Why do DM's like Dark, gritty worlds and players the opposite?

[Garthanos]

We all want to play displaced nobles, tragic heroes, people with great and fascinating backgrounds with lots of pathos slathered on. It's because we all want to be special snowflakes and an imaginary game is perfect for it.

And fairy tales have a disproportionate number of handsome princes and princesses.. Its not something we can just point at the games about.

 

[Emirikol]

As a DM, I found that my players (and convention players) whined a lot more in dark worlds about "being afraid to go out in their backyards to play."

This seems more complicated when a DM style veers that way in obviously "less dark" worlds like FR as opposed to say, The Warhammer World, or "From the Ashes" Greyhawk. I have less experience with Eberron, but seemed to me that it was more of an "overcast" world..we didn't last long there.

As a player, I actually perfer to switch characters every couple months so dark worlds can be a fun time too. I don't even care for a TPK once in a while as long as I'm not sitting at a table of sissies

jh

 

[Raven Crowking]

As a DM or player, I prefer a gritty world where the average person is relatively good, but there are a number of people who are not good. If the average person sucks, there is no reason for players to expect anything else, and they will treat the good people they do meet in the fashion they have learned is approriate. Meanwhile, if the average person is good, the occasional ringer actually works, and is far more shocking than in the "dark" world some have described. IMHO and IME, of course.

My world is filled with Bad Things (and some of them are very dark indeed), but the Bad Things don't outnumber the Common People. The vast majority of people in my game worlds respond to PCs in whatever way the PCs respond to them -- friendliness begets friendliness, antipathy begets antipathy, and violence begets violence.

I also have no interest whatsoever in worlds where "anything goes" in terms of PC design. That might work for some, but it doesn't work for me. As player or DM. I simply cannot take seriously a game in which the party consists of a lizardman, a half-demon, a human, and a teletubby. YMMV.


RC

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I like dark gritty worlds as a GM and as a player. Most of my players tend to like them too.

This is my experience as well.

 

[Herobizkit]

I think my experience is similar to what the others posted. It's hard to invest a lot of time and effort into a character only to have him die ignobly by, say, a lucky critical that severs the jugular. Struggling against odds is something I introduce in most of my campaigns as a DM, but as a player, it's hard to be "some guy" when you want to play a swashbucking hero or mighty spellslinger. Risk vs reward is important, but most of my games tend to centre around NPC interaction rather than kill the bad guys and take their stuff. Even in pre-written modules, my players find a way to work outside the bounds of the room-to-room sweep and create a story outside the dungeon.

Gritty fantasy games are a nice change, but they're hard to keep interesting on a long-term basis.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Although I should mention that rat catcher is a official starting career in Warhammer.

The rat catcher is also one of the most powerful starting careers.

 

[Oryan77]

You wouldn't happen to know a legally blind guy who likes to go hunting would you?

Heh, not really....but I know a legally blond girl who likes to go clubbing. Will that do?

 

[WalterKovacs]

In general, many of the players I've experienced like to have the option to try anything. In part, it's because they like the system so much they want to be able to do cool stuff. For some it's a bit of power gaming "want to hit the win button", but generally it's a matter of "drow are cool" or "I want to try out this crazy class" or something like that. If the game has options, they don't want to be told "you can't do that" or the "sure, you can play a drow ... but everyone you come across will try to kill you"

Generally a PC will be looking at what they want their character to be, while the DM will be looking at what they want their world to be. So, a player will be looking to get certain options allowed (so they can play the character they want) while the DM will be looking to restrict options to fit the campaign setting. Problems arise when the player wants to do something that doesn't "fit".

To avoid the issue, the DM should probably give the players information about the setting before letting the players start to develop their character OR get player feedback and build the world based on that information.

It isn't so much grim and gritty vs. rainbows, as it is "I want to play X" vs. "My world doesn't have/tolerate X's".

 

[Raven Crowking]

In general, many of the players I've experienced like to have the option to try anything. In part, it's because they like the system so much they want to be able to do cool stuff. For some it's a bit of power gaming "want to hit the win button", but generally it's a matter of "drow are cool" or "I want to try out this crazy class" or something like that. If the game has options, they don't want to be told "you can't do that" or the "sure, you can play a drow ... but everyone you come across will try to kill you"

Generally a PC will be looking at what they want their character to be, while the DM will be looking at what they want their world to be. So, a player will be looking to get certain options allowed (so they can play the character they want) while the DM will be looking to restrict options to fit the campaign setting. Problems arise when the player wants to do something that doesn't "fit".

To avoid the issue, the DM should probably give the players information about the setting before letting the players start to develop their character OR get player feedback and build the world based on that information.

It isn't so much grim and gritty vs. rainbows, as it is "I want to play X" vs. "My world doesn't have/tolerate X's".

See, that sounds to me like not wanting to endure the consequences of choices made. Sort of like, "I want a +8 bonus to my Strength and Charisma, with no penalty attached." I would not play in, or run, a game like that. Without believeable consequences for all choices -- including character creation choices -- the world falls flat.

IMHO, and IME, of course.


RC

 

[Cadfan]

Everyone's going to tell you that this doesn't match their experiences, because that's what people do in these sorts of threads.

This DOES match my experience. I think there are two issues here.

First, dark, gritty worlds tend to have a lot of "shades of gray" choices. And its easy for those to turn into "gotcha" moments. "Do you save the girl, or do you uphold your oath? Either way its gonna suck!" Its better to be the guy inflicting the "gotcha" then the person who's been got.

Second, dark and gritty worlds tend to have restrictions on the amount of awesome available. And guess who gets to dole it out? Its better to be that guy.

This isn't to say that these games automatically suck. But its not hard for them to suck.