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



## Emirikol (Oct 22, 2009)

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

Since I gave up DMing after 30 years to join the ranks of the no-prep-required masses, I've had a chance to study DM techniques a little more.  It seems like players (myself now included) want worlds where you can play any race/any class and they all get along in some kind of colorful, happy world where we can just "push the win button."

DM's on the other hand (in general) lean towards wanting worlds that are more challenging, darker, and grittier.  Places that are rife with disease, evil, and things that go "kill, kill, kill" in the night.

Why is that?  Is it just the job of the DM or are we like the "Prison Guards" in that old psychological experiment where the actors took on the traits of the expected roles they were playing?

jh


----------



## Morrus (Oct 22, 2009)

I don't know that that's true.  It doesn't match my experiences, at any rate.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 22, 2009)

It's harder to vicariously experience your power trip fantasies as a player if power is hard to get or life is short and cheap. Everyone wants to do cool stuff and the less risk you face or the more options you have to build upon, the easier it is to do the cool stuff.

You see this a lot in RPGs, even in grittier ones. How many players make up a character whose background is as a rat-catcher or gong farmer if they have a choice? No. We all want to play displaced nobles, tragic heroes, people with great and fascinating backgrounds with lots of pathos slathered on. It's because we all want to be special snowflakes and an imaginary game is perfect for it.


----------



## Rykion (Oct 22, 2009)

I like dark gritty worlds as a GM and as a player.  Most of my players tend to like them too.

What I don't like is very lethal combat systems.  It might be realistic, but I don't have as much fun.  I like combat, and I like longterm investment in characters.


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 22, 2009)

I have a hard time getting my players characters to get along with each other. There isn't much sunshine and rainbows with them. They have an extremely hard time making friendly contacts. They aren't evil, I don't allow evil PCs. They are just....self centered PCs I guess.

The darker I make an adventure, the more they enjoy it. But then they'll say, "I'm tired of going to places where everyone is untrustworthy or evil. We need to get somewhere where people are actually nice." Then when they do meet the nice people, they treat them like dirt, intimidate them, and are rude to them. Half the time they'll say, "I don't trust this guy...he's too nice". They are so used to being mercenary jerks that they think everyone is out to get them. It's pretty funny.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 22, 2009)

What you describe does not match my experiences.

I don't know many players who just want to, "push the win button".  The folks I know recognize that this gets boring pretty quickly, and so prefer to have to work pretty hard, and have some chance of failure, to get their wins.  They get more interesting drama and overall satisfaction that way.

I also think that darker, grittier worlds are the general trend in fantasy and sci-fi genre fiction.  The books, movies, and TV are all trending that way.  And I expect many DMs want to emulate their favorites in those areas.


----------



## The Ghost (Oct 22, 2009)

Emirikol said:


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




This is only half-true for me. As both a player and DM I prefer games that are dark and gritty. I am not much of a fan of the "colorful world" as you described it. I like the idea of playing a basic human pig farmer, who was conscripted to serve in the war, and now is trying to make the world a little better place for his family. I am not sure why I prefer it this way - I just do.


----------



## Derren (Oct 22, 2009)

billd91 said:


> It's harder to vicariously experience your power trip fantasies as a player if power is hard to get or life is short and cheap. Everyone wants to do cool stuff and the less risk you face or the more options you have to build upon, the easier it is to do the cool stuff.
> 
> You see this a lot in RPGs, even in grittier ones. How many players make up a character whose background is as a rat-catcher or gong farmer if they have a choice? No. We all want to play displaced nobles, tragic heroes, people with great and fascinating backgrounds with lots of pathos slathered on. It's because we all want to be special snowflakes and an imaginary game is perfect for it.




That pretty much nails it.
Although I should mention that rat catcher is a official starting career in Warhammer.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 22, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I don't know that that's true.  It doesn't match my experiences, at any rate.



Nor mine.







billd91 said:


> We all want to play displaced nobles, tragic heroes, people with great and fascinating backgrounds with lots of pathos slathered on. It's because we all want to be special snowflakes and an imaginary game is perfect for it.



No, "we all" don't necessarily want to play characters like those.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Oct 22, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> They are so used to being mercenary jerks that they think everyone is out to get them. It's pretty funny.



You wouldn't happen to know a legally blind guy who likes to go hunting would you?


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 22, 2009)

billd91 said:


> We all want to play displaced nobles, tragic heroes, people with great and fascinating backgrounds with lots of pathos slathered on. It's because we all want to be special snowflakes and an imaginary game is perfect for it.




And fairy tales have a disproportionate number of handsome princes and princesses.. Its not something we can just point at the games about.


----------



## Emirikol (Oct 22, 2009)

As a DM, I found that my players (and convention players) whined a lot more in dark worlds about "being afraid to go out in their backyards to play."

This seems more complicated when a DM style veers that way in obviously "less dark" worlds like FR as opposed to say, The Warhammer World, or "From the Ashes" Greyhawk.  I have less experience with Eberron, but seemed to me that it was more of an "overcast" world..we didn't last long there. 

As a player, I actually perfer to switch characters every couple months so dark worlds can be a fun time too.  I don't even care for a TPK once in a while as long as I'm not sitting at a table of sissies 

jh


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 22, 2009)

As a DM or player, I prefer a gritty world where the average person is relatively good, but there are a number of people who are not good.  If the average person sucks, there is no reason for players to expect anything else, and they will treat the good people they do meet in the fashion they have learned is approriate.  Meanwhile, if the average person is good, the occasional ringer actually works, and is far more shocking than in the "dark" world some have described.  IMHO and IME, of course.

My world is filled with Bad Things (and some of them are very dark indeed), but the Bad Things don't outnumber the Common People.  The vast majority of people in my game worlds respond to PCs in whatever way the PCs respond to them -- friendliness begets friendliness, antipathy begets antipathy, and violence begets violence.

I also have no interest whatsoever in worlds where "anything goes" in terms of PC design.  That might work for some, but it doesn't work for me.  As player or DM.  I simply cannot take seriously a game in which the party consists of a lizardman, a half-demon, a human, and a teletubby.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 22, 2009)

Rykion said:


> I like dark gritty worlds as a GM and as a player.  Most of my players tend to like them too.




This is my experience as well.


----------



## Herobizkit (Oct 22, 2009)

I think my experience is similar to what the others posted.  It's hard to invest a lot of time and effort into a character only to have him die ignobly by, say, a lucky critical that severs the jugular.  Struggling against odds is something I introduce in most of my campaigns as a DM, but as a player, it's hard to be "some guy" when you want to play a swashbucking hero or mighty spellslinger.  Risk vs reward is important, but most of my games tend to centre around NPC interaction rather than kill the bad guys and take their stuff.  Even in pre-written modules, my players find a way to work outside the bounds of the room-to-room sweep and create a story outside the dungeon.

