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

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I would like more honesty in the discussion.

In 4e, it teleports after you until you find it. That is a very different philosophy of what "game rewards" represent.


RC

To further greater honesty in this discussion, please quote the text of the 4E DMG that suggests "teleporting treasure."

Thanks, VB

I am familiar with 1E and 4E. I still own both DMGs and find the advice in each helpful. I also see the contrasts between the two.

"Old School" design insinuated that once you as DM build the world it is then "static." I don't mean that nothing can change from that point, but if you placed the Goo-Gaw of Gax in the Dungeon of Darkness it stays there until someone finds it. It doesn't have to be the PCs, but someone has to find it or it lies dormant.

"New School" design insinuates that things in your campaign don't really exist until you reveal them to the players. Up until that point you have the right as DM to change things up to make things more fun, dramatic, etc. One modern example in another media is the show "24." Each season is a work in process. Some things that made sense in planning change over the course of the season. Some actors have no idea that their character is actually a plot twist villain.

Both design philosophies have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, you are more apt to cause plot holes with "New School" design if you're not careful, but you are more apt to paint yourself into a corner with "Old School" design if you're not careful.

On topic, I think it's really just some of the associated elements that some people have identified that cause the divide. Power levels seem to definitely be one. World setting seems to be another major issue. I think the problem of "anything goes" is generally theoretical unless a problem player or DM is involved. I know someone will come along and tell me about their player who wanted to play a telletubby in a serious campaign, that's a problem player IMO. I personally leave all options open, with one caveat. When playing something I don't initially envision being in the world I've created (or borrowed), it is the player's responsibility to create a compelling story for why his PC exists in this world. I don't want to lose a creative idea from a player just because I didn't think of it.

 

[Stoat]

Of course it isn't!

I am merely arguing against the claim that there is no actual change. Once change is acknowledged, it is possible to discuss the virtues and problems of each approach (and both do have virtues and problems, depending upon the kind of game you want to run). Until then, all open discourse is shut down.

I am simply sick of "Look how much better X is than Y!!! And at the same time X and Y are exactly the same if you happen to prefer Y to X!!!!"

I would like more honesty in the discussion.

RC

I think you're tilting at windmills, and I think you're seeing dishonesty where none exists. D&D has a decades long history. It's been played by millions of people. It has a long and illustrious tradition of house ruling, kit-bashing and home brewing. Different people play the game different ways and always have. Indeed, from the little I know about the subject, Gygax and Arneson played the game different ways. Further, while some people prefer playing essentially the same type of game for decades, others change games and playstyles on a regular basis.

Consequently, when someone says, "X hasn't changed". I don't take it to mean that person is lying. I assume that person has been using X all along, or that person houseruled X out of the game or that X isn't important enough to that person for them to notice.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't know that this was necessarily true. I mean, there was at least some lip service to this effect, but the treasure in the printed modules themselves was at odds with this advice, quite often.

At best, you could say the message from earlier D&D was schizophrenic in this regard.

Not so.

Certainly there is plenty of opportunity in the old modules, but if you followed the advice in the 1e DMG, opportunity =/= acquisition. It is only coupling the modules with a different game philosophy than earlier D&D presented that causes the apparent paradox. In Dragon, for example, the one printed instance of someone going through the G series tournament shows that the major treasures of G1 were completely missed.
IOW, the plethora of opportunity exists because it was expected that only a fraction of that opportunity would become actualized.

I still run games this way today. And, believe me, the fraction of opportunity that is actualized is usually less than 50%....seldom more than 75%, even for the best gamers I have played with (and my sample set numbers over 100). IMHO, and IME, this is still the most fun type of gaming experience, with two caveats:

(1) The DM actually allows player choices to determine how much opportunity is actualized. I.e., the DM doesn't attempt to lead the PCs to what he thinks should happen.

(2) The DM doesn't tell the players what the PCs missed. I.e., the players are told what the PCs know, and are not shown the old man behind the curtain.

Together, these ensure that there is a lot to be found, that PC actions lead to every find (and hence the players have a real sense of accomplishment), and that the players don't feel screwed by what they didn't find (because, optimally, they usually don't know it).

Anyone who finds the modules and the 1e advice schitzophrenic, I expect, is doing so because they are not actually following the advice given.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

To further greater honesty in this discussion, please quote the text of the 4E DMG that suggests "teleporting treasure."

