On another forum (http://www.forgedrpg.com/forum/YaBB.pl), Krysst and I were discussing (http://www.forgedrpg.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1145800900/0#0) what makes a system Grim And Gritty. It got me to thinking about what Grim and Gritty really means when applied to an RPG. In my opinion, for a campaign, setting, or game to be considered GNG, it requires the following:
1. Shades of Grey
Morality is not clear cut good and evil, black and white, or chaos and law depending on your cup of grog. The villains are not irredeemably evil—they have positive aspects. The heroes may not be anywhere close to good, but even if they consider themselves good, it's not the absolute, do no wrong good or even philosophically inclined good of an alignment system. If I have a character who is an adherent to a church that is considered good, a character who is devoted to his family, gives to the poor, and helps the poor farmers fight off the bandits, society likely sees him as good. When his church directs him to raze the village of the heretics, to the last man, woman and child, he might have some cultural qualms about the deaths of children, maybe even women, but he'll likely be willing to spit those heretic men on pikes, whether they offer resistance or have committed an actual crime or not. This same character might assassinate a leading figure in the church in order to help increase the prestige of his own faction. That doesn't mean he's evil, because in a GNG campaign, that term just doesn't really apply.
2. Just ain't pretty
This isn't a golden age. The world doesn't live together in harmony. If there is a powerful empire, it's on the wane, with the corrupt bureaucrats running the show. If there ever was a magical age when people's lives were easy, that's long since past. There's crime, disease, and poverty, and they are all common. Too common. There is wealth, but it's held by a very small portion of the population. That same small portion of the population has the power, and they aren't very concerned about the "common good." If a compassionate humanitarian ever got to power and began to actually help the poor and downtrodden, the rest of the power elite would eliminate him or her very quickly—at least they would try. And the mob—the vast majority of the common people, that organic eruption of groupthink among the urban poor—is fickle at best, ready to believe any lie and forgive any fault, as long as the bread and circuses keep coming.
That's really what I expect out of GNG. That's all. Deadliness can be a part of it, but it isn't essential. Death will certainly be common in the setting, its common in any world with rampant crime, disease and poverty. Life is cheap, but that doesn't mean the PCs are doomed. They can be the heroes, defying the odds, kissed by fate. There's got to be the threat of death—and that's required in pretty much any RPG in order to maintain tension—but that doesn't mean PC's have to drop like flies. I believe the GNG atmosphere can be maintained without high PC fatality. Like any good game of any conception, it requires a good GM, but I believe as long as the GM can maintain the 2 above criteria, I would consider the game GNG.
Thoughts?
I think you've pegged it quite well. I would expect few possibilities for a "hero career" in a grim and gritty game - even if you succeed with the things you set out to do, you won't get the princess. You might save the world, but don't expect the world to thank you for it.
In game terms, a much tighter advancement scheme than in most games.
I think that systemically there are a few aspects I want for a GNG feel:
1. No "mook" rules. I'm fine if the PC's are *bad*--but don't want fights with "named NPCs" vs mooks in a GNG game.
2. Bleeding rules. When I get around to my Dark Fantasy game there's going to be specialized rules for different diseases and post-wound infections (which is a part of the fantasy world--diseases are thematically tied to the forces at work there). But at very least bleeding and other gory-wound rules.
It doesn't have to be Warhammer or Rolemaster style flying limbs but I'd prefer something less than generic "hit-point damage."
3. One of the things I like in GNG games that makes PC's tougher than average is rules that help prevent PCs from being hit directly rather than "just tougher." Whether that's really good dodge scores or some kind of damage reduction that represents PCs being hard to shoot in the face, I prefer that avenue to either giving PCs armor or just making them way, way tougher than normal.
(This assumes you don't want a high PC death rate--I agree that PC-turn-over isn't required for the feel but, yes, death has to be a real threat even if the PCs are very well equiped to handle danger)
-Marco
My answer to this question is simpler, but not very *useful*: Robert E. Howard. :)
I have to say, if I was invited to *this* sort of GNG game, I'd be much more inclined to join in it that one with high PC turnover.
I also have to say that I have introduced such concepts into even D&D, whose base setting is about as far from this as you can get. The PCs are often working with (or for) LE characters who would be the villians in other games.
