Grim Enough?

By David Spangler, in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

One of the questions/comments that keeps popping up in the various comments to the Diaries is that compared to WFRP 2e, the new edition isn't "grim enough" or "warhammer enough." Not having played 2nd Edition, I can't evaluate these comments. But it seems to me, having played and GM'd varying RPGs over the years, that "grimness" is largely in the hands of the GM and his or her storytelling skills. Even Toon could be made pretty grim if the GM and players arranged it so. I get the impression from those who feel this new edition isn't "Warhammer enough" that all the new elements--dice, cards, character descriptions, team cards, etc--somehow "pretty up" the environment and make it "too heroic." I may be missing something here--as I say, I haven't played 2nd Ed--but I'm not sure I understand this. I see these things just as tools for the GM and players, not as determining the grimness or depth or sheer desperation and despair inherent in a gaming environment. I'm just not getting why this edition can't be as fully expressive of the Warhammer mythos and world as any prior Warhammer product might be. I happen to like heroic and epic tales and think there's room in the Warhammer world for them, but if I wanted to play ordinary, non-heroic, flawed people struggling desperately and grimly against overwhelming odds and an unforgiving world, why, I would do so and use whatever RPG tools are at my disposal to make it so.

Without hookers, bawds, disease mongers, a mechanic for how long it takes to burn a person at the stake, nipples, abject adventurer poverty-causing-PC-desperation, and unbalanced PC classes based on how corrupt a person is (the more corrupt the better), it won't be grim enough. ;)

jh

Emirikol said:

Without hookers, bawds, disease mongers, a mechanic for how long it takes to burn a person at the stake, nipples, abject adventurer poverty-causing-PC-desperation, and unbalanced PC classes based on how corrupt a person is (the more corrupt the better), it won't be grim enough. ;)

You just described my first weekend back from Afghanistan!

You're absolutely right, it is in the hands of the GM. Setting and tone always has been. You can make anything grim or anything heroic, it's all a matter of flavor. A good system promotes all styles of play, not just one. One problem with 2e is it was extremely limited to those who wanted to play "grim" fantasy or what not.

I have no idea why 2e players can't look at the mook rules and say to themselves, nifty, but I won't use that because I want orcs to slaughter my party of dock hands so all orcs will be major character orcs and just not use mooks. If you don't want swordmasters in your game because that's too heroic, just pull the card. If you want a deadlier game, just increase weapon damages by x amount, there, now it's more deadly. Small amount of mods to match the setting GM's intentions have been done since the beginning of gaming. Heck, you can even run Cthulhu as high-adventure if you just make the right choices as players and GM. It's all a matter of taste and preference. A good system should cater to taste more than specific flavor.

I really can't understand why this system and game, above all other systems and games, is being knit-picked sooooo much to death. People want it to be perfect, without modification, to function as the best system ever, and since it doesn't, they don't want it. Even though most of those who have reject it even admit to making modifications to every game they run, including 2e. I just don't get it.

Why system is important is because the system adds to the tone. But ultimately, if you want grittier, deadlier, or just plain old nasty-grim, then run it that way and mod as necessary. Modding is especially easy in 3e since all you have to do is pull cards now down to an acceptable pile of "grittier" feel: from careers, to action cards, to talents, etc. Instead of having to print out lists of acceptable or unacceptable parts to your system, or rules modifications.

As a final point, what brought my new group to second edition was the release of Warhammer online. Most of them didn't know warhammer even existed. When I told them I'd run it for them, the first question asked was, "can i play a swordmaster?" Sadly, he couldn't under second...that is of course until I wrote it up. My point is, though I love the grim nature and lack of high fantasy, it isn't for everyone and with the expansion of comic books into mainstream and games like Warmachine and the GW gaming empire, more-glitzy settings are what a good portion of the gaming market is after. If I would have simply said no, you can't play a Swordmaster (as 2e actually did) then I would have lost a player (i.e. a potential buyer). Having a wide flexible system that can be played anyway a group wants to play it is what a great system does. 2e was just too limited to its genre to reach as broad of an audience as it could have if it would have included more elements like its Tabletop Father.

