[Rant] Is Grim n Gritty anything more than prejuidice?
- Thread starter Dr. Strangemonkey
- Start date
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
Aaron L said:
That's what I would hope.
But if all the films are about WWII do they all have to be like Saving Private Ryan to be legitimate and good?
If so or if not then how do you go about comparing them and building up WWII gaming, critical, or production systems?
How do you go about explaining Private Ryan-ness?
Ah! So you are talking about GnG as an "aesthetic criticism" (of DnD?) rather than as a genre or play style in its own right ... say, 'D&D is not GnG enough', or 'DnD rules aren't suitable for GnG games', or something ... and as a criticism you do not believe it is justified?
I am still rather lost by the sense in which you are using the word 'prejudice' but I guess it is not central to the issue. The idea that an understanding based on extensive experience can be 'prejudice' because other people without that experience might not understand it seems strange.
Edit : reading the last posts I will put this back in
A preference for GnG play does not say anything about the "legitimacy and goodness" of heroic high fantasy or any other style. In fact I think the idea of objective worth is irrelevant to the discussion. Anyone who claims to have the 'one true style' deserves to be ignored. While it is interesting to hear people's interpretations of GnG, as well as discussion on genre in texts and so on, I definitely feel you're tilting at windmills with that one.
Cheers, Malic
I am still rather lost by the sense in which you are using the word 'prejudice' but I guess it is not central to the issue. The idea that an understanding based on extensive experience can be 'prejudice' because other people without that experience might not understand it seems strange.
Edit : reading the last posts I will put this back in
A preference for GnG play does not say anything about the "legitimacy and goodness" of heroic high fantasy or any other style. In fact I think the idea of objective worth is irrelevant to the discussion. Anyone who claims to have the 'one true style' deserves to be ignored. While it is interesting to hear people's interpretations of GnG, as well as discussion on genre in texts and so on, I definitely feel you're tilting at windmills with that one.
Cheers, Malic
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
I think harmony has been restored already, if it was ever truly lost.Dr. Strangemonkey said:
Now, we're really getting down to what you're trying to say, and discussing that, though, instead of what it seemed you were saying that you probably were not.
And if I understand you correctly, maybe I am prejudiced in the context in which you use that word. I like grim and gritty as an aesthetic, so game systems that foster that aesthetic naturally appeal to me. That doesn't mean I always want Grim and Gritty, or that I automatically dislike non-GnG, though, although I'll admit that Dragonball Z levels of wahoo have to put a lot more effort into their sales pitch to catch my interest, though.
WizarDru
Adventurer
Dr. Strangemonkey said:
I certainly don't think that they all need to be one way or another. Some days, I want "Where Eagles Dare", other days I want "The Dirty Dozen" and on still others I might want "Private Ryan" or "The Longest Day".
I don't think they need comparing, they just simply are. Any comparison is on a purely subjective basis, anyhow; how am I to quantify to you that "Where Eagles Dare" is a better or worse film than "Kelly's Heroes"? Better how? Beyond a certain objective quality of production, how do you compare "To Hell and Back" against "Saving Private Ryan"? Historical accuracy, perhaps, but in terms of story and quality? Those become personal opinions.
GnG is a style, nothing more and nothing less. I would argue, for example, that the characters and stories of "Sin City" are very Grim-and-Gritty, even though they are hardly realistic. GnG to me is not dependent on rules elements, though they can and should reinforce that flavor. GnG is an approach that some people enjoy and others don't.
Lots of good points by lots of people.
I agree that D&D, as it is designed to be played, is not G&G, because, as others have noted, clerics and other spellcasting stuff and encounter levels make it pretty easy to become powerful enough to be able to afford to raise people from the dead. If death is an inconvenience and not a real fear, that's not G&G. And if 10 1st-level guys with bows aimed at you don't scare your character, that's not G&G.
That said, I also think that a lot of G&G is flavor-text. I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again: D&D is an abstract game, and if you do a really dumb version of flavor-text, it's easy to get a result you don't like. That doesn't make the rules stupid. That makes your flavor-text stupid.
For example:
The event: A 6th-level fighter (currently at 34/57 hit points) has just finished off his opponent, only to see an enemy wizard cast a fireball at him. The fighter makes his Reflex save with a lucky roll and only takes 14 points of damage, taking him from 34 to 20.
If I wanted: Superheroic
I would say: The fireball hits the fighter square in the chest and explodes massively. When the smoke clears, the fighter is there, scorched but still standing. He shakes his head, wipes off his face, and says, "Ouch. Now let's see what I can do to you."
