Character improvment in the various gaming systems

[cthulhudarren]

What rulesets do you all feel are the best for fantasy type campaigns? My group just started a MRQ2 campaign (folks here slammed it pretty good for wonky 'roll under' mechanics) but the combat is pretty awesomely gritty. The problem is the players don't seem to be as big a fan of their mortality as I the GM.

My point is that in MRQ2 if this is the cave troll scene from LoTR and that cave troll swings his club and crits you in the head..... you are DOWN. I don't care if you are a newbie hobbit or a warrior king.

Maybe we are playing the wrong system. Does gritty always equate with low survivability at all experience levels?

[shadzar]

Does gritty always equate with low survivability at all experience levels?

it is how some people want it. gritty can mean higher risk of death and less "namby-pamby everyone lives like in 4th D&D".

you can have gritty in many ways, low magic/tech, less resting and more strugling or grueling..

that word actually sums it up pretty good from Oregon Trail....the "grueling pace" was pretty gritty.

[hogarth]

What do you mean by "gritty"? To me, "gritty" is synonymous with "low [combat] survivability", so no, it wouldn't be possible to have a gritty game without low survivability.

[cthulhudarren]

I suppose I would say "realistic world and combat" for gritty. To a point. I mean, magic exists and mithril is an awesome metal, there are dragons, etc.

[Username17]

Rune Quest combat results are basically nothing like realistic. Game systems with fumble rules attached almost never have realistic results, so I am at a complete loss as to what you mean when you use the word "gritty".

-Username17

[...You Lost Me]

I believe the answer is "no".

[echoVanguard]

Game systems with fumble rules attached almost never have realistic results

That's quite an assertion, Frank. Can you illustrate the underlying logic behind it?

echo

edit - broken quote tag

[Blicero]

Game systems with fumble rules attached almost never have realistic results

That's quite an assertion, Frank. Can you illustrate the underlying logic behind it?

echo

It's pretty simple, and it has to do with Iterative Probability. Most RPGs assume characters that are fairly proficient in whatever their talents are. For example, Aragorn is just like level 3, but he still never drops his sword or accidentally stabs Gimli while fighting. Yet basically any version of dnd with fumble rules is asking you to assume that, 5% of the time your character swings his sword, he totally fucks up. And that's just stupid. Especially because, in a game where 20 or more attackrolls will be made in any given combat, people are going to be decapitating themselves all the fucking time.

Even a percentage system where fumbles occur 1% of the time is still wildly unrealistic, in addition to being disproportionately unfair to playercharacters. If a trained swordsman has a 1% chance to cut off his own arm every time he attacks, there is something extremely wrong with his lifechoice. Very quickly he's either going to willingly retire or be forcibly retired due to extreme limbloss.

For fumbles to be even remotely realistic, you'd probably want to limit them to <.1% of all rolls. And that's simply more granularity than most systems' RNGs have.


That being said, two systems that handles fumbles relatively well are Shadowrun 4 and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. SR4 just because your chance of fumbling decreases drastically as you gain in skill level, and that means that fumbles are really only at all likely when your character is doing something he's basically untrained in. And WHFRP because half the fun in a game like that is watching your character get fucked over, so when he gets his dick bitten off by a cat, you just have to laugh.

[cthulhudarren]

You guys are strawman-ing this fumble thing. It is 1 or 2 percent, and then it takes another improbable roll on top of that to stab yourself in the face. MRQ2 combat is pretty realistic and was designed by folks who regularly practice medieval combat.

But that is also besides the point. Lets focus, I'll reword it: "Gritty" means that the cavetroll can knock you out with one lucky swing of his greatclub, regardless if you are 20th level Aragorn or 1st level Merry. It is realistic. No human could withstand this amount of punishment. BTW, it should also knock you on your ass (which it would do in MRQ2).

[hogarth]

Lets focus, I'll reword it: "Gritty" means that the cavetroll can knock you out with one lucky swing of his greatclub, regardless if you are 20th level Aragorn or 1st level Merry. It is realistic. No human could withstand this amount of punishment. BTW, it should also knock you on your ass (which it would do in MRQ2).

That sounds like low survivability to me, although there could well be other compensating factors. For instance, in ye olde RPG "Top Secret", firearms were potentially very deadly, but the PCs would get a bunch of Fame and Fortune points to mitigate deadly wounds. So it was "gritty", but you could at least last until your Fortune points ran out (Fame points were a renewable resource).

[K]

Lets focus, I'll reword it: "Gritty" means that the cavetroll can knock you out with one lucky swing of his greatclub, regardless if you are 20th level Aragorn or 1st level Merry. It is realistic. No human could withstand this amount of punishment. BTW, it should also knock you on your ass (which it would do in MRQ2).

That sounds like low survivability to me, although there could well be other compensating factors. For instance, in ye olde RPG "Top Secret", firearms were potentially very deadly, but the PCs would get a bunch of Fame and Fortune points to mitigate deadly wounds. So it was "gritty", but you could at least last until your Fortune points ran out (Fame points were a renewable resource).

"Gritty" also sounds like "no character advancement."

