General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Why do DM's tend like Dark, gritty worlds and players like colorful worlds where they can do/play anything?
Actually, I don't think those two are mutually exclusive.
As a DM, I know I generally prefer 'dark' campaign settings because they're easier to set adventures in. There's always something going on wherever you go, so there's always something for PCs to do.
By contrast, a 'light' setting has the problem that it is probably dominated by a single central conflict, which is fine... unless that players aren't really interested. Then, you either have to deal with bored players, or you have to deal with railroading them into the quest.
As for players liking worlds where they can "play anything", I think that's only natural: people like having options. I do think the vast majority of players will accept not being able to play anything, just as long as there are enough options.
(Of course, there's sometimes that one guy who just has to play an option you aren't allowing, just to be difficult/different. But that's a 'problem player' issue as much as anything. Just as there is that breed of DM who closes off lots of options without reference to his players' preferences, and often 'just because', which is likely a 'problem DM' issue.)
But it's certainly possible to do a dark and gritty setting and still have a wide range of races and classes available.
3. Hopelessness is depressing. This one's a legit concern IMO. Some GMs like to take the darkness & grittiness to 11. It's all-gloom-all-the-time. As a GM, you may never intend to take it there, but some players have been burned and are cautious as a result.
This is a very good point, and a mistake I have made in the past in my GMing career.
Sure, it can be fun to engage in a fight against impossible odds. But gamers seem to have an almost perverse need to apply logic to every scenario, ignoring story concerns. So, Luke can't destroy the Death Star, because of course the Empire put a shield on that weak spot. Bond never escapes the bad guys, because of course they've learned to promptly execute him after capture. And so it goes.
And so, the PCs never get anywhere with their "fight against hopeless odds", because as soon as the PCs do anything to attract attention (which they will), the BBEG throws his elite minions after them, and crushes them like bugs. It's only logical.
My epiphany came when watching "Stargate: SG-1" (about a year ago - I didn't watch it at the time). Logically, the heroes should have no chance - it should take years to get to grips with the alien technology, the Goa-uld are so much more powerful than our heroes, and O'Neill keeps blundering into trouble. But that would make a bad show. Instead, they keep somehow getting out of trouble at the last minute, they are able to adapt alien tech unrealistically quickly, and eventually they are able to actually defeat their many enemies.
That model formed a core part of the foundation for my recent Star Wars campaign (with the "Clone Wars" series providing another important elements), and it worked very well indeed.
And so, the PCs never get anywhere with their "fight against hopeless odds", because as soon as the PCs do anything to attract attention (which they will), the BBEG throws his elite minions after them, and crushes them like bugs. It's only logical.
Sure, if the PCs are operating in a vacuum.
So IMHO the fun thing to do is make sure the PCs are not the only source of trouble for the BBEG. If the PCs are cornered in a bar, it should be possible (even easy) to turn their fight into a bar brawl, and for them to escape the BBEG's reinforcements in the confusion. If they're running through the slums, they -- or the BBEG's dumb minions -- could end up setting the slums on fire, thereby covering their trail.
PCs win notoriety as dragon-slayers? Well that's nice, but there's a plague of dragons, and a quarter of the Eastport has been turned to ash! The Dark Lord's Extra-Heavy Extra-Dark Infantry has been dispatched to stamp them out, and his Dark Propaganda Machine is already filling taverns with tales of how good they are at slaying dragons.
Heck, the PCs may even be forced to team up with a platoon of the Extra-Heavy Extra-Darks to defeat a particularly nasty drake.
If it's not clear yet, I'm a huge fan of solutions that involve HEAPING ON MORE TROUBLE, and may also involve SETTING THINGS ON FIRE.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
Sure, it can be fun to engage in a fight against impossible odds. But gamers seem to have an almost perverse need to apply logic to every scenario, ignoring story concerns. So, Luke can't destroy the Death Star, because of course the Empire put a shield on that weak spot. Bond never escapes the bad guys, because of course they've learned to promptly execute him after capture. And so it goes.
Except that neither of those examples are particularly logical.
Military hardware has a long history of overlooking weaknesses in its design, so the idea that a tiny exhaust port on a station the site of a small moon could prove to be a fatal liability doesn't strain my credulity meter at all.