Are you objecting to the term, or claiming that the meaning of the term is not accurate? Please note that, within the context of the discussion, "teleporting treasure" refers to the fact that the treasure is moved until the PCs find it (as opposed to potentially remaining missed), not the actual method of its being moved.

I think you're tilting at windmills, and I think you're seeing dishonesty where none exists.

Of course. No one, for example, would make a thread asking for answers to the argument that wizards are nerfed in 4e, because no one would ever think of trying to counter a valid observation with a clever argument.

Sorry, but there are two types of dishonesty that I think damaging to discussions here:

(1) Dishonesty with others. I.e., I want Bob to join my 4e game, but Bob doesn't like how wizards are nerfed, so how can I convince him otherwise? Or, as an obvious subset, some people don't like X about game Y, and I like game Y, so how can I convince them that X is the same in game Z, which they like?

(2) Dishonest with self. Sorry, but I am with Freud and Jung in believing that people often fail to examine/understand their own motives. If what someone is saying is at odds with itself, or is at odds with what the person does, I generally assume that either (a) what the person does is closer to the truth than what the person says and that (b) statements that are at odds with each other mean that neither can be accepted at face value.


YMMV, of course.


RC

 

[Desdichado]

"New School" design insinuates that things in your campaign don't really exist until you reveal them to the players. Up until that point you have the right as DM to change things up to make things more fun, dramatic, etc.

That may be "old school" and "new school" or it may not. Certainly, the "new school" way of running the game was an intuitive leap for me right from the get-go. I have trouble seeing as "new school" the way I've been doing it for... I dunno. 27? 28? years.

Not so.

Certainly there is plenty of opportunity in the old modules, but if you followed the advice in the 1e DMG, opportunity =/= acquisition. It is only coupling the modules with a different game philosophy than earlier D&D presented that causes the apparent paradox. In Dragon, for example, the one printed instance of someone going through the G series tournament shows that the major treasures of G1 were completely missed.
IOW, the plethora of opportunity exists because it was expected that only a fraction of that opportunity would become actualized.

Yes, so. That's a bit of a pedantic backpedaling, as far as I'm concerned. Who had these expectations that you're claiming existed for the play paradigm? Where were they expressed? Who expressed this advice?

My experience was that players under this paradigm knew that it was supposed to be hard to find stuff, so they were anal-retentive about searching and searching and searching until they had scrounged up most of the treasure to be found. This is at once the source for my frustration with this playstyle, and the implicaton that the magic and treasure per level guidelines (such as they were) were not well represented by the modules listed.

Maybe you had players who were more interested in "moving on" than in finding as much of the loot as possible. Well, more power to you. But the implicit paradigm of D&D that some have expressed as a given here in this thread only lasts as long as it finds a group that plays with that same paradigm in mind. In my experience, that meant very infrequently. "Old school" means different things to different people, and I'm living proof that some groups never embraced that paradigm, and often never even had it to begin with. Does that mean that D&D wasn't really the right tool for the job? Possibly. But we didn't really know any better. The "theory" of RPG design wasn't very well developed back then, and even if it was, we sure didn't know anything about it. We played D&D because that's what was easiest to find in stores.

I do, however, reject the claim that unless you played D&D by the so-called implicit paradigm that you probably shouldn't have been playing D&D at all. D&D was always a pretty flexible beast (until recently actually... at least arguably) that could support a wide variety of playstyles equally well. Or equally poorly, depending on your point of view.

That's my major bone of contention. This idea that there used to be a Way™ to play D&D, that was the One True Way™ that everybody did, was clearly espoused in the books themselves, and marched hand in hand with the game itself. My experience was that none of those were true; different groups came at the game with different playstyles from the get-go, the books didn't not clearly enumerate a playstyle, and the game itself was not designed in lock-step with any assumed playstyle; it accreted rules as they occured to the designers at the time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's a bit of a pedantic backpedaling, as far as I'm concerned. Who had these expectations that you're claiming existed for the play paradigm? Where were they expressed? Who expressed this advice?

Gary Gygax.

The 1e PHB. The 1e DMG. Writing in The Strategic Review. Writing in The Dragon.

Really, if you view that as "a bit of a pedantic backpedaling", I would imagine that your view of the game is rather myopic.

