GM to abuse these rules and use it for TPK's and the like. But that's not a fault of the rules, it's a fault of the person.

The best way to avoid this sort of abuse is to ask oneself, "Why in the hell I am hanging out with a jerk like this and letting them make me miserable?"

It's funny, but sad, how players and GM's can enter the same cycle of codependence as wives and husbands.

I much prefer that an interesting story is told...

You are making an assumption that use of these rules make a game uninteresting. Interest lies in the players and the GM, not the rules set. I think many of us can attest to playing wonderful, interesting games with horrible sets of rules -- usually created by ourselves! I think many of us can also attest to boring games with the best rules sets.

...and heroic action is taken.

I think it's more likely said that most RPG's -- by their nature -- do not have heroic action.

Heroism occurs when one strives against real, personal danger and demonstrates personal sacrifice for the betterment of others.

In most RPG's, there is no real, personal danger for PC's. They know how much damage they can suffer. They do not think twice about receiving a blow from a sword or a shot from a bow. They know what probability their attacks will strike. They know the general proportion of damage from their opponents and the likelihood of saving throws. There is no real danger, because the PC's know the general outcome of their actions.

How is it heroic to engage in a battle that you know has a threat level artificially arranged to be a commensurate challenge to your abilities, and that if you expend 25% of your resources, you should be able to win?

As to personal sacrifice, consider this: In RPG's, PC's fight to accumulate personal power and wealth. Levels are power. XP's are power. Every gold piece, every magical item is an accumulation of power. Even when PC's come into a town to rescue the hapless villagers from the horrible monster, their ultimate (unspoken) concern is their rewards in XP and goods at the end of the module. Sacrifice involves giving up something with no expectation of a return, but PC's expect a return: gold, magic items, XP!

RPG's are sport, not heroism.

The heroism is an illusion created by the storytelling of the GM and roleplaying of the players. You achieve that feeling with attitude, not rules.

Consider this: Which is more heroic: facing a monster in a game knowing that under X circumstances, your character will always win, or facing a monster knowing that a bad dice roll could end up killing your character, despite weeks and months of development through play?

---

An aside comment...
I think it's important that we don't confuse cinematic with heroic. People seem to use the two terms interchangeably, because heroic has more positive connotations. However, PC's in RPG's are often no more heroic than a bullet-proof superhero taking out bank robbers in a comic book. There's no real danger because of the certainty of outcome.

In RPG's, there is certainty of success. Hence, the whole issue of game balance. PC's need to win, or at least have a reasonable certainty of success.

Heroism occurs when you perform an action despite the certainty that you will come to harm or death.

The PCs are supposed to be exceptional.

Nothing in these rules counters this statement.

It seems that you're drawing a conclusion that PC's are no longer exceptional because their abilities do not function according to the status quo of the standard combat rules. In other words, because big things easily kill small things, the PC's are weak because they tend to be said small things.

I disagree.

It is true that PC's of equivalent level/hit dice to a Big Thing are at a disadvantage. PC's must achieve more levels before trying to take on large opponents, such as an ogre. However, this tends to reinforce the myth of the heroic ideal, rather than counter it. Consider: In the tales where a hero kills a giant, troll, or ogre, said hero is often heads-and-shoulders more powerful than the general population or receives some sort of divine dispensation. In the d20 system, this superiority to his fellow man is best reflected in a character's levels.

Is a PC unexceptional because he possesses several more levels than the NPC population? Is said PC unexceptional because he can defeat large opponents by virtue of these levels? Is he unexceptional because he requires training and perseverance to achieve the power to accomplish such a superhuman feat as slaying a giant?

The purpose of the game is to describe their exploits, not anybody else's.

I'm not sure how you have drawn this conclusion from the rules-set. This seems more an expression of your personal preferrences, rather than an application of the rules.

RPG's -- by their very nature -- are egomaniacal fantasies for players. In these sollipsistic realities, players are the prime movers and shakers. Nothing occurs in the fantasy world apart from their exploits. What occurs "off stage" occurs "off stage." It's just window dressing for the player's activities.