And in one particularly memorable 2e D&D session, the characters (with multiple mages) had just finished fireballing a set of goblin warrens. I described how the fireballs had spread out, roasting every single goblin warrior -- and every goblin woman and child. I mentioned their twisted, roasted bodies, but what I went into detail over was the smell. My players didn't even bother looking for treasure after that. They were undecided whether to lynch me or congratulate me for how well I described the smell. :)
My easy to find benchmark for grim and gritty rules is how deadly are daggers?
How deadly are little concealable bits of metal that damn near every person the PC's meet are going to carry?
If daggers are to be feared, its grim and gritty.
Burning Wheel and Riddle of Steel or my poisons of choice for this kind of game.
Quote from: PakaMy easy to find benchmark for grim and gritty rules is how deadly are daggers?
Or the .22 caliber hand-gun. Yes.
-Marco
Quote from: MarcoI think that systemically there are a few aspects I want for a GNG feel:
I think between you and the original poster, the two types games I've seen commonly referenced as GNG are covered.
One speaks to the type of combat mechanics you have. The other speaks more to the moral tone of the game.
The important thing is that the two versions can be mixed and matched, and thus IMO anyone talking about GNG needs to be a little more specific.
The Midnight setting seems to me very grim and gritty. There are gut-wrenching decisions being taken every day, like choosing between trying to help a village aginst a large orc patrol or running away to deliver a critical message to the Resistance. Getting into a fight -any fight- can be deadly and has serious consequences ("Oh, you killed that nasty orc? too bad, now the Legate will kill one out of ten villagers as reprisal...").
Midnight is definitely helluv gritty.
No doubt.
Quote from: FraserRonald1. Shades of Grey
2. Just ain't pretty
OTOH, one game which meets both of this criteria is Paranoia. Which, in most (but not all) cases, is not something I would describe as Grim and Gritty in play.
These might be necessary conditions, but I don't think they're sufficient.
Cheers,
Roger
Twighlight: 2000 is perhaps the purest RPG expression of Grim 'n' Gritty, in my opinion. It was the first RPG that I'm aware of that actually addressed the real-world implications of an atomic war. Some have argued that the missile exchange was unrealistic in that it was very, very limited and didn't really use 50 megaton city-busters. But at least T:2000 showed that the implications of being exposed to radiation were that you would die, painfully, and not suddenly grow bat wings or develop a self-generated power bolt.
With regards to setting, Grim - The way how the world effects the players. Normally in a detrimental manner. Survival either moral or physical is the focus here. The players are not really trying to change the world (or they are but their success at it is not really noticable) The world is trying to change the players.
Gritty - The players in whatever challenges(with regards to the above) are thrown at them are not going down without a fight.
System esp combat - Player mantra- "Hey guys talking should always be the first option" :D
Regards,
David R
CoC.
Something else that works in there somewhere is the relative power level of the best at something compared to the reasonably competent. In other words, how heroic is it?
Examples: If the best swordsman in the world were to face three professional swordsmen and there was room to maneuver, what would be the likely result?
Your group of 4 adventurers is surprised by a group of 20 archers or riflemen 30 feet away. If the group were to either try to run for it or rush them, what is the likely result?
Base D20 isn't grim mainly because it's so heroic. A 15th level fighter wouldn't have any trouble with 3 3rd level fighters.
grim Audio pronunciation of "grim" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grm)
adj. grim·mer, grim·mest
1. Unrelenting; rigid.
2. Uninviting or unnerving in aspect; forbidding: "undoubtedly the grimmest part of him was his iron claw" (J.M. Barrie).
3. Ghastly; sinister: "He made a grim jest at the horrifying nature of his wound" (Reginald Pound). See Synonyms at ghastly.
4. Dismal; gloomy: a grim, rainy day.
5. Ferocious; savage: the grim advance of the pillaging army.
I suggest in RPGs, definitions 4 and 5 are apropos.
grit·ty Audio pronunciation of "gritty" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grt)
adj. grit·ti·er, grit·ti·est
1. Containing, covered with, or resembling grit.
2. Showing resolution and fortitude; plucky: a gritty decision.
Definitely definition 2 for RPGs.
