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

[Scribble]

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

Well, I haven't been following this thread too closely, but in my opinion there are two different meanings to grim and gritty.

1. The game setting: I think any game can have a grim and gritty setting. I think 4e is a grim and gritty setting. The world is in bad shape, evil is winning, lots of monsters etc...

2. The game rules: Some rules systems try to convey the grim and grittiness by making life hard on the players. Any damage is probably BAD news in these style of games, and PCs won't have too many big abilities, etc.. 4e is NOT grim and gritty rules wise.


I'm partial to the 1st type myself. I understand where the second type is coming from, but they just end up annoying me.

I'd argue you can recreate Indiana Jones more easily in your game with the first type. It's a grim and gritty setting, (Oh no Nazis!) with rules that allow for Indiana Jones to do some cool stunts, avoid death much more easily then the second type that would require a VERY lucky player.

 

[Hussar]

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?

I'd call Indiana Jones pulp fiction, not grim and gritty. You said it yourself, he performs fantastic stunts, survives things that should probably have killed him, and is smarter and better than everyone around him. That's pretty much stock pulp action hero.

In a grim and gritty setting, the boulder trap would have squished him in the first ten minutes of the game, because, to me, gritty=realistic.

Grim and gritty, to me, is Master and Commander, the Sharpe's stories, things of that nature. Stories that are as close to "realistic" as possible. That's what gritty means doesn't it? Granted, the Sharpe's stories aren't particularly grim, but, they're certainly gritty.

 

[The Ghost]

Grim and gritty, to me, is Master and Commander, the Sharpe's stories, things of that nature. Stories that are as close to "realistic" as possible. That's what gritty means doesn't it? Granted, the Sharpe's stories aren't particularly grim, but, they're certainly gritty.

Realistic when referring to a setting; courageously persistent when referring to a character.

 

[Hussar]

Realistic when referring to a setting; courageously persistent when referring to a character.

I'd buy that.

See, to me, I look at Indie and company racing along on runaway mining cars, fighting, jumping etc and most of all, escaping without any injury as pretty far removed from grim and/or gritty.

The most gritty scene to me would be when the swordsman comes out of the crowd and does his whirling scimitars thing. Indie pulls out a gun and shoots him once and he falls down dead.

That's gritty. Apply that same standard to the PC's and you have a gritty game.

To ask it another way, what's the difference between Indie's runaway mine car scene and Legolas surfing on a shield in LOTR?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

This is true, but again, the point is that the treasure will be found regardless of what the PCs do. This is a direct, and logical, extention of the idea behind the wealth-by-level guidelines in 3e, and is very different from the guidelines in TSR-D&D.

I am more than willing to accept that "there is nothing to move until it is discovered in game", but that statement doesn't change the point.

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

"there was at least some lip service to this effect"

I guess that you are at least somewhat aware of what I am talking about. This is the sort of game you love to play; I do not love it so much.

I understand, from this thread as well as others, that you apparently didn't comprehend what Gary Gygax had written, and therefore had problems with 1e. That's cool. Gary's style was not for everyone, and it could be obtuse.

Please note that I am not putting words into your mouth. You never said this was a problem; however, your postings make it amply clear to anyone who can parse what you do say.

It goes without saying that I could run a 4e game while ignoring the guidelines, and have a crappy game, too. Or I could ask you for explicit statements that CaGI isn't mind control, etc.

But that wouldn't be the fault of 4e. Either it would be a fault in my comprehension, or it would be me being a dick. And I have had that fault in my comprehension in the past, so I am well aware of what it is like. And I have been a dick in the past as well, so I am also well aware of what it is like. No doubt, I will fail to comprehend something in the future, and no doubt I will be a dick in the future. It happens to the best of us.

