What is "grim and gritty" and "low magic" anyway?

[Bendris Noulg]

Wow... The first Template has just been identified.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Y'know, since tauton did a better job than I did ( ), 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!!!!!").

But then, being able to mimic plots I'm not sure is ever anyone's goal with D&D.....it seems that people want to more 'capture the feel' than 'capture the plot.' And in that respect, I don't think high-level D&D is any worse at it than anything else....you can get a mythic feel in high-level D&D.....but perhaps what constitutes a "mythic feel" should be defined first?

You know, Wulf, you're right, I was railroading and using a certain amount of DM fiat to get them to go on my little quest (I could point out some specific problems in your counter, but meh, my argument has changed. )....but then again, so did Homer....so did I really fail in mimicing the 'mythic feel'? Because from what I can tell, DM Fiat, railroading, uber-NPC's, etc. are a big portion of feeling like a myth. Odysseus can't use his sailing skills to get home fast because the Gods/DM says so. Achilles got hit in the heel because the Gods/DM says so. Hercales can succumb to the poison because the Gods/DM set the DC at an impossible DC, ditto with Gandalf not being able to use the Ring. It seems that the basic answer is that no, I can't precisely mimic the Oddyssey without restorting to the same measures that Homer did, just like I can't mimic Lord of the Rings without resorting to the same measures Tolkien did. Because what works in those books to get the heroes to do their quests would annoy the hell out of a human being who wants to do the same. If Odysseus wanted to planeshift-teleport home the most basic answer is that the gods would screw him over, because that's what happens in classical greek myth -- your most powerful weapons are useless in the face of Gods/DM Fiat.

That said, I can still do an arduous journey at 15th level. Check out the "How-To" thread, for that, but the gist of it is that the PC's find out that since there are Suitors in their homeland, and they outnumber the PC's, simply materializing at home will have their loved ones killed by the suitors, who aren't about to let the hero come back and claim what they already have dibs on. The Suitors, of course, aren't entirely slackers themselves, and though the family could be raised again (maybe....since they're NPC's, the DM can decide that they *like* hanging out in Paradise...), the simple disregard for their untimely deaths would probably be enough to put every Good-aligned church on the island out of wanting to do it (and the evil-aligned churches would probably be more trouble than they're worth). Thus, the best approach is to try and sneak in....underneath the enemy's constant survielance of the homeland. A disguise is pretty iffy, since the enemies also have access to powerful magic to dispel such a thing (true seeing and the like). Each PC has a connection outside their house (their own personal Telemachus) that a secluded nation has hidden away, with a powerful artefact of disguise and obscurement. The adventure then is going from place to place to follow threads of this hidden nation, to find the people who can help them sneak in, so that they can ensure the safety of their family and friends before routing the wicked. This isn't DM fiat, this is simply tactics...soon after the PC's were preoccupied, the suitors moved in to lay claims to the land, and they have the threat and ability to kill the PC's family, whom they might not get back (and definately wouldn't get back easily) if they took the most expedient means. This is the goal of the bad guys, since they want to keep what they got, and it's a bit shaky right now (there's a brat running around, and the wife still hasn't married any of them), so they're worried about each other, and about other powerful forces, and the PC's (Divination says they're still alive!, but the family of the PC's of course doesn't get this news...unless by secret means....). The PC's then have to find a way in that doesn't immediately alert anyone to the trouble, or else their family dies (and there's never a garuntee that an NPC will come back, or like them very much when they do). The steps can be the steps above.

Suffice it to say for now that no one can mimic literature or myth at any level with D&D because it requires such obnoxious DM turns as to render it not entertaining for the majority of those playing. But that doesn't mean that the challenges and problems presented in myth and literature cannot still exist in high-level D&D. There's a thread right now that's concentrating on that very thing.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

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.

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."

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

Y'know, since tauton did a better job than I did ( ),

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!!!!!").

Lord of the Rings, problem is that invisibility is not attractive enough to players. In book, ring itself held sway over minds; hard to hold sway over players' minds . Suggest making ring provide spellfire feat for free plus some spell level charges per day, and redefine spellfire as brilliant energy (per the weapon enhancement), watch players murder each other over it .

Brilliant energy, of course, no effect on undead and ringwraiths

Why destroy it? Because if Sauron gets it (and he has army of undead coming for players to ensure he does), he can decimate landscape with it.

Next point for Lord of the Rings: arduous journey will not be the same, but it will still be arduous journey. Point is to make it tough, force sacrifices, to get where they are going. In some places, maybe REQUIRE the PC abilities to advance - instead of nerfing teleport, make it so that teleporting is the only way to survive, by staying a few steps ahead of the trace teleporting ring wraiths who are pursuing you, but only have a few teleports per day.

Could be done. Will add this to mythic high magic thread .

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

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.

We also find that Merlin did indeed have a worthy nemesis in Morgana, although Morgana wasn't necessarily more powerful then him; rather she had guile, deception, and sexuality to bolster her use (and aquisition) of magic.

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.

Yep.

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."

That's the spirit, ol' boy.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

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?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Not to curtail this discussion, but early on I made a distinction between tales of myth and fiction; out of pure laziness I stopped citing both.

But while I think that all myths make good fiction, not all fiction is necessarily "mythic."

And, of course, I still maintain that high-level D&D is not well-suited to replicating those certain key elements of good fiction. In my mind it really boils down to "conflict," in the generic and literary sense, and the many ways in which magic eases conflict.

There have been some good suggestions on "that other thread" that go a ways towards maintaining conflict and tension in other ways.

Wulf

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

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.

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?

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.

To a degree, that also relates to the lm vs hm aspect of these discussions: It's a question of how far from the origins of fantasy does the individual want to go. High Magic repels the people it repels because it is too far from the "source", to the point of not resembling it at all aside from weapons and armor, where as other material, or the same material "reigned in" to less common levels, brings the atmosphere of the game more in-line with its origins.

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, while Excalibur returns to its source yet has its own spin on several story elements (and compare those elements to their portrayal in Mists of Avalon for a completely different take). And, given the political and religious climate of the (European) Dark Ages, each of these is a "believable myth" (Merlin's statement in Excalibur that "the one God has come to replace the many" even explains why magic is no longer seen in our world today, by which the powers of Merlin and Morgana don't detract from the tale but reinforce it). By comparison, Disney's The Sword and the Stone only has a fleeting simularity to that same source, yet is itself the same tale.

And let's not even bring up First Knight.:\

 

[WizarDru]

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...

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.

GURPS King Arthur is a great book for this sort of thing.

 

[Belegbeth]

G&G, LM DnD with UA

Many people have claimed that the DnD rules are intrinsically incompatible with "grim and gritty" and/or "low magic" games.

Although I think that a lot can be done to promote a low magic and/or a grim and gritty feel based on how the DM manages her campaign, the new *Unearthed Arcana* book of variant rules appears to provide a few "crunchy" tools for playing such a campaign.

Introduce:

(1.) The Vitality and Wound Points system. (Adds some grimness to combat.)
(2.) Use spell points, but with the "vitalizing" variant. (Causes fatigue when casters use up half of their spell points; exhaustion when they use up two quarters of their spell points).
(3.) Treat some/most high level (7+) spells as incantations.
(4.) Use the generic classes (though you should probably give Experts a d8 HD and 8 skill points per level, to make them comparable to the other classes). The Spellcaster, though she gains access to both divine and arcane spells, does not know nearly as many spells as most standard DnD spellcasters (I think she gets the sorcerer's "spells known" progression).

These variants -- all now part of the new and improved tasty WotC "DnD menu" -- can produce a relatively low magic, grim and gritty game!

Thoughts? Comments?