So Grim & Gritty is a combination of two properties, grimness and grittiness. These properties are separate - i.e. a game can be grim but not gritty and gritty but not grim. Is it possible that people are conflating the two, calling everything which is either one or the other both?
Personally gritty appeals immensely to me, but grim does not, particularly.
-mice
Sorry for such a long post. I didn't expect as much activity and there are lots of good points and ideas in the thread. A few things on which I wanted to request clarificaton:
Quote from: Marco1. No "mook" rules.
I'm reading this as no rules for pushover NPCs, but that doesn't seem to match the explanation. Marco, could you explain further?
Quote from: Dr_AvalancheIn game terms, a much tighter advancement scheme than in most games.
Part of the discussion Krysst and I had involved games mechanics. I wasn't certain that game mechanics were involved in creating a grim and gritty atmosphere, but I'd be interested in hearing how tighter advancement might affect the atmosphere of the game.
Quote from: PakaHow deadly are little concealable bits of metal that damn near every person the PC's meet are going to carry?
If daggers are to be feared, its grim and gritty.
Quote from: Marco2. Bleeding rules.
Deadliness, for me, is important in a GNG campaign, but not necessarily PC fatalities. I based my definition of GNG on settings in various media (books, comics and movies) that I considered GNG, and then trying to replicate that in an RPG. While I think that PCs must always fear weapons, I don't think deadly knives are a requirement of GNG. Knives in the hands of people who
really know how to use them, yes. Joe the Farmer with a sharp dagger, not so much.
As for bleeding rules, I honestly believe I could run a GNG campaign with d20 Modern RAW. Not my preference, but I think I could, and I believe that because I believe atmosphere is more improtant than game mechanics.
I don't know, is the deadliness/combat rules requirement something most people would agree with, or this an option for GNG overall?
Quote from: RogerOTOH, one game which meets both of this criteria is Paranoia. Which, in most (but not all) cases, is not something I would describe as Grim and Gritty in play.
So, maybe a serious theme or subject matter? If I understand Paranoia correctly, it is a type of satire. Is that correct?
Quote from: NicephorusSomething else that works in there somewhere is the relative power level of the best at something compared to the reasonably competent. In other words, how heroic is it?
Krysst and I discussed this, and two of the examples that we were using as examples of GNG movies were 13th Warrior and Unleashed. In both of those the main character(s) were heroic, at least in the sense of being able to slaughter legions of foes. As such, I had posited that GNG could be heroic. What are your thoughts on that, given those examples, or would you agree that those are good examples of GNG?
Quote from: flyingmice4. Dismal; gloomy: a grim, rainy day.
5. Ferocious; savage: the grim advance of the pillaging army.
I think I would agree with both of those. That's kind of the sense I was going for with "Just Ain't Pretty"
Quote from: flyingmicegrit·ty
1. Containing, covered with, or resembling grit.
2. Showing resolution and fortitude; plucky: a gritty decision.
Definitely definition 2 for RPGs.
I hadn't really thought of def 2. I think I was going for def 1, but in a figurative rather than literal sense, as in "Just Ain't Pretty." Def 2 is interesting, in that PCs would require resolution and fortitude to survive in a GNG setting. What is everyone's thoughts on that?
Quote from: FraserRonald1. Shades of Grey
Morality is not clear cut good and evil, black and white, or chaos and law depending on your cup of grog. The villains are not irredeemably evil—they have positive aspects. The heroes may not be anywhere close to good, but even if they consider themselves good, it's not the absolute, do no wrong good or even philosophically inclined good of an alignment system.
2. Just ain't pretty
This isn't a golden age. The world doesn't live together in harmony. If there is a powerful empire, it's on the wane, with the corrupt bureaucrats running the show. If there ever was a magical age when people's lives were easy, that's long since past. There's crime, disease, and poverty, and they are all common. Too common. There is wealth, but it's held by a very small portion of the population. That same small portion of the population has the power, and they aren't very concerned about the "common good."
Thoughts?
Are you familiar with either Michael Moorcock's Elric novels or the Chaosium
Elric! RPG?
I think it shows at least some of these aspects, although there is an alignment system that rewards adherance to one philosophy but it makes being a good guy, a bad guy, or taking a middle road equally appealing.