Gritty fantasy games are a nice change, but they're hard to keep interesting on a long-term basis.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 22, 2009)

Derren said:


> Although I should mention that rat catcher is a official starting career in Warhammer.




The rat catcher is also one of the most powerful starting careers.


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 22, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> You wouldn't happen to know a legally blind guy who likes to go hunting would you?




Heh, not really....but I know a legally blond girl who likes to go clubbing. Will that do?


----------



## WalterKovacs (Oct 22, 2009)

In general, many of the players I've experienced like to have the option to try anything. In part, it's because they like the system so much they want to be able to do cool stuff. For some it's a bit of power gaming "want to hit the win button", but generally it's a matter of "drow are cool" or "I want to try out this crazy class" or something like that. If the game has options, they don't want to be told "you can't do that" or the "sure, you can play a drow ... but everyone you come across will try to kill you"

Generally a PC will be looking at what they want their character to be, while the DM will be looking at what they want their world to be. So, a player will be looking to get certain options allowed (so they can play the character they want) while the DM will be looking to restrict options to fit the campaign setting. Problems arise when the player wants to do something that doesn't "fit".

To avoid the issue, the DM should probably give the players information about the setting before letting the players start to develop their character OR get player feedback and build the world based on that information.

It isn't so much grim and gritty vs. rainbows, as it is "I want to play X" vs. "My world doesn't have/tolerate X's".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 22, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> In general, many of the players I've experienced like to have the option to try anything. In part, it's because they like the system so much they want to be able to do cool stuff. For some it's a bit of power gaming "want to hit the win button", but generally it's a matter of "drow are cool" or "I want to try out this crazy class" or something like that. If the game has options, they don't want to be told "you can't do that" or the "sure, you can play a drow ... but everyone you come across will try to kill you"
> 
> Generally a PC will be looking at what they want their character to be, while the DM will be looking at what they want their world to be. So, a player will be looking to get certain options allowed (so they can play the character they want) while the DM will be looking to restrict options to fit the campaign setting. Problems arise when the player wants to do something that doesn't "fit".
> 
> ...





See, that sounds to me like not wanting to endure the consequences of choices made.  Sort of like, "I want a +8 bonus to my Strength and Charisma, with no penalty attached."  I would not play in, or run, a game like that.  Without believeable consequences for all choices -- including character creation choices -- the world falls flat.

IMHO, and IME, of course.


RC


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 22, 2009)

Everyone's going to tell you that this doesn't match their experiences, because that's what people do in these sorts of threads.

This DOES match my experience.  I think there are two issues here.  

First, dark, gritty worlds tend to have a lot of "shades of gray" choices.  And its easy for those to turn into "gotcha" moments.  "Do you save the girl, or do you uphold your oath?  Either way its gonna suck!"  Its better to be the guy inflicting the "gotcha" then the person who's been got.

Second, dark and gritty worlds tend to have restrictions on the amount of awesome available.  And guess who gets to dole it out?  Its better to be that guy.

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


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 22, 2009)

Emirikol said:


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



THey don't.  The more interesting question is: why do you think that's true?


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 22, 2009)

I've been fortunate in that for most of my gaming life, my players didn't follow the example Emerikol cites.  They too, like the grittier worlds rather than having a world that looks like the cantina scene from Star Wars.

That aside, however, I think the issue can develop due to the following reasons:

*GM-bias:*
Shouldering the story/adventure-development burden, we look to other media for inspiration: movies, fiction, TV, etc.  All of those media have the common thread of storytelling and when you're telling a story you need it to be as tight and coherent as possible.  In short, as a GM, you require conflict to tell your stories.  If there's no racial tension, scheming factions, nefarious kingdoms, etc. it's hard to come up with stories.  The more sources of conflict your game can support, the longer it can be sustained.  Too few sources of conflict, typically represented as the BBEG ala Sauron, and you may have just stamped an expiration date on your campaign & setting.

_Perfect Example: Star Wars._  Yes, you've got the Expanded Universe of new threats & conflicts but a lot of Star Wars fans tune out once there's no longer an Empire to beat on.

Also, as a GM, if you're reading setting or adventure material, you're more likely to be grabbed by characters and stories that make your GM-mustachios twirl with glee than a vanilla Evil contained solely within the dungeon.

*PC-Bias:  *
1. PCADD or the new character/race/car smell.  "LOOK! I've got a shiny new rulebook with new races in it!  I can't wait to try <x>".  

2. The "Don't do to me what I do to NPCs & Monsters" Syndrome.  Yeah, the PCs love to take the fight to the bad guys.  They typically don't like it when the bad guys can take the fight to them.  Some players are wimps this way.

3. Hopelessness is depressing.  This one's a legit concern IMO.  Some GMs like to take the darkness & grittiness to 11.  It's all-gloom-all-the-time.  As a GM, you may never intend to take it there, but some players have been burned and are cautious as a result.

It's mostly 1 & 2, though.


In my experience, the best campaigns are the ones where the GM & the players discuss the style/theme/approach of the game up front so everyone goes into it with the appropriate expectations.  This sometimes mean that the new player joining such a campaign either needs to conform to the pre-established campaign style or accept disappointment.  

The game/campaign/setting shouldn't be derailed just because they want to play a dragonborn/deva/githyanki/illithid/whatever just so they can try their new book out.  A GM shouldn't have to shoehorn everything in.  

Conversely, if humans are going to be persecuted slaves, the GM has a responsibility to inform the players of that before characters are made.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 22, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Everyone's going to tell you that this doesn't match their experiences, because that's what people do in these sorts of threads.




Of course, you could say that about any sort of thread.  If I said "X sucks", people who do not believe so are going to tell me that this doesn't match their experiences, because that's what people do in these sorts of threads, and also because it does not match their experiences.  

However, 



> dark, gritty worlds tend to have a lot of "shades of gray" choices.  And its easy for those to turn into "gotcha" moments.  "Do you save the girl, or do you uphold your oath?  Either way its gonna suck!"




is certainly true.

I have known more than one GM who has mistaken "Damned if you do/damned if you don't" as being "grim 'n' gritty".  IMHO, a world is gritty if there are real villians, if the choices you make have believeable consequences, and the backdrop includes grey moral areas.  

Grey moral areas do not have to be, and should actually seldom be, real gotchas.  IMHO, real life is gritty, and we make greyish choices all the time.  Sometimes they come back to bite us, but not nearly so often as to paralyze us from making any choices at all.

