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

[Desdichado]

Hussar; that's an interesting take. I agree that I prefer grim to gritty; I'm an example of a fan of the Die Hard effect. Although arguably Die Hard was a lot grittier than the other action movies that were current in the 80s with Arnold Schwarzenegger or Dolph Lundgren or whatever.

I do think you've somewhat overstated gritty, though. You don't always die if you fall off a cliff, get bitten by a snake, etc. Lava... yeah. You die. I personally know snake bite survivors (rattlers, mostly). Best Served Cold is an interesting example of a very gritty fantasy novel where, in the first few pages, the main character survives being thrown off a cliff. And in the real world, Jackie Chan is actually still alive.

But still, I take your point. There's a difference between grim and gritty, and when I say "grim and gritty" often what I really mean is just grim. But as I was getting to earlier, gritty is a spectrum, not an endpoint. I prefer more grittiness than D&D these days offers (except at very low level) but I still don't really like things to be too much grittier than your typical Die Hard movie.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

@Hussar - I think you've come quite close to how I define grim & gritty (though I tend to explicitly separate them out: "grim" is about ambiance, and "gritty" is about mechanics and survivability).

A lot of people use "Die Hard" as an example. I see that as a pretty grim and gritty movie insofar as people die right and left, and winning in the end is difficult. *That* is how I like my settings: the hero wins, but he hurts doing it, and probably loses friends along the way. The lethality, to me, is compelling, but I still like to "win" in the end.

So this leads me to a question: How do people view mechanics like "action points"? Are these or other similar devices, compatible with grim and gritty?

To take Die Hard as an example again: the setting is gritty, and Bruce Willis really takes his lumps - but, he also expends a few Hero Points to triumph in the end.

Personally, I rather like this: as a scarce resource to manage, it gives the player a fair bit of control in how and when he shines - and in a grim and gritty setting, such a hero shines particularly brightly. But some may see such mechanics as a cop out; with them, the argument goes, it's no longer "gritty".

 

[JohnSnow]

@Hussar - I think you've come quite close to how I define grim & gritty (though I tend to explicitly separate them out: "grim" is about ambiance, and "gritty" is about mechanics and survivability).

A lot of people use "Die Hard" as an example. I see that as a pretty grim and gritty movie insofar as people die right and left, and winning in the end is difficult. *That* is how I like my settings: the hero wins, but he hurts doing it, and probably loses friends along the way. The lethality, to me, is compelling, but I still like to "win" in the end.

So this leads me to a question: How do people view mechanics like "action points"? Are these or other similar devices, compatible with grim and gritty?

To take Die Hard as an example again: the setting is gritty, and Bruce Willis really takes his lumps - but, he also expends a few Hero Points to triumph in the end.

Personally, I rather like this: as a scarce resource to manage, it gives the player a fair bit of control in how and when he shines - and in a grim and gritty setting, such a hero shines particularly brightly. But some may see such mechanics as a cop out; with them, the argument goes, it's no longer "gritty".

That may be the crux of the problem. I don't see Die Hard as being really any "grittier" than the Indiana Jones movies. Sure, McLane bleeds more, but he's not really "hurt" in the sense of being physically impaired. Indy gets plenty hurt, and he doesn't go crashing through any plate glass windows.

Real world physics? People die falling out of a window or from being bitten by a poisonous spider or snake. They get paralyzed falling off a horse. They go into shock if they get shot. They die from a single knife wound. They break arms, legs, and ribs that put them out of action for WEEKS. And they break their necks falling down the stairs. It doesn't always happen, but for true "realism," all that has to be "possible." But if it were, most characters in an action-oriented game wouldn't make it through even 1 adventure.

That's my issue with "gritty." I don't think most people (players especially) really want "real world" physics. They just want slightly less wahoo heroics. Which is totally, fine, but realize we're mostly talking matters of degree here.

One person's "heroic" is someone else's "wahoo." Personally, for me: realistic physics? Hell no.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think we've seen alot of evidence in this thread as to why players may tend to not like "gritty" worlds. I think we've come to the concensus that gritty=realistic. The problem with that is the average DM probably doesn't understand the reality of combat and action, or only knows bits and pieces. We've seen comments like "falls off a cliff and dies", "shoots and kills", "bit by a snake and dies", "falls into lava and dies." Very few of us have experience with these events and equate them with total or near auto-death. Many of these things aren't 100% fatal and even if they are subjecting characters to situations where these elements can "get" them even if they are careful isn't always going to be fun for players.

