[Grim Tales] First GT Session, and Lessons Learned...

[Flynn]

Good Morning, All,

Last night, I finally got the chance to run Grim Tales, and I had a blast doing it! For a little background, my weekly D&D game didn't meet last night due to the Thanksgiving holidays, so I managed to find a couple of local gamers that were staying in town and wanted to give Grim Tales a try. I downloaded a Conan adventure off the internet and modified it to fit Grim Tales, compensating for only two PCs by using GT's encounter design system. The two characters were 5th level, and some problems came up as a result of their reduced numbers, which will be covered in Lessons Learned, below.

All in all, though, we had a great time. Grim Tales played like any other D20 system, and was easier to pick up on the fly with new gamers than Spycraft or Traveller T20, so I don't see any problems with using it for my next campaign (the "sword and planet" milieu I've been working on).

LESSONS LEARNED:

+ Action Points: The use of Action Points in Grim Tales is much more integrated into the game than in Eberron or Unearthed Arcana. I found the system easy to use and highly dynamic, more than I expected, to be honest. I was able to pass out a number of APs during the night due to critical failures, and I liked how that worked out. I was pleased with the results, very pleased.

+ Defense Bonuses: In GT, as in D20 Modern, each class grants a defense bonus that stacks with armor to add to a character's AC, thus making AC higher than in other versions of D20 to my experience. This became a problem when the lower CR encounters imposed by the reduced numbers of the party, with no equivalent BAB boost, were unable to hit the AC of the party outside of a natural 20. In games without armor easily available, this isn't a problem. However, in an archaic setting with decent armor available, this made combats more an exercise of waiting until the PCs could hit the monsters while desperately trying for a natural 20. The combat scenes were still fun, but hardly threatening. The PCs only took damage from the automatic damage of a swarm attack. This will translate to NPCs with class levels being more dangerous foes than other encounters, because they'll be much harder to hit.

+ Skills: Some of the skills were a little different, but that may have been based on my limited understanding of D20 Modern and its influence on the skill selections. That isn't a problem, but will take a little effort to learn. Much less effort will be required to learn GT's skills than Traveller T20, and T20 was easy to pick up, so I don't suspect that there'll be any issues.

+ Horror Checks: The mechanics are a little convuluted, but the results make sense. They rarely appear to threaten anyone with a Charisma higher than 12, so appear to be focused on penalizing the guys with a Charisma of 8 for sacrificing Charisma for other stats. Also, the fact that the ELs recommended by the Encounter Design system implies that you will rarely, if ever, see a situation where your character will be threatened with insanity or a similar result, as your PCs' EL will always be higher than the encounter's EL, resulting in a positive modifier all the time. After playing around a little with it, we liked the potential, but will need to see it more in action before we find out if the above observations are true and consistent.

POSSIBLE HOUSE RULES:

+ Defense Bonuses: As v3.5 is based on the concept that the average Attack Bonus for a creature should be around CR * 1.5, +2 if the creature has few special attacks. (See MM v3.5, pg 299) The only difference between 3.5 AC calculations and GT AC calculations are the Defense Bonuses, which appear statistically to grant an additional bonus of just over CR * 0.5 to AC. This gives GT characters an increasing advantage over v3.5 characters, and reduces the challenge of standard D20 creatures without the addition of a +1/2 * CR bonus to attack rolls.

A possible solution for this appears in WOTC's Unearthed Arcana, where Defense Bonuses are offered for the standard D&D classes. Armor is expected to be encountered in a D&D campaign, and so the rule for Defense Bonuses is that you only apply the higher of Defense bonuses and armor bonuses to the character's AC. Using this rule in GT doesn't change the role of Defense bonus in low armor campaigns, but it also doesn't throw AC values askew in a campaign where high armor values are present.

This presents a possible Three Skull variant for Defense Bonuses in a GT campaign:

* One Skull: Defense Bonuses add separately to AC and touch AC, just like the GT rules are currently written.
** Two Skulls: Add the higher of the character's Armor Bonus or Defense Bonus to AC, as per Unearthed Arcana. Defense Bonuses still apply to touch AC.
*** Three Skulls: When flatfooted or otherwise denied one's Dex bonus or dodge bonuses, one also does not add Defense Bonus to AC, as per the rule in GT, pg 94.

+ Horror Checks: I think it would be more intuitive is the results applied were based on how much you missed the Horror Check by, rather than the end result of the dieroll. I still want to play with the system as it is for the time being, but I might also tool up a similar table to the one on GT pg 142 based on differences between the Horror Check and the Threshold to determine a failed check's affect, and test that, as well.

What are your thoughts and experiences? Do they mesh with the above? Or have I misunderstood something?

