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

[aboyd]

I get that. Good. I guess I just don't know why disagreeing with RC took the form of saying, "someone unfamiliar with 4E could garner a negative view of the game if they accept your commentary as valid." That seems less like disagreeing and more like an appeal -- "Hey, help me protect my edition from critique!"

However, I'll let go of it as either poor wording on your part or poor reading on my part. Probably the latter, as I've not read all 15 pages of discussion and have likely missed some nuance.

I understand your clarified point now -- RC said what he said, and you disagreed. Great.

 

[Garthanos]

"
Personal bias, not "objective" bias.
RC

I am personally biased against experience points for finding treasure. It is philosophically repugnant. And I found it so from day one.

I have move treasure and challenges from one adventure and even details of a scenes on in to a later one and I started doing it way back many people did, they didnt exist until they were experienced is perfectly reasonable. The pretending it teleports is directly implying irrationality where none exists. It is a classic shortcut to making it easier on the DM.(Check out this - it is a theme in 4e)

Characters of a given level in D&D need approximately range x through y of Magic Items (or Boons Legendary or Divine or Grand Master Training. )The economy of those are for a large part built around treasure in 4e where either building it oneself with rituals (which cost money) or buying it from somebody who can... is fairly normal.

(I hate game world assumptions being ingrained in game systems but this has been an issue with D&D from day one.).

They need these rewards of whatever kind in order for the system which uses character level as a measure of how bad the bad guys can be is based on measuring pcs based purely on level. DM's can adjust challenges... if the PC's do not have the amount of treasure/rewards appropriate for their level it makes the DM's job more difficult... (true to some extent I bet in every version of the game) --see there it is that theme, it makes the DM's job easier .. not doing so for philosophical reasons?? is just not pragmatic but it can be done and you need to be aware of what you are doing.

It is a basic consequence of needing to allocate a certain amount of "treasure" if they overcome a certain amount of obstacles because level is supposed to be THE actual useful measure of your characters power.

Level was less meaningful from one DMs game to another DM's game in AD&D because you had to analyse what magic items people had with a much finer comb with a clear indication of what level appropriate might be in 4e really comes a realization that NOT conforming to that is a way to make your job harder.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

I viewed it as a request for clarity -- which is why I noted personal bias rather than some sort of "objective" bias.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am personally biased against experience points for finding treasure. It is philosophically repugnant. And I did from day one.

It's funny, but when I was playing 1e back in the 80's, I disagreed with XP for treasure, too. Nowadays, I just disagree with the "1 gp = 1 XP" ratio (RCFG used "10 gp = 1 XP", and the gp must be squandered).

Off topic, I would be interested in your take on RCFG. You can find the current document on the last page of the link in my .sig. Well, really I'd like your take on the monster fluff when it comes out because of your interest in the Fey Mount discussion. But that's a topic for another day, on another thread.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I get that. Good. I guess I just don't know why disagreeing with RC took the form of saying, "someone unfamiliar with 4E could garner a negative view of the game if they accept your commentary as valid." That seems less like disagreeing and more like an appeal -- "Hey, help me protect my edition from critique!"

If it makes you feel any better I will step up and defend any system, any edition, any thing whether I support it in general or not if I believe someone is misrepresenting something. When anyone can show me a section of text from a 4E book that uses the term "teleporting treasure" I'll admit the error of my ways and back off.

 

[Garthanos]

It's funny, but when I was playing 1e back in the 80's, I disagreed with XP for treasure, too. Nowadays, I just disagree with the "1 gp = 1 XP" ratio (RCFG used "10 gp = 1 XP", and the gp must be squandered).

Off topic, I would be interested in your take on RCFG. You can find the current document on the last page of the link in my .sig. Well, really I'd like your take on the monster fluff when it comes out because of your interest in the Fey Mount discussion. But that's a topic for another day, on another thread.

RC

I will see about looking in to it... I am ever fond of good rich flavor elements entirely independent of mechanics.

 

[Desdichado]

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

Uh... I tried to get the thread back on topic. Instead, all I got in return is your pedantic wheedling about whether or not pure Gygaxian D&D was... pure or something. I'm not even sure if you have any points in there or if you're just slapfighting nitpickety points that you want to nitpick.

So I'll ask again; for those who claim that players don't like grim and gritty; or who are players who don't like grim and gritty; what is it about grim and gritty that you don't like? Let's get some specifics so we can identify the problem.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Whatever, Hobo. Par for the course.

 

[Hussar]

Hobo- I'll take a stab at that.

But first, for the purpose of this post, I'll define my take on grim and gritty. To me, grim and gritty refers to a setting and a playstyle where the background is not a happy one (the grim part) and that actions are resolved in such a way that is as realistic as possible. And, by realistic, I mean real world realistic, not just fantasy world realistic.

In other words, in a gritty system, when I jump off a cliff, I die. When I jump in lava, I die. When a snake bites me, I get poisoned, infected, burn with fever, and then die.

And that, to me, sums up why I don't want to play gritty fantasy games. Particularly D&D. D&D is about combat (again, for me). It's about going places and killin' stuff that needs killin'. But, in a gritty setting, I should be dying just as often as I'm winning. In the real world, Jackie Chan dies. In a Jackie Chan movie (and insert action here as you like), he survives terrible punishment and keeps on fighting and wins out in the end.

That's what I want from my fantasy.

 

[Garthanos]

Hobo- I'll take a stab at that.

But first, for the purpose of this post, I'll define my take on grim and gritty.

Wow a post much closer to being on topic than many congrats