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.
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...'
*actual play anecdote
I'd call that playstyle Grim-and-Jackass.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
My own games are where the world begins in equilibrium before the players' start interacting with it. PCs start at 1st level, so the game begins low powered and works it way up to the highest possible level becoming very high powered. I think power level of the PC in relation to the rest of the world is sort of what is being referred to with the term grim. Grittyness is more about how tough the world can be and the need to show courage in the face of it. I think sandbox games are more open to this style as all challenge levels exist, if the PCs choose to seek them out.
Having a PC that is useful in such a situation is different. And different again from having a high powered PC in comparison to a low level world. Think of playing a 4E epic PC and choosing to only face Heroic level challenges. It would be dull. My experience with Players differs from the OP's in that mine always want more ability to succeed at accomplish their goals, but none enjoy dealing with low level challenges when playing a high level character.
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
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.
Wow, lots of painting with very, very broad brush strokes here.
__________________ 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
It is often the players who want the dirt and gritty settings so that they can play low live scum and be the mass murderers of their fantasy without the need to justify that homicidal behavior.
<SNIP> 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...'
"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
And different again from having a high powered PC in comparison to a low level world. Think of playing a 4E epic PC and choosing to only face Heroic level challenges. It would be dull. My experience with Players differs from the OP's in that mine always want more ability to succeed at accomplish their goals, but none enjoy dealing with low level challenges when playing a high level character.
Hmmm. I start at 1st level, but I keep the "setting" the same level all along. That is, guards in the typical small town are still 1st level warriors (I play 3.5) and typical threats facing them are orcs and (if unlucky!) werewolves.
But nastier monsters exist, scheming in ancient dungeons, plotting in cities, etc.
To me, it's interesting for the PC's to discover they have definitely moved up the power curve enormously when interacting with the setting, as long as they know there's always something out there that needs somebody as tough as them to fight it -- and there's always some stuff even they should not mess with.
I guess that's a sandbox approach, sort of. Or, to me, an old school approach, where the challengers "are what they are" and the PC's hopefully direct themselves (with some guidance) to appropriate places. But if a first level party decides to go kill Iuz, I guess they could try . . .
I guess that's a sandbox approach, sort of. Or, to me, an old school approach, where the challengers "are what they are" and the PC's hopefully direct themselves (with some guidance) to appropriate places. But if a first level party decides to go kill Iuz, I guess they could try . . .
'Status quo', I think, as opposed to 'tailored'. Something like that.
I also like that approach. Even with CRPGs! Like say, Oblivion. I have to have mods to make it like that, otherwise, it breaks what immersion there is to be found in the first place. Everyone's mileage probably varies a great deal, blah.
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...'
*actual play anecdote
Heh - I have to admit to occasionally committing the opposite sin - the bad guys sneak into the PCs' room because they set watch. Or, for some unknown reason, the bad guys in the next room over begin discussing their evil plan. If the players had not set watches then they would have slept the night away.
Mind you, this is for when I am going for more of a pulp feel than a grim 'n' gritty one - there is a fine tradition of 'then the door is kicked open by a guy with a gun!' So it would be much more likely to happen in Eberron than in my homebrew.
The Auld Grump, and Eberron is most distinctly not Grim 'n' Gritty....
__________________ 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...
Though that brings up an interesting idea; WotC frequently conducts market research, and I'm sure that research has led them to publishing high-fantasy worlds preferentially over grimdark worlds. The question is: do they do this because their research shows that players prefer it that way, and that player desires drive campaign setting sales, or is it because their research shows that DMs prefer it that way, and that DM desires drive campaign setting sales? Or a mix of both, or another reason entirely?
Err... or are they not actually doing that at all?
I mean, yeah, there's Forgotten Realms... but I wouldn't call Eberron a high-fantasy world. It's not "grimdark" either, but it splits the difference pretty nicely.
And now we're getting Dark Sun.
That said, I think a more parsimonious approach is not to assume that there's a GM/player split, but merely that the audience for "grimdark" is somewhat niche, and that it exists among both players and GMs.
__________________ 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
In a "dark and gritty" setting, it's easier to come up with challenges, because almost anything can be a threat. Goblins, orcs and kobolds can always be dangerous if they gang up and if they can kill you on a 20.
In a "high fantasy" one, you have to remember to turn the dangerometer up by a notch with every adventure. Once they've beaten their first beholder, an ogre is no longer something to be feared. This "always up" approach can be quite demanding if you also try to maintain a suspension of disbelief.
Myself, I don't see any of those approaches superior to the other: they're simply different tastes, and which one I want at a precise moment depends heavily on my mood and whims. That's why I can enjoy Golarion, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Scarred Lands and Eberron and not be crazy
He is still just using his powers to overcome the obstacles.
Is this a problem?
What's the point of having any character abilities (even something as mundane as thief's abilities) if solving an issue is "just using his powers"?
For as long as D&D has existed, magic users and clerics have been doing this, is this also a problem?
Why does it only count when the player steps out of character to solve a problem? Why is "Challenging the player" somehow better or more rewarding than "Challenge the character"?
__________________ 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.
In a "dark and gritty" setting, it's easier to come up with challenges, because almost anything can be a threat. Goblins, orcs and kobolds can always be dangerous if they gang up and if they can kill you on a 20.
In a "high fantasy" one, you have to remember to turn the dangerometer up by a notch with every adventure. Once they've beaten their first beholder, an ogre is no longer something to be feared. This "always up" approach can be quite demanding if you also try to maintain a suspension of disbelief.
D&D extensive character advancement isn't true in all game systems .. you could begin extraordinarily competent and brightly colored cinematic with very little advancement so similar challenges will still be challenges on your 20th adventure as on the first that you play.
In many movies and books of widely different styles very little sense of character advancement is common... the tone of a story doesn't necessarily ...relate to dramatic changes in power level.
“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.”
Why is "Challenging the player" somehow better or more rewarding than "Challenge the character"?
Is this a problem?
Seems to me that challenges in roleplaying games perforce challenge the player, but the response to those challenges is shaped by the nature of the character. It's a synergy that cannot be separated so discretely.
__________________ 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
Seems to me that challenges in roleplaying games perforce challenge the player, but the response to those challenges is shaped by the nature of the character. It's a synergy that cannot be separated so discretely.
You sidestepped the question though.
The idea on the table is that it's somehow better to ignore the character and directly challenge the player. That allowing a player to use the abilities of the character to face a challenge is somehow a cheap win.
You'd have to take it up with Derren. He apparently thinks its a problem to use character abilities to solve in game problems. I'm not sure where you are going with this.
And, is there really a particular reason you have to open every response by repeating what I said?
__________________ 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.
No, I think the premise of the question is flawed, so I'm dismissing the question. There's a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
And, is there really a particular reason you have to open every response by repeating what I said?
Because what you wrote applies so well to your own posts.
__________________ 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
Myself, I don't see any of those approaches superior to the other: they're simply different tastes, and which one I want at a precise moment depends heavily on my mood and whims.
Yeah, I could play Pendragon and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and enjoy both of them for what they are.
__________________ 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
So it would be much more likely to happen in Eberron than in my homebrew.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