Some types of choices -- trusting a potential patron, helping an NPC, being decent to other people, parlaying with intelligent creatures, leaving your backyard, choosing what to do -- have to be mostly safe to make, or players will not want to make any choices at all.  

"Should we kill the baby orcs or allow them to grow up?" isn't really a choice if the same anvil falls no matter what you do.  It is a real choice, though, if you can reasonably guess the consequences of either, and especially if you can take steps to mitigate against the most obvious negative consequences of the choice you make.  



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




Universally true, regardless of whether the game is dark or rainbow-flavoured, what system, what edition, whatever.    It is easier to set up a game that sucks than one that does not.  You simply need to lead with your ego.....from either side of the table!


RC


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 22, 2009)

I can't say I agree with the premise since I am a DM and have never been fond of the grim and gritty style. From the rest of my experience, neither players nor DMs really fall toward either extreme of that spectrum. Most of the people I have played with tend to sit somewhere in the middle and enjoy being flexible.


----------



## Dannager (Oct 22, 2009)

I agree completely with the DM's premise - it's something I've noticed before, too. It's not that all DMs operate that way. Indeed, few do. But the ones who have problems with gritty worlds are almost invariably players because, _let's face it_, making a world dark and gritty is a potential obstacle to the player's range of fun, not the DM's.



Hobo said:


> THey don't.  The more interesting question is: why do you think that's true?




You have no way of knowing they don't either. So right back at you: why do you think that's _not_ true?


----------



## GSHamster (Oct 22, 2009)

As with Cadfan, this matches my experiences and observations.  I have two explanations:

1. We get tired of losing all the time. In a gritty world, the DM gets to win sometimes.  I know D&D doesn't have a formal winning or losing, but in actual practice the relationship is sometimes adversarial. A DM can't obviously win by throwing dragons at a level 1 party, he has to win within the confines and expectations of the game.  A gritty game or world allows the DM to come closer to winning than in a more normal game, and that is attractive, even if we don't like to admit it.

2. There is a "knowledge" mismatch between players and DMs.  Since a DM knows everything, there is a temptation to gravitate towards complex plots, to keep the game interesting for the DM. Simplistic, straight-forward plots can be very boring for a DM.  However, I've found that the players actually see or understand much less than the DM thinks they do, so they prefer to keep things simple so that they can actually grasp the whole.

It's like the story of the blind philosophers examining the elephant. The DM is not blind, so she immediately sees the elephant, and isn't very surprised.  So maybe she spices things up by making the elephant some sort of demon tiger/elephant crossbreed.  The players are blind, and trying to figure out what the creature is by touch.  They're far more likely to guess that the animal is a regular elephant than some wacky abomination that they've never heard of.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 22, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Everyone's going to tell you that this doesn't match their experiences, because that's what people do in these sorts of threads.
> 
> This DOES match my experience.  I think there are two issues here.
> 
> ...




I've found this generally true as well. The "moral quandary" moments most DMs try to set up often come down to choosing a kick to the head or a kick to the testicles. However, that's dime-store morality; any DM can set up a can't win situation. 

The second is what gets me. I found a lot of grim, dark, low-magic GMs come real close to saying "This world is grim and dark. FOR YOU! I will continue to use the Monster Manual and create NPC wizards as normal" I don't mind settings where the deck is stacked, or even where magic is rare and NO one really has any, but settings where you are expected to fight liches with only a party of fighters (no rangers or paladins allowed), a half-sorcerer/half rogue (mandatory equal levels) and a +1 butterknife is NOT the definition of fun I like.


----------



## Rykion (Oct 22, 2009)

GSHamster said:


> 1. We get tired of losing all the time. In a gritty world, the DM gets to win sometimes.  I know D&D doesn't have a formal winning or losing, but in actual practice the relationship is sometimes adversarial. A DM can't obviously win by throwing dragons at a level 1 party, he has to win within the confines and expectations of the game.  A gritty game or world allows the DM to come closer to winning than in a more normal game, and that is attractive, even if we don't like to admit it.



Really?   I've never as a DM thought of winning or losing the game.  In my games, the challenges are there for the players to overcome.  I get frustrated with _Tom and Jerry _because that smug little mouse almost always wins, but I've never thought anything like that towards my players.  RPG's really are games that I've always equated winning as everyone having fun.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 22, 2009)

I think there are a few potential tells for players who like worlds with a generally more optimistic status quo. (I don't agree with any of that "I win button" theory; I have several players who don't care for grimdark yet still love adversity.) Within most player archetypes, you can find some of them who like "lighter" worlds for reasons that correlate to what they want out of the game.

- Explorers. Some explorers like to have the freedom to wander the world and see all its cool sights. There is more leisure for them to do so if they aren't trapped in a constant battle for survival. 

- Defenders. Some players lean toward wanting to be champions and heroes of the "save the village/princess/city/world" mold. They often are more interested if their targets are worthy of saving. Sticking their necks out for wretched hives of scum and villainy appeals less.

- Relationship builders. For those who like interacting with NPCs and building relationships, anything from romances to guilds to families to rivalries, some, again, prefer having a setting where they can find more NPCs that they like and respect to work into this.

And of course, there's the "I get that in the real world" side of things. Some women don't find roleplaying the struggle agaisnt sexism all that awesome because they have plenty of it away from the table. Same with racism; if a player has some firsthand experience with the stuff, he may not derive much emotional pleasure from a setting where it's enforced that some races are just The Other, and can expect to be treated like rubbish.

But man, players vary so much. Even with in my group there's a spectrum of preference.


----------



## weem (Oct 22, 2009)

Emirikol said:


> Why do DM's tend like Dark, gritty worlds...




My experiences as a DM, and playing with others does not reflect this - but then again, I don't play outside of my group of 12 or so people very often so I can't say I know how it typically is.

As a DM I tend to like running worlds that, on the surface, seem bland and boring - until you (players) get sucked into something bigger than you thought was possible there that makes you open your eyes and say, "whoa... what have I, and everyone else been missing out on... I had no idea this kind of thing was happening" etc.



Emirikol said:


> ...and players like colorful worlds where they can do/play anything?




I can see this, and from my view this is true some times, but not always.

Based on your description of this style of play, or game preference, I could say I fall into that stereotype... kind of...

...I like having options as far as races, classes available etc. For example, if you tell me "in my world there are humans and elves only", I will not immediately be excited.

On the other hand, the desire to always play the lost prince, or wealthy noble etc I do not get. I prefer to come from the bottom - the very bottom - and work my way up from nothing.