Even if you use a "gritty" crit system it eventually becomes distasteful to many players. Eventually they will disregard the fact that they can occasionally disembowel an orc with one swing when they realize that the lasting wounds of the crit charts typically only affect them. Their enemies generally die and don't have to worry about the long-term effects. This perception eventually switches from the individual enemy to the DM in whole. WE have to suffer long term effects, the DM never does.

I have nothing but observational evidence to support this. I don't claim any of this to be true across the board. And, unfortunately, Grim is often paired with Gritty and suffers the side-effects of the unrealitic and/or unfun realism that players perceive.

 

[JohnSnow]

I think we've seen alot of evidence in this thread as to why players may tend to not like "gritty" worlds. I think we've come to the concensus that gritty=realistic. The problem with that is the average DM probably doesn't understand the reality of combat and action, or only knows bits and pieces.

I would submit that plenty of DMs who understand the reality of combat and action actually lean away from "realistic" physics.

For example, I took Asian martial arts when I was younger and one of my current hobbies is swordfighting. In addition to practicing it, I've read numerous books about the reality of it. As such, I have a very healthy respect for "real" combat. I also know I wouldn't enjoy it in a game.

Why? Real combat is very swingy - you never know who is going to live and who is going to die. The greatest swordsman in the world can be killed - dead - by one lucky shot from a novice. Or he might live through an entire day on a battlefield, and face down hundreds of opponents. Worse still, the first can happen the day after the second. In real life, that's to be expected. As a player in a game, I would hate to lose my lovingly crafted PC to a random encounter because of one lucky hit. I want my (presumably) plot-important character to have some form of "plot protection."

I think some of this may be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Someone gets it in their head that the assumed rules don't jive with their concept of "reality" and claims to want a "realistic" game. In my experience, what most people really mean is "more lethal," "more realistic," or simply "less over-the-top." The first is, I think, what players hear - and have no interest in. The second and third may be what DM's intend.

But honestly, who wants to be the random extra who dies in scene 1? In a "realistic" game, that can happen to anyone at any time. Meaningless death is going to be the natural result of "action-adventure setting" and "realistic physics." Nobody objects to it in principle - they just don't want their character to be the one who dies that way.

Keep in mind that "realism" is an absurd concept in a fantasy game anyway. What's the "realistic" result of an armored knight (or swashbucking rogue) with a magic sword facing off against a monstrous troll or spellcasting dragon in one-on-one combat. None of us has a clue.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Garthanos]

I would submit that plenty of DMs who understand the reality of combat and action actually lean away from "realistic" physics.

Bingo! and my background sounds similar to yours, Gygaxian hit point abstraction was there from day one of D&D and I didnt appreciate it when I was younger... thought it was unrealistic and introduced complications like needing saving throws to determine whether a poison attack had hit etc.... but ummm I was wrong the abstraction of quantifiable trackable luck and energy, morale and skill applied to minimize attacks resulting in trivial injury ... it is a wonder to behold. D&D4e made elements of hit points more obviously what they always were and that improved consistancy causes me to appreciate them more.

I can visualize my halfling mostlly running out of luck and having morale failures. And my ranger sweating up a storm with desperate skill...right along side the barbarian getting the mclane treatment etc. And its all hit points huzzah for abstraction.

Realism ummm yup way way too swingy. Every attack would now be save or die. Real soldiers die over minor injuries on hospital beds next to other real soldiers who survive heinous injuries. And some times the one who died of a minor injury .. survived a heinous one previously.

That said government studies show people do indeed usually function at 96 - 100 percent ... till suddenly they are out of it damn close to what we see with hit points. The reason why? is for survivability our bodies tend to not shut down until we can find safety, we dont do death spirals, then pain sets in saying ... no more (injury doesnt shut us down unless it is really extreme most everything in between your own body does the lets stop now).
So an immediate save or die when you get hit or just extreme.. critical effects then an after the end of encounter check that gets harder the more you were hit and you are disabled or dead.

 

[The Ghost]

Even if you use a "gritty" crit system it eventually becomes distasteful to many players. Eventually they will disregard the fact that they can occasionally disembowel an orc with one swing when they realize that the lasting wounds of the crit charts typically only affect them. Their enemies generally die and don't have to worry about the long-term effects. This perception eventually switches from the individual enemy to the DM in whole. WE have to suffer long term effects, the DM never does.

