Grim Tales? Anyone? Bueller?

[trancejeremy]

Fields of Blood is 176 pages and $30. (Also really cheap paper/cover). On the other end, Chaosium's Dark Ages is the same size, but $24. Chaosium is stuggling financially, Eden is not. Make of it what you will.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Fields of Blood is 176 pages and $30. (Also really cheap paper/cover). On the other end, Chaosium's Dark Ages is the same size, but $24. Chaosium is stuggling financially, Eden is not. Make of it what you will.

As if there's anything other than one way to read that.

Well, I suppose it does cause me to wonder if d20 products can command a higher (ie, profitable) price.

Wulf

 

[BryonD]

Hey Wulf,

Got my copy today.

Very sweet.

There are several game designers out there that I think are very good at using the game mechanics to build great stuff. For example, creating a cool new feat that is interesting, not-redundant with existing stuff and reasonably balanced. They are great designers because they make great stuff out of the existing tools.

The real geniuses are those that can rebuild the tools themselves. (Honestly, I only know of one person I put firmly in this group).
Grim Tales has some real flashes of this genius.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Just wanted to write a quick message here. Time and my lack of writing skills prevent a lengthy review of Grim Tales. However, I would have to say that this is the best supplement I have purchased in quite a while. For our group's needs, I have several pages of notes farmed from GT. I wish I could drop the whole supplement into our existing, but a piecemeal approach will have to do. I have a couple of players that are new to D20, and the extended skill descriptions alone are a worthy addition for such players. I really like the critical success/failure integration with action points and will implement it soon. I REALLY like what GT has done for the flexibility of the core (Modern) classes with varied skill packages/trees and nice generic backgrounds. The insanity rules are very cool, and deserve a look as well. I'm already using the vehicle chase system from GT, as it is very abstract and faster than the scaled-combat from D20 Modern.
I hope that everyone at least gives the book a look to see if it suits their group's needs, as it is spot-on for our group in most aspects!

 

[d4]

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.

thanks for your detailed reply. i've been hoping for d20 Modern-based fantasy rules for a while now, since i much prefer d20M to D&D as a rules system. (just the inclusion of action points goes a long way toward making d20M more "cinematic" than D&D, IMO.)

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.

well, the closest thing i can think of is something along the lines of modern-day action movies, just set in a fantasy world. i like the PCs being larger-than-life heroes who kick butt and scoff at the face of danger.

i've found that D&D (particularly high-level D&D with it's numerous "save-or-die" effects) tends to create a feeling of paranoia and cautiousness among players. they end up spending a lot of time having to prepare their defenses, and worry about making sure they don't get killed with every combat. what i really want is for the PCs to charge into every fight with reckless bravery, kick butt left and right, and come out looking cool. i don't really want them to have to worry about dying all the time.

one of the usual culprits in PC fatalities in my experience is some kind of high-level magical effect (the above-mentioned "save-or-die" stuff); that's why i tend to prefer "low magic" stuff. on the other hand, i like the PCs to be powerful, like the heroes of action movies -- but their power doesn't come from magic, but rather from talent and training.

the other major cause of PC fatalities i've seen is enemies who can do a large amount of damage in a single round. i rarely see PCs die from being nickeled-and-dimed to death -- usually it's something like going from 50 to -10 in one round. that's why i prefer to have most of my combats be between a group of PCs and a horde of lower-powered enemies, rather than the standard group of PCs vs. one very powerful opponent. also, the former is more common in action movies (which is the style i'm trying to emulate.)

so yes, starting the PCs off at higher levels, combined with rare or low-powered magic, would be the kind of campaign i would like to run.

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.

well, i don't mind if the mood is grim -- for the NPCs. i love using mooks the PCs can tackle by the dozens. i just don't like having the PCs themselves have to worry about what i consider incidental things.

(for example, in an action movie, it would make no sense for the main character to get killed in a random back alley scuffle with a couple of thugs 20 minutes into the movie. thus, in my campaigns, it makes no sense for the PCs to die from a random encounter that's not even close to the resolution of the main story arc. unless the encounter is a major plot point (like a fight against the main villain), there should be no chance for a PC fatality. that's why i like "cover your ass" features like action points, and using slightly different rules for major characters (PCs and major villains) vs mooks.)

edit: it may also help to point out that my favorite genre of role-playing is superheroes; and i tend to go for that same style and ethic even when playing in other genres. (hence why i mentioned action movies earlier -- they seem to follow a lot of the same genre conventions as superheroes, just without all the flashy superpowers.)