----------



## Akaiku (Oct 22, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I've found this generally true as well. The "moral quandary" moments most DMs try to set up often come down to choosing a kick to the head or a kick to the testicles. However, that's dime-store morality; any DM can set up a can't win situation.
> 
> The second is what gets me. I found a lot of grim, dark, low-magic GMs come real close to saying "This world is grim and dark. FOR YOU! I will continue to use the Monster Manual and create NPC wizards as normal" I don't mind settings where the deck is stacked, or even where magic is rare and NO one really has any, but settings where you are expected to fight liches with only a party of fighters (no rangers or paladins allowed), a half-sorcerer/half rogue (mandatory equal levels) and a +1 butterknife is NOT the definition of fun I like.




Ya, that is how I feel.

Plus, the whole player/dm adversarial situation is not cool to be the player, as it's against someone with infinite power and such. The rules do state when you die or lose as a player. It doesn't say how you win forever. Moreso, the gm can 'win' by simply making a player loose. Especally if its not the whole party. And sometimes even if it is, the gm is still fine if the 'show goes on'.

Players have characters, gm's have stories. How many times does grim and gritty kill gm's stories prematurely compared to pcs?


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 22, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> They too, like the grittier worlds rather than having a world that looks like the cantina scene from Star Wars.



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.


Dannager said:


> You have no way of knowing they don't either. So right back at you: why do you think that's _not_ true?



Personal experience.  The relative popularity of several gritty games.  The popularity of lower level D&D, which is demonstrably more gritty, yet which is demonstrably more popular.

In any case, the idea that there is no bias on grittiness of GMs vs. players is the null hypothesis.  I don't need to prove that it's true; I'm just curious why someone would state that it isn't.


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 22, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> To avoid the issue, the DM should probably give the players information about the setting before letting the players start to develop their character OR get player feedback and build the world based on that information.




Man, I *so* wish that would work. I've probably had 2 dozen players in my Planescape game in the past 7 years. Planescape has about 5 fairly short Player's Guide books that are actually interesting to read. You could finish a book in about 30 minutes. I provide pdfs of these books to every single new player that joins the group. Out of about 24 players, 24 of them never read a single one of those books. I even have the original copies in the game room, but nobody has ever asked to borrow one. I bet if they had neato power options for their PCs they'd read them 

I've never seen a player study up on a campaign outside of a game. One of these players once yelled at me during a game and said this:

Her: "You keep saying my PC does or doesn't know this or that about this plane. How am _I_ supposed to know what she knows if you've never told me!?!"

Me: "I gave you the player guides to read. Everything your character would know would be in those guides."

Her: "*So now you're telling me to do ******* homework!!!*"

Me: "I gave you the books so you can learn things on your own time. I told you all the basics about the campaign that I could think to tell you. If you want details, you have to read the books, learn it in-game, or ask me questions outside of the game. The books are optional, if you choose not to read them, that is perfectly fine. But you can't blame me because _you_ have a lack of knowledge about the campaign."


----------



## The Ghost (Oct 22, 2009)

GSHamster said:


> 1. We get tired of losing all the time. In a gritty world, the DM gets to win sometimes.  I know D&D doesn't have a formal winning or losing, but in actual practice the relationship is sometimes adversarial. A DM can't obviously win by throwing dragons at a level 1 party, he has to win within the confines and expectations of the game.  A gritty game or world allows the DM to come closer to winning than in a more normal game, and that is attractive, even if we don't like to admit it.




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


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 22, 2009)

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.


----------



## Pierson_Lowgal (Oct 22, 2009)

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



My experience generally matches this.  I think some of the disagree'ers, not the folks who went for the all-gritty answer, are focusing on the "win-button" or multi-racial hyperbole too much.

Players want to their PC's to be winners.  Winners tend to live in brighter worlds.  Gritty worlds produce lots of compromise and death and hard feelings.

Why GM's like gritty?  I'm less sure.  I think complex, gray-worlds where the PC's make tough choices is more interesting for a GM to write, at least the kind of GM who visits ENWorld.


----------



## weem (Oct 22, 2009)

The Ghost said:


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




Yea, this is what I tell my players pretty much as well - "My job is to make sure you guys have a blast - I love running the game so it's pretty much a given that I am having a good time already."

Of course as a DM my job is to mediate the game etc, but my players regulate themselves well as far as the rules go and they play together very well so my big focus is to make sure they have a good time - at least as good of a time as I am having


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 22, 2009)

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.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 22, 2009)

Pierson_Lowgal said:


> Players want to their PC's to be winners.  Winners tend to live in brighter worlds.  Gritty worlds produce lots of compromise and death and hard feelings.




There we have a point made!


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> 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.




qft


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 22, 2009)

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 (Oct 22, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 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 (Oct 22, 2009)

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 (Oct 22, 2009)

Hobo said:


> 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 (Oct 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> 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 (Oct 22, 2009)

Hobo said:


> 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 (Oct 22, 2009)

Dannager said:


> 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 (Oct 22, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> 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 (Oct 22, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> 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 (Oct 22, 2009)

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


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 22, 2009)

Dannager said:


> 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.




Ok, sure. Offer some evidence.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 22, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> 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?




Babylon 5. Which, if your campaign takes place in the space station that was the main setting of the series, contains if anything a wider variety of species than any one location in Star Trek.

I'd also cite Farscape as being grimmer and grittier than either, and providing a wider range of species as primary characters.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 23, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> First, dark, gritty worlds tend to have a lot of "shades of gray" choices.  And its easy for those to turn into "gotcha" moments.  "Do you save the girl, or do you uphold your oath?  Either way its gonna suck!"  Its better to be the guy inflicting the "gotcha" then the person who's been got.
> 
> Second, dark and gritty worlds tend to have restrictions on the amount of awesome available.  And guess who gets to dole it out?  Its better to be that guy.




I agree with this entirely.  It's a combination of gritty being equated to "deadly" in a lot of cases and all the power being in the DMs hands.

If you live in a world where any character you make up is going to be a peasant who barely has the ability to fight who is subjected to numerous difficult decisions that are going to end badly for you almost no matter which way you decide followed quickly by your senseless death by a random encounter...well, it can be no fun.

Like other people have said.  It doesn't NEED to turn out this way, but it often does.

On the other hand, as the DM you can get very deeply involved with this "deep, interesting" world, take pride in coming up with interesting moral quandaries for your players, and pat yourself on the back for how "immersive" your game is because you accurately simulated the death toll of wandering through the "Ever Cursed Forest".


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 23, 2009)

MarkB said:


> Babylon 5. Which, if your campaign takes place in the space station that was the main setting of the series, contains if anything a wider variety of species than any one location in Star Trek.
> 
> I'd also cite Farscape as being grimmer and grittier than either, and providing a wider range of species as primary characters.




Agree on both counts.  However, neither lends themselves to the "Strangers in a Bar/Tavern join to save the world/kingdom/damsel".


