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

[Nifft]

I think many GMs who attempt 'grim and gritty' see only the horrible things that happen to the PC's and not the positive things, such as trials that prepare you for travails that normally you would fail at otherwise, or rewards that come from suffering for a cause, etc. I think many of them look at it as some kind of modern 'save or die' mechanism. 'Oh, you forgot to set watches in your room at the inn. Thieves come in and slit your throats and steal all your stuff*. What? It's a grim-and-gritty world, guys...'

*actual play anecdote

I'd call that playstyle Grim-and-Jackass.

Cheers, -- N

 

[howandwhy99]

My own games are where the world begins in equilibrium before the players' start interacting with it. PCs start at 1st level, so the game begins low powered and works it way up to the highest possible level becoming very high powered. I think power level of the PC in relation to the rest of the world is sort of what is being referred to with the term grim. Grittyness is more about how tough the world can be and the need to show courage in the face of it. I think sandbox games are more open to this style as all challenge levels exist, if the PCs choose to seek them out.

Having a PC that is useful in such a situation is different. And different again from having a high powered PC in comparison to a low level world. Think of playing a 4E epic PC and choosing to only face Heroic level challenges. It would be dull. My experience with Players differs from the OP's in that mine always want more ability to succeed at accomplish their goals, but none enjoy dealing with low level challenges when playing a high level character.

 

[aboyd]

Why do DM's tend like Dark, gritty worlds and players like colorful worlds where they can do/play anything?

This has been my experience as well.

 

[The Shaman]

As I said in my earlier post, I think G&G games appeal to DM's for the simple fact that they are easier to DM. You have less issues to worry about, the PC's have considerably fewer assets with which to approach a scenario, and you don't have to worry about a lot of the things that come with a more wahoo setting.

And, I think there is evidence for Emrikol's point. Look at all the threads decrying the ease of ressurection or raise dead. In a G&G setting, you shouldn't be able to be raised, or it should carry serious consequences. Somehow, I don't think that that idea is being pushed by players.

In a G&G setting, all the really high level magics are out of reach of the players, because it's unlikely they will ever reach the levels where they can DO those sorts of things. It would be extremely difficult to have a G&G Epic, or even high level (say 15th+) campaign. How could it be G&G when the PC's are effectively gods? They are carrying the wealth of small nations on their back, can do miracles regularly.

And, anything that threatens an 18th level party probably doesn't belong in a G&G setting in the first place.

Wow, lots of painting with very, very broad brush strokes here.

 

[JoeGKushner]

To the OP, my experience have not matched that.

It is often the players who want the dirt and gritty settings so that they can play low live scum and be the mass murderers of their fantasy without the need to justify that homicidal behavior.

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP> I think many of them look at it as some kind of modern 'save or die' mechanism. 'Oh, you forgot to set watches in your room at the inn. Thieves come in and slit your throats and steal all your stuff*. What? It's a grim-and-gritty world, guys...'

*actual play anecdote

YIKES!!! - That isn't G&G that's masochistic!

 

[haakon1]

And different again from having a high powered PC in comparison to a low level world. Think of playing a 4E epic PC and choosing to only face Heroic level challenges. It would be dull. My experience with Players differs from the OP's in that mine always want more ability to succeed at accomplish their goals, but none enjoy dealing with low level challenges when playing a high level character.

Hmmm. I start at 1st level, but I keep the "setting" the same level all along. That is, guards in the typical small town are still 1st level warriors (I play 3.5) and typical threats facing them are orcs and (if unlucky!) werewolves.

But nastier monsters exist, scheming in ancient dungeons, plotting in cities, etc.

To me, it's interesting for the PC's to discover they have definitely moved up the power curve enormously when interacting with the setting, as long as they know there's always something out there that needs somebody as tough as them to fight it -- and there's always some stuff even they should not mess with.

I guess that's a sandbox approach, sort of. Or, to me, an old school approach, where the challengers "are what they are" and the PC's hopefully direct themselves (with some guidance) to appropriate places. But if a first level party decides to go kill Iuz, I guess they could try . . .

 

[Aus_Snow]

I guess that's a sandbox approach, sort of. Or, to me, an old school approach, where the challengers "are what they are" and the PC's hopefully direct themselves (with some guidance) to appropriate places. But if a first level party decides to go kill Iuz, I guess they could try . . .

'Status quo', I think, as opposed to 'tailored'. Something like that.

I also like that approach. Even with CRPGs! Like say, Oblivion. I have to have mods to make it like that, otherwise, it breaks what immersion there is to be found in the first place. Everyone's mileage probably varies a great deal, blah.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think many people's bad experiences with 'grim and gritty' campaigns stems from a GM that really doesn't understand the 'grim and gritty' genre but thinks he does.

Here's an analogy. Frank Miller wrote a wonderful Batman tale called 'Return of the Dark Knight'. It was a stand-alone book not integrated into any of the Batman titles. It was dark, grim, very much outside the vein of what many mainstream comics were at the time. It made a pile of money, and so that inspired many imitators. They got the 'dark hopelessness' part right but that's all they ever saw.

Similarly, I think many GMs who attempt 'grim and gritty' see only the horrible things that happen to the PC's and not the positive things, such as trials that prepare you for travails that normally you would fail at otherwise, or rewards that come from suffering for a cause, etc. I think many of them look at it as some kind of modern 'save or die' mechanism. 'Oh, you forgot to set watches in your room at the inn. Thieves come in and slit your throats and steal all your stuff*. What? It's a grim-and-gritty world, guys...'

*actual play anecdote

Heh - I have to admit to occasionally committing the opposite sin - the bad guys sneak into the PCs' room because they set watch. Or, for some unknown reason, the bad guys in the next room over begin discussing their evil plan. If the players had not set watches then they would have slept the night away.

Mind you, this is for when I am going for more of a pulp feel than a grim 'n' gritty one - there is a fine tradition of 'then the door is kicked open by a guy with a gun!' So it would be much more likely to happen in Eberron than in my homebrew.

The Auld Grump, and Eberron is most distinctly not Grim 'n' Gritty....

 

[Desdichado]

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?

Err... or are they not actually doing that at all?

I mean, yeah, there's Forgotten Realms... but I wouldn't call Eberron a high-fantasy world. It's not "grimdark" either, but it splits the difference pretty nicely.

And now we're getting Dark Sun.

That said, I think a more parsimonious approach is not to assume that there's a GM/player split, but merely that the audience for "grimdark" is somewhat niche, and that it exists among both players and GMs.

:shrug: