Grim-n-Gritty: Revised and Simplified

[KenHood]

Yes, I like running games that feel like big-budget action movies. No, I do not apologize for that.

There is no need to apologize for it, nor do I wish to imply that there is anything wrong with it.

Sometimes I enjoy the big-budget action feel, too, and I play games that way.

Your games, judging only from your posts, tend to utilize large creatures more often.

They tend to involve human v. human conflict, more often than not.

When I bring out large creatures, it is for the "WOW!" moment -- much like the cave troll in Lord of the Rings.

Big things need a lot to eat, so I can't often justify their presence, especially in an underground dwelling with poor ventilation and limited food choices. (Has anyone ever wondered why the ogre often lives next to a tribe of orcs? And why there is still a tribe of orcs, instead of a single, well-fed, fat and happy ogre?)

As for small creatures, I rarely use them. When I do, they tend to have lower intelligence than larger creatures. (Smaller brain size.)

Question: How many other people have actually tried out the new rules?

I don't know. Not too many people have responded with roleplaying remarks.

 

[Hodag]

Has anyone ever wondered why the ogre often lives next to a tribe of orcs? And why there is still a tribe of orcs, instead of a single, well-fed, fat and happy ogre?

Symbiotic relationship maybe?

As for small creatures, I rarely use them. When I do, they tend to have lower intelligence than larger creatures. (Smaller brain size.)

That's right, cows are smarter then gibbons! It's all about the actual size of the brain.

 

[KenHood]

Symbiotic relationship maybe?

That brings to mind an interesting scenario.

An ogre with above-average intelligence uses a tribe of orcs to lure in adventurers. After the adventurers come in and kill a sizable chunk of the orcs, the ogre steps in and "saves the day" (for the orcs, not the adventurers). Then, the orc eats the adventurers and the dead orcs.

Two birds, one stone.

 

[KenHood]

That's right, cows are smarter then gibbons! It's all about the actual size of the brain.

Heh!

It's not necessarily all about the actual brain size, but creatures with smaller brains tend to be much simpler than those with larger. (I've read research results to this effect.)

For example, faeries look human, but have the size of birds. Their brains would be as large as a pea, maybe. Therefore, when faeries show up, I make them as intelligent as birds.

Very disturbing to see beautiful, tiny humanoids that flit about with little intelligence for functions other than food consumption and copulation. Give them "song" like a bird -- and have it sound vaguely like language -- it gets even weirder.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Ken: I just wanted to say that, while I like heroic games and would never use your rules, they rock. I'm helping to pimp them over on Nutkinland, 'cause there are a lot of people who like that style of play. Keep up the good work!

 

[Hodag]

Why is all this real world and logic stuff being brought into a fantasy game?
Maybe you should go back to playing Pedants and Paychecks
j/k however, the GnG rules should plug into D20 Modern nicely. When I get home I'll try a few kinds of combat situations and post the results.

 

[monboesen]

Hmm been playing around a bit with the rules. One observation is that power attack is made obsolete. Reducing chance to hit and thereby increasing average damage comes out worse than keeping the bonus to hit. Not surprisingly really, just hadn't seen it before testing. It will likely also be better to take greater weapon focus than weapon specialist as a to hit bonus is actually both a to hit and a damage bonus and makes criticals more likely to boot.

All in all fighters should opt to maximise attack bonus over damage in this system. I even think that finesse fighters will be better off than in regular d&d.

Ambushes are clearly the way to go, thats for sure.

I tried running mock combats with either d20 or 2d10. I would advice against the 2d10. It just gets boring as a difference of 3-4 between defense and attack ensures that opponents either will never hit each other or that they hit every time. Somebody smarter that me can proberbly do the math, suffice it to say that my poor +5 attack hobgoblins never really hit the dexterous fighter/rogue with +9 defense. Whereas the players +8-10 attack bonus was (mostly) dead sure hits against the hobs +5 defense bonus.

The fights were more varied and interesting with the d20 approach.

 

[Northcott]

Monboesen: That's pretty much exactly why I like 2d10. Skill, rather than blind luck, becomes the chief factor -- though not utterly removed. It's still possible for opponents to roll extremes. It's just unlikely.

The point about the considerable shift in importance of feats is noteworthy.


Fraser: To be fair, you devil, only a couple of us were sociopaths. A couple more were ruthless. Well, I had some ruth... just not much... that whole "honour" thing was a pain in the @$$. Then the last couple players... well, Knights of the Dinner Table comics are funny for a reason. It was a low magic world, and evil necromancers had infiltrated the city on every level. Undead were everywhere, hidden in the shadows.