----------



## Xris Robin (Oct 23, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> Agree on both counts.  However, neither lends themselves to the "Strangers in a Bar/Tavern join to save the world/kingdom/damsel".



No, Farscape was a campaign that started "So, you're all captives on this prison ship that's actually alive..."


----------



## Afrodyte (Oct 23, 2009)

For me as a player, it's about agency. I need to be able to make meaningful choices. And by meaningful, I'm talking about different actions leading to different consequences. That doesn't mean I have to avoid situations where I must choose between 2 or more bad options, but I do want the effects to be different. If Choice A and Choice B both lead to "You die," I'm not very interested. But if Choice A and Choice B lead to "You die but you save your friends" or "You die but your fame lives forever," that's something I can sink my teeth into.

Agency, for me, isn't about the style of game so much as the choices it allows me to make.

As a GM, I'm usually in it to enable agency and empower players to make meaningful choices. I GM when I'm not sure how I think characters would affect a scenario. Besides, if I wanted a script, I'd write one.


----------



## Andor (Oct 23, 2009)

I find it interesting that a bar in a 'Wretched hive of scum and villany' is held up as an example of not gritty. Even through getting the party together in that bar involved two deaths and a limbing, as well as rampant prejudice against droids. 

What would that scene have need to qualify as 'gritty' in your book? Biowarfare?


----------



## nightwyrm (Oct 23, 2009)

Perhaps we should define what we mean by "dark and gritty". To some, it having means a deadly combat system. To others, it means having a forlorn and hopeless atmosphere or an absence of clear moral lines. Some sees it as having PCs that are no more special than NPCs while others see it as injecting real world societal problems into their game worlds.

Granted, these definitions aren't mutually exclusive, but I get the feeling that many posters are talking pass each other due to each having different definitions of "dark and gritty"

Now personally, whether I'm the DM or the player, I demand my game to be awesome (cue Michael Bay reference).


----------



## The Ghost (Oct 23, 2009)

Edit: _Removed parts quoting Majoru Oakheart._



nightwyrm said:


> To others, it means having a forlorn and hopeless atmosphere or an absence of clear moral lines. Some sees it as having PCs that are no more special than NPCs while others see it as injecting real world societal problems into their game worlds.




These fit my definition of "dark and gritty".


----------



## Vegepygmy (Oct 23, 2009)

Herobizkit said:


> It's hard to invest a lot of time and effort into a character only to have him die ignobly by, say, a lucky critical that severs the jugular. Struggling against odds is something I introduce in most of my campaigns as a DM, but as a player, it's hard to be "some guy" when you want to play a swashbucking hero or mighty spellslinger.



This is just me speaking for myself, of course, but...two weeks ago, my "swashbuckling hero" character, whom I'd been playing for around six months and put quite a bit of effort into, died quite ignobly in a random encounter as the party did some overland travel.  I certainly wasn't _hoping_ for that to happen, but the fact that it did _anyway_ is what makes D&D fun for me.

And in the last two weeks, watching the party cleric (who had developed quite a case of hero worship for my character, due to my character's casual bravery and daring exploits) bemoan the loss of his idol has been a lot of fun.  So I really can't agree that it's "hard" to do as you say.  For me, it's the most enjoyable way to play the game.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Oct 23, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> Perhaps we should define what we mean by "dark and gritty". To some, it having means a deadly combat system. To others, it means having a forlorn and hopeless atmosphere or an absence of clear moral lines. Some sees it as having PCs that are no more special than NPCs while others see it as injecting real world societal problems into their game worlds.



This.

For me, the OP is a little difficult to understand, because it suggests that "dark, and gritty" and "colorful" campaigns are  two opposite poles on a spectrum of possible campaigns.  However, IMHO, dark doesn't necessarily mean gritty, and a colorful campaign can be quite gritty.  Just as a personal example of how I view the terms, Ravenloft is dark but not particularly gritty, whereas Darksun is gritty and colorful.  And I'm quite sure more than a few people will disagree with me on this!

Back to the OP: That's not been my experience.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 23, 2009)

Emirikol said:


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



No.


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 23, 2009)

Christopher Robin said:


> No, Farscape was a campaign that started "So, you're all captives on this prison ship that's actually alive..."




Exactly.  Although rare (fortunately), I've run into players of the "look at my new shiny" mode who would have balked at the idea of being forced into being an escaped prisoner.

Perhaps I worded my examples poorly.  The point being, the most frequent scenario I've experienced resulting in the kind of disconnect highlighted by the OP was when a player(s) was hell-bent on using a race or class that thematically didn't fit the campaign.

Some people like being the outcast/foreigner/freak-of-the-week monster race and sometimes they're cool characters to play.  Sometimes they're not.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2009)

Where is this alleged trend? It seems pretty funny to me that there should be someplace in which most prospective DMs are sitting around with "dark" scenarios and no players -- while most prospective players are sitting around with no "light" campaigns in which to play.

> light bulb <  "Hey! I could start up a campaign _myself_ that's the kind of game in which I'd like to play! But - but then - then I would be a _DM_ ... and I wouldn't -- I just couldn't -- like that kind of game any more ... "


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 23, 2009)

Andor said:


> I find it interesting that a bar in a 'Wretched hive of scum and villany' is held up as an example of not gritty. Even through getting the party together in that bar involved two deaths and a limbing, as well as rampant prejudice against droids.
> 
> What would that scene have need to qualify as 'gritty' in your book? Biowarfare?




I never said it wasn't gritty (as gritty as Ep IV gets anyway...).  I was commenting on the fact that some players, eager to run new race X from splatbook Y, often assume that in the middle of a city in a predominantly human kingdom, expect to be able to walk into a tavern and mingle like the various alien races were doing in the cantina.

Can a campaign be set up to support that scenario and still be gritty?  Of course it can.  But to the OP's scenario, some players, upon hearing that the GM and other players want to run a city-based campaign in Altdorf in WHRP's Empire, decides to play a chaos-warped mutant and then balks at the idea that the populace, authorities, and Inquisitors will all try to kill him on sight...

(Yes, the example is extreme but apparently without it I'm failing to convey the point I was attempting to make.)


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 23, 2009)

In my experience, it's actually in light-hearted action-comedy games that PCs get screwed the most. Look at Paranoia, or picture something resembling Indiana Jones. On the other hand, by the end of Touch of Evil, The Maltese Falcon, and Yojimbo, the protagonist has given on ground. Classic dungeon "gotcha" scenarios invariably involved warped humor and hilariously overdone traps or monsters.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2009)

Are the terms really just substitutes for Killer DM and Monty Haul respectively?