Mechanically
Pendragon can be gritty because it takes nigh onto forever to recover from hit point damage. That's another Chaosium one. Come to think of it-
Call of Cthulhu isn't that cheerful either. I don't know anything about
Runequest or the long-extinct
Elf Quest and
Thieve's World games they published, but it's quite possible that Chaosium is
THE company for Grim and gritty.
Quote from: flyingmicegrim
1. Unrelenting; rigid.
2. Uninviting or unnerving in aspect; forbidding: "undoubtedly the grimmest part of him was his iron claw" (J.M. Barrie).
I feel that these two best describe what Grim means to me in RPGs. Something about the definitions you have provided just
feels right.
Quotegrit·ty Audio pronunciation of "gritty" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grt)
adj. grit·ti·er, grit·ti·est
2. Showing resolution and fortitude; plucky: a gritty decision.
This part I imagine has more to do with the way how the players interact with the setting.
As for Grim and Gritty systems - I suppose
realistic although provocative a term would be the word I am looking for - only because I reckon combat would be more lethal and unpredictable as it is in reality. By this I mean combat would take into account factors not really found in high fantasy games - what factors? I suppose stuff like damage - the players are very easily hurt. Damage recovery - the players heal slowly etc
Regards,
David R.
Mook rules are, to my meaning, rules where unimportant NPC's use different combat rules than important ones so as to be far, far less of a threat and to signify that the fight is just a chance to show off rather than a real challenge.
-Marco
Quote from: David RI feel that these two best describe what Grim means to me in RPGs. Something about the definitions you have provided just feels right.
Y'know, thinking about it more, all four definitions fit in different ways.
Quote from: David RThis part I imagine has more to do with the way how the players interact with the setting.
Yep - that was what I was thinking at the time.
Quote from: David RAs for Grim and Gritty systems - I suppose realistic although provocative a term would be the word I am looking for - only because I reckon combat would be more lethal and unpredictable as it is in reality. By this I mean combat would take into account factors not really found in high fantasy games - what factors? I suppose stuff like damage - the players are very easily hurt. Damage recovery - the players heal slowly etc
Regards,
David R.
A lot of these points make their way into my own mental map, including these.
I agree with Marco (as usual) About the "no mooks" bit. Combat should always be dangerous. As for deadliness, that's not necessary. The possibility to be dadly, though, is. It's the element of risk. As Paka says, a dagger should be dangerous. As far as characters slaying mountains of foes, that doesn't fit in my mental map. That's just too over the top to be gritty. There's no risk - the mooks thing again. There is no heroism without informed risk - you know it is very dangerous yet you choose to do it anyway. Relative power is important, and is an extention again of the mooks thing. Bruce Willis in Die Hard is grim and gritty.
That's my take anyway.
-mice
Quote from: MarcoMook rules are, to my meaning, rules where unimportant NPC's use different combat rules than important ones so as to be far, far less of a threat and to signify that the fight is just a chance to show off rather than a real challenge.
-Marco
I would just like to add, and I'm not talking about specific mook rules per se but rather the way how I use mooks in my game is that there are other dangers that they pose then just a non-lethal encounter.
Firstly encounters with mooks although most of the time non lethal, does have the ability to wear down the pcs - sort of soften them up for the main showdown. So there is that tactical aspect.Also these fights sometimes slow down the pcs who are chasing the Big Bad etc.
(Out of character discussion -"Mooks. We hate those guys")Also during these encounters shit happens so to speak. Important items break, they loose their way, get separated,run out of ammo etc. Now as stated the mooks themselves generally pose no danger to the pcs but the way how the encounter plays out(always random I might add) does cause problems/confusion to the pcs.
Yeah, I'm straying away from the general definiton but for all my games, mooks one way or another have managed to worm their way in.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: flyingmiceI agree with Marco (as usual) About the "no mooks" bit. Combat should always be dangerous. As for deadliness, that's not necessary. The possibility to be dadly, though, is. It's the element of risk. As Paka says, a dagger should be dangerous. As far as characters slaying mountains of foes, that doesn't fit in my mental map. That's just too over the top to be gritty. There's no risk - the mooks thing again. There is no heroism without informed risk - you know it is very dangerous yet you choose to do it anyway. Relative power is important, and is an extention again of the mooks thing. Bruce Willis in Die Hard is grim and gritty.
