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

[Andor]

IMHO this question merits a thread fork.

Cheers, -- N

You want to fork an attempt to get the thread back on it's original topic to a new thread....

I'll admit it's a new slant on recursion, but if it spreads it could take down the internet in days....

 

[Hussar]

It's not only rude to the referee, it's also extremely rude to the other players.

And as a referee, I won't stand for that sort of selfish, self-absorbed, anti-social nonsense from a player. We are playing a game together, and that means giving as well as taking, entering the game with a generous spirit, and recognizing that if one thing doesn't suit your fancy, there will be many more things that do. If you have an issue with something in the game, please, talk with me and the other players about it, but don't just sulk like two-year-old who didn't get a prize in his ceral box.

If you can't handle the most basic responsibilities of participating in a social activity, then go inflict your behavior on someone who gives a crap, if you can find anyone.

Hang on a tick here. You're jumping the gun a touch here.

All I did was refuse to participate. I didn't whine, I didn't bitch, I just excused myself and went and did something else.

This is a "two year old" behaviour. Wow. Can I have your two year old?

If you know that a player at the table absolutely loathes something and you bring this to the table, don't bitch when the player refuses to join in.

Actually, to be honest, if the DM did do it to me a second time, yeah, it would be time to find a new group. But, again, I refuse to force myself to do something I absolutely hate, just because it makes the other four guys at the table feel all warm and fuzzy.

Now, if I pulled a temper tantrum, started complaining about how long things were taking, and generally being an ass, then I'd see your point. But, all I did was excuse myself from about forty minutes of the game. Not really seeing the reason for a huge reaction here.

 

[billd91]

Just because you can imagine worse behavior that doesn't mean your own isn't rude.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Grim and Gritty, to me, suggests low level PCs, low magic (both in the setting and in terms of availability to PCs), 'realism' and a dark feel - cynicism, a lack of optimism. An urban setting, particularly with a focus on the seamier elements of urban life, such as crime, seems particular appropriate to GnG.

Default D&D isn't very GnG, imo. It's what I would call high magic - half the party are casters, everyone uses magic items. It deviates very greatly from real life. The setting is a bizarre underground realm filled with monsters and general weirdness. Otoh the default D&D PC's attitudes are very dark - he's a mercenary, a killer motivated by the desire for wealth and power. A D&D game that puts an emphasis on thieves, thieves' guilds and the like would be moving in a more GnG direction.

I see the 'grim' part of GnG as meaning dark, and the 'gritty' part as meaning realistic, down to earth, resembling the world we know. Supernatural horror is definitely grim, but the magical element makes it less gritty. If the Evil is just a human serial killer without magic powers, then that would be more gritty.

OK, so that's what I mean by 'Grim and Gritty'. Given that definition, I think Emirikol is right, in general. GMs have more of a preference for GnG than players do. The reasons are simple enough. Low power, low magic games are easier to manage. It's easier to plausibly challenge and threaten the wellbeing of PCs at 1st level than at 20th. What they can do is much more predictable. It's also easier to build a low magic world as one can make more use of history and real world knowledge.

There's also the ever present tendency in rpgs for the players to want more power for their characters, while the GM tries to thwart them from achieving that power. Or at least put obstacles in their way. Thus the players are, in a sense, constantly trying to make their PCs less GnG, while the GM is trying to keep them that way. One could see D&D as a game in which the PCs start out 'Grim and Gritty' and try to become 'High Fantasy'. Because of it's uniquely long level track, the huge gulf in power between low and high level, D&D is perhaps the only rpg where the players are trying to change the genre of the game. If the genre does change, that means they won.

Now ofc there is also, running in parallel, the matter of personal taste. As a lot of people have mentioned in this thread, some prefer a grimmer, grittier approach BOTH as player and as GM. BUT just because that preference exists does not mean that there aren't also other forces at work.

 

[Ariosto]

If the genre does change, that means they won.

"Be careful what you wish for"?

Are we talking in some cases about players who think they want right now what they have not experienced? Who don't understand that it would soon be "game over" out of their own boredom?

On the other hand, there seems to be a notable demographic of D&Ders today who by their own protestations don't want the challenges and risks originally fundamental to the game. That's not what "D&D" is about to them; it's about an entertaining story on the way to regularly scheduled handouts of shiny stuff to which they are entitled just for showing up to be entertained (or not even showing up, per the 4e DMG).

No doubt someone will aver that "I have always been like that, since the Ford Administration; so it's perfectly 'old school'." It looks to me, though, as if this is a much more recent development.

Now, perhaps it is still the case that DMs tend on average to be older and more experienced D&Ders. If so, then it may be that they're not quite as hip to the new breed thing.

I rather doubt that there's a common mis-match. At worst, a minority of DMs get a majority of players.

