Grim Tales? Anyone? Bueller?

[DanMcS]

Got it today. Had to hunt, it was hard to spot on the rack of new books the store has front and center, and when I went to pay, I found out why- they got in 5 on wednesday, and this was the last one.

Erratta for you: you should have included the d20 modern erratta, for instance, as originally written, ignore hardness is pointless compared to melee smash, so they errattaed ignore hardness to 2/talent instead of 1-per.

I love the class abilities as talent trees. Now I just need to convince my group to run this way.

Spellcasting: this isn't explicit in chapter 8, but is implied in the magical item creation rules, that 0th level spells count as 1/2 for many spellcasting things as usual; would a 0th level spell cause a d3 spell burn, or I guess a (d6)/2?

Also, caster level is provided by talents, and used to make the check to cast the spell. What, then determines caster level for the effect of the spell? In the example in the book, our smart hero is casting a fireball, first without the magical adept talent, later with it. His caster level is, respectively, 0 and then 1. How much damage would the fireball do? If it were based on caster level, he doesn't really deserve the title of "smart hero", because he took 3d6 con damage to cast a 0d6 fireball!

I'm guessing just use the base effect of the spell as though a minimal level caster were casting it, so a fireball always does 5d6 and a cure light wounds always cures 1d8+1; I might allow them to increase the difficulty of the caster level check, with each point adding 1 to the effective level of the spell. So cast your fireball with a DC of 18 instead of 13 and get a 10d6 fireball.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Erratta for you: you should have included the d20 modern erratta, for instance, as originally written, ignore hardness is pointless compared to melee smash, so they errattaed ignore hardness to 2/talent instead of 1-per.

Thanks, I'll add it to the errata list. I welcome other notations.

Spellcasting: this isn't explicit in chapter 8, but is implied in the magical item creation rules, that 0th level spells count as 1/2 for many spellcasting things as usual; would a 0th level spell cause a d3 spell burn, or I guess a (d6)/2?

Yep.

Also, caster level is provided by talents, and used to make the check to cast the spell. What, then determines caster level for the effect of the spell? In the example in the book, our smart hero is casting a fireball, first without the magical adept talent, later with it. His caster level is, respectively, 0 and then 1. How much damage would the fireball do? If it were based on caster level, he doesn't really deserve the title of "smart hero", because he took 3d6 con damage to cast a 0d6 fireball!

No, that would qualify as me wanting to use an impressive spell but not properly thinking through my example! That would in fact be foolish. Caster level for effect should be actually equal to caster level-- at least, that is my personal preference. Most of the spells that have an effect based on "dice per caster level" (and that includes both healing and damage) are, in my opinion, almost too good for a low magic campaign. I might sneak them in by way of the occasional potion and wand but not in any way that they could be learned. But again, that's personal preference.

For what it's worth, both of your solutions seem ok. The "minimum caster level" method really loses its meaning to someone without a D&D spellcaster context to base it on-- so I'd recommend you go with something a minimum effect equal to spell level (ergo, fireball does 3d6 base). So I'd use spell level or caster level, whichever is higher. (As extrapolated from the fact that magic items must have a caster level equal to the spell level but no higher than your own caster level.)

I also like your method to add +1 to the casting DC for +1 caster level for effect-- at least on the surface. I would want to make very certain that a PCs Spellcraft skill wouldn't outstrip his abilities and remove any risk of such enhanced casting at higher levels (but it is too early on a Sunday morning for me to be any more precise with the math than simply to register that concern).

There are a number of other ways that a GM could allow an increase in caster level for effect. As long as you didn't also allow it to improve the caster level check, the casting time modifier shown in the book is a good example. I had a feat prepped for the book called "Dark Ritual" that allowed a caster to inflict one negative level on a helpless victim in exchange for +1 caster level. Ley lines, power nexuses, and cooperative casting are also good options.

In the end I decided not to include a lot of this stuff as it started to dilute the low magic feel of the product. I'll probably release a Grim Tales magic supplement at some point in the future that explores such optional tweaks. Ultimately, like a lot of the rules in the book, I hope they serve as a foundation for experienced DMs to "get under the hood" and take off their own spin. I know, for example, a lot of folks are recently enamored with Incantations. I could have included these from UA (I had time) but figured that folks will take from GT what they can, add from their other books, and then improve further with their own GMing instincts.

Wulf

 

[Bill Scott]

It sounds like I'll be definitely buying GT in the near future. It sounds like you put a lot of heart into the book

Would folks prefer a 27.95 softcover or 34.95 hardcover? The equation is almost a wash for me, as the publisher, so it really comes down to the preference of the buying public.

Me, I just like the feel of a hardcover-- what say you?

Wulf

Personally, I prefer my adventures in softback and the hardbacks should be reserved for source books.

 

[Trip Mclean]

Would folks prefer a 27.95 softcover or 34.95 hardcover? The equation is almost a wash for me, as the publisher, so it really comes down to the preference of the buying public.