My take on the whole mook bit is in another post. But just a clarification. When I use mooks I don't use them in a mountain of bodies way. There is no swarm. It's kinda of like in Die Hard where Bruce engages with three or four enemies at one time. He does not get killed but they sure chip away at him. Now I realise that you could use standard rules for this but sometimes (in my games at least) mook rules are kind of like the trailer for the movie to come. Can you dig what I'm trying to say?
By the way, Die Hard is indeed Grim and Gritty...and Rockin'.
Regards,
David R.
I get the feeling that the "gritty" part of "grim 'n' gritty" doesn't have a universally agreed-upon definition in this context. I don't think most who use it feel "gritty" is meant to imply pluckiness on the part of the heroes in such a setting, but mean "gritty" in the "covered with grit" way. Not literally covered with grit, but a setting in which nothing is clean, literally and figuratively.
Quote from: David RBy the way, Die Hard is indeed Grim and Gritty...and Rockin'.
Love Die Hard, but I just can't say it is Grim 'n' Gritty. It's very cinematic, in the way people use the term in reference to RPGs. Die Hard seems like a perfect fit for a game like d20 Modern, which is a more cinematic game. A Grim 'n' Gritty movie would be something like, oh, let's say One False Move, or a number of films from the late 60s/early 70s, like The French Connection (although even it shades over to the "cinematic" side of the spectrum). Other examples would be more fact-based stuff like In Cold Blood or the Onion Field, or more fictional stuff like The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonLove Die Hard, but I just can't say it is Grim 'n' Gritty.
I'm going to have to agree with Herr Colonel on this one although I understand why one would want to call it GNG.
Frankly as long as something values good over evil (which the Die Hard movies do), I can't call it GNG- even if the hero loses.
Quote from: gleichmanI'm going to have to agree with Herr Colonel on this one although I understand why one would want to call it GNG.
Frankly as long as something values good over evil (which the Die Hard movies do), I can't call it GNG- even if the hero loses.
I can understand why some might think Die Hard shades over into Grim 'n' Gritty, but I think a good way to judge as to whether it is Grim 'n' Gritty is to consider whether you ever felt the hero really might get killed.
Another example of Grim 'n' Gritty in the movies could be Superfly. The original Walking Tall would be another example. All in my opinion, of course.
I would say:
1) No objective good or evil, although almost everybody probably thinks of themselves as "good."
2) All actions have consequences. There's very much a "live by the sword, die by the sword" feel.
3) Protagonists aren't special. They follow the same rules as everybody else. In RPG's, this is best reflected by the absence of both "mook" rules and metagame mechanics like Drama Points or Hero Points that let PCs succeed automatically at tasks or evade the consequences of bad rolls.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonAnother example of Grim 'n' Gritty in the movies could be Superfly. The original Walking Tall would be another example. All in my opinion, of course.QuoteOkay how about the Korean flick "Oldboy" - that would qualify as both Grim and Gritty- in my opinion off course.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David ROkay how about the Korean flick "Oldboy" - that would qualify as both Grim and Gritty- in my opinion off course.
Regards,
David R
I'm not familiar with that movie.
QuoteI'm not familiar with that movie.
Okay, "The Wild Bunch" - Grim and Gritty - Peckinpah-style
Regards,
David R
Grim and Gritty books: Guardians of the Flame series
I always struggle with describing my own fantasy campaign.
It's very much centered on heroic adventure, heck it's basically Epic Fantasy in that respect. But the combat system and events can appear to be GNG.
If anyone saw last Tuesday's The Unit on CBS, put a PC in the role of all the characters including the injured one- and that's sometimes how my game goes. To me, epic fantasy is that. Lord of Rings wasn't the happy books people like to say they are. Nor was Chronicles of Prydain.
So I think I should just say that I do Epic Fantasy. Except that is such a poor match for how people react to that term in rpgs.
I can't say GNG, because that implies a lack of meaningful Good in the world.
So I end up using a thousand words or so to get the point across.
Quote from: gleichmanSo I think I should just say that I do Epic Fantasy. Except that is such a poor match for how people react to that term in rpgs.
I can't say GNG, because that implies a lack of meaningful Good in the world.
So I end up using a thousand words or so to get the point across.