My experience was that players under this paradigm knew that it was supposed to be hard to find stuff, so they were anal-retentive about searching and searching and searching until they had scrounged up most of the treasure to be found.

Then you should have applied the rules, rolled for wandering encounters, and let the dice fall where they may. This sort of behaviour should have been lethal to the PCs.

Funny how this problem only occurs with groups who failed to follow the advice given, and then question the existence of said advice to explain their failure.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Are you objecting to the term, or claiming that the meaning of the term is not accurate? Please note that, within the context of the discussion, "teleporting treasure" refers to the fact that the treasure is moved until the PCs find it (as opposed to potentially remaining missed), not the actual method of its being moved.

I am saying that the 4E DMG never uses the term "teleporting treasure" and any such labeling is created by others.

This is the first time I've seen this term described, so I guess I take issue with the term. By not knowing the terminology I believed that you were claiming that the 4E DMG suggests literally teleporting the treasure until a character finds it. This is the danger of using shorthand terminology and serves as a disservice to the writers of the DMG. Whether you agree with their design or not, labeling it in a misleading way can be miscontrued as malicious intent against the document. The gaming equivalent of "death panels."

And I still contend that there is nothing to move until it is discovered in game. Until the players interact with a part of the campaign, it only exists in the mind of the DM. For some it is fun to keep things internally consistant within their own minds. I certainly ascribed to this from the readings of 1E material and the influence of the DMs I learned from at that time. I'm sure others thought of what I consider "New School Design" besides Hobo, but the prevailing design philosophy at the time seemed to place him and those others in the minority.

 

[Desdichado]

Gary Gygax.

The 1e PHB. The 1e DMG. Writing in The Strategic Review. Writing in The Dragon.

Really, if you view that as "a bit of a pedantic backpedaling", I would imagine that your view of the game is rather myopic.

I've read those, and yet I don't have the same impression as you. Give me something specific.

Funny how this problem only occurs with groups who failed to follow the advice given, and then question the existence of said advice to explain their failure.

Don't put words in my mouth; I never said this was a problem. In fact, if that were true, what you said, it would strengthen my case, not yours. From the very beginning there were plenty of gaming groups that didn't adhere to that assumed playstyle. There never was One True Way™ to play D&D.

 

[SkidAce]

Anyway, I've wandered far afield. You guys are arguing only half of the equation. Can you have sandbox with long term plots? Sure. But, high fantasy is characterized by world threatening events. Sandbox isn't.

I see your point.

I always considered my sandbox games to be high fantasy, because they did find and act out the "world threatening" events.

However, I must concur that the big events they did not pay attention to, nor follow up, only destroyed the world once.

So I understand what you are saying about high fantasy and sandbox, they are seperate on the spectrum in most cases.

Thanks...

 

[JohnSnow]

Sandbox campaigns are inconsistent with world-threatening plots? Really?

Let's take a concrete example, by pulling from a piece of fiction (albeit only very marginally fantastic) with a character we all know: Indiana Jones. In the interest of avoiding a devolving argument, I propose we ignore Crystal Skull and stick to the first 3 - chronologically going from The Temple of Doom to Raiders of the Lost Ark to The Last Crusade.

I would bet most people would consider Indiana Jones a pretty "down-to-earth" hero. Sure, as the main character, he doesn't die, but fundamentally, he's a middling-high heroic level character in a pretty realistic world. Indy pulls off some pretty impressive stunts - but nothing occurs that's too outlandish. Fundamentally, he's a low-fantasy character. On the other hand, he keeps an artifact of enormous power (the Ark) out of the hands of people who would have used it to overrun the world. Effectively, Indy saved the world. Now, if he hadn't, would someone else have? Maybe. Or maybe the Nazis would have taken the Ark and some other characters would have had to steal it from them.

That's how you do "world threatening plots" in a "sandbox setting" - you avoid the "imminent destruction of the world" scenario and stick to scenarios where "if nobody stops this, things will get way worse." That way, the plot your PCs ignore doesn't come back and destroy the world while their back is turned.

Oddly enough, Indiana Jones plots work very well in Eberron, a setting that I'm sure many of those in this thread would describe (irrespective of the truth of the setting) as "High Fantasy" rather than "Grim & Gritty." But that gets back to the whole definition problem that was raised earlier.

So...assume a D&D setting based on Indiana Jones sensibilities and plots: Is that High Fantasy? Grim & Gritty? Or something in between?