I mean, in fantasy literature the reason people can take on monsters who are much more physically powerful than them is because of skill or some superhuman component.

If the cave troll can always knock you out in one hit, you are obviously saying that people in the game don't grow in power by any appreciable amount even after training. If they could, at some point "lucky hit by a cave troll" can't even be on the list of combat results.

[cthulhudarren]

Lets focus, I'll reword it: "Gritty" means that the cavetroll can knock you out with one lucky swing of his greatclub, regardless if you are 20th level Aragorn or 1st level Merry. It is realistic. No human could withstand this amount of punishment. BTW, it should also knock you on your ass (which it would do in MRQ2).

That sounds like low survivability to me, although there could well be other compensating factors. For instance, in ye olde RPG "Top Secret", firearms were potentially very deadly, but the PCs would get a bunch of Fame and Fortune points to mitigate deadly wounds. So it was "gritty", but you could at least last until your Fortune points ran out (Fame points were a renewable resource).

"Gritty" also sounds like "no character advancement."

I mean, in fantasy literature the reason people can take on monsters who are much more physically powerful than them is because of skill or some superhuman component.

If the cave troll can always knock you out in one hit, you are obviously saying that people in the game don't grow in power by any appreciable amount even after training. If they could, at some point "lucky hit by a cave troll" can't even be on the list of combat results.

The key is to not take that hit. Strategy, smarts, tactics, and skill are all necessary. People can only advance physically so far. You might as well play a superhero RPG if you want to be superman. MRQ2 does have things such as "Hero points" which are a "do over", but they are finite. And perhaps you can obtain a helm that negates crits, that is within reason for more powerful and veteran characters.

But the main thing is this, if you cannot die, what fun is it?

[hogarth]

The key is to not take that hit. Strategy, smarts, tactics, and skill are all necessary.

Strategy, smarts and tactics don't sound like they have anything to do with the PC's experience level. Skill, perhaps. Or am I misunderstanding you?

[echoVanguard]

If the cave troll can always knock you out in one hit, you are obviously saying that people in the game don't grow in power by any appreciable amount even after training. If they could, at some point "lucky hit by a cave troll" can't even be on the list of combat results.

This is an irrelevant conclusion on two fronts, K. First, characters might grow in power in dimensions other than survivability (such as having increased offensive power or higher AC to dodge the cave troll's swing). Second, characters can grow in survivability while still having that entry on the combat table (d20's Automatic Kill rolls are a good example of this).

echo

[tzor]

You guys are strawman-ing this fumble thing. It is 1 or 2 percent, and then it takes another improbable roll on top of that to stab yourself in the face. MRQ2 combat is pretty realistic and was designed by folks who regularly practice medieval combat.

I have to see the actual tables to really have an opinion. I'm used to the ones on Role (ROLL) Master which were a little off the wall at times. And 1% on a d100 comes up too many damn times!

[CCarter]

Hmm...something with fixed HP for 'realism' and tactical combat, but that's not quite as deadly as RQ?
I'd recommend asking the guys at therpgsite rather than here (though alot of them like RQ). Offhand I don't know if HarnMaster or GURPS might be slightly less deadly than RQ? Or Dragon Warriors? (class/level, but with very limited HP growth)? Or Reign or FATE (e.g. Legends of Anglerre) even ??
EDIT: or Warhammer Fantasy (WHFR)?

[TheFlatline]

"Gritty" also sounds like "no character advancement."

I mean, in fantasy literature the reason people can take on monsters who are much more physically powerful than them is because of skill or some superhuman component.

If the cave troll can always knock you out in one hit, you are obviously saying that people in the game don't grow in power by any appreciable amount even after training. If they could, at some point "lucky hit by a cave troll" can't even be on the list of combat results.

See this is what I was bitching about with the crushing rules in Pathfinder a while back. If you're hit with 4 tons of force, you should be strawberry jam. Period. The idea that stabbing enough orcs in the face suddenly makes you tough enough to survive being hit by a train or a troll with a club on a crit is silly and one of my biggest complaints about D&D.

[RadiantPhoenix]

See this is what I was bitching about with the crushing rules in Pathfinder a while back. If you're hit with 4 tons of force, you should be strawberry jam. Period. The idea that stabbing enough orcs in the face suddenly makes you tough enough to survive being hit by a train or a troll with a club on a crit is silly and one of my biggest complaints about D&D.

Yeah, well, you can stay at low levels if you want that; I want to play mythic heroes, and the game can support both paradigms.

[shadzar]

See this is what I was bitching about with the crushing rules in Pathfinder a while back. If you're hit with 4 tons of force, you should be strawberry jam. Period. The idea that stabbing enough orcs in the face suddenly makes you tough enough to survive being hit by a train or a troll with a club on a crit is silly and one of my biggest complaints about D&D.

then why do you play it? just so you have something to bitch about?

save or die = gritty

[K]

If the cave troll can always knock you out in one hit, you are obviously saying that people in the game don't grow in power by any appreciable amount even after training. If they could, at some point "lucky hit by a cave troll" can't even be on the list of combat results.

