[Rant] Is Grim n Gritty anything more than prejuidice?

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

This is from the Iron Lore and no disrespect is meant to Azgulor, this has been an issue that's been bugging me for a while.

Specifically, that Iron Lore classes COULD play on par with their D&D counterparts when I should have been reading that Iron Lore classes WILL play on par. So Xena & Samurai Jack definitely fit the bill. Unfortunately 90% of fantasy film and fiction MAY not.

Which is fine. Given D&D's popularity, I'd have to admit that it's the largest target audience. It's just not the kind of game I want to run or play in. However, given the limited info thus far, I can't rule out a purchase. It's just changed from "Salivating must-have! when is August going to get here?" to "Research carefully and examine closely before buying."

(Fortunately Game of Thrones and Thieves' World are coming out soon, so my need for "gritty" may be satisfied anyway.)

Just to discuss this not to challenge Azgulor's taste, decisions, or the corrections in his assumptions, cause Iron Lore is certainly not a correction to DnD so much as an elaboration, but I have to say that I find this attitude mystifying.

Or at least two aspects of it anyways:

That super-heroic is somehow in conflict with gritty fantasy, when really I've almost always assumed it was the point.

And that DnD is the primary originator of the super-heroic fantasy trope.


I mean, don't get me wrong, there are some very good gritty fantasies that never really enter the realm of the bad ass or include it but they strike me as supremely rare. And there are some very good gritty fantasy systems out there, but it strikes me that they and the current of disfavor often heaped on the 'DnD' style of play is more a prejuidice than a legitimate critical perspective. Which isn't to say that they aren't fun to play either, just that I don't understand the basis for the hate.

I'm pretty dang widely read and I'd say that the 90% of fantasy standard really falls more on the side of the honestly fantastic, and I'd like to understand how the opposite point of view comes about.

I mean one of my favorite fantasies is the Black Company series. It's widely hailed as gritty and produced an RPG that was also widely hailed as gritty. I freakin love some of the gritty elements. In both the series and the game people do die in horrible and mundane ways, and yet by the time you reach the high level or the end of the book, heck even in the begining, people are still well within the realm of the bad ass and at a very high level. I'm not saying everyone in the books and games has GAWD-LIKE power, but a number of them do and the rest are well well above the introductory level of competency that in a game like DnD would result in accusations of Munchkinery.

And I'd easilly say the same is true of almost all of the fantasy I've read, including A Song of Fire and Ice, and where it doesn't I'm ok with that. Not all fantasy is going to hit all of the levels of fantasy all of the time and with every character, but in a fantasy RPG I think it's probably better that it hits more of them and in an awesome fantasy RPG I think it actually has more of an obligation to do so.

At the same time, I haven't read Thieves World in either RPG or Fictional form so there may be something to the form there that I'm missing and I'm willing to entertain the notion that the criticism has something to it beyond prejuidice, and even here I mean prejuidice in a the very best and lightest of senses, or that I'm missing something entirely.

So I don't know, is it something? Is it a question of degree? Or is it really a prejuidice I can and should dismiss?

Not that I would cause, you know, even if Black Company got made and sold for wrong reasons it was still made and sold and its still awesome. GoO's Game of Thrones I'm a little less certain about, seems like their aesthetic agenda took over their sense from what I've seen so far. Though again, hey, great to have a good compendium on the material.

 

[Wayside]

there are some very good gritty fantasy systems out there, but it strikes me that they and the current of disfavor often heaped on the 'DnD' style of play is more a prejuidice than a legitimate critical perspective.

Well, what in your view legitimates a critical perspective? I don't think there's any objective criticism to be leveraged one way or the other, but that doesn't mean my own preferences aren't legitimate. I can tell you why I don't like or play D&D, but I can't tell you why you shouldn't like or play it.

I'm pretty dang widely read and I'd say that the 90% of fantasy standard really falls more on the side of the honestly fantastic, and I'd like to understand how the opposite point of view comes about.

You're probably right--that may be why I don't like fantasy as a genre, either, or any genre qua genre for that matter (I read books, not genres). In other words, the fact that 'most fantasy literature is this way' doesn't mean that 'most fantasy roleplaying should be this way.'