And a live spy in the hand is worth far more than a dead one on the ground; a captured spy can be interrogated, ransomed, or traded, while a dead one just attracts flies. In fact, why on earth all those villains insisted on trying to kill an asset like Bond is the really illogical scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delericho
And so, the PCs never get anywhere with their "fight against hopeless odds", because as soon as the PCs do anything to attract attention (which they will), the BBEG throws his elite minions after them, and crushes them like bugs. It's only logical.
You mean like when Cardinal Richelieu has D'Artagnan executed at the end of The Three Musketeers, then sends a troop of cavalry to kill Athos, Porthos, and Aramis as well?
Oh, wait, that's not how the story goes!
The idea here is that by the time the adventurers come to the attention of the BBEG, they may be a match for the elite minions.
(There's also the idea that the adventurers may be worth more to the BBEG alive than dead, but that requires a little effort on the part of the referee to create multi-faceted villains, not just "MWAAHAHAHAHAHA!" guys in spiky armor and black cloaks.)
__________________ On weird fantasy: "The Otus/Elmore rule: When adding something new to the campaign, try and imagine how Erol Otus would depict it. If you can, that's far enough...it's a good idea. If you can picture a Larry Elmore version...it's far too mundane and boring, excise immediately." - Kellri, K&K Alehouse
Wow, lots of painting with very, very broad brush strokes here. There really exists a happy medium. A world where, with a bit of flexibility on the part of the GM and the players, everyone gets their cake. Or at least close enough.
Liking Crouching Tiger style action does not make one a pimply faced idiot. It simply means that some people prefer different things.
Now, Thunderfoot appears from his post to be one of our putative Grim and Gritty DM's. He claims that it's more "realistic". So, there's another reason to add to the pot. The DM's level of suspension of disbelief is less likely to be offended in a setting where things are closer to real world physics.
((Note, I am not making any judgements here. It's not how I like my games to go, but, hey, different strokes))
As I said in my earlier post, I think G&G games appeal to DM's for the simple fact that they are easier to DM. You have less issues to worry about, the PC's have considerably fewer assets with which to approach a scenario, and you don't have to worry about a lot of the things that come with a more wahoo setting.
And, I think there is evidence for Emrikol's point. Look at all the threads decrying the ease of ressurection or raise dead. In a G&G setting, you shouldn't be able to be raised, or it should carry serious consequences. Somehow, I don't think that that idea is being pushed by players.
In a G&G setting, all the really high level magics are out of reach of the players, because it's unlikely they will ever reach the levels where they can DO those sorts of things. It would be extremely difficult to have a G&G Epic, or even high level (say 15th+) campaign. How could it be G&G when the PC's are effectively gods? They are carrying the wealth of small nations on their back, can do miracles regularly.
And, anything that threatens an 18th level party probably doesn't belong in a G&G setting in the first place.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Somehow, I don't think that that idea is being pushed by players.
Whereas it is (in my experience), and ought to be (in my opinion), the exception to the rule when a DM is not also a player. A player might well not be a DM, though, and locally it seems that too few have been willing to DM in recent years.
Quote:
The PCs have considerably fewer assets with which to approach a scenario.
Thus the DM has considerably fewer assets with which to construct a scenario. I don't find it so interesting to build the upper few dungeon levels; it's only from about the fourth deep (in game "level" terms, if not literal layout) that I really hit my stride.
Anyhow, D&D would not be my first choice for a game focused on not using most even of the original set. It may be a bit different when you're looking at a later version with many pages devoted to rules for combat, skills, and so on. In the old game, if you toss out most of the magic and monsters, there's not much left.
I think several different dimensions are being confused here.
1) Grim v. happy SETTING.
That is, the PC's come to a village. Is it more likely run by a vampire, with a church that sacrificed virgins, a pub run by an tiefling assassin in black bondage leather, and villagers who are all looking to cheat and steal from the PC's? In other words, the world is unrelentingly grim and evil, where even the "good guys" aren't nice at all to the PC's unless dominated by them, like "Army of Darkness".
Or is more likely to be run by some old, sotted retired adventurer -- think of the king in Conan The Barbarian -- or an aristocrat, with a church to Pelor, a pub run by a plump cheery halfling, and villagers who mostly go about their own business rather than intentionally trying to harm the PC's? In other words, the world has good people to protect, like "Lord of the Rings".
To me, that was the question, and it didn't seem likely to me that DM's v. players who have clear preferences for one setting or the other.
2) Points of Light v. happy funland.
That is, is the good that exists rare outposts or pretty much is everywhere?
The latter seems unlikely to exist, more like a strawman, to me. Must some campaigns have more space between the points of light than others, I'm sure.