edit 2: here's something i've been thinking about recently wrt "grim & gritty" settings. for example, i've heard people say that the Conan stories are grim, and that in the new Conan RPG from Mongoose, combat is particularly lethal.

that to me doesn't feel right -- i never saw Hyboria as a grim place for Conan. sure he got into dangerous situations, but was his mortality ever really in jeopardy? can you honestly say you starting reading a Conan story not knowing whether he'd still be alive at the end of the story or not?

the emphasis is not on whether he'll survive, but how, and what he has to do to accomplish that.

that's how i like to play role-playing games, as well. the PCs' survival is pretty much assured -- the enjoyment (for me) doesn't come from wondering whether my character will survive until the end of the encounter / session / campaign, but what happens to him along the way.

that's why i describe myself as a low-lethality GM / player. low threat of death for the main characters (PCs), although the bad guys can die in droves...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

what i really want is for the PCs to charge into every fight with reckless bravery, kick butt left and right, and come out looking cool. i don't really want them to have to worry about dying all the time.

Well, then, let me direct you to the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen link in my sig. I ran this adventure using GT rules.

i like the PCs to be powerful, like the heroes of action movies -- but their power doesn't come from magic, but rather from talent and training.

Truth be told that was actually a design philosophy for Grim Tales. You may still find reference to it throughout the book (emphasis on skills over equipment and magical "toys").

that's why i prefer to have most of my combats be between a group of PCs and a horde of lower-powered enemies

Use the optional rule for Mooks (they automatically fail MDT saving throws, and take only two hits to kill (one hit = wounded, two hits = dead).


Anyhow, take a look. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Wulf

 

[d4]

Anyhow, take a look. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

thanks Wulf, it does sound like i can find what i want in your book. i'll be taking a gander at it, for sure!

i apologize for side-tracking this thread with a long rant on my roleplaying style.

 

[jaults]

The real geniuses are those that can rebuild the tools themselves. (Honestly, I only know of one person I put firmly in this group).

While I don't have GT yet, I will certainly be getting it soon. However, what lead me to post was this comment, ByronD. Mostly because I can think of two people I would put firmly in the aforementioned group of really, really good designers that can rebuild the tools themselves: Steve Kenson of Mutants and Masterminds fame, and Scott Gearin, from Alderac and Spycraft.

Who is your "genius?"

Jason

 

[RangerWickett]

Wulf, I got the book yesterday. If there's any way I can repay you with ENPub products, just ask. Heck, I kept noticing some design philosophy in GT that I try to use with my writing, so if you want a way to slip in super powers to a hypothetical GT2, or if you really want to knock down the reliance on magic items by granting innate stat boosts and such to high-level heroes, I'd be thrilled if you'd consider Four-Color to Fantasy.

I really like the horror rules. I want to use it, but so far in my current game I've had no great horror. Thankfully I'll be starting a new game, so I can tweak things a bit.

I do wish you'd had room for a few examples of the rules in action. It felt like a somewhat sizeable part of the book was redundant if you already had a core d20 rulebook, particularly the skills and some of the feats that are in both D&D and D20M. While I understand you including them for the completeness factor of having everything in one book, I would've rather seen a sample car chase, one or two examples of people going insane, and a couple of sample characters, particularly spellcasters, who are where the rules depart most from D20M.

On the topic of getting rid of high-level save or die spells, I hate 'em too. For EOM-Revised, I got rid of them. The only way to off someone with a single spell is to spend XP and make a Transform spell permanent, like by turning someone into a rock or something. All the attack spells just do damage. I mean, there's variety (spice of life and all), but after you get past the flavorful parts of setting things on fire, or stunning people with lightning, you just get lots of d6s and you roll 'em.

I haven't had a chance to read the book in full, Wulf, but so far I didn't see anything about spells and massive damage. While a high-level melee attack might hit for ~20 points on average, enough for a less-grim character to handle without a Massive Damage Save, a high-level attack spell could easily hit for 40 damage or more. Like I said, I haven't had more than a cursory look at the 'spell burn' rules, but if high-level spells are still around, they end up still being save or die, don't they?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Who is your "genius?"

I don't think I personally have any "genius." To me, genius is the ability to be a progenitor of ideas. I have some talent with catalyzing rules, yes. But it's not genius.

Grim Tales owes much to the work of other writers. Spycraft was inadvertently dropped from the Section 15, but its influence is clear throughout the book (and we had permission from AEG to specifically recommend Spycraft in a couple of places).

Wulf