So you lob vials of burning oil at a couple "choice" folks when they least expect it, and perhaps burn down a building or three. It was expedience, not sociopathy.

Now, Chris with the merchants in the town square; that was another matter entirely.

Back on topic: I'm trying to talk the lads into giving things a whirl. Chris is intrigued with the possibilities of this rules variation in Deadlands. Should make things colourful. It's also got me considering another fantasy campaign... something vaguely Warhammer FRP-ish.

 

[spider_minion]

I just tried out the revised grim-n-gritty rules with some Redline characters (I'm planning on running a Redline one shot in the future). The rules worked great for a brutal post-apocalyptic world, and combat could be REALLY deadly!

I ran some staged fights among the two players and also against our pals Otis, Fred, Harold, and Warren. Warren rolled bad on initiatve and was filled with bullet holes, dying before even getting a turn. One time Harold was quickly killed due to a few bad defense rolls, and another time he crippled a PC with a lucky sneak attack. Surprisingly, my two players were able to take down Otis (though I toned down his numbers--see below). Oh, and Fred maimed a PC with a lucky 20. And vehicles--pedestrains are just speedbumps with ability scores. Good stuff; we really had a blast.

There still some small things that bother me, however. It seems large creatures really get some serious bonuses. Just by being big, monsters already get significant bonuses to Str, Con, and natural armor. Giving them a +4 addition per size catagory is a little too generous, methinks.

One minor change I made was giving characters extra lightly wounded pips based on their level and hit die. I did something like this:

d10 or d12 hit die: 1 pip per level
d6 or d8: 3/4 pip per level
d4: 1/2 pip per level

It did this mainly to balance survivability with extra attacks at higher levels. I haven't ran a battle with really powerful PCs, but it seems like they'd get several attacks in a round, each of which could easily be lethal (a buff, specialized fighter with a +2 flaming greatsword would deal 3d6+10 damage, enough average damage to kill something in one hit).

And power attack: perhaps this should give a more generous penalty to damage ratio?

Other than what I mentioned, these rules are really solid and fast paced. Now my players will fear combat!

Afterthought--Oh, these rules are perfect for gun combat. Really makes players fear getting shot, which is good.

 

[KenHood]

It did this mainly to balance survivability with extra attacks at higher levels.

Survivability at higher levels comes from the Defense bonus. In Real Life (tm), the best defense is not getting hit.

Hit points in the core rules not only represent your life, but also represent your ability to avoid attacks and resist harm. In the GnG rules, Defense represents the ability to avoid attacks, Life Pips represent your life, and Soak is your ability to resist damage.

If you want to increase survivability, increase Soak, not pips. Increasing pips permits characters to ignore the effects of a sword stab or bullet. That's neither grim, nor gritty. Once that three feet blade of steel penetrates your armor, your body mass, and outright cussedness, you should tumble like a house of cards.

Increasing survivability moves back into a cinematic spirit.

Consider Real Life (tm): Training makes you better able to handle pain, but doesn't necessarily make you more likely to survive having three feet of steel shoved into your body. Severing a major artery would kill you, me, Arnold, and an elephant all the same. Doesn't matter how tough you are or how athletic, you die all the same. Once you get through all the metal, muscle, and body mass (represented by Soak), you don't have to do much to end life (represented by the Life Bar).

If you want tougher characters, give them the Toughness feat and better armor. Give them the Dodge feat. Use a shield. Have them use cover.

If the combats you run are straight, stand-up-and-take-it fights, then this system is not the system to use. Try the rules, as is, but change tactics, so that players avoid direct confrontation. If your players run out in the middle of things, guns a-blazin' and swords a-swingin', then they should die -- as they would in Real Life (tm). If they sneak, hide, confuse, harass, bewilder -- much like Special Forces do today -- then you're working in the spirit of the system, and you'll find survival is not a tremendous issue.

There still some small things that bother me, however. It seems large creatures really get some serious bonuses. Just by being big, monsters already get significant bonuses to Str, Con, and natural armor. Giving them a +4 addition per size catagory is a little too generous, methinks.

That's not a small thing. It's a central conceit of the system!

Big things are supposed to have generous bonuses!

If the bonuses to big things bothers you, use the variant rule where Dexterity is the primary attack statistic. You'll find that it tends to level the playing field a bit, while still permitting big things to level small things, should they manage to get ahold of them.

And power attack: perhaps this should give a more generous penalty to damage ratio?

3.5E rules already do so -- when you use a two-handed weapon!