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

[aboyd]

And really, it's because puzzles only challenge the player. There's nothing in my character at all trying to solve this puzzle.

I don't know your situation entirely, so I can't really comment, but couldn't this problem be bad DMing rather than an issue with player/character separation?

For example, my players (well, one in particular) like to gamble. They like it so much we eventually bought Three Dragon Ante, and use the optional perks based upon character abilities. So for example, if you're playing an amazing rogue, you get bonuses based upon your sleight of hand. If you're a fighter, your intimidate skill might help. Every player is playing a real card game and using their real wits, but they each get character-based advantages.

On another angle, my PCs will indeed be trapped and given riddles soon. Players will have to solve the riddles themselves, using their own intelligence. However, those playing high INT characters will be given easy riddles, to reflect the advantage that their characters would have. Those with INT so low as to get negative modifiers will get insanely difficult riddles. They might solve them, which would be out of character, but that's OK. It's part of the fun.

I like this stuff. Combat gets boring to me quickly. I want 5 or so "encounters" each session, but I can happily write off a big trap as one encounter, and a social interaction as another, etc.

 

[Umbran]

We've already covered the Fisher Price My-First-Law-Of-Logic.

Snark doesn't convince anyone. Ever.

Play nice. Show respect. You know, all that stuff that you shouldn't need to be told at this point?

 

[Desdichado]

On the other hand, half an hour seems about the bare minimum in 4e for a combat encounter. I have seen a player fall asleep waiting for his turn, and the tedium is certainly not my idea of a good D&D game.

I don't see how that's relevant. Nobody's talking about 4e. I don't play 4e either.

Thanks for the non sequiter, though.

In old D&D, we go about 10 to 15 minutes per encounter (which could be exploring a single room with some interesting features to investigate, or a bloody battle). A really major event would be more like 20 to 30 minutes.

Yes. And yet... you just said half an hour was an exaggeration, right?

Also; the idea that searching a room and having a combat takes the same amount of time is just... bizarre to me. That's a game that would bore me to tears.

I mean, I know in real life if you were to get into a quick skirmish with a handful of bandits in the woods, it would happen really fast. Quite likely, if you had to go take a dump in the woods, it would take longer. However, in a game or in fiction either one, we tend to focus and spend a lot more time on the combat than on taking a dump. The reason for this is that some things are really boring and should just be breezed over. For me, highly detailed explorations of dungeons is super boring. Blah.

So naturally you choose an RPG titled DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.

So naturally you assume that the one paradigm that you're familiar with is the only way the game has ever been played? Why yes, yes you do. I've got that vibe consistently from you. You've got a very close-minded approach to gaming.

And for the record, yeah... I did quit playing D&D. Back in the mid-80s. Because the system and paradigm was not to my taste at all. The arbitrariness, the strange limitations, the lack of focus on things that made the game fun, and the focus on things that made it boring and bizarre; D&D was not the game for me.

Still have a love-hate relationship with it today. I play it a fair amount because at least since 3e it's been robust enough to adequately support my playstyle too.

"Gamist"?? It is a game; it was designed to be that "not fun" thing.

Oh, how I wish that we still had the roll-eyes smilie. Yes, yes, yes of course Mr. OSR. The Holy Gygaxian-approved gaming style and all that.

Or wait... maybe folks wanted different things from the game? Oh, and guess what? Maybe the game actually does support them too? It does? Yes, as a matter of fact it does quite well.

You mean that searching rooms for traps is not somehow ingrained in the rules as a mandatory activity?

Please, Ariosto. At least try here.

 

[Desdichado]

Congratulations for completely missing the point.

We've already covered the Fisher Price My-First-Law-Of-Logic.

While correlation does not imply causation, as we all seem to agree, some of you are missing the fact that the effect of the correlation itself must have a cause.

This correlation (if indeed there is one), and its underlying cause is probably the basis for why many people do not enjoy dark-and-gritty in their Dungeons and Dragons.

Yes, well thank you.

That's what I said from the get-go. So I'm so glad that you took us on a pointless tangent just to bring us back to exactly where we started again.

 

[wolff96]

And a small but vicious dog.

I actually find that most players who roll the Rat Catcher as a starting career are convinced by the dog.

I once had a player roll Rat Catcher and NOBLE. He chose the Rat Catcher, primarily for the dog.

The best part of that little story? When the poor dog died (Chaos Magic) the player's character went ballistic. He charged a (minor) demon, three cultists, and an evil magus and killed ALL of them. His dice did everything but light on fire. I've never seen so many Ulric's Fury rolls in a single combat, before or since. Not to mention that his 40-ish weapon skill didn't miss the entire time...

It's kind of an epic story in our group.

 

[Snoweel]

Snark doesn't convince anyone. Ever.

Play nice. Show respect. You know, all that stuff that you shouldn't need to be told at this point?

Where I come from, explaining something to somebody that he should already know is the height of disrespect. It's called 'condescension'.

The implication being that I'm unaware that correlation does not equal causation and I'm sure you can understand why I took The Shaman's post as unnecessarily antagonistic. Especially since we had covered the point only a handful of posts earlier.

Clearly your mileage varies.

Yes, well thank you.

That's what I said from the get-go. So I'm so glad that you took us on a pointless tangent just to bring us back to exactly where we started again.

No.

I'm not saying exactly what you said at all.

What I'm saying is that while dark-and-gritty play is not the cause of poor DMing, the fact* that there is a correlation between the two (*and I'm aware we don't agree that there is, however the assumption is essential here) means that there is a problem with dark-and-gritty play.

This is the exact opposite of what you have been saying.

 

[Desdichado]

No, what I said is that the problem isn't grim n gritty play, because that's a correlated variable and not the cause.

You took us 'round the merry-go-round to say the same thing. Now you're trying to spin it around again, for reasons that are not entirely clear.

 

[billd91]

What I'm saying is that while dark-and-gritty play is not the cause of poor DMing, the fact* that there is a correlation between the two (*and I'm aware we don't agree that there is, however the assumption is essential here) means that there is a problem with dark-and-gritty play.

That doesn't follow at all simply from there is a correlation (assuming there is one). If most DMs ran dark and gritty games and yet most DMs did a poor job in general, there'd be a correlation that would not at all imply that the problem was with dark-and-gritty play itself.

 

[Ariosto]

Hobo, you only make your attitude toward D&D and D&Ders more offensive the more you respond to any critique of your attack with put-downs. Dislike for a game on YOUR part is no evidence of "a very close-minded approach to gaming" on OUR part.

 

[Ariosto]

IF there is a true correlation between bad DMing and a type of setting, then of course there is some underlying factor connecting both. It does not follow that the setting is "a problem", unless the correlation is exclusive enough. If most DMs using that type are good, then it is hardly to blame for the bad ones just because most of them also use it.

My standard of "hardly to blame" involves a pragmatic acceptance of the premise that nothing we may contrive is perfect and incorruptible. "Nothing is idiot-proof, because idiots are too ingenious."

Anyhow, Snoweel, what is your theory as to why that type of setting should especially encourage bad DMing?