 

[nightwyrm]

On the other hand, there seems to be a notable demographic of D&Ders today who by their own protestations don't want the challenges and risks originally fundamental to the game. That's not what "D&D" is about to them; it's about an entertaining story on the way to regularly scheduled handouts of shiny stuff to which they are entitled just for showing up to be entertained (or not even showing up, per the 4e DMG).

Regardless of how some may want to think otherwise, D&D is a game. It is entertainment. And there is a lot of competition these days for people's free time. D&D these days have to compete with DVD movies, GTA4, Halo, MMO, Guitar Heroes, facebook etc. for people's entertainment time. If someone finds D&D to be boring or frustrating, they're going to find something else to do.

 

[Ariosto]

If someone finds D&D to be boring or frustrating, they're going to find something else to do.

One might hope so! It's certainly not a lucrative job.

 

[PoeticJustice]

OK, so that's what I mean by 'Grim and Gritty'. Given that definition, I think Emirikol is right, in general. GMs have more of a preference for GnG than players do. The reasons are simple enough. Low power, low magic games are easier to manage. It's easier to plausibly challenge and threaten the wellbeing of PCs at 1st level than at 20th. What they can do is much more predictable. It's also easier to build a low magic world as one can make more use of history and real world knowledge.

There's also the ever present tendency in rpgs for the players to want more power for their characters, while the GM tries to thwart them from achieving that power. Or at least put obstacles in their way. Thus the players are, in a sense, constantly trying to make their PCs less GnG, while the GM is trying to keep them that way. One could see D&D as a game in which the PCs start out 'Grim and Gritty' and try to become 'High Fantasy'. Because of it's uniquely long level track, the huge gulf in power between low and high level, D&D is perhaps the only rpg where the players are trying to change the genre of the game. If the genre does change, that means they won.

Now ofc there is also, running in parallel, the matter of personal taste. As a lot of people have mentioned in this thread, some prefer a grimmer, grittier approach BOTH as player and as GM. BUT just because that preference exists does not mean that there aren't also other forces at work.

There are other, ostensibly more legitimate reasons. Most DMs know that they want to engage their players. Some DMs think the easiest way to accomplish this is through the setting. A dark, gritty world comes off as "edgy" and more engaging than another high-fantasy generica. In departing from stereotype, its easier to make an impression on the players. Under this logic, high fantasy is arguably the harder of the two modes to run.

 

[Hussar]

There are other, ostensibly more legitimate reasons. Most DMs know that they want to engage their players. Some DMs think the easiest way to accomplish this is through the setting. A dark, gritty world comes off as "edgy" and more engaging than another high-fantasy generica. In departing from stereotype, its easier to make an impression on the players. Under this logic, high fantasy is arguably the harder of the two modes to run.

I would argue that high fantasy is most definitely harder to run for a DM for many, many reasons. First off, high fantasy means world threatening plot lines (this being the primary distinction between high fantasy like Tolkien and Sword and Sorcery fantasy like Conan).

This in turn means you have to create plot lines where you have a world (or at least really, really big) threatening threat, someone behind that threat, all the way down to the local threats the low level party can deal with initially.

That right there is a bucket load of work for the DM.

High Fantasy also does not lend itself to episodic adventuring, nor does it lend itself to sandboxing. In episodic, you don't have a large overarching plot, thus, no world shattering threat, and in sandboxing, you again don't have overarching plotlines.

Let's also take the point that in high fantasy, most people equate that with high magic as well. Magic is powerful and fairly ubiquitous. All sorts of scenarios get nerfed when the wizard can just wave his hand (or the cleric for that matter) and solve the problem. Starving in the desert after your caravan has been attacked by raiders? Poof, create food and water. Poof, overland flight. Poof Teleport. End of grim and gritty problem.

Need to search the jungle infested by poisonous snakes, diseased creatures and whatnot? Poof, Find the Path and problem solved.

To me, it's totally not a shock that DM's would prefer a grim and gritty setting. Using Doug M's definition (which I feel is pretty common), it's much, much easier to DM that sort of setting.

 

[Garthanos]

It looks to me, though, as if this is a much more recent development.

Ariosto, I am hauling out the "nothing new under the sun" argument - you can't fend it off, people wanted boom instant awesomeness since early on. You do recall the term "Monty Haul" DM or Dungeon don't you? ... and how long ago did that term come up.... I think there were dm's and players both who bought in to what seemed like the "something for nothing" mindset it wasn't some rarity that has increased over time.

I think there was a reason ... and it wasn't insufficient guidelines about treasure placement. I recall one of the reasons I wanted characters to have a more toys at least early on being that characters started out as ultra fragile...making potions and or wands more prevalent is a way to make the wizard able to do magical things ... besides hiding behind the fighter ... and make characters better able to survive, heck some of them started as very close to minions in modern D&D terms... maybe people didn't want to roleplay... the minion that the movie hero knocks down in a single stroke... that didn't conform to the characters we wanted to emulate in the books or in the movies.