Perhaps what you run is heroism with consequences - sometimes extremely dire ones - which in turn is reflected in both tone(setting) and system?
Regards,
David R
When I think of GnG in literature, I usually think of the Black Company series by Glen Cook. I would also say the Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe.
In movies, Krysst and I were discussing 13th Warrior, the Punisher and Unleashed. I agree with the Wild Bunch and would probably include Point Blank, Reservoir Dogs and True Romance.
Comic books, I would say Grimjack and Hawkworld (the mini-series), both by Tim Truman (Grimjack written by Jon Ostrander), as well as Suicide Squad (at least in the beginning) and early Punisher.
It's actually hard to list GnG examples, because most (including much of the list I just gave) aren't really GnG all around, but have elements of GnG. I'm starting to think that, like beauty, GnG is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm going to have to put some serious thought into how to modify my games to deliver a truer GnG experience.
Quote from: FraserRonaldI'm going to have to put some serious thought into how to modify my games to deliver a truer GnG experience.
As a side note, I think it is also worth looking into the fact that some games one is already running tends to over time either by circumstance or design become a litter bit more Grimer. In this case I may be talking about the situation the characters are in and not really the setting itself.Or it could be the setting depending on just exactly how much has changed since the start of the campaign.
In other words Grim and Gritty is just a matter of intensity. An intensity level that varies depending on the choices of the characters and Gm. Off course not all games go through this, but some do and they really did not start of as an excersise in GNG .
This of course brings into play the whole question of the rules. Perhaps rules although
greatly enhancing the whole atmosphere of GnG is not really a necessary component in running Grim and Gritty games. Admitedly, this is a bit confusing, since one of the aspects of GnG is the lethality of the system.Perhaps I'm being a bit too cavalier in this whole post.
Regards,
David R
A G&G game does not necessarily involve greater PC death. What it should involve is swift and deadly combat - just like how combat really is.
Deadly combat doesn't mean more dead PCs. It means more PCs finding ways to avoid the possibility of serious injury or death, just like most people do. You only attack if you have a good tactical situation, are much more skilled than your opponents, etc. Even then something could fuck up. In real life, to draw a weapon on somebody who's similarly armed is to not know if you're going to be alive in a few minutes.
G&G characters fear death, and seek safer solutions to problems. There is a time for heroism - sometimes there ARE things worth fighting - and dying - for. But not every day.
In G&G games, sometimes it's really a better idea to just pay off the bandits and continue on safely. Is the money worth your life?
Quote from: Name LipsIn G&G games, sometimes it's really a better idea to just pay off the bandits and continue on safely. Is the money worth your life?
You have to ease long-time D&D players into that slowly. D&D characters will slaughter bandits, skull fuck them, and count the loot, without breaking a sweat or having a moral qualm.
I suppose if you wanted to give them a painful learning experience, though, that might be the way to go. :heh:
Quote from: CyberzombieYou have to ease long-time D&D players into that slowly. D&D characters will slaughter bandits, skull fuck them, and count the loot, without breaking a sweat or having a moral qualm.
Hmm. I nevered eased them into anything. I throw it at them in all its glory, using NPCs up front to provide a warning.
Whenever D&D (only) players first experience my fantasy game, I've always seen something that I describe as "Battle Shock". It is actual wide-eye amazement with open jaws.
It's a very rare exception for a player to not be broken in by the end of that first night. Most get it right after the first in-game warning example.
One word sums up the nitty-gritty of grim'n'gritty to me: Warhammer. I'm sure other games have done it well, but if you want to know what grim'n'gritty feels like, you'll find it in spades under the Warhammer. :gnasher:
Quote from: gleichmanHmm. I nevered eased them into anything. I throw it at them in all its glory, using NPCs up front to provide a warning.
Whenever D&D (only) players first experience my fantasy game, I've always seen something that I describe as "Battle Shock". It is actual wide-eye amazement with open jaws.
It's a very rare exception for a player to not be broken in by the end of that first night. Most get it right after the first in-game warning example.
Upon consideration, that's probably the best way to do it. I remember the first time I got shot whilst on a motorcycle in Shadowrun. That taught me VERY quickly never to fight on a motorcycle ever, ever again. :eek:
Actually, I never even had a motorcycle of a Shadowrun character again. Best to be safe. :)