Me, I just like the feel of a hardcover-- what say you?

Wulf

I'm with you, not only is the "feel" better, but i think over all hardcovers are much sturdier then soft. Which makes a big differance if you're using the book alot.

 

[NeghVar]

For a mere $7 more - I would rather have more material and a hardbound durable book...

I am glad both Necropolis and the Lost City of Barakus were hardbound.

Slavelords of Cydonia-- an adventure sourcebook containing a complete epic adventure (1st - 20th) and a bunch of new rules to support it (Cydonian tech, mass combat, new creatures, etc.) You could almost think of it as the first "campaign setting" for Grim Tales.

This is as good a place to ask the question as anywhere:

Would folks prefer a 27.95 softcover or 34.95 hardcover? The equation is almost a wash for me, as the publisher, so it really comes down to the preference of the buying public.

Me, I just like the feel of a hardcover-- what say you?

Wulf

 

[d4]

here's a question for you, Wulf...

i really like low-magic, high-action cinematic campaigns, but i have a strong dislike for "grim & gritty" settings and rules. is there enough in Grim Tales to satisfy me?

it sounds like a lot of the lethality is tweakable, so that if i wanted to run a high-action, low-lethality game with Grim Tales it should be possible. is that a correct assumption?

(note that i consider even baseline D&D too lethal for my personal tastes.)

 

[Krieg]

Would folks prefer a 27.95 softcover or 34.95 hardcover? The equation is almost a wash for me, as the publisher, so it really comes down to the preference of the buying public.

Personally I would prefer a $29.99 hardcover. I'm a cheap SOB who isn't particularly enamored with the RPG inflation of the last couple of years...but that is just me.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Personally I would prefer a $29.99 hardcover. I'm a cheap SOB who isn't particularly enamored with the RPG inflation of the last couple of years...but that is just me.

I'd love to offer it at 29.99 but it's not economically feasible. I already run a very streamlined ship here on an amazingly low budget. You can be assured that I will always offer my products as low as I can.

here's a question for you, Wulf...

i really like low-magic, high-action cinematic campaigns, but i have a strong dislike for "grim & gritty" settings and rules. is there enough in Grim Tales to satisfy me?

I really want to say yes-- there's certainly support for that kind of play within the d20 Modern ruleset on which the system is primarily built, and there are plenty of optional rules within to keep the body count low, if that's what you need.

You'll want to go with the rules options marked with just the one skull and crossbones (instead of two or three skulls).

You can also play with things like just starting the characters out at higher levels. At 6th-8th level you get characters who can do quite a bit of high-action stuff, while at the same time leaving the "grit" setting at normal without worrying about killing them off too easily. In the few one-off games I have run (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Fallout) this is the power level I have used.

I could probably give you a better answer if I knew what kind of genre you were looking to play, and what experience you've had with some of the other rules resources out there. If it is fantasy game you are looking for, and/or you have tried Modern and Spycraft and found them needing tweaks in certain areas, I don't think you'll regret Grim Tales, which combines d20M and D&D into a single enhanced ruleset.

At any rate Grim Tales would be a good starting point as a "How To" on getting the game set up to your liking. I think it's just a good, clean baseline to start any kind of d20 campaign.

But I do worry that the overall grim "mood" of the product will end up turning you off-- I do write with a GM bias. My most honest recommendation is really pretty simple and obvious: check it out in the store.

Wulf

 

[Davelozzi]

Sounds like good stuff, Wulf. I'm looking forward to checking it out, though I haven't seen it in the stores around here just yet.

As far the adventure, while I usually would agree with Bill Scott that I prefer my adventures in softback, for something designed to take characters all the way up through 20th level, hardback is probably better. That's going to be a lot of wear and tear on the book for someone who actually runs the whole thing. And at the price points you suggested, I'd definatley rather pay the extra $7 for the hardback. I'm now used to paying $30-something for a hardback but paying $28 for a softback still seems like too much to me.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

As far the adventure, while I usually would agree with Bill Scott that I prefer my adventures in softback, for something designed to take characters all the way up through 20th level, hardback is probably better. That's going to be a lot of wear and tear on the book for someone who actually runs the whole thing. And at the price points you suggested, I'd definatley rather pay the extra $7 for the hardback. I'm now used to paying $30-something for a hardback but paying $28 for a softback still seems like too much to me.

Well, as a point of reference, I paid $29.99 for the Fields of Blood softcover. It's over 200 pages, I think. I don't know for certain but I would guess some Forgotten Realms softcover stuff is up in that price range. For me, at least, it's really just a mathematical equation-- 200 pages worth of writing covers a hefty freelance bill. Once you have that covered, it really is almost a simple question of whether or not it's worth an extra $5 to put a hardcover on it.

Slavelords is more that just an adventure. I think given the amount of setting, background material, and additional rules it's certainly worthy of hardcover, if you want to put it in those terms.

Wulf