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

[Bendris Noulg]

Yeah, I think your "levels" of GnG are fairly accurate. I'm also thinking that most people that want GnG in their games are likely aiming at Medium to High.

Unfortunatly, what most people fear (and thus what they rant against with "wide brush stroke" statements about GnG in general) is Uber.

(Personally, I'm a tad above High, but still not as deep as you've described Uber.)

 

[takyris]

Whew. I'm glad my Uber check was over the top. I never got through a solid game of Phoenix Command, or whatever it was, so I never figured out exactly how many rolls were in there.

I think that if I wanna play superheroes, I go for Low, and if I want to play fantasy, I'm either at Medium or High. d20M plays like medium, but can play like high with a few alterations to the system*. D&D usually plays like Medium, but can play like Low if the DM messes around with the flavor text.

*: Mainly, making long-term consequences for injuries and having people take penalties if they get hit for Massive Damage. The former can often be roleplayed or rolled for when somebody gets nearly killed, while the latter can work as simply as "Every time you get hit for enough lethal damage to force a Massive Damage save, regardless of the result, you are at a -2 penalty until all damage caused by that attack is healed. When you drop to three-quarters, one-half, and one-quarter of your hit points, you take a cumulative -2 penalty. These penalties apply to attacks, saves, skill checks, ability checks, and pretty much any roll of the d20."

 

[rounser]

A recap?

1) Presenting challenges commensurate with PC level = Good.
2) Nerfing PC abilities to present viable challenges = Bad.

Therefore, I think we're back to The Hong Principle, whereby if you're nerfing PC abilities to present a particular type of challenge, the challenge is too low level for them. I bet it's hard writing plots to challenge Superman too...

On the other hand, a good deal of the last 12 pages is dedicated to proving that the scope of the stories you can run at high level is too small, and therefore campaigns that patch this apparent problem with the game are legit. And a handful of spells have been identified as being perhaps more trouble than they're worth in terms of the way they can potentially shutdown stories. But removing them is still considered somewhat bad, especially from the perspective of players - refer to (2).

Hmmm...

 

[malladin]

Plus all our takings go to ENWorld's continued upkeep.

Hmmm... That is interesting. How's that work exactly?

I get an itemised sales report and all the money that I take for DarkLore I save in my bank account. Every so often I send Morrus a cheque in the post (which reminds me, I need to send one now).

Cheerio,

Ben

 

[malladin]

A recap?

1) Presenting challenges commensurate with PC level = Good.
2) Nerfing PC abilities to present viable challenges = Bad.

How about this recap:

1. Some GMs like their games to capture the feel and mood of the fantasy novels that inspire them to roleplay
2. Some players don't like having their characters pegged back a bit in order to achieve this.

Ben

PS Not trying to be obnoctious, more presenting an alternative that is equally valid (which is to say both are only partly true )

 

[WizarDru]

On the other hand, a good deal of the last 12 pages is dedicated to proving that the scope of the stories you can run at high level is too small, and therefore campaigns that patch this apparent problem with the game are legit.

I was with you up until this point.

If you were to say that the last 12 pages have been dedicated to discussing how high-level D&D becomes a significantly different game from low-level D&D, and that different people enjoy the aspects of one over the other.

When writing stories for Superman, you have a problem in that Superman started as moderately powerful, and then got more powerful over time, not unlike a PC. Eventually, he became so powerful that the only significant challenges that could be thrown at him were ludicrous or uninteresting. At that point, you have two choices, retool or restart. DC 'started a new campaign', so to speak, and rebooted Superman to match his late 1930s/early 1940s version. That lasted for several years, with him gaining more power each year, until we're where we are today.

Currently, DC is in the retool mode, which is like high-level D&D: changing the challenges so that they're not strictly combat-oriented. Dealing with problems that pure physical force alone cannot solve, relational difficulties, political dilemmas and so forth. The whole "President Lex" concept was a direct extension of that, and something of a retooling of the "Untouchable and powerful businessman" of the mid-80s reboot. Sure, Superman could kill Lex with a wave of his hand (or, as in the animated Justice League, with a blast of his eyes)...but it's not that simple.

Some folks don't enjoy that style of play. That hardly equates to a limited scope. Still others can enjoy multiple play styles, and recognize the inherent strengths and weaknesses in each one.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Actually, I must agree with this...

1) Presenting challenges commensurate with PC level = Good.
2) Nerfing PC abilities to present viable challenges = Bad.

The funny part is, LM/GnG games more often than not lower the power level associated to PC Level, and thus seek to present challenges commensurate with PC level on its new scale. On the other hand, reading the "how to" thread, I see post after post of arbitrary decisions resulting in "nerfs" in order to make high magic games work.

So, yes, I agree that rounser is correct in the first part of his statement; far more correct than he likely realised.

 

[Orius]

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.

I'd say that's really more a of a classic D&D thing, hearkening back to the days when groups would usually advance to "name level" and start over againwith a new group of PCs.

 

[Orius]

Yeah, I think your "levels" of GnG are fairly accurate. I'm also thinking that most people that want GnG in their games are likely aiming at Medium to High.

Unfortunatly, what most people fear (and thus what they rant against with "wide brush stroke" statements about GnG in general) is Uber.

Well, for me the biggest problem with Uber is the insane number of dice rolls and detail, not necessarily flavor. That's way too much to keep track of in combat, and it would horribly bog the game. Yes, I know it was an exaggeration, but for me, I'd rather describe damage by comparing how much damage is done vs. number of hp the target has. If the damage is a small percentage of hps, then it's a scratch, a glancing blow, or a flesh wound. Medium percentage would be a more seerious, yet not-life threatening wound, and so on. A crit that knocks the target down to -10 hp would be a decapitation, a heart-piercing thrust or so on. This is just another thing a DM learns how to do with experience, IMO.

 

[rounser]

I was with you up until this point.

If you were to say that the last 12 pages have been dedicated to discussing how high-level D&D becomes a significantly different game from low-level D&D, and that different people enjoy the aspects of one over the other.

Eh, I think you're pussyfooting around the issue there. The drive of Wulf's argument was that you can't run as many kinds of stories at high level because PC abilities will defuse the plot, and he has a point there. Some others were saying that nerfing of some player abilities at high level to enable a wider range of stories is not a good solution for that problem, and they have a point too.

Mix in player memories of low magic being associated with control freak DMs wielding bad house rules, and our resident DMs running low magic games who claim they don't deserve to be tarred with the same brush as the deadbeats, and you get enough fuel for a thread this long.