Maybe by prejudice you're pointing toward a group of people who are actively hostile toward 'normal' fantasy, though? In which case I'll agree with you that active hate, of D&D or the WoD or any system or setting, is a waste of everybody's time. But you know people.. a lot of them have a compulsory need to justify their decisions to everybody else. Chalk it up to insecurity and invest in a pair of earplugs.

 

[Particle_Man]

Black Company has Raven, who was bad ass. He only failed once, due to a SUPER EVIL artifact.

Theives World has Tempus, a major character with the abilities of a DEMI-GOD introduced in what, book 2 of the series of novels? Yeah, that is grim and gritty.

 

[Galethorn]

I think it's a matter of personal taste...and not on a scale of good to bad.

I don't care about 'realism' or 'believability' in a setting where there are dragons, elves, and gods that regularly speak with mortals: what I want is 'engagingness'. I just can't get interested in a group of half-dragon/half-troll samurai wielding spiked chains on a quest to Clense The Taint of The Baator Once And For All (tm), and when I'm not interested by what's going on, I cease to care what's going on. In the same vein, a campaign/story/whatever about people who regularly get set on fire, fall off of buildings, and get impaled with spears--and suffer no long-term effects--just doesn't do it for me; I just can't identify with the characters, so it's hard to really care what happens to them.

That said, I'm a story/plot/setting guy. That's what I want out of fantasy RPGs; I want an engaging story with characters I can identify with at some level...the same things I want in any book I read. And, in the case of fantasy, I want Good Guys with swords fighting Bad Guys with swords.

Now, of course, that's all secondary to wanting to hang out with my friends every other friday or saturday and stay up Way Too Late.

Long story short, the ultimate goal for me, in using grittier systems is just so I can have characters and situations that are more engaging to me. A lot of the time, I wish I wasn't so damned picky, but I am, and I can't not get put off by people getting stabbed over and over, and then just blowing up/chopping up their attacker, then quaffing a potion and walking away. It's just my personal opinion, but it seems lame and contrived (which I know it isn't, really, but that's how it feels to me at a deep down level).

Now, when it comes right down to it, I don't really like the D&D-specific fantasy tropes and themes. But am I prejudiced? Well, let's look at what the word means...

Prejudice: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. [Dictionary.com]

Well, I don't like most D&Disms, so I guess I have an adverse opinion, but I spent quite a while trying to figure out what I didn't like specifically, and why, so I can reasonably claim that I knew and examined the facts.

As well, I'm perfectly willing to play in 'standard' games (although I prefer not to DM them), and have a certain envy of those who can really get into such settings without having their internal 'fantasy snob' get huffy.

So, I guess I'm one gamer who like things Grim-n-Gritty who isn't prejudiced.

 

[billd91]

I mean, don't get me wrong, there are some very good gritty fantasies that never really enter the realm of the bad ass or include it but they strike me as supremely rare. And there are some very good gritty fantasy systems out there, but it strikes me that they and the current of disfavor often heaped on the 'DnD' style of play is more a prejuidice than a legitimate critical perspective. Which isn't to say that they aren't fun to play either, just that I don't understand the basis for the hate.

<snip>
So I don't know, is it something? Is it a question of degree? Or is it really a prejuidice I can and should dismiss?

For a good many people it is certainly not a prejudice since we have plenty of experience with the high heroic fantasy model D&D is designed to achieve. And for some people, that's just not as satisfying as something a little more dark and dangerous. It's a style preference.
For some people, not having moral absolutists like powerful paladins running around, not finding powerful wizard as often as horse apples on the souls of your shoes, and facing danger from street-savvy guttersnipes (also known as typical urban children in grim and gritty fantasy) is preferable.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Prejudice: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. [Dictionary.com]

I'd argue this is close to the sense of prejuidice that I'm using in that I think much of the opinion on Grim and Gritty seems to be based on a poor reading of the stories being told, but I'd add the corollary that opinions of prejuidice are also very much without any sort of internal consistency except with regard to the phenomena they are reacting against.

I mean if you have knowledge and and examination of DnD but can't really demonstrate similar knowledge and examination of GnG then you are acting under some sort of prejuidice aren't you?

And in that sense I have a great distrust of Grim and Gritty since it seems to hold a variety of contrary or unrelated aesthetics as essential. Were someone to demonstrate that there were a sharper or more coherent structure to the aesthetic it would do a great deal to convince me that it is not simply a prejuidice.