Whatever they are -- is such a dichotomy really representative, other perhaps than in someone's really messed up local game scene somewhere?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 23, 2009)

I am another GM who's experiences do not coincide with those of the original poster.

Then again, for me 'Grim 'n' Gritty' is about the PCs being beacons of hope in a dark world - I _want_ the PCs to be heroes, and the heroes to win. I just want it to be a damned hard road for them to travel to do so.

But I also let them see that they have made the world a somewhat better place by their efforts, so if you replace 'Grim 'n' Gritty' with 'Film Noir' you come closer to what I prefer.

So, I always try to remember the 'Die Hard Effect':






The Auld Grump


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 23, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Dannager said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



It might be interesting, for someone with the time and interest, to use some of the available data sources to see if there's any validity to this claim.

For example, one could use the play-by-post forums here and on other sites, or wiki sites like Obsidian Portal. Of course you're going to need a hard and fast means of defining and identifying what exactly 'grim'n'gritty' means in a gaming context.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2009)

It's dark and edgy, shadowy and fading, a world of vampire gnome-punk grunge! Because  "retro" is _always_ in fashion -- it's just a question of which era.

But "gritty"? Erm, no. Perhaps some fake low-res "pixel dust" on the CGI. No need to bust out the AC/DC vinyl and Arduin critical hit charts, eh?


----------



## S'mon (Oct 23, 2009)

Emirikol said:


> It seems like players (myself now included) want worlds where you can play any race/any class and they all get along in some kind of colorful, happy world where we can just "push the win button."




That doesn't sound quite right. Players do like options (race/class) and for their PCs to be powerful, but not to be unchallenged ('push the win button').  Personally I don't like 'they all get along', I prefer a plausible level of racial animosity.

I think re grim & gritty, GMs can use it as an excuse to be mean to, restrict, and railroad the players.    I'm not a big fan of grim & gritty as player or GM.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 23, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> Exactly.  Although rare (fortunately), I've run into players of the "look at my new shiny" mode who would have balked at the idea of being forced into being an escaped prisoner.



Aside grump: I remember a campaign where the characters began tied up and naked in an ally. We stole clothes from a line and the DM expected up to use our measly chance of pick pocket but we lured the town burghers into an alley a hit them over the head with a 2x4 before robbing then blind.

Hump: kids these days... mutter mutter


----------



## FireLance (Oct 23, 2009)

I tend to agree that if you enjoy DMing in dark and gritty worlds (however you define the term) you will probably enjoy playing in dark and gritty worlds, and vice-versa. (I personally like neither, but in a way, that's a supporting case.)

However, DMs liking dark and gritty worlds while players do not does seem to be a common perception. What I'm guessing is that the root cause is a playstyle mismatch. However, while playstyle mismatches can go both ways, we tend to hear complaints from only one side of the mismatch.

I guess it's because players who have access to options that they don't want simply don't take those options. They don't feel the need to complain about it online. Similarly, players whose characters are defeating their opponents more easily than they expected, or who find more treasure than they anticipated, or who find themselves doing much better overall than they thought they would don't really get upset when it happens.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 23, 2009)

Dannager said:


> Is as anecdotal as everything else.



Exactly; the entire premise is anecdotal.  Hence my question---why should I accept it as true when it is not a match for my own experience anyway?

Actually, in my experience, there is no sharp divide between players and GMs.  Most GMs also really enjoy playing.  Many players also enjoy GMing, or at least thinking about doing so.  

I don't know about other GMs, but I run the kinds of games that I wish someone would run for me.  Since nobody does, I run them myself.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 23, 2009)

Andor said:


> I find it interesting that a bar in a 'Wretched hive of scum and villany' is held up as an example of not gritty. Even through getting the party together in that bar involved two deaths and a limbing, as well as rampant prejudice against droids.
> 
> What would that scene have need to qualify as 'gritty' in your book? Biowarfare?



Win.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2009)

I would not say "upset", sure, but I have been a bit disappointed because of the "giveaway" in a current campaign. That's part of a bigger issue of its being more DM-driven (as opposed to "sandbox") than I would prefer, which has also manifested in openly arbitrary rulings against effective play.

With all the special house-rule boosts and conveniences given the PCs, that game is just the opposite of "gritty"! To me, _as a player_, that just makes it less interesting.

It's not that a high-powered game can't be done well to my mind; this just happens not to fit the bill. It's not devoid of interest, either, or else I would not be playing! The other players like it more, my reservations being a minority opinion.


----------



## wolff96 (Oct 23, 2009)

Derren said:


> Although I should mention that rat catcher is a official starting career in Warhammer.




And it's a fun one.  You get a vicious little ratting dog!  I kept one alive through the entire campaign...


----------



## Wombat (Oct 23, 2009)

Emirikol said:


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




In at least a couple of the games I have run, my players were the ones who complained that the world wasn't dark and gritty *enough*.

I guess different gaming groups have different experiences that way; probably the best explanation for it.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 23, 2009)

Dannager said:


> 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.



You can't have it both ways.  If you're going to complain about my "data" being anecdotal, then you can't very well say that there's a "meaningful trend" based on your anecdotal "data."


----------



## MarkB (Oct 23, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> Agree on both counts.  However, neither lends themselves to the "Strangers in a Bar/Tavern join to save the world/kingdom/damsel".




Well, naturally not for the second part, since "save the world/kingdom/damsel" plots are out of place in a grim'n'gritty setting.

"Strangers in a Bar/Tavern get hired for a slightly-dodgy-but-temptingly-lucrative job by a morally ambiguous patron", on the other hand, fits right in.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 23, 2009)

MarkB said:


> Well, naturally not for the second part, since "save the world/kingdom/damsel" plots are out of place in a grim'n'gritty setting.
> 
> "Strangers in a Bar/Tavern get hired for a slightly-dodgy-but-temptingly-lucrative job by a morally ambiguous patron", on the other hand, fits right in.



 I dunno. You could save the world/kingdom/damsel from a horrible fate, and thereby gift them with a somewhat less horrible fate.

Some shades of grey are still darker than others.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

One thing I discovered playing GURPS was that by allowing and encouraging players to play characters to are part of the societies of the game world.. Political officials and Police and similar elements I could easily have adventures that werent greed motivated.. not sure how that exactly comes in on the grim and gritty scale.... but it makes things more heroic to me. In a fantasy setting D&D for instance you might let them be princelings and equip them starting out as 1st level characters with equipment like 5th level.. then just dont reward tons of treasure.. it fades a bit allowing different stories to be told.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 23, 2009)

In *RCFG*, if you refuse to accept an earned reward of 5,000 gp you gain 500 XP.


RC


----------



## avin (Oct 23, 2009)

OP describes my experience.