This is an irrelevant conclusion on two fronts, K. First, characters might grow in power in dimensions other than survivability (such as having increased offensive power or higher AC to dodge the cave troll's swing). Second, characters can grow in survivability while still having that entry on the combat table (d20's Automatic Kill rolls are a good example of this).

echo

Key words: "appreciable amount."

There are lots of ways to advance that don't meaningfully change the character and only make them better at the general power level they are expected to perform at.

Take Shadowrun, for example. It has a lot of advancement, but at no point is anyone ever advancing in a meaningful way. You increase the stats higher and higher while staying within hard-coded RNGs so that some effects are always going to have a baseline lethality.

[K]

If the cave troll can always knock you out in one hit, you are obviously saying that people in the game don't grow in power by any appreciable amount even after training. If they could, at some point "lucky hit by a cave troll" can't even be on the list of combat results.

This is an irrelevant conclusion on two fronts, K. First, characters might grow in power in dimensions other than survivability (such as having increased offensive power or higher AC to dodge the cave troll's swing). Second, characters can grow in survivability while still having that entry on the combat table (d20's Automatic Kill rolls are a good example of this).

echo

Key words: "appreciable amount."

There are lots of ways to advance that don't meaningfully change the character and only make them better at the general power level they are expected to perform at.

Take Shadowrun, for example. It has a lot of advancement, but at no point is anyone ever advancing in a meaningful way. You increase the stats higher and higher while staying within hard-coded RNGs so that some effects are always going to have a baseline lethality.

[TheFlatline]

See this is what I was bitching about with the crushing rules in Pathfinder a while back. If you're hit with 4 tons of force, you should be strawberry jam. Period. The idea that stabbing enough orcs in the face suddenly makes you tough enough to survive being hit by a train or a troll with a club on a crit is silly and one of my biggest complaints about D&D.

then why do you play it? just so you have something to bitch about?

When I have a choice, I don't. But sometimes it's the only game in town.

[TheFlatline]

See this is what I was bitching about with the crushing rules in Pathfinder a while back. If you're hit with 4 tons of force, you should be strawberry jam. Period. The idea that stabbing enough orcs in the face suddenly makes you tough enough to survive being hit by a train or a troll with a club on a crit is silly and one of my biggest complaints about D&D.

Yeah, well, you can stay at low levels if you want that; I want to play mythic heroes, and the game can support both paradigms.

Even Mythic heroes die when you drop a mountain on them. In D&D you take 10D6.

[shadzar]

See this is what I was bitching about with the crushing rules in Pathfinder a while back. If you're hit with 4 tons of force, you should be strawberry jam. Period. The idea that stabbing enough orcs in the face suddenly makes you tough enough to survive being hit by a train or a troll with a club on a crit is silly and one of my biggest complaints about D&D.

then why do you play it? just so you have something to bitch about?

When I have a choice, I don't. But sometimes it's the only game in town.

that is still a choice.

remember: no game is better than a bad game.

if you dont like a gritty game because it removes your SoD, then dont play it, or paly it, and complain to your group. not look for group therapy on a forum.

just saying...

better yet, a with this thread, as about it of the group. get ideas that help you accept it in the terms of the game itself and its framework.

probably not the right thread, but in terms of gritty...those examples you give are good ones to outline what many mean by it.

it is where i recently tried to explain HP as physical damage, and HP increase is where the level gaining and luck comes in that allows for gritty play that can stem removal of SoD a bit longer.

the 5 tons of force killing you is a save or die trap...that is gritty.

attacks form monsters arent calculated like that since the game isnt meant to follow exact physics. magic exists so physics is warped. the hit doesnt represent that which a boxer would punch at, but that which armor cannot defelct or absorb. so that mountain troll hitting with a club CAN be survived as people HAVE lived by being hit on the head with proper gear.

just simply dont narrate it as a hit to the head but a glancing blow to the shoulder that i still enough to do damage without permanent injury if you prefer to avoid the permanent injury. or they dislocated a shoulder and cant use that arm for the rest of the battle, due to flavor over mechanics.

how threatening the level is depends on how the group interprets it.

this becomes how gritty it is.

the "entitlement" thread speaks of hit grit, and no grit in terms of character death. because it all really does boil down to lethality. mitigate the damage the way it makes sense to continue the game.

part of the job of narration lies heavily with the DM in terms of continuing the game and keeping the SoD intact. if the hit was to the head, then that was bad narration...just suggest that doesnt make sense and help the DM learn that with the grit, there has to be verisimilitude that doesnt disrupt your SoD.

it doesnt make it less gritty to say it wasnt a hit in the head...the head hit just happens when the HP are low enough for that to be, to use a 4th term more people are familiar with, "cinematic".

it is the same as the weapon debate going on.. the SoD has to come before the "game" as that is what holds the game together for many, else it jsut feels like a board game where nothing makes sense and someone lifts up a 4 ton ceiling that crushed them or used a healing surge, which to many is silly.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Even Mythic heroes die when you drop a mountain on them. In D&D you take 10D6.

No, real mythic heroes have to dig their way out!