Bendris Noulg
First Post
Wow... The first Template has just been identified.
Kamikaze Midget said:Y'know, since tauton did a better job than I did (),
Kamikaze Midget said:I'm starting to think that for a 'mythic feel' nerfing and railroading are par for the course....I can't think of any significant literature or myth with the same amount of random chance, luck, and ingenuity possessed by one party of PC's. You put four players playing halflings in the position of Frodo & Co., with the same magic, same limits, same design, you don't get "Lord of the Rings" out the other end, you get people griping about uber-NPC's, and railroading ("I give the ring to Merry." "NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT! YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE PURE ENOUGH!" "I don't care, this isn't fun anymore." "ARGGH, MY CONTINUITY!!!!!").
See if you can find a copy of Excalibur at you local video store. There's a whole new level of grit there, hard-core in some spots (particularly during the quest for the Grail). The opening and ending battles are particularly grim.Joshua Dyal said:I'm not entirely sure that a "mythic" feel is really appropriate for low magic, grim and gritty. Maybe the former, but not the latter. Something like the Game of Thrones or the Black Company is hardly mythic, and that's what I think of when I think of grim and gritty.
Yep.And that's why I like it, too. I'm not really aiming for mythic, I'm aiming more for a more verissimilitudinous (if that's even a word) game than standard D&D. I'm looking for Call of Cthulhu in a fantasy setting with characters that are more pulp and swashbuckling in nature; a Robert E. Howard kinda feel, I guess. I don't see how that's mythic, but I see how low magic, and at least an element of grim and gritty (relative to D&D) is essential to that feel.
That's the spirit, ol' boy.I think maybe the other issue is one of degree. In actuality, I'm not claiming that I like D&D to be more low magic or grim and gritty, because I don't consider my game to truly be D&D anymore. There's a big difference between low magic and grim and gritty that is defined as "some villages actually don't have 'Ye Olde Magick Item Shoppe' and high-level clerics to do healing/restoration/resurrection" and "I've completely changed the classes and magic system to the point that my game isn't recognizably D&D, but is some other d20 game."
I'll one-up you, actually, look for the Warlord Trilogy by Bernard Cornwell (Winter King, Enemy of God and Excalibur) for a grim and gritty take on King Arthur that makes Excalibur look downright hoaky in comparison. But I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "mythic" feel; if anything, I think that's even more poorly defined than grim and gritty is. Excalibur and the Warlord Trilogy are arguably not very mythic; in fact, the Warlord Trilogy specifically attempts to reduce the Arthur legend to a believeable, "historical" fiction account. And Excalibur certainly doesn't feel much like Le Mort d'Arthur, so if one is mythic is the other not?Bendris Noulg said:See if you can find a copy of Excalibur at you local video store. There's a whole new level of grit there, hard-core in some spots (particularly during the quest for the Grail). The opening and ending battles are particularly grim.
Noted (and thanks!). At any rate, I do see how Excalibur can be viewed as hoaky; While the movie has a lot of great actors in it (including Patrick Stewart!), the over-abundance of Shakespearian acting does keep it on the "loved but not often watched" shelf.Joshua Dyal said:I'll one-up you, actually, look for the Warlord Trilogy by Bernard Cornwell (Winter King, Enemy of God and Excalibur) for a grim and gritty take on King Arthur that makes Excalibur look downright hoaky in comparison.
Generally, the myth of Arthur and the Round Table has a tendancy of being viewed differently (anyone see the trailer for the supposedly "true" Arthur, imaginatively called Arthur?) by different people. I would indeed regard both as mythical, although Le Mort d'Arthur is arguably closer to the myth as it was during the time of its writing, with publication and other (modern) media since that time taking the legend in directions that it likely wouldn't have gone without such.But I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "mythic" feel; if anything, I think that's even more poorly defined than grim and gritty is. Excalibur and the Warlord Trilogy are arguably not very mythic; in fact, the Warlord Trilogy specifically attempts to reduce the Arthur legend to a believeable, "historical" fiction account. And Excalibur certainly doesn't feel much like Le Mort d'Arthur, so if one is mythic is the other not?
