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

[Snoweel]

Maybe there's a correllation between this type of poor GMing and grittier, darker settings, although I'm not convinced of it.

As a former champion of dark-and-gritty play I am convinced there is a correlation between this type of setting and poor GMing.

But if so, the problem isn't a gritty, darker game, the problem is poor GMing.

Your qualifier "But if so" ruins an otherwise logical statement.

I understand your belief that a poor dark and gritty game is due to poor GMing, rather than the dark, gritty nature of the game itself.

But if there IS a correlation, as so many in this thread believe, then the problem IS with the gritty, darker game.

Personally I think a dark-and-gritty game can run just fine with a great DM. The players will have a ball and everybody will be richer for the experience.

But I also believe a dark-and-gritty game is the province of the megalomaniacal frustrated novelist. And such an individual will doubtless believe his players are having as much fun as him due to what is essentially a form of projection.

Personally, I believe the safest way to a fun game is a happy medium in every respect. Balance is the key to making sure everybody contributes and has fun.

Obviously measuring darkness/grittiness is a quantitative judgement rather than a qualitative judgement but (in the experience of myself and many posters here) any DM who defines his game as dark-and-gritty probably has the darkness and grittiness cranked up past the point of balance.

 

[Desdichado]

Some people describe the following scenario as "pixel bitchin'" but, it is now possible for a player to walk into a room and say I search the room - roll a die and either succeed or fail, without really thinking about what that search could mean. Meanwhile we used to walk into a room and have to specify what was searched and how it was searched - no rolls, role playing. I can see where both are appropriate and where a good DM would require the search check to be targeted, but RAW doesn't actually state it has to be, so in an imperfect world (and I think we've proved this one is) there is always some room for debate. (But then again around here I guess that's half the fun.)

Of course, there are other reasons to skip through that other than "player laziness" or lack of imagination, or whatever it is that you're implying the problem is exactly.

Notably, it's tedious, boring, slow, and... again... boring.

 

[Desdichado]

As a former champion of dark-and-gritty play I am convinced there is a correlation between this type of setting and poor GMing.

If there is a correllation, which is not something that I believe, then there is only a correllation because it's easier to be that kind of poor GM in a grim and gritty world. The two complement each other in some ways.

However, that in no way means that poor GMing and grim and gritty worlds go hand in hand, and misidentifying the problem as the tone of the game rather than poor DMing remains just as much a problem.

Your qualifier "But if so" ruins an otherwise logical statement.

No it doesn't.

But if there IS a correlation, as so many in this thread believe, then the problem IS with the gritty, darker game.

You haven't demonstrated that at all.

Obviously measuring darkness/grittiness is a quantitative judgement rather than a qualitative judgement but (in the experience of myself and many posters here) any DM who defines his game as dark-and-gritty probably has the darkness and grittiness cranked up past the point of balance.

Pshaw. There no reason whatsoever to assert that. Correllation, contrary to what you imply, does not mean causality. Correllation could exist for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with causality.

And for the record; I'm still speaking hypothetically. I don't even believe that correllation exists.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Of course, there are other reasons to skip through that other than "player laziness" or lack of imagination, or whatever it is that you're implying the problem is exactly.

Notably, it's tedious, boring, slow, and... again... boring.

I YOUR opinion, and there are times where, yeah I can see it. But when you find that "golden nugget" it becomes part of your "history" of great gaming moments. Endless combat is....boring.

Pshaw. There no reason whatsoever to assert that. Correllation, contrary to what you imply, does not mean causality. Correllation could exist for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with causality.

I totally agree. G&G or D&G doesn't mean (EVIL DM VOICE) "I am all powerful and I am going to kill your characters to prove it!! MWA HA HA!!!" (/EVIL DM VOICE) and I have 30 players (not all at the same time, mind you) that kept asking for it once they played in my campaign to prove it.
It CAN be done without being a killer DM and/or being a complete and utter A**.

 

[Garthanos]

I YOUR opinion, and there are times where, yeah I can see it. But when you find that "golden nugget" it becomes part of your "history" of great gaming moments. Endless combat is....boring.
.

Endless describing of poking around the corners of a room and pulling up tiles could be considered boring too.. and the whole thing is about balance.

Another reason players might not describe the use of a skill is they lack appropriate language for doing so... the player with low intimidation skill glossing over the details because he has little or no context for instance. We generally use the players not just the one whose character is acting help support and create plausible narrative when this happens... effectively the player can learn to describe what the group considers interesting sounding narrative for intimidation.

 

[Desdichado]

I YOUR opinion, and there are times where, yeah I can see it. But when you find that "golden nugget" it becomes part of your "history" of great gaming moments. Endless combat is....boring.