In answer to your question Ken I just reran it with the Dex variant and the Spryte wasted the Giant with arrows. (Flight + Tiny + Bow=Lethal!)

Very good. Such a thing should have happened with that variant.

No offense meant Ken, it's just not my preferred style of play.

No offense taken.

I likewise hope that you've taken no offense to my attempts to counter your arguments. No ire is intended. I feel no hostility, only a desire for discourse.

Everyone is entitled to their preferrence. As I've stated many times, the rules are not meant for everyone. If they do not fit your needs and desires, do not use them.

I appreciate that you've given them a try and revealed the results of your experimentation.

 

[Northcott]

It strikes me that, if these rules are used and the corresponding fantasy world is more suited in tone (low to mid fantasy, rather than high fantasy with enchanted creatures around every corner), then things balance themselves out. After the first couple notches on the belt, the levels will begin to slow down; it might be expected that most people will hit 2nd or 3rd in their lifetime, and exceptional individuals might get 2 or 3 levels above that. When one considers the risks a typical adventurer must go through to achieve that kind of advancement, and then we throw them into a more "gritty" world, there's a definite curve that appears in regards to the relative levels of NPCs and PCs.

A low-level ogre can, by itself, lay waste to a band of armed soldiers trying to take it down. The lone PC warrior who dares stand against such a beast had best have a considerable advantage in levels if he expects to survive. If we consider that such characters in myth and legend often had the advantage of some enchantment or divine blessing (in game terms: buff spells, magic items, and or clerical/paladin abilities), their chances increase.

If someone can get their character to 9th or 10th level in this system, they probably will be able to mow down a 4th level ogre (with considerable personal risk)... but that seems about right to me. (Depending on the flavour one wants in a game.) It all just seems to be a matter of responsible scaling from the GM, and judicious application of common sense from the players. Fire burns, cuts hurt, and getting stabbed with pointy things is bad... regardless of how tough you think you are.

 

[KenHood]

It all just seems to be a matter of responsible scaling from the GM, and judicious application of common sense from the players. Fire burns, cuts hurt, and getting stabbed with pointy things is bad... regardless of how tough you think you are.

Yes! You've got the spirit of it!

 

[FraserRonald]

Oh, we were pretty ruthless... and we were even passable in the planning department (edit; but when we screwed up? Whooooo-boy!). Where we failed miserably (especially me) was in the luck category. I think I set a new record for the number of 1's rolled in a session. I'm sure that as Fraser reads this he's chuckling to himself... I think I'd gotten up near a dozen 1's by the time he started demanding I warm up for my combat turns with "practice rolls".

Ruthless? They were keeping track of the sections of the city burned to the ground thanks to their actions (though, in their defence, the razed sections were pretty much the "bad" portions of town). There was even a bard (yes, a bard) who seemed to have a penchant for kicking the crap out of the elderly.

And those 1's were fun. The great and powerful knight . . . who kept failing! Still, a great character and a memorable group. But I digress.

Then, of course, we had one of those wizards -- you know the sort. The nutter in the robes who, like the friendly chap in your example, tosses big fire spells at the party figuring "they've got a decent save, I'll probably only get the NPC bad guys".

Well, in his defence, he didn't actually kill anyone. And really, who needed hair?

On second thought, you're right. My planning was amiss. In hindsight, I should have killed the bugger with one of my few good rolls.

But you played such a noble knight. A noble knight who participated in plenty of arson and mayhem, but noble none the less. I can't think of one instance of elderly abuse.

But, back on topic, I was really thrilled with the original Grim N Gritty rules and the revised rules look excellent. I am using the old version's Protection rules in a D20 Modern campaign. I don't see anything for that in the new one. It does mention damage reduction. Am I to assume that the Protection rules have not been updated?

Take care all.

 

[FraserRonald]

I'm definitely going to have to update the links in my old article on GnG rules at Sword's Edge. Ken, do you have a website I could use rather than the broken link to Sleeping Imperium?

Thanks.