3) Power level. Low magic v. high magic. PC's with races like human v. PC's with races lke angel or devil.
I don't see how this is related to the level of grimness. It's been said that "grim" campaigns are low powered -- but I think of the vampire v. lycan movies, and I see a world of unrelenting grimness, where all the PC's are uberpowerful non-human races. So, I don't see the two as related -- if anything, I'd think a grimmer world might require more power to survive at all.
4) Villany where there's a single opponent v. multi-vectored villany.
I have the latter, but I don't have what I consider a grim campaign. Right now, my PC's have just some good local allies in the grimest town they've been in in the campaign . . . a town with four different evil factions competing to control it.
5) Campaigns where PC's are self-serving mercenaries on the make, versus campaigns where PC's serve a greater good.
This one is related to the first two, I think, but necessarily identical with them.
Since Emerikol has gone AWOL from this thread without defining his question, I will simply state my views based on Haakon's excellent analysis:
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon1
I think several different dimensions are being confused here.
1) Grim v. happy SETTING.
Whether I play or run, I do prefer Middle Earth, where there are good people whom the adventurers defend and champion. Or who occasionally assist the quest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon1
2) Points of Light v. happy funland.
I suppose Oz or golden age Narnia would be an example of "happy funland." And again it would be nice. Hard to generate enough action that way. Both Middle Earth and Arthur's Britain were definitely dangerous worlds with scattered points of light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon1
3) Power level. Low magic v. high magic. PC's with races like human v. PC's with races lke angel or devil.
I don't see how this is related to the level of grimness. It's been said that "grim" campaigns are low powered -- but I think of the vampire v. lycan movies, and I see a world of unrelenting grimness, where all the PC's are uberpowerful non-human races. So, I don't see the two as related -- if anything, I'd think a grimmer world might require more power to survive at all.
I think the key word was "gritty" in the phrase "grim and gritty." Being a superhero is not very gritty, meaning you will not get much sand between your teeth or have to sleep in the alley.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon1
4) Villany where there's a single opponent v. multi-vectored villany.
<shrugs>
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon1
5) Campaigns where PC's are self-serving mercenaries on the make, versus campaigns where PC's serve a greater good.
This one is related to the first two, I think, but necessarily identical with them.
This point demonstrates that "grim and gritty" can work for the players as well as against them. I have seen campaigns quickly ruined by chaotic evil players... characters?
__________________ Member of Grognards for 4th Edition.
I don't think it's necessary that players don't want dark and gritty and loves happy funland. What players want is for their actions to make a difference to the world. What they want is for their characters to matter. I don't think any PC would object to starting a game in grimdark deathland ruled by vampire overlords as long as they get the chance to kill the overlords/liberate the people/become vampire overlords themselves. What PCs want to do is to be able to eventually say "I changed the world", no matter whether they changed it for the better or the worse. That is something that most of us in the real world could never say and what I think is one of the greatest attraction of playing RPG.
What happens too often in "dark" or "realistic" settings is that it would end up having the PCs ultimately not mattering in the world. PCs defeat evil overlord A and make way for overlord B. They defeat overlord B only to find out they were all pawns in overlord C's plan. They save the princess from overlord C only to have her die of the plague unleashed by overlord D. What happens is that the PCs end up becoming just another cog in the machine instead of being masters of their own story. At worse, the game turns into a shoot the shaggy dog story. Now, I'm not saying that all "dark and gritty" settings always ends up this way. I'm just pointing out that it's a very easy trap to fall into when everything is GRIMDARK.
On the other hand, the characteristics of a "dark and gritty" world can be very attractive for a DM. The ever present darkness is a great source for conflict and plot. It's much easier for the DM to threaten the PCs in such a world. Where the PCs are limited in their ability to change the world, the DM has a much easier time generating formidable antagonists.
When the DM has set up a "dark and gritty" world that he likes, he often wants to keep it that way and is reluctant to have it changed by the PCs. A characteristic of D&G is that it stays D&G, which means that there is a certain static-ness in the setting, thus implying a limit to the PCs' ability to changed the world.
DMs may want a world where status-quo is king since it's easier to make adventures in such a world, while the PCs wants to advance and increase their influence in the world.
Last edited by nightwyrm; 25th October 2009 at 06:10 AM..
Heh - I think that I have a fairly Grim 'n' Gritty setting, and I love it when the PCs mess with it. Hell, that is the whole point of the thing! I want them to destroy my cleverly crafted (TM) plot.