As I mentioned several times in this thread:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=149&efcid=3&efidt=210135&efpag=0

I'll repost my thoughts here:

"I've said this ten thousand times and I hate to repeat it, but the setting is not (totally) the mechanics . How the GM runs the game enforces the setting, but the setting is the overall story , location and personal interaction with the world . I know people who already run Warhammer RPG games at a epic, heroic pace, not dealing with the misery and harshness of the Warhammer setting. I know people who add more drama and darkness to the Warhammer setting. Guess what? It's the GM that enforces the setting. Not the mechanics. I can take the campiest, most glamorous rules for a setting and still run the setting in a dark, tense and harsh way. I'm the GM: If something needs to be more deadly, then I crank up the danger. If something needs to be less dangerous and more hilarious, I crank up the comedy ."

And

"GMs enforce the setting, not the mechanics. A lot of GMs nowadays discard mechanics or parts of systems to meet their own requirements/feelings anyway. So saying it's heresy is heresy in itself. The good GMs follow the GM Creed: I am the Game Master, and I control the game, the setting and the tempo. I am the arbiter of disputes, and the world in which the players tread. It is up to me to make the game enjoyable for the players - not the game itself. This is why I play ."

That's how I feel when people continuously tell me that the mechanics of the game ruin the setting, and that any version that isn't their favorite is "heresy."

Peacekeeper_b said:

Emirikol said:

Without hookers, bawds, disease mongers, a mechanic for how long it takes to burn a person at the stake, nipples, abject adventurer poverty-causing-PC-desperation, and unbalanced PC classes based on how corrupt a person is (the more corrupt the better), it won't be grim enough. ;)

You just described my first weekend back from Afghanistan!

Welcome back! WFRP probably beats the crap out of roadside bombs eh?

Jay

Sure, McClaud, but many people don't like fiddling with rules too much and prefer systems that are close to the type of game they like from the start.

I don't think you can disagree ? I don't play D&D because the setting and the rules are too alien to my style. I play WFRP because with a few minor adjustments, I get a game that suits me perfectly. Houseruling a system to death usually unbalances the mechanics, creates new problems that niggle you for ever...

David Spangler said:

I get the impression from those who feel this new edition isn't "Warhammer enough" that all the new elementsdice, cards, character descriptions, team cards, etcsomehow "pretty up" the environment and make it "too heroic." I may be missing something hereas I say, I haven't played 2nd Edbut I'm not sure I understand this.

Okay, let me see if I can take a crack at this, even though I'm not one of the nay-sayers who is saying that v3 won't be grim or grimmable. I harbor some doubts, but I'll see what I see when I see the finished product. I AM one of the people who feels that the v2 rulebook got the grim wrong (as opposed to v1, which set the standard for grim), possibly because the fanbase (gotta love 'em) bullied the v2 people into making sure that it wasn't going to be 'not-grim' , and as a result the v2 people made it X-tra Grimm, and thus went a little overboard, putting skulls on every newborn baby just to show how grim they could be. But that's water under the bridge.

Sure, if you want, you can make every game grim if you want to, I accept that. But when you read an rpg book, you're either going to get the feeling that this game is supposed to be about glorious battle on mountain tops in defense of all that is good, or you can read about how you might meet your end dying in the gutter covered with skaven piss.

Okay, so I'm being hyperbolic, but my point is that the grim is in the text and in the artwork. Do you get the grim flavor that is what made Warhammer FRP unique? If not, why call it Warhammer? Sure, I think it will also find its way into the rules - how easy death comes to PCs, is a big example. Another example is how much better advanced characters are at everything than first career characters.

Even more importantly, the grim or not is in the gameworld description. Is Karl-Franz a blundering inbred idiot, or is he the world's greatest hero riding a griffon? If the world is presented to us in stark good vs. evil terms, where the good is all good and the evil is the blackest evil ever, I, for one, won't bother, because that is too simplistic a way to conceive of the world IMO. Likewise, I won't bother with a game where doom and gloom and dying in the gutter covered in skaven piss is assured.