Well, yes, naturally in my opinion. I find long, detailed search attempts to be boring, tedious, annoying, and an example of DM "gotcha" moment traps. "Well, you didn't specifically say that you looked in the third alcove, behind the piled-up darkmantle droppings, with the elf or at least someone else who has infravision, so you don't find the treasure in this room! Ha!"

I never said that it was an absolute, I merely offered it up as another reason besides lack of imagination or "skill" or whatever it is exactly that you imply why someone may want to just roll a Search check, taking 20, instead of spending twenty minutes of game time assiduously describing every single search action his character undertakes.

 

[Mallus]

I'm happy that searching every millimeter of some underground structure by hand is no longer one of the principle challenges offered by the game. I prefer other tests of skill (particularly the kind that don't also test my patience).

Though I do kinda miss cracking open every remotely breakable object encountered, piñata-style, in hopes of finding a magic item.

 

[Garthanos]

I think of descriptive style and density a community effort in a number of ways... the players are also involved in setting the tone of the game, very much so. You will get claps from my daughter when she likes the way something is pictured for instance (and my son uses that too).. and "cool description dude" can be a fun reward ... the mechanical +1 on your action roll or increase in die size on your damage is sometimes not as reinforcing as peer responses. Note I think excessive insistence on whatever tone you have in mind might be just an error... if you are seeing players joking that is a sign to lighten up.. it doesnt mean the whole game will get silly it may just mean they are responding to your darkness and trying to make it fit there comfort zone. I have seen the opposite where I intro'd a comedy relief character and the player(only 1 at the time my brother) .. got really serious.

Integration of the scene in to the action....
I described a room once in which one end had a lower ceiling because smoke was allowed out at the other end the fight was moving all around and an enemy moved in to a square with the shorter roof... I had described the enemy was a recent invader not a long time inhabitant of the place ... my son described his reaping strike as a slash at their legs so that if they jumped they would hit there head on the ceiling... which in my opinion fit the scene so perfectly so I declared the enemy was dazed by the attack.

Note realistically the people dont really jump that high and its a crappy defense move... but it was fun.

It was situational and rememberable... more so than rolling a 20 on a die. It was a player using his intelligence and his characters ability in unison.

Any way for me game tone is a group thing and can be somewhat agreed on before play or built on and established during play.

 

[cmbarona]

I can attest to having a fantastic GM in a dark world, namely Vampire: the Masquerade's World of Darkness.

What made it grim wasn't players constantly dying. I was the only character to die, although that was a combination of a very rare "gotcha!" GM moment and a poor decision on my part; either not happening would have avoided the death.

What made it grim wasn't player restriction. We had a powergamer in our group, but the GM didn't restrict his options. In fact, we were encouraged to become powerful beings, but that increase in power opened doors to more interesting interactions with the world.

Related to power restriction but still a separate concept, what made it grim also wasn't a low-fantasy setting. White Wolf is notorious for introducing players to a wide array of supernatural phenomena, and furthermore, encouraging players to participate in that fantasy.

Instead, what made it grim was entirely ambiance. From a plot perspective, there was plenty of intrigue within the city, and that frequently involved wars, backstabbing, tenuous alliances, etc. From a setting perspective, it involved a certain carelessness toward life, especially the lives of humans.

On top of all that, I found the game to be "gritty," a term floating around here that is somehow paired with grim. I don't think the two concepts are necessarily paired, but having one tends to go hand in hand with having the other. I guess gritty refers to that Die Hard effect mentioned above. Our characters were beat up. A lot. And we faced tough challenges. Notice that we were powerful characters, but the challenges we faced met us head-on. Part of that grittiness was also in the description of the challenges we faced; we as players were drawn into the challenges through vivid description that matched the mechanics we used. Notice, however, I'm not arguing that grittiness lies in description or challenge in itself, but that the players experience the game as challenging.

So, to recap my opinion based on this experience:

1) Grim = ambiance
2) Gritty = challenging for players
3) Grim and/or Gritty =/= poor GMing

P.S.: FYI, D&D 4e's DMG very explicitly states as a core assumption that the world is generally dark with small points of light (DMG 150, core assumptions).

 

[Umbran]

But if there IS a correlation, as so many in this thread believe, then the problem IS with the gritty, darker game.

Incorrect. Or perhaps more accurately - insufficiently proven. Correlation alone does not imply causation.

Consider - lots, perhaps most, people who have lung cancer have spent a lot of time with butane lighters in their pockets. Definite correlation. But do butane lighters cause cancer? No.