Well, it's as close as you're going to get for a modern expectation of the Arthurian Myths. One has to remember that there were lots of them, written or invented over a long period of time, and Le Morte d'Arthur is just one collection, albeit the first definitive written version that we accept today as the standard. One merely needs to ask "Who was Merlin?" to see how radically diverse the stories and myths were, although I think we can agree that 'Morte" is the most common baseline to work from.Bendris Noulg said:We can pretty much agree that, as a tale, Le Mort d'Arthur is as close to "source" as one can get to the legend of Arthur...
Actually, I think that if you have a look at our DarkLore game you will see that, if anything, the reverse is true. Yes, there is an emphasis on rarity of items and spells, but spellcasters are limited to 5th or 4th level spells whilst there is a system that allows characters to gain powerful items just by developing levels (The point of this is to emphasise that the items are rare and a significant part of the character, whilst not detracting from the enjoyment of having a FB Sword, Bow or whatever.Saeviomagy said:To me
"Low magic" usually means "I hate handing out magical items, so I removed them, inadvertantly making anyone who plays a wizard or cleric significantly more powerful than the rest of the party, but that's ok, because I cover it by saying that wizards and clerics are uncommon. Even though there's one of each in every party."
Largely a fair point. I do love 'save vs death' mechanics. However, the fact that this system destroys the fighter's stickability is something that we have taken great care to consider. Firstly, though, I need to say that we have completely removed the basic classes and replaced them with six more generic , readily multiclassable, basic classes, therefore allowing us to completely rework any balance issues appropriately. I think this is actually a valid point you make here, and only by replacing the classes can we produce a system that is balanced.Saeviomagy said:"Grim and gritty" usually means "I love save vs death mechanics and I hate hitpoints. I've further devalued the fighters of the party by removing any staying power they have."
Well, this is now where you start to get a bit silly. I can understand that you don't like grim & gritty and previously had some reasonable arguments for why taking this apporach may unbalance the game. Hopefully I have provided the counter argument to say that by putting the extra work you can get around these problems. However to dismiss the concept in this manner is bigotted.Saeviomagy said:Simply put - if someone uses either of these phrases to describe their campaign, it means that they didn't really think about the campaign world beyond their own personal DMing preferences.
Indeed, it's often the nature of most LM games to bestow the players with "upper level" items at "mid levels" (6-12) rather than a constant upgrading of items from minor to major. It's even occured where artifacts/epic items have landed in the hands of a low level character (although not being able to draw upon the "full might" of the item, or the item being most useful only in certain situations, are features often applied to provide balance).malladin said:Actually, I think that if you have a look at our DarkLore game you will see that, if anything, the reverse is true. Yes, there is an emphasis on rarity of items and spells, but spellcasters are limited to 5th or 4th level spells whilst there is a system that allows characters to gain powerful items just by developing levels (The point of this is to emphasise that the items are rare and a significant part of the character, whilst not detracting from the enjoyment of having a FB Sword, Bow or whatever.
My solution in that regard was to alter the way Wounds are determined, being handled as (Constitution x Size multiple) + BAB. This has worked wonders to prevent melee types from being nerfed.Largely a fair point. I do love 'save vs death' mechanics. However, the fact that this system destroys the fighter's stickability is something that we have taken great care to consider.
Yep.I also think that this highlights another aspect of 'Grim & Gritty'. I think that versatile characters is an important part of toning down the setting. In writing DarkLore I have tried to develop a 'fantasy novel' feel, taken from the types of fantasy novels I like, such as Tolkien, KJ Parker and Robin Hobb. The characters in these stories are usually difficult to define as any one class and have a lot of different abilities and complex character histories. With the versatile classes we've done for DarkLore and the free multiclassing I think we've highlighted this.
