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

[delericho]

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.

 

[Dannager]

I thought it was cheesy and aimed at a bunch of pimply-faced whiner kids out of touch with reality.

Yikes.

 

[delericho]

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.

 

[Nifft]

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

 

[The Shaman]

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.

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.)

 

[Hussar]

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.

 

[Ariosto]

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.

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.

 

[haakon1]

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.

 

[Tallifer]

Since Emerikol has gone AWOL from this thread without defining his question, I will simply state my views based on Haakon's excellent analysis:

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.

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.

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.

4) Villany where there's a single opponent v. multi-vectored villany.

<shrugs>

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?

 

[nightwyrm]

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.