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

[Mircoles]

Darkness hides the monsters.

 

[Nifft]

Darkness hides the monsters.

I cast Magic Missile at the darkness.

Cheers, -- N

 

[The Shaman]

I cast Magic Missile at the darkness.

Careful, there could be a gazeebo in there.

 

[Betote]

In a "dark and gritty" setting, it's easier to come up with challenges, because almost anything can be a threat. Goblins, orcs and kobolds can always be dangerous if they gang up and if they can kill you on a 20.

In a "high fantasy" one, you have to remember to turn the dangerometer up by a notch with every adventure. Once they've beaten their first beholder, an ogre is no longer something to be feared. This "always up" approach can be quite demanding if you also try to maintain a suspension of disbelief.

Myself, I don't see any of those approaches superior to the other: they're simply different tastes, and which one I want at a precise moment depends heavily on my mood and whims. That's why I can enjoy Golarion, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Scarred Lands and Eberron and not be crazy

 

[Hussar]

He is still just using his powers to overcome the obstacles.

Is this a problem?

What's the point of having any character abilities (even something as mundane as thief's abilities) if solving an issue is "just using his powers"?

For as long as D&D has existed, magic users and clerics have been doing this, is this also a problem?

Why does it only count when the player steps out of character to solve a problem? Why is "Challenging the player" somehow better or more rewarding than "Challenge the character"?

 

[Garthanos]

In a "dark and gritty" setting, it's easier to come up with challenges, because almost anything can be a threat. Goblins, orcs and kobolds can always be dangerous if they gang up and if they can kill you on a 20.

In a "high fantasy" one, you have to remember to turn the dangerometer up by a notch with every adventure. Once they've beaten their first beholder, an ogre is no longer something to be feared. This "always up" approach can be quite demanding if you also try to maintain a suspension of disbelief.

D&D extensive character advancement isn't true in all game systems .. you could begin extraordinarily competent and brightly colored cinematic with very little advancement so similar challenges will still be challenges on your 20th adventure as on the first that you play.

In many movies and books of widely different styles very little sense of character advancement is common... the tone of a story doesn't necessarily ...relate to dramatic changes in power level.

 

[The Shaman]

Why is "Challenging the player" somehow better or more rewarding than "Challenge the character"?

Is this a problem?

Seems to me that challenges in roleplaying games perforce challenge the player, but the response to those challenges is shaped by the nature of the character. It's a synergy that cannot be separated so discretely.

 

[Hussar]

Is this a problem?

Seems to me that challenges in roleplaying games perforce challenge the player, but the response to those challenges is shaped by the nature of the character. It's a synergy that cannot be separated so discretely.

You sidestepped the question though.

The idea on the table is that it's somehow better to ignore the character and directly challenge the player. That allowing a player to use the abilities of the character to face a challenge is somehow a cheap win.

You'd have to take it up with Derren. He apparently thinks its a problem to use character abilities to solve in game problems. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

And, is there really a particular reason you have to open every response by repeating what I said?

 

[The Shaman]

You sidestepped the question though.

No, I think the premise of the question is flawed, so I'm dismissing the question. There's a difference.

And, is there really a particular reason you have to open every response by repeating what I said?

Because what you wrote applies so well to your own posts.

 

[The Shaman]

Myself, I don't see any of those approaches superior to the other: they're simply different tastes, and which one I want at a precise moment depends heavily on my mood and whims.

Yeah, I could play Pendragon and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and enjoy both of them for what they are.