Perhaps 'grim' is not the right word; it just stuck because it was grimmer than what was common at the time (AD&D). TEW presented (or I read into it) a world that had an implicitly more complex understanding of right/wrong than just good versus evil; good must be saved, evil must be killed. I guess Warhammer (v1) was grim because the good guys weren't all that awesome, life in the Empire was kind of sucky, much the way that life in the 15 and 16th centuries was kind of sucky. That suckiness made the game world plausible and able to allow me to suspend my disbelief, which is what I am looking for in an RPG.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but this is the way I see it:

I like "dark" by which I mean that evil is all around, a sense of dread pervades society as all seems to be on the brink of collapse. There is very little to hold on to so we must toil on even if we cannot see any hope in the foreseeable future that sort of thing. Corruption and the enemy within as major themes, the power of chaos seeming so insurmountable that many will join it out of fear and despair. I like that a lot, as long as there is still a small ray of light, a few good men and women willing to give it their best shot so maybe some day humanity can still thrive after all.

What I don't like is an ultra-cynical, nihilistic world smeared in dung or something that resembles a naturalistic novel or a Belgian social-realist film (I'm a Belgian, I know what I'm talking about :-) ). I felt The Thousand Thrones, for example, had just a little bit too much of the latter at times. I still really liked many other aspects of that campaign, though.

Setting the tone I want is a fine line to walk but I would describe it as "darkly heroic" rather than "not heroic". And heroic doesn't necessarily mean the characters have to be incredibly able, just that they're individuals, most likely quite flawed, who are willing to make a difference, who have some form of good will and courage. They can be obsessive, xenophobic, hedonistic or flawed in any way they like but I don't want them to be purely selfish, evil bastards. I just wouldn't enjoy a campaign like that.

Does anyone else feel this way?

Personally I think they overdo it. As mentioned before, adding skulls everywhere is, from a certain point on, more ridiculous than grim. When reading a background book, I do not necessarily need a grim text; the facts would suffice for me. How I deal with them is another matter - I can make them as grim and perilous as I like.

Sometimes, when I skim through the scenario-lists (both published and fan-made) the "grim" aspect is sheerly overwhelming: how many enemies can an Empire withstand? Apart from the Greenskins, Skaven, Beastmen, Bandits, in nearly every village is an active Chaos-cult or a bad-ass necromancer. Not to mention the Chaos Incursions, who seem to happen every 200 years (the main reason here is - I assume - to find a few more scenarios for WFB, but I might be wrong here). Nevertheless, with that number of enemies and foes, the Empire should have been collapsed a long time ago. One of my players put it right: "If I would really live in this world, gimme one reason why I should travel outside a town wall? Bad guys everywhere, not a hundred miles without the loss of at least one Fate Point!" Of course, as an adventurer, you seek trouble, grim and perilous gran_risa.gif

So, for my taste, things are sometimes too grim to be believeable. Grim is fine, as long as you don't overdo it. I know, I'm on thin ice here, but I really would prefer some more heroic themes - in fact, I try to incorporate this concept a little in my campaign, to give the PCs a little more motivation and drive, instead of handing out Insanity Points for the next bloody, messy scene, starring 12 cultists summoning a Daemon of Nurgle... or Tzeentch for a change happy.gif

"Tzeentch for a change" - Good one happy.gif

I can see what you mean and I'm inclined to agree, actually.

There has to be some lighter subject matter in order to give contrast to the dark.

Or else the grim dark theme becomes overwhelming and can easily meander into self parody (babies with skulls painted on them, for example).

As a side note, I prefer to believe that Emperor Karl Franz really IS an inbred, babbling idiot, and that the man who makes public appearances is some other guy hired to play the role! Ha!

While for the most part a system's grimness (even grit level) has alot to do with the GM but the system still needs to support that style.