If I wanted: Swashbuckling
I would say: The fireball streaks in and explodes, sending gouts of flame streaking in all directions. The fighter leaps acrobatically through the air, dodging most of the gouts of flame as they burst out, and lands with a few tiny scorch makes, his blade levelled at the enemy wizard. "You'll have to do better than that," he calls out.
If I wanted: Grim & Gritty
I would say: As the fighter sees the fireball streaking in, he shouts "Incoming!" and dives behind a tree for cover. He doesn't quite make it, and a wave of heat sears his leg as he rolls behind cover. His boot-leather sears his leg, and he knows the skin underneath is raw and angry -- and will likely come away with the boot when he takes it off. His lungs burn briefly as he inhales smoke and scorching air, but he knows that the wizard won't wait, and he stumbles back out, his panicked adrenaline rush keeping his leg from slowing him down at least for now, and shouts a scream of defiance at the wizard with his sword raised.
Same game, same mechanics, three different styles.
In terms of house rules I'd use to keep things scary:
1) Really come down hard on magical items. Keep wealth low, more potions and scrolls, very few permanent magical items.
2) If you keep healing magic, have it convert to subdual, not remove entiretly.
3) Turn the caster-ability-score requirement for spells so that instead of the ability score having to be at least equal to 10+spell level, the ability MODIFIER has to be at least equal to the spell level. This lets dragons and demons cast horrible spells, but most mortals never get past third or fourth-level spells.
4) d20 Modern massive damage threshold (Con score, Fort save to avoid dropping to -1).
5) When you get to half hit points, you take a -2 on all d20 rolls. When you get to one quarter hit points, that increases to -4.
If you do those four things, without making any other changes, then wizard or cleric pretty much becomes part of a multiclass combination, heals don't just put people back on their feet in mid-fight, and ten guys with bows aimed at you are still a threat. Even if they're only second level, there's always the chance for a crit, and with less magical stuff, you're much more likely to be hittable.
I agree that D&D, as it is designed to be played, is not G&G, because, as others have noted, clerics and other spellcasting stuff and encounter levels make it pretty easy to become powerful enough to be able to afford to raise people from the dead. If death is an inconvenience and not a real fear, that's not G&G. And if 10 1st-level guys with bows aimed at you don't scare your character, that's not G&G.
That said, I also think that a lot of G&G is flavor-text. I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again: D&D is an abstract game, and if you do a really dumb version of flavor-text, it's easy to get a result you don't like. That doesn't make the rules stupid. That makes your flavor-text stupid.
For example:
The event: A 6th-level fighter (currently at 34/57 hit points) has just finished off his opponent, only to see an enemy wizard cast a fireball at him. The fighter makes his Reflex save with a lucky roll and only takes 14 points of damage, taking him from 34 to 20.
If I wanted: Superheroic
I would say: The fireball hits the fighter square in the chest and explodes massively. When the smoke clears, the fighter is there, scorched but still standing. He shakes his head, wipes off his face, and says, "Ouch. Now let's see what I can do to you."
If I wanted: Swashbuckling
I would say: The fireball streaks in and explodes, sending gouts of flame streaking in all directions. The fighter leaps acrobatically through the air, dodging most of the gouts of flame as they burst out, and lands with a few tiny scorch makes, his blade levelled at the enemy wizard. "You'll have to do better than that," he calls out.
If I wanted: Grim & Gritty
I would say: As the fighter sees the fireball streaking in, he shouts "Incoming!" and dives behind a tree for cover. He doesn't quite make it, and a wave of heat sears his leg as he rolls behind cover. His boot-leather sears his leg, and he knows the skin underneath is raw and angry -- and will likely come away with the boot when he takes it off. His lungs burn briefly as he inhales smoke and scorching air, but he knows that the wizard won't wait, and he stumbles back out, his panicked adrenaline rush keeping his leg from slowing him down at least for now, and shouts a scream of defiance at the wizard with his sword raised.
Same game, same mechanics, three different styles.
In terms of house rules I'd use to keep things scary:
1) Really come down hard on magical items. Keep wealth low, more potions and scrolls, very few permanent magical items.
2) If you keep healing magic, have it convert to subdual, not remove entiretly.
3) Turn the caster-ability-score requirement for spells so that instead of the ability score having to be at least equal to 10+spell level, the ability MODIFIER has to be at least equal to the spell level. This lets dragons and demons cast horrible spells, but most mortals never get past third or fourth-level spells.
4) d20 Modern massive damage threshold (Con score, Fort save to avoid dropping to -1).
5) When you get to half hit points, you take a -2 on all d20 rolls. When you get to one quarter hit points, that increases to -4.