I like dark gritty games, most of my players just wanna make jokes on their characters...


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

avin said:


> OP describes my experience.
> 
> I like dark gritty games, most of my players just wanna make jokes on their characters...




Funny thing I have found was that excessive seriousness on my part has sometimes resulted in players responding to it with lack of seriousness conversely I have introduced comedy relief npc characters and the players had there characters get all prim and serious.


----------



## Belen (Oct 23, 2009)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Then again, for me 'Grim 'n' Gritty' is about the PCs being beacons of hope in a dark world - I _want_ the PCs to be heroes, and the heroes to win. I just want it to be a damned hard road for them to travel to do so.




Thank you.  This sums it up nicely.  I like a dark world and I often restrict races and even classes in my games in order to fit the world itself.

I have had players that tried to push the limits or who did not like the restrictions and we either worked it out or the player was free to find a new game.



Hobo said:


> I don't know about other GMs, but I run the kinds of games that I wish someone would run for me.  Since nobody does, I run them myself.




Exactly.

However, I have run into the entitlement crew that attempted to brow beat GMs into "if its in the rules, the it's legal."


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Oct 23, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> I've been fortunate in that for most of my gaming life, my players didn't follow the example Emerikol cites.  They too, like the grittier worlds rather than having a world that looks like the cantina scene from Star Wars.




I gotta say the cantina scene itself and everything leading up to it is damn near as gritty as it gets...    That's what gritty is like, remember, "hive of scum and villany"


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 23, 2009)

MarkB said:


> Well, naturally not for the second part, since "save the world/kingdom/damsel" plots are out of place in a grim'n'gritty setting.



Not without some kind of subversion, at least.

My most successful campaigns (that I get calls to revisit too, I might add, from "happy, colorful prefering players" have all been gritty and dark.  Sure, I'm not necessarily killing PCs right and left, but I sure am screwing them over every chance I get.

The secret is twofold I think.  1) Mature players who recognize that bad things happening to their characters does not equal bad things happening to them personally.  After all, characters going through hard times are what makes fiction of all kinds entertaining, and 2) an awareness by the GM that this has to be fun for the players.  Simply giving them the finger because by golly you're the DM and they're the players will suck for everyone.

So what do I mean by gritty, then?  My campaigns feature a lot of betrayal.  Hardly anyone can be trusted.  The PCs are often faced with choosing the lesser of two evils.  The PCs often are not themselves the lesser of two evils; I don't really use alignment, but if I did, I've had plenty of PCs that would fairly have to be called pretty darn evil.  Motivations and personalities are shady at best.  Wizards aren't kindly old helpers like Gandalf, they're power-grabbing bastards like Thoth-Amon.  Traffic with demons is par for the course.  Assassination, exploitation, slavery and human sacrifice are common.  PCs get cursed and the curses stick with them for lengthy periods of time.

:shrug:  Like I said, my experience is that players love that kind of stuff.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 23, 2009)

MarkB said:


> Well, naturally not for the second part, since "save the world/kingdom/damsel" plots are out of place in a grim'n'gritty setting.




Sounds like you need to be introduced, at a minimum, to _Mordred's Curse_ and the Black Company series.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 23, 2009)

Black Company didn't really save any damsels, kingdoms or worlds. 

They threatened a lot of the above, though.  _Caused_ the destruction of a world or two, overthrew a few kingdoms along the way, and the damsels turned out to be horrifyingly powerful and evil sorceress-queens.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 23, 2009)

I think a lot* of these campaigns spring up out of the DMs frustration with  systems that allow for power gamers to completely ignore all challenges set up by the DM.

Constantly hearing: "Oh I don't even need to roll for that," or "Oh I'm imune to that, and that- oh and that too," as well as "He takes 532 hp damage.. oh wait I forgot my Shlumpy bonus- 533- ok thats the end of my suprise round." - just puts the DM in the mindset that he wants to create a "Grim and Gritty" campaign where Shlumpy bonuses don't exist.




* a lot does not mean all.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 23, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Black Company didn't really save any damsels, kingdoms or worlds.
> 
> They threatened a lot of the above, though.  _Caused_ the destruction of a world or two, overthrew a few kingdoms along the way, and the damsels turned out to be horrifyingly powerful and evil sorceress-queens.




I don't remember a rule about damsels not being evil sorceress-queens. Plus, they do save the world, and the White Rose isn't evil.


----------



## Dannager (Oct 23, 2009)

Hobo said:


> You can't have it both ways.  If you're going to complain about my "data" being anecdotal, then you can't very well say that there's a "meaningful trend" based on your anecdotal "data."



I didn't say there was. I said that meaningful trends can still be established in the face of varying individuals, and that there _seems_ to be a trend (from the perspective of many posters) along the lines I described.

And really, "I run the sorts of games I'd like to play in," doesn't help establish anything against that trend; the fact that you're _willing_ to run a game in the first place is what places you in that special category of DM.


----------



## Dannager (Oct 23, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Ok, sure. Offer some evidence.



None exists. That's why it merely seems that way, for the moment.

Find a group willing to conduct a legitimate study (or delve into some of WotC's market research) and you might get some.

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?


----------



## haakon1 (Oct 24, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I don't know that that's true.  It doesn't match my experiences, at any rate.




Ditto.  Different folks like different fantasies.

For me (DM 90% of the time), the world is mostly benign, except in the dungeon itself -- and a lot of the adventuring is down in towns, villages, and wilderness.  But more often than not, for example, the leaders of the "good" town the PC's are trying to save actually are good, and will help the PC's.  The key for me is to make CHARACTERS out of the NPC's, and then just play them who they are, with a mix of many types of people.  Some bad apples in with the good, and some good apples in with the bad (I made Meepo a very benign kobold!), keeps folks guessing and interested, from what I see.

The way I think about it: if there's a Shire, there's something worth fighting to protect.  And if there's a Shire, when you come into the creepy town that's threatened by some secret evil and has a lot of people acting like jerks, it's noticeable that "something's not right about folks in Innsmouth".

But I do have a lot of "grey" in the background of my Greyhawk -- different evil forces plotting against each other and the good guys, and different good or neutral forces working at cross-purposes.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 24, 2009)

Dannager said:


> or another reason entirely?



Yeah, this.

A company with enough money can slap 'D&D' on the front (and back, and insides) of some books, and it will sell a _fairly_ high number of copies. Just 'cause.

So really, it is quite as likely that WotC has been publishing whatever the heck they want to publish, basically, and that, give or take, most of it has at least not sold _so_ badly, that they've been at panic stations, say.