I don't like 4e, because the gaming philosophy does not match what I want in a game. I don't need to pretend that it has the same gaming philosophy as older editions in order to bash it. It is definitely true that I failed to comprehend how radical a shift in philosophy 4e has made, and I really disliked some parts of 4e as a result. Now, 4e is simply not a game that I enjoy playing that does what it sets out to do well, but does not set out to do what I want.

Do you really need to pretend that it has the same gaming philosophy as older editions in order to support it? Really? Because, IMHO, this sort of dishonesty is the reason why edition wars rage so hot.



RC

 

[Desdichado]

I understand, from this thread as well as others, that you apparently didn't comprehend what Gary Gygax had written, and therefore had problems with 1e. That's cool. Gary's style was not for everyone, and it could be obtuse.

I understood Gygax's writing just fine. I haven't looked at it in years, so my memory of it isn't good.

But I never had any problem understanding it.

lease note that I am not putting words into your mouth.

Sure you do. You did several times just in this post that I'm responding to alone. For example, you paraphrased just above as "I don't understand Gary's writing." Not the words that I had in my mouth.

I don't like 4e, because the gaming philosophy does not match what I want in a game. I don't need to pretend that it has the same gaming philosophy as older editions in order to bash it. It is definitely true that I failed to comprehend how radical a shift in philosophy 4e has made, and I really disliked some parts of 4e as a result. Now, 4e is simply not a game that I enjoy playing that does what it sets out to do well, but does not set out to do what I want.

Do you really need to pretend that it has the same gaming philosophy as older editions in order to support it? Really? Because, IMHO, this sort of dishonesty is the reason why edition wars rage so hot.

I don't know enough about 4e to speak about it intelligently. I've had little interest in 4e, and am not very familiar with what its assumptions are. So, if we're not talking about the gaming style of 4e, I don't have anything to add.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This is true, but again, the point is that the treasure will be found regardless of what the PCs do. This is a direct, and logical, extention of the idea behind the wealth-by-level guidelines in 3e, and is very different from the guidelines in TSR-D&D.

I still detect, I will admit that I could be wrong, some negative bias in your choice of words. The treasure will be found when the PCs overcome a challenge. The contrast is that in earlier editions discovering the treasure was sometimes a challenge in itself, whereas now the suggested method focuses on the challenges the PCs face and rewarding them for overcoming those challenges. But saying "regardless of what they do" could lead a person unfamiliar with 4E to believe that the designers suggest giving PCs rewards for something unchallenging that they have done. You may not have intended that meaning but that's the inference I'm getting.

I am more than willing to accept that "there is nothing to move until it is discovered in game", but that statement doesn't change the point.

My point again is that "teleporting treasure" has negative connotations. The idea of literally teleporting treasure around until PCs find it most likely sounds ludicrous to most people. But even you are willing to accept the idea that treasure doesn't actually have to exist until it is discovered. Again, someone unfamiliar with 4E could garner a negative view of the game if they accept your commentary as valid. And those who are familiar could view your choice of words as an unfounded bash of the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You did several times just in this post that I'm responding to alone. For example, you paraphrased just above as "I don't understand Gary's writing." Not the words that I had in my mouth.

"Putting words into your mouth" implies that I claim you said them.

But, whatever. Have your little slapfight with someone else, please.

I still detect, I will admit that I could be wrong, some negative bias in your choice of words.

Personal bias, not "objective" bias.


RC

 

[aboyd]

I don't know why RC is obligated to use wording that protects your game. We're not allowed to use negative connotations for a particular edition?

I do not like that early editions used THAC0. I prefer the unified d20 mechanic. I would describe THAC0 as "sucky." But do I need to not say the truth about my opinion to protect someone who worries that if I call it sucky "someone unfamiliar with 1E could garner a negative view of the game?" I mean, isn't that the point? To convey a negative view of the game?

I mean that as a legitimate question, and probably more for the mods. I don't know if the rules of En World really suggest this heightened level of PC-ness. I'd love to know.

