What makes E6 "gritty"?

[Nagol]

The biggest difference is the number of "fine we do so" powers available.

At low level, a witch has infected a PC with a terrible disease? Time to look for a cure! <Cue adventure>

At high level, same scenario? "Fine, pop a Heal spell and let's keep going!"

At low level, travelling 1,000 miles across trackless landscape is a grueling adventure of its own. At high level, using Phantom Steed, Shadow Walk, or Wind Walk its more like "Fine we're there, now what?"

 

[Ryltar]

Silvercat, I'm not quite getting it. Can you provide a link for the "E# system" you mentioned? The only classification of adventures that I am aware of which already existed pre-4e was using abbreviations to indicate adventures that could be played in sequence. (You can see what I mean here.]

If that is not what you meant, please elaborate - I don't think we can help you otherwise.

 

[Nagol]

Silvercat, I'm not quite getting it. Can you provide a link for the "E# system" you mentioned? The only classification of adventures that I am aware of which already existed pre-4e was using abbreviations to indicate adventures that could be played in sequence. (You can see what I mean here.]

If that is not what you meant, please elaborate - I don't think we can help you otherwise.

The 'E' series of games place a level limit on advancement -- that's the number after 'E' -- , but continue to offer other rewards for adventuring. More can be found here.

I think the original is E6, but I know E8 and E12.

Basically, they strip higher levels from the game and the world stays more of a background challenge.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Yeah, I tend to be obsessive about terms I use, so since you can have E[any level] I just came up with an all-encompasser.

Also I tend to assume people know what things I'm referring to because so many people on the Internet RPG community use abbreviations and whatnot that I don't understand.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The whole point of E6 is to play a game that still feels like D&D, because it *is* D&D, but without any of the usual game-breakers (teleports, polymorphs, resurrections, wishes). These things are considered "game-breakers" not because they screw with a DM's "carefully thought-out adventures" -- that's a complete misconception -- but rather, because they tend to foil genre emulation. Characters in Lord of the Rings or whatever fantasy novel/movie/TV show you might want your campaign to mimic in feel and ambiance, well, they just don't have "win button" magic for disintegrating dragons in one hit, or the uber-leet kung-fu skills to single handedly march up to an emperor, kill him in two rounds, and take his crown. D&D characters with access to level 4+ spells, on the other hand, can do these things *easily*.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I tend to assume people know what things I'm referring to because so many people on the Internet RPG community use abbreviations and whatnot that I don't understand.

I'll have to agree with Nifft here.

Just play some low level, mid level and high level D&D (3e, 3.5 or 3.PF that is, because that's the kind in question) - making sure you have at least one full arcane and one full divine caster each time (preferably Cleric, in the latter case, and best of all Wizard in the former). Even if it's just one-shots or the like. Keep an eye on the "feel", so to speak, or how various high-level "facts of D&D life" go towards defining the campaign setting - and the campaign! - as it were.

I believe the original went like this: 1-5 = Gritty; 6-10 = Heroic; 11-15 = Wuxia; 16-20 = Superheroes. Or close enough. But the thing is, it's only a rough guide, and still subjective of course. See how your own definitions/interpretations go. Personally, I'd say those are not too far off - and besides, they serve well enough for the purposes of "justifying" e6 - but indeed, as always, YMMV.

All I can really tell you from experience is that the two games are very different, in "feel". In the end, I actually created a kind of (very heavily) modified e8, with slightly less magic available than in standard e6, and that suited us even better. I doubt that would be the case for too many groups, but maybe some (others).

I suppose the risk is, the more radically you modify a game like D&D, the more it might occur to any given DM or player, that well, you could always simply play another game altogether...

Which is why e6, though radical, works - because it's simple. Disarmingly so. Perhaps the easiest way to tell if it's for you and yours is... try it? Assuming you've already done "the 3e thing", I guess.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I suppose the risk is, the more radically you modify a game like D&D, the more it might occur to any given DM or player, that well, you could always simply play another game altogether...

Well, yes, this does come up when I think about what I'm doing, which is why I ask detailed questions such as this one. Because I don't have a lot of experience with most games, and don't really have the time (or opportunities) to learn before having to plunge in to the figuring-out process that come with setting one up. So I'm worried that I'll get to a certain point and think "Nope, not what I was thinking of" and then either I'll have to cut the game off or it'll suffer as I loose interest. I'm trying to head that off.

 

[Nifft]

So I'm worried that I'll get to a certain point and think "Nope, not what I was thinking of" and then either I'll have to cut the game off or it'll suffer as I loose interest. I'm trying to head that off.

Don't Panic.

Start a game, play the game, get some experience. Then start a new (different) game, play the game, get more experience. There's no other way to know what you like, and playing a bunch of games is low-risk fun.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Okay, I'll give it a shot next time.

 

[Siuis]

So

Sound advice, Nifft.

E6 is considered gritty for all the reasons listed, but more concretely;
I started up two 6th level NPCs (leaders of opposite sides) and given their attack and armor numbers, both people, who are experienced and competent warriors, could still be killed by their underlings. Attack bonus seems to float around 13-15, and armor seems to float in a slightly higher range of 15-20. When starting out, a PC could easily have an attack of +6 and an armor of 17, meaning that the whole party could easily overpower the enemy general and win after a hard fight. They could also easily be killed on the way out by the general's guards. There will always be a possibility of any character losing to any other character, no matter what the difference in power is. That visceral fear is what makes it gritty.

As for level, I can only explain by comparison to other gaming systems. In games like Vampire or GURPS, you get points that you spend on upgrades immediately. You become stronger over time, constantly. A game with levels is akin to saving up those points, and once you have, say, twenty, you spend them all at once for a single noticeable boost in power. A character with 19 points is still as strong as when he had 0, which is what each level is like. Once you reach that benchmark (the "next level") you are that powerful until the next benchmark.

In E6, no character has enough levels/points to immediately outstrip other people definitively- the difference is at most, about 30%- 6/20. With regular D&D, the difference can get as high as 150%, or 30/20. That's without tryin to be the very best and optimizing, too.

Does this help?