My 1600s game has a bad guy behind what, in our world, was the Thirty Years War. Someone is manipulating the nations into a catastrophic war that will nearly destroy both sides. And the PCs have a chance to stop him/her/it [pick one]. They can trim ten years off of the war, and salvage much from its destruction.
The players aren't alone, there are folks on both sides of the war who are trying to tame things back down. Some of them are even cooperating across the divide.
In the meantime plague, war, fire, and rapine sweep across the land. Mercenaries, loyal only to themselves, turn brigand when work is scarce, others take entire towns hostage, or just take over as de facto rulers.
Then add in witchcraft trials, and even some genuine evil witches - who are generally not the ones being stoned to death in the town square.
And there are people who are caught up in eye for an eye vengeance, sowing the seeds of atrocity.
Add to this the fact that the disruption of the Faith is allowing magical things back into the world and you begin to see what the villain is up to, and why he is doing what he does.
The Auld Grump
__________________ Oh, I am a cook, and a captain bold, and the mate of the Nancy brig,
The midship mite,
And the Bo'sun tight,
And the crew of the captain's gig...
And, I think there is evidence for Emrikol's point. Look at all the threads decrying the ease of ressurection or raise dead. In a G&G setting, you shouldn't be able to be raised, or it should carry serious consequences. Somehow, I don't think that that idea is being pushed by players.
I certainly see that... first thing out of the box I do make raise dead more interesting... it involves a mystic quest by those most motivated and who knew the character the best in to the "grey realm" to attempt to recover the spirit before they pass too far from the world. On the way they might find themselves encountering nightmare like "things" to distract or way lay them ...
For me this is a "Yes but" ... I resist the temptation to say no I don't want your characters death to feel cheap and similar things.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
First off, I want to apologize - (yeah you heard right). I get passionate when an uber-fantasy fan calls grim and gritty a power trip, it set me off and so - I'm sorry.
I do have a couple of comments to sharpen my point without being as confrontational...
Auld Grump has the right of it. I like having a solid starting point so that when the players go far afield it makes me smile. I don't like when the rules go far afield and the players take it farther, it makes my head hurt....
It's more of a sense of foundation to build off of than power control. G&G is a personal thing, I get that, Hussar, thanks for not blasting me for my ill timed comment though you could have rightfully done so. But I think you saw through what I said to what I was "trying" to say.
It IS possible to have an epic campaign without losing that "realistic" feel, it takes work, a lot of work, but that becomes a labor of love. My last campaign was co-DM'd with a more free form DM who interjected a bit of fantastic magic without first consulting me. I let it stand, obviously you can't take back what was given without making people go, huh? But we had a long civilized discussion of why it could be dangerous - "power corrupts and absolute power...." - even in the hands of NPCs.
I guess my point is I like to see players use something other than uber powers to overcome obstacles. I guess it comes from having to do it when I was a young player and I just expect it to be a part of the hobby for the ages, and whether rightly or wrongly (IMO) I see newer players being less imaginative and more imitative. I did it too, but only in doses, I liked to emulate the heroes I read about, but it was finite, I see a trend to recreate whatever is popular this week and completely import it into home-games. Yes, I'm getting old, yes I'm becoming that grognard I reared and respected when I was but a lad in the 70s; I have kids that play that will soon enough be having their own kids (but not too soon I hope) that will also play, I guess for me it is a little personal when I see the future of gaming move towards technology versus imagination and that "my" game is becoming "their" game.
I realize I've gone far afield and hijacked this thread a bit, sorry for that, but I think it is relevant in that approach is, by and large, a learned thing in DMing. I learned gritty, I live gritty, I teach gritty, seeing something else just makes me scratch my head and go, why?
"I may be unconscious, but at least I still look good!" - - Me (at the Halfling Musketeers game GenCon '06)
On one hand, taking away their weapons is a dead giveaway that they will need them. On the other hand, by the time conflict starts the players will already have opened the rulebooks and found the parts that deal with bare-handed combat, performing disarm moves, and using improvised weapons. Players may blunder through dialog with shocking ineptitude, forget the name of the country they are in, or get confused about which side they are on, but once it comes time to roll for initiative they all turn into Sun Tzu. - Shamus Young DM of the Rings
Lots of good points here. Personally, I'm not sure it's a strict dichotomy of "DM's like dark and gritty settings and players don't." I think there's a couple of different issues at play here.