Welcome to the club.:\Well, this is now where you start to get a bit silly. I can understand that you don't like grim & gritty and previously had some reasonable arguments for why taking this apporach may unbalance the game. Hopefully I have provided the counter argument to say that by putting the extra work you can get around these problems. However to dismiss the concept in this manner is bigotted.
How much of it's on the web? Sounds like a good read.To say that DarkLore is ill thoughtout is so badly wrong it makes me laugh. DarkLore is the culmination of probably about 60 years of roleplaying experience (4 people have been signifcantly involved with developing the setting ideas). There's hundreds of pages of notes on history and the different nations, cosmology, secret societies, politics and the like. Not only that, but it's been built by History, Paeleontology and Ecconomics graduates so has been developed with an eye to tying the world together in an ways that shows how the societies have developed and interacted with each other.
I've had good experiences in this regard; Indeed, my players were put off by 3E and insisted that I wouldn't be able to preserve the feel and flavor of our campaign if we converted. After explaining the d20 engine and how it works, and that seperating the operating mechanic from the conditions and expectations of D&D itself was possible, they got really excited. And while a bit has changed from the 2E campaign regarding mechanics and meta-game set ups (and after 3 years is still being thought out and improved on through continued game play), flavor and fairness have definately been retained, much to the delight of my group.Anyway, what's wrong with thinking about my own DMing preferences? I'm the one that puts the time into planning the adventures and making sure it all runs smoothly. I think the whole game is a synergenic experience for all. If the GM has a system they enjoy playing with the players will respons favourably whereas if the players are put off by the system
Bendris Noulg said:My solution in that regard was to alter the way Wounds are determined, being handled as (Constitution x Size multiple) + BAB. This has worked wonders to prevent melee types from being nerfed.
Bendris Noulg said:What's the target date on that, anyways? The more you post, the more I'm itching to get it.
That's an interesting idea. Our philosophy with DarkLore was a fantasy-ised D20 Modern, so we simply adapted the D20M massive damage mechanic, but borrowed Mutants and Mastermind's critical hit system to end up with something which copes with reducing a character's abiluity as they take critical hits (one of the best things about the storyteller system style health levels) whilst retaining the need for them to keep an eye on those nasty little nicks that can add up to them blacking out (which storyteller health levels does not account very well for.Bendris Noulg said:My solution in that regard was to alter the way Wounds are determined, being handled as (Constitution x Size multiple) + BAB. This has worked wonders to prevent melee types from being nerfed.
We got around that by completely rejigging the race system. Now all races can freely multiclass and get a bonus feat, but only humans get a free choice on these feats. This means that most other races are a little more powerful, as they tend to be in the literature, particularly Tolkein. So we came up with a new mechanic for letting people play more powerful races which doesn't involve messing around with ECLs.Bendris Noulg said:Question: By "free multiclassing", due you mean to indicate that there is no Exp penalty for "uneven" multiclassing? Reason I ask is that Favored Classes are, to a degree, a part of Racial balace, and while I dumped the penalty, I retained Favored Classes by applying a "reward" system for taking levels in the Class (that being the semi-popular +1 Skill Point per Class Level variant that you might have seen pop up on the boards from time to time).
As a PDF product its all 'on the web', but unfortunately not all for free. we have a preview available from this link:Bendris Noulg said:How much of it's on the web? Sounds like a good read.
Kewl...malladin said:As a PDF product its all 'on the web', but unfortunately not all for free. we have a preview available from this link:
http://www.malladinsgate.com/downloads/previews/DarkLorePreview.zip
This has the basic classes, prior to a slight reshuffle following 3.5 release. The product is self is only $5 and can be downloaded from RPGNow (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2146&).
Hmmm... That is interesting. How's that work exactly?Plus all our takings go to ENWorld's continued upkeep.