If you do those four things, without making any other changes, then wizard or cleric pretty much becomes part of a multiclass combination, heals don't just put people back on their feet in mid-fight, and ten guys with bows aimed at you are still a threat. Even if they're only second level, there's always the chance for a crit, and with less magical stuff, you're much more likely to be hittable.
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
WizarDru said:
I would argue that 'Sin City' is not 'GnG' in game terms; it is pulp or noir. Getting shot 20 times, falling out of a 5 story window, getting hit by a car, and walking away from it is neither grim nor gritty in game terms, no matter how dank and desperate the atmosphere.
GnG to me requires a much smaller difference in ability between base-line humans and very experienced characters (be that expressed in levels, earned points, whatever) than the difference that occurs in stock D&D. For better or worse, stock D&D is pretty much the reference point. It's a continuum, where I'd place superhero games at one end and something like 'Recon' at the other.
I would also argue that the presence of action/force/etc points pushes a game to away from the grimmer and grittier end of things. (Stop glaring at me, Wulf
) See, what we need is a global gaming congress where we can debate these terms and establish our own IEEE like standards.
I would submit that in order for a game to be considered GnG, it needs most of the following:
* it is possible for a standard base-line entity to kill an experienced character no less than 1 out of a hundred times.
* characters face the real possibility of death through natural means (exposure, drowning, falling)
* characters that face lesser opponents who have gotten the drop on them have a reason to be afraid (the 3 crossbows aimed at you scenario)
* death is permanent
* the rules of physics apply
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
Not necessarily, and they also don't impact any of your IEEE-ish standards. Add Ken Hood's GnG HP system to D&D, and you meet all of those standards, with or without Action Points. APs can give a little swashbuckly twist to GnG, or simply be almost more like Fate Points from WFRP; the tiniest edge that allows PCs to have a chance to make it in an otherwise unrelenting grim setting.Rodrigo Istalindir said:I would also argue that the presence of action/force/etc points pushes a game to away from the grimmer and grittier end of things. (Stop glaring at me, Wulf
I'm actually a huge fan of Ken Hood's GnG HP system, if that hasn't come out yet. I could actually do without some of the complications he adds in about being wounded and whatnot as complex without necessarily adding anything terribly valuable; you don't need to encourage the death spiral when characters only ever have 20 HPs or so even at high level. It'll happen on its own.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
For me, Grim n Gritty always meant something like "If you get a crossbow bolt through your back, you die."
Which is more based on a misunderstanding of D&D rules than anything else....
GnG tends to mistrust hit points and healing magic, wealth and power. PC's cannot survive a fall off a cliff, and do not glitter with magical aid. Every axe blow could kill them; every spell is a wonder. It strives for the feeling that life is nasty, brutish, and short, and that every breath you take is a minor victory for your burning lungs, even if you have to cough out the dust of war every time.
D&D PC's, by comparison, have a spell that makes food. They can alter time and space. They can swing glittery swords behind sparkling shields with such speeds that they blind the opposition.
It seems to me that d20 Past would be a good simulation of this style, what with the low massive damage threshold, no magic above 4th level, etc....and the rest is all about DM's description and making sure to use helpless and coup de grace powers. OR, as an above poster said, just stopping the advancement of hp and magic at a certain point.
Which is more based on a misunderstanding of D&D rules than anything else....
GnG tends to mistrust hit points and healing magic, wealth and power. PC's cannot survive a fall off a cliff, and do not glitter with magical aid. Every axe blow could kill them; every spell is a wonder. It strives for the feeling that life is nasty, brutish, and short, and that every breath you take is a minor victory for your burning lungs, even if you have to cough out the dust of war every time.
D&D PC's, by comparison, have a spell that makes food. They can alter time and space. They can swing glittery swords behind sparkling shields with such speeds that they blind the opposition.
It seems to me that d20 Past would be a good simulation of this style, what with the low massive damage threshold, no magic above 4th level, etc....and the rest is all about DM's description and making sure to use helpless and coup de grace powers. OR, as an above poster said, just stopping the advancement of hp and magic at a certain point.
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
Joshua Dyal said:
They do, if they allow you to bypass one of the 'standards'. If the character knows he can use an action point to negate the 'three crossbowmen' threat, then you've moved up the continuum a little bit. Not a disqualifier, since we're talking shades of gray.
I've not read Ken Hood's GnG stuff in ages, but I seem to remember it being a little complex. The downside of GnG is often complexity, which is why I love Grim Tales so much is that is manages to add the GnG without adding a lot of complexity (although some would argue that d20 is high on the complexity scale to begin with). My favorite all time is still the old SPI Dragonquest -- WP/VP (they called it fatigue/endurance), armor as DR, levelless, magic so ineffective as to be largely absent, and damn easy to play.
Similar Threads