Take D&D for instance it is a very cinematic game, even if you make things very grim and gritty via the story the mechanics will break that mood as soon as a character tries an action (a mechanics resolved factor) and the system shows the character is actually quite a cinematic hero. When in turn it breaks the whole Grim Mood of things.

I found that for second ed the mechanics helped enforce the feeling that the characters are no better or worse than an NPC, the only thing making them different is that they are run by a player and are so to speak a main character. The Cinematic level is alot lower than in D&D.

A system that has set itself at a certain level is generaly expected to stay at that level within further editions (likely why there was a fair bit of issue with the change from 1st - 2nd ed as well). D&D has always been very cinematic, and its expected it will always be that way it's a fundemental aspect of D&Ds playing style. Likewise it is expected that WFRP sould sat at its defined cinematic level and style as well.


Likewise the previous editions of Warhammer Fantasy Role-play set a grim, low cinematic style, so it is expected that that will be the norm for any edition of the Warhammer Fantasy Role-Playing system.
Having to alter the core fundementals of the system for it to support the style of game it previously had is not the greatest of moves, and will ofcourse annoy those that chose the system because it supported that style of play.

It's the simple matter of why people chose a system in the first place, one doesnt choose Call of Cthulhu, to play a High Fantasy game, or choose D&D to play Vampire: The Masquerade (or whatever its current edition is), reguardless if the system can achieve the results desired.

To me, the Why is obvious, the systems just dont support the style of play.

Necrozius said:

There has to be some lighter subject matter in order to give contrast to the dark.

Or else the grim dark theme becomes overwhelming and can easily meander into self parody (babies with skulls painted on them, for example).

As a side note, I prefer to believe that Emperor Karl Franz really IS an inbred, babbling idiot, and that the man who makes public appearances is some other guy hired to play the role! Ha!

It is quite likely that its the case... Hmm... makes for an interesting story arc... Mwhahaha

commoner Said:

.. One problem with 2e is it was extremely limited to those who wanted to play "grim" fantasy or what not. ...

In all due respect that was the point of WFRP, and that was the nieche market. My group happens to play it a little less dark that some but we understood it was a dark and grip setting when we went with it.

...
I really can't understand why this system and game, above all other systems and games, is being knit-picked sooooo much to death. People want it to be perfect, without modification, to function as the best system ever, and since it doesn't, they don't want it. Even though most of those who have reject it even admit to making modifications to every game they run, including 2e. I just don't get it.
...

People make modifications to the game to fit their groups style of play, for most of us we like the flavor but have subtle style differences. I have yet to see anyone actually use a system long term that they didnt clarify or alter even the system's original creators. Systems need to be generic enough to reach a broard market. Its our job to meet the specifics for our individual groups.

...
As a final point, what brought my new group to second edition was the release of Warhammer online. Most of them didn't know warhammer even existed. When I told them I'd run it for them, the first question asked was, "can i play a swordmaster?" Sadly, he couldn't under second...that is of course until I wrote it up. My point is, though I love the grim nature and lack of high fantasy, it isn't for everyone and with the expansion of comic books into mainstream and games like Warmachine and the GW gaming empire, more-glitzy settings are what a good portion of the gaming market is after. If I would have simply said no, you can't play a Swordmaster (as 2e actually did) then I would have lost a player (i.e. a potential buyer).
...

In defence to Mythic they were very upfront about WAR being closer to the Minature game theme than the Role-playing one. While 2nd ed does have Swordmasters, they are simply Elven Veterans with a distinctive style of fighting (great sword focused).

...
Having a wide flexible system that can be played anyway a group wants to play it is what a great system does. 2e was just too limited to its genre to reach as broad of an audience as it could have if it would have included more elements like its Tabletop Father.
...

The downside to a generic system is it does alot of things ok, but little well. D20 is a good generic system, but realy what does it do realy well other than being generic.

Loswaith said:

It's the simple matter of why people chose a system in the first place, one doesnt choose Call of Cthulhu.

