Grimmloch runs on subscriptions. There are two: one that covers you and a friend for about twelve dollars a month, and one that covers a group of ten for about fifty-two. There is no single-player price and no free-to-play tier. Every subscription is built to cover more than one person because the model is designed around people coming into the world together, though you are never required to fill the extra seats. The paid entry isn't about revenue from a barrier; it does a job that roleplay communities have always needed done. It keeps the world populated by people who arrived on purpose rather than a stream of uninvested visitors passing through, and it does that without the applications and waiting that most roleplay communities rely on. Because any member can cover someone else's seat, cost is rarely the thing that keeps a person out.
There are two subscriptions.
Bring a Friend runs about twelve dollars a month. It covers two people: you and one other person of your choosing. You can fill that second seat, change who holds it, or leave it empty, and there are tools to manage that.
Bring a Group runs about fifty-two dollars a month and covers ten people: you and nine others. The same management tools apply, so whoever holds the subscription can adjust the roster as the group changes.
There is no single-player subscription, and there is no free-to-play tier. Both options are built to cover more than one person. You are not required to use the extra seats, but the pricing is shaped around the assumption that people will want to bring others, because the rest of the model is built on that.
The sections below explain why it is built this way.
The reasoning starts with how a roleplay community actually holds together.
A roleplay community does not run on its written rules. It runs on a set of shared conventions that mostly go unwritten: stay in character, do not act on knowledge your character could not have, give other players room to react instead of dictating outcomes, treat the fiction as real while you are in it. The game does not enforce these. They live in the players and pass from established members to new ones, one person at a time.
That process has a rate limit. A community can absorb new members only as fast as its existing members can show them how things work. Below that rate, newcomers learn the conventions and become part of the culture. Above it, new arrivals begin to outnumber the people who could have taught them, and the conventions stop being shared. The culture does not adapt to the influx. It dilutes.
The early internet has a well-known example, sometimes called the September that never ended. A forum that had comfortably absorbed a steady trickle of newcomers each year had its doors opened to a much larger flow at once, and the existing culture could not integrate people fast enough to keep up. The community degraded not because the new users were malicious, but because there were too many of them arriving too quickly.
A free-to-play tier produces this condition deliberately. It lowers the cost of entry to nothing, which invites the kind of arrival a roleplay community has the hardest time absorbing: someone with nothing invested, there to look around. That person does not need bad intent to disrupt a scene. Not knowing or not minding the conventions is enough. Stepping out of character mid-scene, acting on out-of-character knowledge, or posting over a developing story all break the shared fiction, and the cost falls on the other players rather than on the visitor, who had nothing at stake to begin with.
A paid entry point changes who arrives. Paying for a text roleplay subscription is a small signal of intent. It does not prove someone is a skilled roleplayer, but it does separate people who decided to be here from people who wandered in, and that distinction is most of what a community needs to stay coherent. That is the function of the price. It is not a revenue strategy built on a wall; it is the thing that keeps the population made up of people who meant to come.
Most serious roleplay communities have reached the same conclusion about uninvested arrivals, and most of them address it with a whitelist: an application, a written character, questions about experience, sometimes an interview, and a waiting period while staff decide whether to admit the applicant.
A whitelist works, but it carries real costs. Reviewing applications consumes significant staff time. The process rejects some good roleplayers on thin evidence while admitting bad actors who write good applications. Waits can run from days to weeks. And it tends to select for applicants willing to complete a bureaucratic process, which is not the same trait as commitment to roleplay.
A subscription accomplishes the same filtering with none of that overhead. There is no application, no character to submit, no interview, no waiting period, and no staff member judging applicants. The signal of intent is the payment itself, applied equally to everyone, with no one deciding whether a given person is good enough to admit. For a prospective player, the practical difference is that you can join immediately rather than apply and wait.
The subscription does have one obvious limitation a whitelist does not: it filters partly by money, and money is not the trait the community is actually selecting for. The next section is about how the model addresses that.
A pure paywall would screen for ability to pay, which overlaps with commitment to roleplay but is not the same thing. Some people who would be excellent members cannot easily afford a subscription, and some people who can afford one are a poor fit. The shared-seat structure is what keeps the price from being the whole filter.
Because every subscription covers more than one person, an existing member can cover someone else's entry. When that happens, the question at the door is no longer only "can this person pay." It becomes "is an existing member willing to spend a seat to bring this person in." That is a more useful signal than payment alone, and it resembles what a whitelist is trying to assess, except that the judgment is made by someone who already knows the community and the person, rather than by staff reviewing a stranger's application.
The shared seat does more than filter. Because the new person arrives connected to a member who can show them how the community works, they get the same one-at-a-time teaching that keeps the culture from diluting. And it shapes how the community grows, since most new members come in through existing ones bringing people they know rather than through broad recruitment.
It also limits the effect of the money barrier. Cost is rarely the deciding factor in whether someone gets in, because any member can cover a seat for someone they want to bring. A capable roleplayer without spare money can be brought in by a single member. The price screens against uninvested, stakeless entry, while remaining open to anyone an existing member chooses to sponsor.
A subscription buys the full game. Nothing is held back to sell separately.
There is no cosmetic store. For roleplayers, a character's appearance is not a peripheral extra; it is a primary way of expressing who the character is. Charging for appearance options piece by piece would mean charging players for one of the core tools of roleplay itself, so those tools are included in the game rather than sold on top of it.
There is no pay-to-win either, for the same underlying reason. Standing, advantage, and power in the world are not for sale. What a character can do and who they are within the world is earned through play, not purchased. Every subscriber has the same game available to them.
The model has three parts that fit together. There is no free tier, so the population is made up of people who arrived deliberately. Subscriptions are built to cover more than one person, so members can bring others in, which filters by relationship rather than only by payment and helps integrate new players as they arrive. And nothing is sold on top of the subscription, so every player has the complete game and no one can buy an advantage.
Taken together, these are not really a revenue model so much as a set of conditions meant to keep the community coherent: people who chose to be here, often brought in by someone who already is, all playing the same game on equal terms.
There is a fair version of wanting to look before you pay. Not everyone knows whether text-based, turn-based combat or this style of interface suits them, and testing that is a reasonable thing to want. Nothing above is meant to deny it.
If we find it necessary, we may offer a way to do that, but it will not be a free tier inside the living world. It would be a separate, self-contained demo a player could download and try on their own, enough to feel out the systems and the interface and decide whether Grimmloch fits how they like to play. The thing the no-free-tier approach protects against is uninvested people moving through the shared world, not people working out whether the game is for them. A demo answers the second without creating the first.
Have a question or comment? Join the discussion on our Studio Discord in the #design-discussions channel.