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

[Desdichado]

D&D is designed -and has been since its inception- as heroic fantasy. Characters are stars, larger than life. They tackle dragons and demons and evil overlords. They save the world and battle against teeming hordes. Sure, the start out somewhat vulnerable, but they reach a point where the things that could have killed them in a single round are no longer even speed bumps. A lot of this has to do with things like the way Hit Poinits and Armor Class are handled. Again, this isn't an "error," it's just a design choice.

That's true of high(ish) level D&D, but not low level D&D, which could arguably be called fairly grim-n-gritty. D&D is particularly odd in that PCs change from fairly fragile things to superheroic beings over the course of a few levels. Saying that 1st level PCs are "somewhat vulnerable" considerably understates the situation, IMO.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

So, if that's the test, please show me a system where a completely equipped character at the highest level (point value, whatever) achievable in the game, and who is combat-maximized (ie, not a GURPS guy with no points in combat), has a significantly better chance than the D&D guy of dying at the hands of something he was expected to beat when his character was first starting out as a brand-new recruit.

Assuming by 'maximized' you mean 'typical combat-focused character' not 'min-maxed to the nth degree', then Dragonquest, various flavors of RuneQuest, Rolemaster, et. al. (and presumably HARP, although I'm not as familiar with it), Recon, Aftermath, Boot Hill, Grim Tales (depending on which 'skull options' are in effect). I'm sure there are many others -- heck, pretty much anything that uses a low MDT or VP/WP system closes the gap between goblin-equivalents and experienced characters.

 

[LostSoul]

Hence, flavor-text. Sound it out with me. Fla-vor-tex-tuh.

Well, that's kind of rude.

I understand flavour text. I'm saying that there are times in D&D where flavour text gets hard to justify (such as having a bad burn on your leg and still being able to move at full speed).

(By the way, if I was going to write the flavour text for your situation, I'd just say that the PC dodged the flames, was singed a bit, maybe lost some hair and blackened his armour, but nothing more.)

Because unlike you, I know how to use flavor-text.

I understand that you don't understand this. I understand that this breaks the little boardgame you had going in your head. But really, if you set up bad flavor text, use bad flavor text, and then say, "Aha, the solution is to change the rules," you're missing something.

Wow.

You're being silly.

All I'm saying is that your flavour text does not jive with how the rules of the game work.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

One of my personal "tests" for a game system is what I call "the Lone Goblin." Simply put, do the mechanics of the system allow for the possibility of a single normal goblin (or its moral equivalent in the setting) with a dagger killing a non-helpless PC of any level/rank/grade/etc. with a single, well-placed blow?

It doesn't have to be likely, or even probable, but it should be at least within the realm of possibility. D&D fails this test. Does that make it a "bad" game? No, but it is not gritty.

Then the only thing needed to change D&D to a "Grim'n'Gritty" game is to institute a 2-natural 20s rule.

A natural 20 always hits and threatens a crit.

As a variant, a natural 20 on the confirmation roll threatens instant death.

A hit on a second confirmation roll either causes instant death or forces a Massive Damage save. Alternatively, the natural 20 on the confirmation roll itself causes instant death or forces a Massive Damage save.

Using the most unlikely combination (a natural 20 required to hit, a natural 20 on the confirmation roll which allows a 2nd confirmation roll, a natural 20 on that, and a Massive Damage save which can only be failed on a 1), a lone goblin can kill anything right out 0.0006% of the time. This not only includes high-level Fighters, but most demons, devils, and other assorted nasties as well.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Assuming by 'maximized' you mean 'typical combat-focused character' not 'min-maxed to the nth degree', then Dragonquest, various flavors of RuneQuest, Rolemaster, et. al. (and presumably HARP, although I'm not as familiar with it), Recon, Aftermath, Boot Hill, Grim Tales (depending on which 'skull options' are in effect). I'm sure there are many others -- heck, pretty much anything that uses a low MDT or VP/WP system closes the gap between goblin-equivalents and experienced characters.

You forgot Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

 

[Dragonblade]

One of my personal "tests" for a game system is what I call "the Lone Goblin." Simply put, do the mechanics of the system allow for the possibility of a single normal goblin (or its moral equivalent in the setting) with a dagger killing a non-helpless PC of any level/rank/grade/etc. with a single, well-placed blow?

It doesn't have to be likely, or even probable, but it should be at least within the realm of possibility. D&D fails this test. Does that make it a "bad" game? No, but it is not gritty.

Sure, roll 2 natural 20s and confirm the crit on a third roll and even the highest level PC dies. Seems to pass the 'test' to me. I've even seen it happen more than once.

But no, D&D is not a game designed for PCs to wrestle with orcs in the mud over a knife just to survive. If that's the kind of game you want, play Warhammer or just play D&D but never allow anyone to level beyond 5th. Personally, I have never seen the attraction to that style of play.

Why would I want to spend my precious recreation time on something so pathetic as playing characters who have to worry about beating a single goblin even after a year long campaign? Some might enjoy such a game, and more power to you. I'd rather play a larger than life hero who kicks ass and takes names.

 

[takyris]

Well, that's kind of rude.

I apologize. I felt your post was condescending, and I responded in kind.

I understand flavour text. I'm saying that there are times in D&D where flavour text gets hard to justify (such as having a bad burn on your leg and still being able to move at full speed).

(By the way, if I was going to write the flavour text for your situation, I'd just say that the PC dodged the flames, was singed a bit, maybe lost some hair and blackened his armour, but nothing more.)