In particular it would help to have seen something actively defined as 'not Grim and Gritty' without being able to attach 'cause it's too DnD.'

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Well, what in your view legitimates a critical perspective? I don't think there's any objective criticism to be leveraged one way or the other, but that doesn't mean my own preferences aren't legitimate. I can tell you why I don't like or play D&D, but I can't tell you why you shouldn't like or play it.

You're probably right--that may be why I don't like fantasy as a genre, either, or any genre qua genre for that matter (I read books, not genres). In other words, the fact that 'most fantasy literature is this way' doesn't mean that 'most fantasy roleplaying should be this way.'

Maybe by prejudice you're pointing toward a group of people who are actively hostile toward 'normal' fantasy, though? In which case I'll agree with you that active hate, of D&D or the WoD or any system or setting, is a waste of everybody's time. But you know people.. a lot of them have a compulsory need to justify their decisions to everybody else. Chalk it up to insecurity and invest in a pair of earplugs.

A great post here, thank-you, but at least part of the objective of my rant is to get someone to give me a good understanding of what GnG does and does not mean. Cause if all it means is that you are critical of some tropes in DnD than that's one thing, but the aesthetic seems pretty meaningless except as a rallying cry. Cause who isn't critical and what can't be adjusted or spun? And as a result of that some hate can have really good arguments and really good effects for the play in question. As I said, I may think Grim n Gritty is intellectually bankrupt, for whatever that means, but I do love Black Company's rules for ambushes. If I can get more love out of this hate then I'll take it and if I can give a little I'll feel I'll have paid for it well.

The issue of genre is one that could be gone on about for days, and I would do so happilly. And while I'm not being critical, in any sort of mean sense, when I say this, I do distrust the formula that someone reads books and not genres. Pretty much intrinsicly you have to do both. So what is it about the call to genre that you distrust? Is it simply that it seems to be monolithic? Or is there something about the very idea of a fantasy genre that seems false to you?

 

[Azgulor]

Well, since I seemed to help kick this off....

For me, it's a question of style. I like Heroic. I like Fantastic. Heroic fantasy that emulates the "superhero" of say, an action movie, is ok (wading through mooks, multiple drag-out fights, etc.).

To use some of the examples cited: Conan wading through his enemies on grit, rage, and attitude as much as skill - no problem. Tempus Thales, an immortal whose god-blessed/cursed body can heal any wound, no problem. The presentation lends an air of possibility to it. Xena, doing her physics-defying acrobatic move of the week, no thanks.

Specific to Iron Lore, the "arrow ladder" screams CHEESY to me. My players like being heroic bad-asses laying the smackdown on my villains. But if I introduced the Arrow Ladder, eyes would roll and groans would ensue because I've jarred them out of the experience. It's kinda like the D&D character who walks off a cliff because he knows he can survive the fall.

I think there's a wide range of middle ground between D&D (aka Fantasy Superhero Action Hour - patent pending) and grim-n-gritty and that's what I expect/like (rightly or wrongly) for fantasy RPGing. Others tastes will undoubtedly differ. No harm, no foul.

Azgulor

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Black Company has Raven, who was bad ass. He only failed once, due to a SUPER EVIL artifact.

And was part of a squad that was ambushed and he was beaten into bloody hamburger in what, Chapter 2 of the first book? Would have died were it not for Croaker's arrival and medical attention. Not too bad ass at then...

But some of the attraction to a "grittier" feel is the sense of danger powerful creatures have at being outnumbered even slightly and by much weaker foes. Like taking a 15th-level character and being ambushed by five 3rd level troopers. Regular D&D, this is usually a mere annoyance to the 15th-level character. In the BCCS, there is a real chance at not surviving.

The number of highly powered characters in the world of the Black Company is miniscule. It just happens that they are usually the employers of the Company, their employers' foes, or members of the Company itself after many years of service. (Unless they enlisted with siginificant power built up from many years like Raven).

 

[S'mon]

'Grim & Gritty' as a descriptor says nothing about personal power levels. Much of the darkest swords & sorcery has demigod uber-heroes - actually my favourite obscure fantasy novel has a quest party including 3 warriors, a god who can slaughter armies, & a prostitute (who gets horribly murdered).