Why the need for rules to support "Grim & Gritty" play? Can I not play it as a overriding theme or mood?

And, unfortunately, Grim is often paired with Gritty and suffers the side-effects of the unrealitic and/or unfun realism that players perceive.

From Merriam-Webster:

Grim ~ 2b. Somber, Gloomy; 3. Ghastly, Repellent, or Sinister in Character

Gritty ~ 2. Courageously Persistent: Plucky

Most players I know enjoy playing the "Plucky" character; however, I will grant that not everyone appreciates a Somber or Gloomy tone to the game.

 

[Scribble]

Why the need for rules to support "Grim & Gritty" play? Can I not play it as a overriding theme or mood?

Thats my preferred method of "Grim and Gritty."

I'm not a big fan/supporter of the rules needing to make life harder on the players to portray a grim and gritty setting. I think it's perfectly fine to portray the idea of a grim and gritty world through description, and background stories even when your PCs are able to pull off some fancy moves, and survive a lot of stuff that would kill a normal person.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Why the need for rules to support "Grim & Gritty" play? Can I not play it as a overriding theme or mood?



From Merriam-Webster:

Grim ~ 2b. Somber, Gloomy; 3. Ghastly, Repellent, or Sinister in Character

Gritty ~ 2. Courageously Persistent: Plucky

Most players I know enjoy playing the "Plucky" character; however, I will grant that not everyone appreciates a Somber or Gloomy tone to the game.

This was kind of my point. The DMs that make players dislike "grim-n-gritty" style games have taken over the definition of gritty to mean something other than the original meaning of the word. I don't believe anyone here has espoused gritty to mean plucky. Gritty has come to mean realistic in a gaming sense. A Google search of "grim and gritty" has top results of grim-n-gritty rulesets that make things harder on your character. A search of "grim and gritty" on TVtropes.com brings you to "Darker and Edgier" or "Grimdark."

The Google search is the phenomenon that I refer to. DMs choosing a system to make the world more lethal to the characters to try to achieve a sense of real-world reality.

TVtropes has the following to say about "Darker and Edgier": link

A process that seeks to make a work of fiction "more adult". All too often, this really means it'll be less mature about its production.

Beware any press release that promises a new character or show which will be Darker And Edgier than the competition. In theory, it means that a show will shift towards cynicism on the Sliding Scale Of Idealism Versus Cynicism. But in practice, it far overshoots the mark, ending up spiced up with gratuitous gore, cursing, and sex, none of which makes the story any better and which wouldn't impress anybody but Beavis and Butthead. The show will also demonstrate that it's a harder universe now by having lots of unpleasant things happen to the characters or giving the characters a particular issue they can spend all their time angsting about; as with the sex and violence, this will usually be done in a ham-handed and immature manner and will come off as being annoying, if not actually laughable.

Many DMs could also be making this mistake when shooting for "grim and gritty" based on popular media they have consumed. This could be another cause for the conception that players don't like grim and gritty.

 

[Barastrondo]

One thing to consider is the question of optimism as far the characters' ability to have an effect on their surroundings. Given players that like to make things better (which obviously isn't everyone, but there are enough to be significant), it'd likely be appropriate to look at the question of affecting one's environment as another form of character progression.

If a setting starts out grim and gritty but isn't intended to stay that way, then you can hand out world changes as regular rewards. If the changes for the better are spaced out somewhat infrequently, then players who look forward to environmental change as a reward may lose interest. If the setting's meant to stay grim and gritty as a whole, then that's essentially capping a kind of reward, much like saying "this game will run only to 6th level" or "there will not be powerful magic items in this game."

Now, I've obviously spent no small amount of time catering to players who are fine with worlds that start dark and end dark. But I've also gamed with people who have no interest in that kind of play style, and many times it's because they miss the reward track of "make one family's life better; improve something about a neighborhood; improve a town," and so on. Some of them care less about increasing their character's personal combat power than usual, so the social reward track is all the more important to that sort of gamer.

Not everyone who doesn't care for a dark and gritty world as a player has necessarily had a bad experience with a GM who "did it wrong." Sometimes they just want access to the "make the world a better place" reward track, and they'd like it to go farther or provide more regular payouts than the game in question assumes.