Also fair. That means lowering the descriptive threat-level of the average fireball, then, which might make some wizard folks unhappy, but honestly, I'd say that works just as well as what I wrote. And if your gaming group doesn't have people who will roleplay the effects of being hurt but not dying, then changing the flavor-text is easier than adding rules for hindrances from damage -- which, as you correctly noted, would quickly get big enough for it to be easier to just use another system.

All I'm saying is that your flavour text does not jive with how the rules of the game work.

That's what I don't get. Leave the leg-wound aside. The fighter could easily have been wrong, here. It could hurt for a few minutes but not actually be as bad a wound as it felt like in the immediate moment. If the fighter dives to the side behind a corner or a tree, then steps back into place or stumbles back so that he ends up in the same square, with a net result of no movement... how does that not jive? If we feel comfortable saying that six seconds can be occupied by parrying and circling and then ending with one single attack for a first-level character with his weapon already drawn, and all of that parrying and circling is just flavor text, what's the problem with having movement that has a net-zero result, and that affords a reason whereby an explosion powerful enough to outright kill a commoner standing ten feet away doesn't kill our hero, who, while certainly more experienced, isn't inherently tougher than that commoner by that much?

Rodrigo Istalindir: Thanks. Haven't played those, so I honestly didn't know. As for the difference between "combat-focused" and "minmaxed to the nth degree", I don't know. That's a question for Kengar to answer, not me. Can a (creature designed to be a moderate challenge, but not too dangerous for beginning characters) kill a top-level character designed with combat as his primary ability with a single blow of a dagger? That is what Kengar asked. I don't know if he means "the dagger must take him from full health to dead", although that seems reasonable, since, heck, in D&D, a dagger can kill a 20th level character if that character is down to 1 hit point from fighting dracoliches all afternoon.

Or is it not a question of a creature being designed to be a moderate challenge, but not too dangerous for beginning characters? Do the G&G games simply not HAVE creatures in that niche? Is it like one of my early d20 Modern martial arts games, where the bad guys had mooks with assault rifles (each of which, at 2d8 damage, did enough to conceivably hit every PC's massive damage threshold without requiring a crit -- and one defensive master character combined a lucky attack roll against him with a lucky damage roll to him and an unlucky massive damage save for him, and was taken out and subsequently killed)? Does that make my d20 Modern martial arts game grim & gritty?

 

[Azgulor]

Kengar, could you demonstrate some other rules systems in which a normal -- no class levels, nothing special about him at all, and in this rules system he's considered an acceptible monster to send against just-starting-out heroes -- goblin can kill the most powerful player character possible with a single lucky strike?

Now, if you gave the goblin a morningstar, the weapon it is using in the monster manual, and if it rolled a critical hit, and if you were using the d20 Modern damage threshold instead of the D&D damage threshold, you could conceivably do 14 points of damage (2d8-2 for strength), which would force a massive damage save on anyone with a Con of 14 or lower. But you've specified a dagger, so that's out.

I'm not using traps, either, since what you seem to have in mind is a "no environment, no special circumstances, just one guy and a goblin in an arena, with the goblin having nothing but a dagger and the hero having all his equipment" fight.

It is statistically unlikely, but not impossible, for a goblin to kill a high-level character in D&D. I mean, thousands to one odds, yes. The easiest way would be for the goblin to disarm the hero with an incredibly lucky roll and then use the hero's weapon, and then roll a critical hit incredibly luckily, and so forth. Not completely impossible. Unlikely, yes, but not impossible.

So, if that's the test, please show me a system where a completely equipped character at the highest level (point value, whatever) achievable in the game, and who is combat-maximized (ie, not a GURPS guy with no points in combat), has a significantly better chance than the D&D guy of dying at the hands of something he was expected to beat when his character was first starting out as a brand-new recruit.

GURPS
Rolemaster
And I suspect, but haven't played so can't be 100% certain on the mechanics, WHFRP (v2 for arguement's sake).

Also, Kengar said it needed to be possible, not probable. While you could argue it's possible for D&D, I'd have to agree, but the odds are pretty damn long against it. Conversely, I've seen high level GURPS and Rolemaster characters taken out by a "standard" (i.e. no enhancements such as higher point builds or additional levels) humanoid. One was a goblin (GURPS), the other a commoner (Level 1 Layman from Rolemaster). In both cases, although unikely, the PCs and I all appreciated that when combat went bad for you, it went there quickly and approached each encounter accordingly. For that to happen in D&D, well a meteor might land on my house the night I win the lottery, but I'm not moving just to be safe! When was the last time a D&D hero above 10th level even paused to consider if they could win a fight against a goblin? I've never seen it.

Azgulor

 

[S'mon]

Re goblin - in regular D&D with the instant-kill rule, a double-20 crit followed by a confirm will kill anyone, that's at least a 1 in 8000 chance. I'm going to adopt it as double-20 followed by massive damage check. That doesn't hugely increase lethality but just giving a theoretical better-than-one-in-a-million chance of the goblin War-1 killing the Ftr-20 will change the tone a little, I think - "Even the greatest hero can be killed by a single arrow..."

 

[Desdichado]

Re goblin - in regular D&D with the instant-kill rule, a double-20 crit followed by a confirm will kill anyone, that's at least a 1 in 8000 chance. I'm going to adopt it as double-20 followed by massive damage check.

But I've never seen it, and I imagine most gamers have not as well. To say something is possible, but extremely statistically unlikely, doesn't really meet the spirit of the test, IMO, nor does it satisfy the degree of verissimilitude that the test was designed to check for.