Oh yes you do! At least if you're a bunch of young Swedish RPG enthusiasts during the early eighties! happy.gif

The first Swedish rpg was called Drakar & Demoner (Dragons & Daemons), was set in a generic fantasy setting and despite similarities in names was very different from D&D. It used the Basic Role-Playing rules which made it very deadly and I think this has really put it's mark on RPGs in my country; almost all of them would probably be classified as very "realistic", "gritty" or "deadly" by players used to D&D and its ilk.

Sorry, ran off on a tangent there. To return to the discussion at hand: of course the rule set can influence the feel of the game but it's really negligible compared to he GM and the players mindset. Just looking at the rules I don't think v3 seems more or less grim than v2, this might change when I get my hands on the books but at the moment I don't know enough. I believe what make some people feel that v3 is less grim is the "silly action names" and the bits. Not even the fact that there are bits, but that the bits are bright and colourful. Seeing brightly coloured tokens and cards doesn't make people think of crawling through the mud with a broken leg and being stabbed in the back by a rusty mutant knife. Hehe!

Necrozius said:

There has to be some lighter subject matter in order to give contrast to the dark.

That's a very good statement! Quoted for truth!

Emirikol said:

Without hookers, bawds, disease mongers, a mechanic for how long it takes to burn a person at the stake, nipples, abject adventurer poverty-causing-PC-desperation, and unbalanced PC classes based on how corrupt a person is (the more corrupt the better), it won't be grim nough. ;)

Perfectly perceived only thing missing is the smell of puke and sickness in the streets gui%C3%B1o.gif

But the Rat Cathers Tale was grim enough I think, I'm not shure about the rest though...

And after all I think Jay owes us a session demo video gran_risa.gif

Loswaith said:

It's the simple matter of why people chose a system in the first place, one doesnt choose Call of Cthulhu, to play a High Fantasy game, or choose D&D to play Vampire: The Masquerade (or whatever its current edition is), reguardless if the system can achieve the results desired.

To me, the Why is obvious, the systems just dont support the style of play.

But the reality is that people did love Call of Cthulhu a lot more when it went to the d20 system, which was the foundation of 3.x D&D mechanics. And you can use the system of the World of Darkness to play a high fantasy game like D&D or Call of Cthulhu or RIFTS, if you really wanted to. People use d20 Modern to run both terrifying zombie apocalpyses and light-hearted Cyberpunk games. We used the Star Wars Saga system to play a few sessions of Star Trek. All you alter is the setting .

The style of play is not strictly dictated by the mechanics. How the players and the GM/DM use the mechanics and setting dictates the style of play. I can use White Wolf's mechanics to play Warhammer Fantasy, if I wanted. Those stats and mechanics don't do anything without me - the GM - pacing the game and enforcing the setting. And if your players are right there in the same mindset, you could play WHFR with West End's old d6 system, and it would work just fine. I actually ran the last few years of our Warhammer game by the d20 system, because I honestly think that games that rely on percentile systems suck (the outcomes are too predictable by people who can do math).

How does rolling unique dice, refering to rules on cards instead out of the rulebook, and counting out wounds with cards instead of erasing and rewriting a number on a piece of paper actually change the setting? It doesn't. Does it effect the style? Only if you LET IT.

I'm 38, and I've been playing role-playing games since I was 9. I don't know if it's my experience or the generation of gamers, but recently people don't seem to be able to understand that the game is what you make it and how you run it, and not letting the game run you . That's when the fun disappears.

And to answer the earlier direct statement to me about altering the game system:

Why do you have to house-rule it? You can house-rule it or play it as-is. The only house-rules I use when I play any RPG is when you come to the game, you leave your problems and outside mind at the door. There are times when I don't roll a single die during a session of 3.x D&D, and times when combat is all we do (because they're stuck in the middle of a war or something).

If you don't like the new v3 system, then don't buy it. You can easily use your own imagination and what is out there with v2 to run Warhammer games.

I agree with McClaud.

I have a strange case, though: the new system is precisely why some of my players, including my wife, actually WANT to play!

