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

[UngainlyTitan]

I do not particularly agree with the OP either, when I were a lad I liked grim and gritty games and grindark worlds. Now, not so much so, I would play Dark Heresy as a one off but I doubt I would play a campaign. Why? Lots of things really, but to get back to the original point, when i liked grim and gritty it made no difference if I was DM or not and neither does it now when I do not care so much for it.

 

[Umbran]

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

It is not hard for any game to suck, though. Sucking is easy. 90% of everything is crud, as the saying goes.

 

[Crothian]

If the OP is true then I think it is important for players and DMs to talk about it and everyone say what they want out of a game. And if it does not match then either compromises need to be made or people need to find a game somehow that matches what they like.

 

[Dannager]

Personal experience.

Is as anecdotal as everything else.

The relative popularity of several gritty games.

Which is countered and then obliterated by the enormous popularity of widely-used high-fantasy settings like Eberron and the Forgotten Realms.

The popularity of lower level D&D, which is demonstrably more gritty, yet which is demonstrably more popular.

Which is explained much more parsimoniously by the fact that lower level D&D is both simpler to play and a logical starting point for a long campaign (which is a pretty common style of play). Also worth noting is that many long-haul style campaigns fizzle out before reaching higher levels, which artificially skews the distribution towards low-level play, even though it may well be the case that more players want to play higher-level games.

 

[Dannager]

I do not agree with the basic premise of the OP. I think players and DMs vary in their preferences. Further, individuals may enjoy more than one kind of game.

Yes, yes, everyone is unique in their own way, individuals are the exception to the rule, etc.

Just because individuals might vary doesn't mean that meaningful trends cannot be established. What is being said here is that there seems to be a disproportionately high number of DMs who want to run gritty worlds, and a relatively low number of players interested in playing in those gritty worlds.

 

[Azgulor]

That's an interesting non sequiter. What does the diversity of player races (I presume that's what you mean by Star Wars cantina scene) have to do with grittiness? The two are completely unrelated.

Not true in my experience. Let's try another example comparison.

Which was darker/grittier: The species-nation states of Babylon 5 or the all-inclusive Federation of Star Trek?

If players assume an "anything goes"/melting pot of fantasy races and the GM establishes a setting where all dragonborn are a slave race (grittier than standard), then the PC who just made up a dragonborn character either needs to change the character or modify the pre-game notions he brought to the table.

Yes, they could be unrelated. However, in my experience, racial tensions are low-hanging fruit for settings & campaigns that strive for a grittier feel and are used more often than they are ignored.

 

[Rykion]

Yes, yes, everyone is unique in their own way, individuals are the exception to the rule, etc.

Just because individuals might vary doesn't mean that meaningful trends cannot be established. What is being said here is that there seems to be a disproportionately high number of DMs who want to run gritty worlds, and a relatively low number of players interested in playing in those gritty worlds.

Just because someone thinks they see a trend, doesn't mean that there really is a trend. The OP stated an opinion. Others have come onto the thread and offered their opinion. Many have different opinions to the OP. No one has come forward with any kind of objective proof of some sort of trend.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I have never thought that a DM "winning" means the PCs "losing". To me, a DM winning is when the players come up to me after a game and say "Thanks, I had an awesome time!".

Think of it this way. A DM who spends a lot of time creating NPCs to challenge the PCs invests more effort per session by an order of magnitude than the PCs. Once the prep time is done, you might feel a little surprised, non-plussed or even disappointed that all that effort dies to three iterative attacks and a magic missile.

On the Ubertopic, I like this discussion a lot. I think players can enjoy worlds where morality doesn't enjoy clear, bright lines and they can take actions that do not have as many repercussions. I play in a pretty grim and gritty game at times where on of my PCs crossed a line, incinerating some (almost) innocent drug abusers. Even the party was shocked. However, the DM didn't set that up. It wasn't a "do this or that" scenario.

There are lot of good points in this thread so far.

 

[Tallifer]

I'm kinda confused about this whole topic.

People are relating grime & gritty to character builds or the difficulty of the campaign?

I assumed by grime & gritty we were talking about the game world itself and the characters that live in it...the roleplaying and fluff aspects. Not the mechanics or the playing habits of players/DMs.

I second this.

When I read the thread's title, I assumed the debate was between dark, cutpurse filled alleys and sunny Shire meadows. (Because some players seem to want a world where they can murder and steal with impunity. In fact such players despise the sunny Shire because there are laws and sheriffs and paladins are supposed to be good.) But it seems the debate is between "you start with no gold and fumbles can kill" and "you start with two extra feats and you can buy magic items at the 7-11."

 

[Nifft]

I frequently am the DM.

I was excited to play in the Midnight setting.

I'm currently delighted to be running Exalted 2e (which could be grim & gritty as hell for mortals, but not so much for Solars).

Just another datapoint, -- N