Enjoy,
Flynn

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

My experiences:

My only fantasy game with GT rules involved Airships, so my players specifically went with lighter armor because nobody much wanted to fail a Jump check and plummet to their death. Not that we ever had a situation like that, but the logical conclusion was there. We used the Damage Conversion mechanic (Fewer Dead Heroes) and most PCs took a +2 or +3 armor for a bump to Defense and a little Conversion (since there was no healing magic to be had).

I used this same rule in my d20Modern-typed games (I tend to mix d20M and GT) but, again, setting-flavor kept most people in stuff like Leather Jacket (+1) or a light vest (+3), mostly for the conversion.

With the Fast hero ... you get situations where folks have really high ACs pretty quickly. I usually had trouble hitting the Fast hero in combat, especially ranged combat when he was ducking around behind cover. But I'm not sure if it was a PROBLEM. It was just something he was good at.

I've contemplated just nixing the bonus to Defense from armor and going with Conversion ... but I'd allow Treat Injury/Heal to do equal amounts L and NL damage, as healing spells in D&D do. This would generally double the effectiveness of the check. Maybe use Treat Injury to restore NL points 2x a day.

For myself, I haven't run a GT game with Horror checks. Was contemplating it for my next Dark*Matter game ... If they're not consistently HORRIBLE, it might actually work better for me ... I sort of wanted a system that would say: "Even trained agents find this a little whack" but not the instant gibbering nut-house-stay of CoC. Have to try it.

--fje

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Horror Checks explained...

+ Horror Checks: The mechanics are a little convuluted, but the results make sense. They rarely appear to threaten anyone with a Charisma higher than 12, so appear to be focused on penalizing the guys with a Charisma of 8 for sacrificing Charisma for other stats.

Were you adding any modifiers from Table 10-2? How about extra dice from Table 10-3?

If Horror is going to be a big part of your game, you could assume that the Horror Threshold always beats the PC's Charisma. You could roll it anyway to determine the severity of any subsequent insanities, of course.

Also, the fact that the ELs recommended by the Encounter Design system implies that you will rarely, if ever, see a situation where your character will be threatened with insanity or a similar result, as your PCs' EL will always be higher than the encounter's EL, resulting in a positive modifier all the time.

Let's play with that for a second.

Let's first assume that you're using the two-skull variant where a PC only adds his Wisdom modifier. Let's also assume that a PC is going to have a +1 bonus here. (No reason, just being generous.)

A moderate encounter has a difference of 4 EL to the party. So for a moderate encounter, the PC is going to have a +4 bonus to his check.

>> Quick side note: You have to seriously consider whether a Horror check is even appropriate for a moderate encounter. If I were running a Horror-based game, I might have an early horrific encounter that was moderate (like, some hideous but easily dispatched zombies) and a later encounter that was difficult (like the vampire boss).

Anyhow-- back to our first example. The PC has +1 to his check from Wis, and +4 to his check from the difference in EL.

The average roll is 10, which means the average PC risks being dazed by this encounter. (See Table 10-1: roll of 10, +1 Wis, +4 EL bonus = 15 result.)

Keep in mind that players roll really bad at the worst of times. Among the list of really bad things to happen to your character is some kind of insanity.

With the exception of a couple of disorders that actually enhance your self-preservation instincts (mild General Anxiety Disorder, for example!) the list of game effects for the psychological disorders are really bad to get stuck with.

I bring this up to emphasize the importance of using the Fight or Flight rule. If the players believe there is a real (albeit remote) chance of some really bad insanity afflicting their character, there's a good chance they'll choose to just run from the encounter.

Which is really the result you wanted in the first place.

Back to the example:

The PCs have both rolled perfectly average, they both risk being dazed, now pending the result of the Horror Threshold check.

Let's again assume the average. Personally, I like my Horrific encounters to be getting an extra +1d6 one way or another, but we're doing an average check, so let's plow on with just the recommended 2d6.

The average roll is a 7.

First time the PCs have encountered this foe? +2.
Particularly horrific/gory scene? +1.

We've now hit the perfectly average Threshold of 10.

Which affects the perfectly average Joe with a Charisma of 10.

So your perfectly average Horror check is going to daze the perfectly average human (CHA 10).

I think that's a pretty good baseline result.

Remember-- that's the baseline result. You really have to prey on the players' fears of rolling crappy on this check. Use Fight or Flight. Make them use an action point on their Horror check. And so on.

Fight or Flight is really a lot of fun with a bigger group of players. You'll have one or two good Wisdom, good Charisma players choosing to stick around, and their buddies take off rather than risk a bad Horror check!

+ Horror Checks: I think it would be more intuitive is the results applied were based on how much you missed the Horror Check by, rather than the end result of the dieroll.

The system already works this way-- it sounds like you just didn't apply it correctly.

But as you're not the first GM to have trouble with it, I'll assume (once again!) the responsibility for your difficulties.