Firstly, I have noticed some preference for dark settings in gamers of a certain type, more of whom tend to be DMs. Let's bluntly state that only more committed/serious gamers are likely to take up the reins of the DM. More casual gamers just don't DM. That said, more serious gamers are more likely to favor a dark and gritty setting. Partially, that's a desire for variety and involvement. Hack and slash dungeon crawl settings are perfectly fine for casual gamers - for the more "involved" players, they get real old, real fast.
Secondarily, I think DMs tend to favor worlds that have more adversaries. As a DM, it's much easier to move from one adventure to the next if you don't constantly have to either a) randomly move from one adventure to the next, or b) invent reasons why the foes are connected (or fall back on the old stereotype of the BBEG and his legions of goblins, undead, and yadda, yadda, yadda). Hence, "more evil" (i.e. darker) worlds are easier to create adventures for, because you have more adversaries to pick from for any given adventure.
Finally, there's the issue of "world consistency" versus "player options." Now, while these aren't necessarily in conflict, they tend to be. Players, naturally, like to have plenty of options for their characters - often gravitating to an unusual race so that they don't have to play "the same character" over and over again. DM's, by contrast, tend to like worlds where each race has a set "place" and role. Partially, that's the influence of the fiction on which we're basing stories. Most fantasy novels feature between 1 and 4 protagonist "races." Fitting in more than that can start to feel very cluttered from a DM's point of view. And it presents a problem.
As a DM, you have a couple options. First, you can embrace the "Mos Eisley Cantina" feel of D&D and let your players play any race imaginable. But the problem with this approach is that it tends to feel very "unrealistic" very quickly. Mos Eisley has dozens of sentient races because it's a waypoint for hundreds (thousands?) of worlds. A D&D world (other than, say, Sigil) is, almost by definition, a SINGLE world. It's hard to imagine all those races in a single world "getting along." Tolkien made it work (mostly) for 4 races (Men, Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits). But each added race raises the complexity level (and hence creative challenge) required to make the world "work" in a consistent way. For obvious reasons, halfbreeds and related races don't increase the complexity level much.
Multiple races tend to feel more "logical" in higher fantasy settings (like Eberron, for example). Why that is, I don't exactly know. Maybe it's the influence of, on the one hand, the Star Wars cantina, and on the other, classic Sword & Sorcery novels, where there's only usually ONE protagonist race - men. But for me, multiple races fit better in a freewheeling high fantasy mix. Lower, more "down-to-earth" settings seem to call for fewer races.
I hesitate to say this, but I'm tempted to think of Athas (Dark Sun) as down-to-earth - which makes it an exception to the general rule.
Personally, my current conundrum is making room for Dragonborn (which I like the idea of being available) into my setting. For the record, I have the same problem with all the different kinds of "magic" in D&D. But that's me.
I think several different dimensions are being confused here.
1) Grim v. happy SETTING.
2) Points of Light v. happy funland.
3) Power level. Low magic v. high magic. PC's with races like human v. PC's with races lke angel or devil.
4) Villany where there's a single opponent v. multi-vectored villany.
5) Campaigns where PC's are self-serving mercenaries on the make, versus campaigns where PC's serve a greater good.
This is a nice analysis. I think there's one additional aspect that often colors how gamers talk past each other when discussing these things:
6) Lethal vs non-lethal.
Many people roughly equate "lethal" with "gritty". This, of course, is loosely tied to power level, and addresses questions like: Is Death effectively permanent, or is it relatively easy to overcome with magic, "hero points", or some other mechanic? Are conditions like ability damage, blindness, insanity, etc. significant drawbacks, or just tactical inconveniences?
I guess my point is I like to see players use something other than uber powers to overcome obstacles. I guess it comes from having to do it when I was a young player and I just expect it to be a part of the hobby for the ages, and whether rightly or wrongly (IMO) I see newer players being less imaginative and more imitative.
My son plays (11 year old) and my daughter at 4 likes to play (well sort of). I see their imagination far more vivid.. than mine even now... I see my son describing and interpreting the 4th editions powers in various different ways and using the environment of the battlefield and keying off what I say...in combination with this... and it makes me go "its better than ever before". One of my sons friends who hadn't played till just yesterday commented after my son made a particularly vivid description of a green flame blade attack... "wow, I am beginning to really see this"
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
My son plays (11 year old) and my daughter at 4 likes to play (well sort of). I see their imagination far more vivid.. than mine even now... I see my son describing and interpreting the 4th editions powers in various different ways and using the environment of the battlefield and keying off what I say...in combination with this... and it makes me go "its better than ever before".