My player group is composed of four individuals of varying experience who, for their own reasons, disliked the percentile system of WFRP an Dark Heresy.

They really LIKE the new system, and are excited to use it, no matter what thematic stories I will tell.

I agree entirely with previous posts that detail how the "grim darkness" of any given game is mostly in the hand of the GM .

However, the system needs to be able to support that feeling - meaning that a system in which wounds are petty things that hardly impede one's performance doesn't lend itself very well to "gritty."

That said, what I've seen from the previews so far would seem to support the idea that the WFRP3 system ought to do this fairly well - especially with crits possible at any time now, not just when you run short on Wounds !

This has been a great discussion. Thanks, everyone (not that I'm trying to end it, though...). I appreciated reading all the comments; they were very helpful. I come down on the side of grimness being in the minds of the players and the GM, but I can understand the points being made about how mechanics and text flavor can affect the implementation of that mindset. From what I've read so far in the Diaries, I would think the new edition will support grimness or (and I like this, too, "dark heroics"), but as several have wisely said, we'll know better when it comes out and we actually get to see it.

I would say there are 4 pillars which influence general grittyness.

1. Rules - deadly or not? Everyone who played call of cthulhu, stormbringer or runequest KNOWS that those rules (the BRP system) generates alot of grittyness without the need of a setting. Compared to DnD or D20 which is not gritty in any edition (except DnD BECM 1st level which is more than gritty - ridicolous deadly so to say). Thats also why d20 Cthulhu was never a success compared to classic CoC. Having dozens of Hitpoints feels NOT gritty enough.

2, GM - the GM contributes to the grittyness. Its his interpretation of the world. And yes you can play Warhammer heroic too. But, some of you will think now: "...is heroic warhammer still warhammer?..." I say yes heroic play is a valid variant of the setting especially considering the novels (felix and gotrek eg.) or the tabletop.

3. The official adventures - It makes alot of difference if the publishers release modules which allows "adventuring" in in sewers full of skaven **** in search of a lost mutant child or if you save the world from chaos evil on the back of a war griffon.

4. The official world description and artwork - it makes a difference if you have shiny blonde paladins on white horses or nice sexy 16y old elven rangers on the pics or if there is a b/w red haired punk dwarf which sliced in two half by an ugly stinkin goblin. (hint: 1st type of artwork is NOT gritty :) ) It makes also a difference if Karl Franz is really the altruistic good hearted protector of the men in the empire like he is presented in some publications. Or if he is a chaos warped arrogant noble ******* who does not care about anything else than his personal wealth. It makes a difference if the "good gods" of the empire gods are nothing more than chaos manifestations of the 4 chaos powers. (like it is hinted in tome of salvation, a 2nd ed. publication) or really that what they claim to be.

Nearly all my campaign are melded into medieval Europe, with an accent on grittness and brutality.

I search history, tales of mystery, and many other tidbits can make the environment ... medieval.
As a GM i really put much effort in the mood of the campaign.

I must admit that without a complementary system that support your style the results can be not satisfactory OR you must bend the rules continuosly.

As much as Ron Edwards is arrogant and I hate to dredge up the Forge, his essay is ten years old and pertinent to this discussion.

Here's the first line: I have heard a certain notion about role-playing games repeated for almost 20 years. Here it is: "It doesn't really matter what system is used. A game is only as good as the people who play it, and any system can work given the right GM and players." My point? I flatly, entirely disagree.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html

I'm amazed and confused at people saying system doesn't affect tone. I dare you to run a serious game using Kobolds ate my Baby's BEER system. More relevantly, the damage resolution differences of D&D vs Warhammer (fighting at 100% effectiveness while wounded in D&D vs. wound effects in Warhammer) affect tone. Saying "well it's really all up to the GM" is sort of a hand-wave, the real question is "How much effort did the GM have to put in hacking up the system to make it work for her desired tone?"

Anyway, I don't think we'll be able to determine if combat is more or less gritty until we have a decent comparison of a sample 2e vs. 3e combat, which currently is only half-outlined by the designer diaries.