 

[ssampier]

sounds fun. I was considering using Grim Tales for my d20 Fantasy Pulp African game; steaming jungles, crazed tribal warchiefs, "witch doctors" and Cthulhu cults, oh yeah!

 

[Flynn]

Horror Clarity...

Were you adding any modifiers from Table 10-2? How about extra dice from Table 10-3?

Here's what I did:

1. PCs chose between Fight or Flight.
2. Using One Skull option, the PCs rolled a Will Save to set their result, +4 for the differences in EL. The minimum for this roll would, by default, be (natural one, +4 EL diff, -1 Will save for the poorest will save possible with an 8 WIS, equals) 4, and the average 13.5, for the worst Wis/Will roll for a Point Buy character.
3. I rolled 3d6+3 to set the Threshold. The average for that 14.5. (In general, it's actually 2d6 unmodified, or 7, as the result (or as you pointed out, 10 for a first time encounter). With Point Buy, the average is always below the minimum Charisma score allowed by a Point Buy system, except for the first time encounter, where the average PC would be affected.)
4. I compared the Threshold to the PC's Charisma (not the Horror Check, which felt counter-intuitive for some reason, but that's how it reads.) If the Threshold was below the PC's Charisma, then the Horror Check determines the results.

Is that what I'm supposed to do?

Quick side note: You have to seriously consider whether a Horror check is even appropriate for a moderate encounter. If I were running a Horror-based game, I might have an early horrific encounter that was moderate (like, some hideous but easily dispatched zombies) and a later encounter that was difficult (like the vampire boss).

That was my plan.

Keep in mind that players roll really bad at the worst of times. Among the list of really bad things to happen to your character is some kind of insanity.

An Addendum: It's not generally possible to have an Insanity result without being a deadly or near deadly encounter, which runs contrary to the Encounter Design system.

<<SNIP GREAT ANALYSIS OF HORROR CHECK SYSTEM>>

Wulf,

Where my problem probably arose was the use of PCs with Charisma scores around 13 instead of Average Joe 10s. (I use interpersonal skill checks a lot, so my PCs tend to avoid using Charisma as a dump stat.)

Thanks for the rundown,
Flynn

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

<<SNIP GREAT ANALYSIS OF HORROR CHECK SYSTEM>>

So do you need me to explain it again? I will anyway.

1. PCs choose between Fight or Flight.

2. PCs make a Horror check. This check is d20 + Will/Wis bonus + EL difference. The result of this check only determines the possible effect. You still have to proceed to step 3.

3. Roll the Horror Threshold. Sounds like you did it right: 3d6 + 3.

4. If the Horror Threshold exceeds the PC's Charisma, he suffers the effect determined in step 2.

I usually mention this because it sometimes helps folks get their mind around how the Horror mechanic works: It's an analog to the Turn Undead rules. It's a d20 roll for "Quality of Effect" followed by multiple d6's to determine "Quantity of Effect."

An Addendum: It's not generally possible to have an Insanity result without being a deadly or near deadly encounter, which runs contrary to the Encounter Design system.

I'm not with you here. Why isn't it completely consistent that the most deadly encounters cause the greatest psychological distress?

Where my problem probably arose was the use of PCs with Charisma scores around 13 instead of Average Joe 10s.

Even that isn't really a problem. If you're using monsters that are supposed to be horrific (ie, Undead) then you're already starting at 3d6. If it's a first time encounter, that's a +2 bonus, and if it's particularly gory, another +1.

The average result there is 13.5. Even on an average result, you're going to be affecting even your pretty boy heroes.

Again, the point isn't for you players to be thinking about what's going to happen to them, on average. The point is for them to be thinking about the worst possible thing that can happen to them if the roll goes against them.

 

[Flynn]

So do you need me to explain it again? I will anyway.

<<SNIP>>

Nope, we're on the same wavelength.

I'm not with you here. Why isn't it completely consistent that the most deadly encounters cause the greatest psychological distress?

That's not the part I think of as contrary. I meant that running deadly encounters is contrary to the Encounter Design system in GT. If I recall, the recommendation is five PL-6 and 1 PL-2 before retiring to recover. Alternatively, it is a number of encounters so that, over the course of the encounters, the effectiveness adds up to but doesn't exceed 100%.

Thus, there will always be positive modifiers to the Horror Check role due to EL differences. If there are negative modifiers, then the encounter violates the recommendations of the Encounter Design system.

Or so it appears to me.

The ultimate solution here for me, to match my thoughts and expectations, is likely to be to use the Two-Skull Horror Check instead of going a blanket One-Skull across the ruleset. Adding in the Will save bonus instead of just a Wis bonus makes Horror Checks ineffective at higher levels.

Hmm... unless that's what I want, of course. I'll have to think about that...

