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

[Scribble]

I think a lot* of these campaigns spring up out of the DMs frustration with systems that allow for power gamers to completely ignore all challenges set up by the DM.

Constantly hearing: "Oh I don't even need to roll for that," or "Oh I'm imune to that, and that- oh and that too," as well as "He takes 532 hp damage.. oh wait I forgot my Shlumpy bonus- 533- ok thats the end of my suprise round." - just puts the DM in the mindset that he wants to create a "Grim and Gritty" campaign where Shlumpy bonuses don't exist.




* a lot does not mean all.

 

[pawsplay]

Black Company didn't really save any damsels, kingdoms or worlds.

They threatened a lot of the above, though. Caused the destruction of a world or two, overthrew a few kingdoms along the way, and the damsels turned out to be horrifyingly powerful and evil sorceress-queens.

I don't remember a rule about damsels not being evil sorceress-queens. Plus, they do save the world, and the White Rose isn't evil.

 

[Dannager]

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to complain about my "data" being anecdotal, then you can't very well say that there's a "meaningful trend" based on your anecdotal "data."

I didn't say there was. I said that meaningful trends can still be established in the face of varying individuals, and that there seems to be a trend (from the perspective of many posters) along the lines I described.

And really, "I run the sorts of games I'd like to play in," doesn't help establish anything against that trend; the fact that you're willing to run a game in the first place is what places you in that special category of DM.

 

[Dannager]

Ok, sure. Offer some evidence.

None exists. That's why it merely seems that way, for the moment.

Find a group willing to conduct a legitimate study (or delve into some of WotC's market research) and you might get some.

Though that brings up an interesting idea; WotC frequently conducts market research, and I'm sure that research has led them to publishing high-fantasy worlds preferentially over grimdark worlds. The question is: do they do this because their research shows that players prefer it that way, and that player desires drive campaign setting sales, or is it because their research shows that DMs prefer it that way, and that DM desires drive campaign setting sales? Or a mix of both, or another reason entirely?

 

[haakon1]

I don't know that that's true. It doesn't match my experiences, at any rate.

Ditto. Different folks like different fantasies.

For me (DM 90% of the time), the world is mostly benign, except in the dungeon itself -- and a lot of the adventuring is down in towns, villages, and wilderness. But more often than not, for example, the leaders of the "good" town the PC's are trying to save actually are good, and will help the PC's. The key for me is to make CHARACTERS out of the NPC's, and then just play them who they are, with a mix of many types of people. Some bad apples in with the good, and some good apples in with the bad (I made Meepo a very benign kobold!), keeps folks guessing and interested, from what I see.

The way I think about it: if there's a Shire, there's something worth fighting to protect. And if there's a Shire, when you come into the creepy town that's threatened by some secret evil and has a lot of people acting like jerks, it's noticeable that "something's not right about folks in Innsmouth".

But I do have a lot of "grey" in the background of my Greyhawk -- different evil forces plotting against each other and the good guys, and different good or neutral forces working at cross-purposes.

 

[Aus_Snow]

or another reason entirely?

Yeah, this.

A company with enough money can slap 'D&D' on the front (and back, and insides) of some books, and it will sell a fairly high number of copies. Just 'cause.

So really, it is quite as likely that WotC has been publishing whatever the heck they want to publish, basically, and that, give or take, most of it has at least not sold so badly, that they've been at panic stations, say.

And frankly, yes, they've done some research into how many people play D&D, and how many DM, and how big typical groups are, and how often people play, and - most importantly of all - how many books (and what kinds) most D&D players/DMs typically buy, oh and which already established setting(s) folks favour, and what other RPGs and games in general we play, etc.

Most or all of which has nothing to do with, 'Do you prefer grimdark, candyland or lemon curry,' or whatever. It's all along the lines of, well, you're playing D&D already, so therefore you must like whatever it is we've been making and calling D&D, so we'll ask specific questions of you, dependent upon that premise.

Hey, maybe they have also done some research into people who don't already play D&D. . . but I kinda doubt it.