In any case, with regards to the discussion about treasure parcels being coupled with the combat encounters, I actually like the idea in concept. However, I prefer 3.x modules, which follow the "find it or lose it" philosophy. For example, the DCC module Bloody Jack's Gold from Goodman Games has a massive treasure hoard. It's totally inappropriate for the level. It's also a PITA to find, and the module kinda assumes that the DM will allow the players to miss it.

The DCC module The Sinister Secret of Whiterock contains a secret treasure room near the beginning. It's entirely possible that wily players could find it, avoid the rest of the module, and pretty much just walk away with all the loot before finishing all the encounters. However, again, the module seems to have another assumption in mind -- the treasure room isn't obvious, and typically a party would pass it by and continue on.

So while I like the idea of spontaneously coupling a treasure parcel to an encounter, I find these DCC modules from Goodman Games are more interesting to me. I like the "find it or lose it" mentality. I like my dungeon to be mapped out beforehand, and to be as it is regardless of what the PCs cover.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Personal bias, not "objective" bias.

I don't know why RC is obligated to use wording that protects your game. We're not allowed to use negative connotations for a particular edition?

I'm not saying that anyone is required to choose one wording over another. I refuted RC's terminology because of my own personal bias. And I've explained what I actually took issue with in his posts because he asked. I'm just participating in my "side" of the discussion. You can use negative connotations for any game, just expect people (myself included) who disagree with you to actually...well...disagree with you.

I did not mean to insinuate any sort of personal opinion censorship.

I do not like that early editions used THAC0. I prefer the unified d20 mechanic. I would describe THAC0 as "sucky." But do I need to not say the truth about my opinion to protect someone who worries that if I call it sucky "someone unfamiliar with 1E could garner a negative view of the game?" I mean, isn't that the point? To convey a negative view of the game?

"Sucky" is not misleading though. We are quite clear you don't like THACO in this instance. Calling advice on placing treasure so characters are sure to find it "teleporting treasure" is misleading. The advice in the books never suggests literally teleporting treasure. Now, if you were to say relocating treasure so PCs can find it is "sucky," then I have no misquote to call you out upon. I could discuss the merits and downfalls of this method and the method you prefer, but I could not dispute your opinion that you believe it to be "sucky."

I mean that as a legitimate question, and probably more for the mods. I don't know if the rules of En World really suggest this heightened level of PC-ness. I'd love to know.

The rules are to be courteous and play nice. Starting edition wars is a big no-no. Expessing one's opinion on how they read others' posts may help someone realize they are coming off differently than they intended. Or it may rile them up as apparently I have with you.

In any case, with regards to the discussion about treasure parcels being coupled with the combat encounters, I actually like the idea in concept. However, I prefer 3.x modules, which follow the "find it or lose it" philosophy. For example, the DCC module Bloody Jack's Gold from Goodman Games has a massive treasure hoard. It's totally inappropriate for the level. It's also a PITA to find, and the module kinda assumes that the DM will allow the players to miss it.

The DCC module The Sinister Secret of Whiterock contains a secret treasure room near the beginning. It's entirely possible that wily players could find it, avoid the rest of the module, and pretty much just walk away with all the loot before finishing all the encounters. However, again, the module seems to have another assumption in mind -- the treasure room isn't obvious, and typically a party would pass it by and continue on.

So while I like the idea of spontaneously coupling a treasure parcel to an encounter, I find these DCC modules from Goodman Games are more interesting to me. I like the "find it or lose it" mentality. I like my dungeon to be mapped out beforehand, and to be as it is regardless of what the PCs cover.

The first example I don't find enjoyable as DM. Either the PCs find the treasure and skew the balance of the game with "totally inappropriate for the level" treasure or they don't and that section of the module is wasted space. The second example is less of a problem for me as DM, but if it did trigger the party to "walk away with all the loot" and not continue with something I spent time planning for I'd be irked. Since I'm not a good "on the fly" DM I'd be left breaking the 4th wall telling my players we're done playing for the night.