He is still just using his powers to overcome the obstacles.
__________________ Everything about RPGs is subjective, so everything I say about them is I my opinion and not hard facts
Having a backstory is good. Using this backstory in game is better. And for that you need background skills.
4E, the game where you play HSMFOS
Heroic
Only good, or at least unaligned adventurers are supported and no monster you can fight is good aligned.
Super-
The PCs become masters in any skill automatically and it is impossible for them to be bad at a mundane task
Mutants
Compared to NPCs of the same strength, PCs poses a ungodly amount of HP and can withstand huge mountains of punishment. That or they can spontaneously regenerate wounds.
From Outer Space
Yet despite no matter how powerful the PCs become, they can never do anything special what the "natives" (=NPCs) can do like animating a skeleton.
Hack and slash dungeon crawl settings are perfectly fine for casual gamers - for the more "involved" players, they get real old, real fast.
Simple "hack and slash"? Yes, whether in "dungeons" or not. Proper underworlds with plenty of tricks, traps, puzzles, mysteries, intrigue, comic relief, wonders, portents, treasures, etc., and opportunities for fights? Not so much. In a milieu that also offers wilderness expeditions and urban excursions; adventures nautical, aerial and interplanar; politics by diplomacy as well as by other means; romance, friendship, family; exploration, discovery, and development; no end of new frontiers ...
"Grim and gritty" is hardly necessary to variety and involvement. Indeed, a devotion to such a tone and theme seems quite likely to limit the dynamic range by excluding whatever seems incompatible.
Simple "hack and slash"? Yes, whether in "dungeons" or not. Proper underworlds with plenty of tricks, traps, puzzles, mysteries, intrigue, comic relief, wonders, portents, treasures, etc., and opportunities for fights? Not so much. In a milieu that also offers wilderness expeditions and urban excursions; adventures nautical, aerial and interplanar; politics by diplomacy as well as by other means; romance, friendship, family; exploration, discovery, and development; no end of new frontiers ...
"Grim and gritty" is hardly necessary to variety and involvement. Indeed, a devotion to such a tone and theme seems quite likely to limit the dynamic range by excluding whatever seems incompatible.
Agreed. Which is why I deferred on the originally presented dichotomy, and instead characterized the differential in 3 ways:
1) Involved setting vs. Serial Adventure
2) Darker worlds (more adversaries) vs. Brighter (more settled) ones
3) Low Fantasy (with fewer races) vs. High Fantasy (with more races)
I've seen the phrase "Dark & Gritty" used to represent the left side of each of those 3 dichotomies. Notice that I specifically eliminated "Grim and gritty" because I feel that has a very strong connotation of utter hopelessness. It carries an almost Lovecraftian feeling of impending doom. And I don't know many DM's (or players) who enjoy THAT. Certainly, not in their D&D.
"Dark & Gritty" can describe, for example, the world of A Song of Ice and Fire. And while I suppose some might call that setting "grim" as well, I wouldn't. One doesn't have the sense that the world is well and truly "doomed." It's just in deep doodoo - that, hopefully, the protagonists can save it from. I say "protagonists" because the main characters in that series aren't (all) particularly "heroic." Which is part of why it's still a "dark" setting.
I think many people's bad experiences with 'grim and gritty' campaigns stems from a GM that really doesn't understand the 'grim and gritty' genre but thinks he does.
Here's an analogy. Frank Miller wrote a wonderful Batman tale called 'Return of the Dark Knight'. It was a stand-alone book not integrated into any of the Batman titles. It was dark, grim, very much outside the vein of what many mainstream comics were at the time. It made a pile of money, and so that inspired many imitators. They got the 'dark hopelessness' part right but that's all they ever saw.
Similarly, I think many GMs who attempt 'grim and gritty' see only the horrible things that happen to the PC's and not the positive things, such as trials that prepare you for travails that normally you would fail at otherwise, or rewards that come from suffering for a cause, etc. I think many of them look at it as some kind of modern 'save or die' mechanism. 'Oh, you forgot to set watches in your room at the inn. Thieves come in and slit your throats and steal all your stuff*. What? It's a grim-and-gritty world, guys...'
Hell, that is the whole point of the thing! I want them to destroy my cleverly crafted (TM) plot.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