 

[Nifft]

In the interests of pseudo-science, one could wait a few months, then start one of two different threads:

1/ "PbP - Grim Darkness - looking for players"
2/ "PbP - Want to Play Dark Grimness - looking for Grim Master"

Do this in several places around the internet (using one thread or the other), then wait a few months and post the opposite pattern (where you previously looked for a GM, now you post looking for players, and vice-versa).

Compute differences from vanilla "lfp" / "lfGM" threads.

Voila!

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hussar]

I'll take a stab at this.

Emrikol - I don't think it's a case of DM's like Grim and gritty and players don't. I think that varies from group to group.

If I may, perhaps rephrasing your point a bit might allow things to go ahead better:

Are there any reasons why DM's might prefer grim and gritty settings more than players do?

There are a couple of reasons I can think of, some have already been stated in this thread:

• Power levels. G&G tend towards the lower end of the scale. That is WAY easier to DM than the other end.
• G&G settings tend to limit the wahoo styles of characters. You don't get angel PC's (by and large) in this type of setting. It's much simpler to control.
• G&G tends to go hand in hand with low fantasy - (not low magic) - or sword and sorcery fantasy if you prefer, where problems facing the party are local problems. In high fantasy, you have huge issues that can change the face of reality (think Sauron for example). In S&S, you have local problems. Again, this makes preparation easier on the DM.
• G&G, by its nature, means that the players have to "earn" everything they get. Some DM's feel it's more rewarding to play where you are all jazzed about scraping together enough money for food this week. (ok, that's hyperbole )

That's my 2 cp to the pot.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I have known more than one GM who has mistaken "Damned if you do/damned if you don't" as being "grim 'n' gritty".

I was having serious trouble understanding this thread until I read this post. I didn't equate the two. I love grim and gritty. I hate damned if you do/don't. Both as a player and a gm.

Personally, I love grim and gritty because that is where the real awesome lies. A dark and grim world means that as a player, i can be the one that makes the world bright and happy. I can make a real difference, because no one else will. If I'm in a setting where things are mostly fine, who should I stop farming? Someone else will come along and take care of that horde of goblins eventually. If I just let them take some of my vegetables, they'll leave me alone. And I'm smart enough to plant extras so I can still make a profit. Why should I risk dying in some dark hole where no one will ever know of my fate again?

Now if it were a dark and grim setting: the feral horde of goblins and halflings didn't just eat the vegetables, they ate my parents, sister, girlfriend, her parents (thank you!), and my cat "styx". I only made it out alive because I had to go back to the house for the purple worm blood we use as fertilizer. When I heard the attack I grabbed the family long bow off the mantle and shot a halfling between the eyes and cleaved the head of a goblin before they noticed me. Then I had to make a running retreat or else I would have been next.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Everyone's going to tell you that this doesn't match their experiences, because that's what people do in these sorts of threads.

This DOES match my experience. I think there are two issues here.

First, dark, gritty worlds tend to have a lot of "shades of gray" choices. And its easy for those to turn into "gotcha" moments. "Do you save the girl, or do you uphold your oath? Either way its gonna suck!" Its better to be the guy inflicting the "gotcha" then the person who's been got.

Second, dark and gritty worlds tend to have restrictions on the amount of awesome available. And guess who gets to dole it out? Its better to be that guy.

This isn't to say that these games automatically suck. But its not hard for them to suck.

I call BS!!!

Happy funtime rainbow world sucks eggs. As a DM and a player, I find the I am invincible and all powerful both boring and trite. I like gritty not to inflict pain and/or suffering, and as far as gotcha moments, I think that's just poor DMing. Grey areas are part of the real world and should be part of the gaming universe, but what you are stating is it's the reason for DMing this style, which is utter crap.

I prefer realism mixed with my fantasy, landing a 30' flying kick across an open field ala "Crouching BS, Hidden Poo-poo" is just plain ridiculous. Do a Matrix as I shoot you with a pistol, I DARE you. It spoils the suspension of disbelief for me. I understand how Hollywood has enamored the newest generations of geeks with it's smoke and mirrors, but for me, I don't buy it. It severely pissed me off to see Legolas "skateboarding" a shield in LotR: TT. I thought it was cheesy and aimed at a bunch of pimply-faced whiner kids out of touch with reality.

Death is real, danger is out there, heroes don't whine. Get hit, bleed, heal, suck it up and drive on trooper.