Sorry, Wulf, I may appear dense at times, but your words are sinking in. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

With Appreciation,
Flynn

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That's not the part I think of as contrary. I meant that running deadly encounters is contrary to the Encounter Design system in GT. If I recall, the recommendation is five PL-6 and 1 PL-2 before retiring to recover. Alternatively, it is a number of encounters so that, over the course of the encounters, the effectiveness adds up to but doesn't exceed 100%.

Aha, gotcha now.

If I had to criticize one plank of this problem, then, it'd be the Encounter Design guidelines.

You know what? Just throw out Chapter 14.

For a "Game Day" kind of situation, you just can't possibly run along those guidelines. There's no way you'll be able to get in 6 encounters.

For a game day, TWO combats is pushing it. I'd go with one moderate (PL-4) and one big finale (PL-- very difficult).

That kind of setup is much more "cinematic."

The ultimate solution here for me, to match my thoughts and expectations, is likely to be to use the Two-Skull Horror Check instead of going a blanket One-Skull across the ruleset.

Sheesh. Either that or start shopping for frilly blouses and skirts, ya' Mary.

 

[Flynn]

For a "Game Day" kind of situation, you just can't possibly run along those guidelines. There's no way you'll be able to get in 6 encounters.

For a game day, TWO combats is pushing it. I'd go with one moderate (PL-4) and one big finale (PL-- very difficult).

That kind of setup is much more "cinematic."

Sounds like a much better plan.

Thanks!

Sheesh. Either that or start shopping for frilly blouses and skirts, ya' Mary.

For your typical Sword-And-Planet genre, One Skull seems to help the PCs be the swordmasters and survivors against incredible odds that they are in the novels of the genre. Hence, the reason I'm looking at the system from that perspective.

My thoughts may change on that, or my wardrobe may increase. Not sure which, though.

Thanks, Wulf,
Flynn

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Good Morning, All,

Last night, I finally got the chance to run Grim Tales, and I had a blast doing it! For a little background, my weekly D&D game didn't meet last night due to the Thanksgiving holidays, so I managed to find a couple of local gamers that were staying in town and wanted to give Grim Tales a try. I downloaded a Conan adventure off the internet and modified it to fit Grim Tales, compensating for only two PCs by using GT's encounter design system.

Where did you find this adventure?

The two characters were 5th level, and some problems came up as a result of their reduced numbers, which will be covered in Lessons Learned, below.

+ Defense Bonuses: In GT, as in D20 Modern, each class grants a defense bonus that stacks with armor to add to a character's AC, thus making AC higher than in other versions of D20 to my experience. This became a problem when the lower CR encounters imposed by the reduced numbers of the party, with no equivalent BAB boost, were unable to hit the AC of the party outside of a natural 20. In games without armor easily available, this isn't a problem. However, in an archaic setting with decent armor available, this made combats more an exercise of waiting until the PCs could hit the monsters while desperately trying for a natural 20. The combat scenes were still fun, but hardly threatening. The PCs only took damage from the automatic damage of a swarm attack. This will translate to NPCs with class levels being more dangerous foes than other encounters, because they'll be much harder to hit.

I see this happen often in D20 Modern. To prevent this from happening, all you need to do is use Smart and Charismatic Heroes as NPCs on occasion. Inspiration and Plan are a great way of boosting attack bonuses. Using heroic NPCs also gives action points (which stack with Inspiration and Plan). This can be done without house rules, of course.

An Ordinary Modern character may be more flexible than an NPC classed DnD character, but they're still quite weak. Just like most DnD adventures use heroic NPCs (even for generic 10th-level fighters), you should do so for D20 Modern as well.

The Defense is generally quite high at low levels, when players have few hp. At higher levels the progression gradually slows down, while action points granted to NPCs increases.

You might also want to make players pay for armor feats, instead of letting classes give them out for free, and you might want to trim the Fast Hero Defense bonus (as martial artist +1. so it goes from +2 to +8, keeping the dipping down).

I've been running a D20 Modern campaign set in ancient China, and the characters are decked out like characters from a fantasy novel, rather than characters from a DnD game. One player has medium armor, and virtually everyone else has light armor. I think one Fast character chose not to wear armor, even though he wasn't a swashbuckler or martial artist. Their Defenses are not too high, but since they usually face lower-level NPCs, they usually have the (slim) advantage in both attack bonuses and Defenses.

I'm not using magic, which is different from Grim Tales of course. It seems to me that in a game without magical healing, it might be a good thing if the PCs don't take much damage.

Now I don't have this Conan adventure - not until you post that link at least - so I don't know how it was set up. I find you're better off using a few "nasty" encounters per day rather than four or so weak encounters. Higher level NPCs hit more, get better bonuses from Charismatic Heroes, etc.