And frankly, yes, they've done some research into how many people play D&D, and how many DM, and how big typical groups are, and how often people play, and - most importantly of all - _how many books (and what kinds) most D&D players/DMs typically buy_, oh and which already established setting(s) folks favour, and what other RPGs and games in general we play, etc.

Most or all of which has _nothing_ to do with, 'Do you prefer grimdark, candyland or lemon curry,' or whatever. It's all along the lines of, well, you're playing *D&D* already, so therefore you must like whatever it is we've been making and calling D&D, so we'll ask specific questions of you, dependent upon that premise.

Hey, maybe they _have_ also done some research into people who don't already play D&D. . . but I kinda doubt it.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 24, 2009)

In the interests of pseudo-science, one could wait a few months, then start one of two different threads:

1/ "PbP - Grim Darkness - looking for players"
2/ "PbP - Want to Play Dark Grimness - looking for Grim Master"

Do this in several places around the internet (using one thread or the other), then wait a few months and post the opposite pattern (where you previously looked for a GM, now you post looking for players, and vice-versa).

Compute differences from vanilla "lfp" / "lfGM" threads.

Voila!

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Hussar (Oct 24, 2009)

I'll take a stab at this.

Emrikol - I don't think it's a case of DM's like Grim and gritty and players don't.  I think that varies from group to group.

If I may, perhaps rephrasing your point a bit might allow things to go ahead better:

Are there any reasons why DM's might prefer grim and gritty settings more than players do?

There are a couple of reasons I can think of, some have already been stated in this thread:


Power levels.  G&G tend towards the lower end of the scale.  That is WAY easier to DM than the other end.  
G&G settings tend to limit the wahoo styles of characters.  You don't get angel PC's (by and large) in this type of setting.  It's much simpler to control.
G&G tends to go hand in hand with low fantasy - (not low magic) - or sword and sorcery fantasy if you prefer, where problems facing the party are local problems.  In high fantasy, you have huge issues that can change the face of reality (think Sauron for example).  In S&S, you have local problems.  Again, this makes preparation easier on the DM.
G&G, by its nature, means that the players have to "earn" everything they get.  Some DM's feel it's more rewarding to play where you are all jazzed about scraping together enough money for food this week.  (ok, that's hyperbole )  

That's my 2 cp to the pot.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Oct 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have known more than one GM who has mistaken "Damned if you do/damned if you don't" as being "grim 'n' gritty".




I was having serious trouble understanding this thread until I read this post. I didn't equate the two. I love grim and gritty. I hate damned if you do/don't. Both as a player and a gm.

Personally, I love grim and gritty because that is where the real awesome lies. A dark and grim world means that as a player, i can be the one that makes the world bright and happy. I can make a real difference, because no one else will. If I'm in a setting where things are mostly fine, who should I stop farming? Someone else will come along and take care of that horde of goblins eventually. If I just let them take some of my vegetables, they'll leave me alone. And I'm smart enough to plant extras so I can still make a profit. Why should I risk dying in some dark hole where no one will ever know of my fate again? 

Now if it were a dark and grim setting: the feral horde of goblins and halflings didn't just eat the vegetables, they ate my parents, sister, girlfriend, her parents (thank you!), and my cat "styx". I only made it out alive because I had to go back to the house for the purple worm blood we use as fertilizer. When I heard the attack I grabbed the family long bow off the mantle and shot a halfling between the eyes and cleaved the head of a goblin before they noticed me. Then I had to make a running retreat or else I would have been next.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Oct 24, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Everyone's going to tell you that this doesn't match their experiences, because that's what people do in these sorts of threads.
> 
> This DOES match my experience.  I think there are two issues here.
> 
> ...



I call BS!!!

Happy funtime rainbow world sucks eggs.  As a DM and a player, I find the I am invincible and all powerful both boring and trite.  I like gritty not to inflict pain and/or suffering, and as far as gotcha moments, I think that's just poor DMing.  Grey areas are part of the real world and should be part of the gaming universe, but what you are stating is it's the reason for DMing this style, which is utter crap.  

I prefer realism mixed with my fantasy, landing a 30' flying kick across an open field ala "Crouching BS, Hidden Poo-poo" is just plain ridiculous.  Do a Matrix as I shoot you with a pistol, I DARE you.  It spoils the suspension of disbelief for me.  I understand how Hollywood has enamored the newest generations of geeks with it's smoke and mirrors, but for me, I don't buy it.  It severely pissed me off to see Legolas "skateboarding" a shield in_ LotR: TT._  I thought it was cheesy and aimed at a bunch of pimply-faced whiner kids out of touch with reality.

Death is real, danger is out there, heroes don't whine.  Get hit, bleed, heal, suck it up and drive on trooper.


----------



## delericho (Oct 24, 2009)

Emirikol said:


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




Actually, I don't think those two are mutually exclusive.

As a DM, I know I generally prefer 'dark' campaign settings because they're easier to set adventures in. There's always something going on wherever you go, so there's always something for PCs to do.

By contrast, a 'light' setting has the problem that it is probably dominated by a single central conflict, which is fine... unless that players aren't really interested. Then, you either have to deal with bored players, or you have to deal with railroading them into the quest.

As for players liking worlds where they can "play anything", I think that's only natural: people like having options. I do think the vast majority of players will accept not being able to play _anything_, just as long as there are _enough_ options.

(Of course, there's sometimes that _one guy_ who just has to play an option you aren't allowing, just to be difficult/different. But that's a 'problem player' issue as much as anything. Just as there is that breed of DM who closes off lots of options without reference to his players' preferences, and often 'just because', which is likely a 'problem DM' issue.)

But it's certainly possible to do a dark and gritty setting and still have a wide range of races and classes available.


----------



## Dannager (Oct 24, 2009)

Thunderfoot said:


> I thought it was cheesy and aimed at a bunch of pimply-faced whiner kids out of touch with reality.



Yikes.


----------



## delericho (Oct 24, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> 3. Hopelessness is depressing.  This one's a legit concern IMO.  Some GMs like to take the darkness & grittiness to 11.  It's all-gloom-all-the-time.  As a GM, you may never intend to take it there, but some players have been burned and are cautious as a result.




This is a very good point, and a mistake I have made in the past in my GMing career.

Sure, it can be fun to engage in a fight against impossible odds. But gamers seem to have an almost perverse need to apply logic to every scenario, ignoring story concerns. So, Luke can't destroy the Death Star, because _of course_ the Empire put a shield on that weak spot. Bond never escapes the bad guys, because _of course_ they've learned to promptly execute him after capture. And so it goes.

And so, the PCs never get anywhere with their "fight against hopeless odds", because as soon as the PCs do anything to attract attention (which they will), the BBEG throws his elite minions after them, and crushes them like bugs. It's only logical.

My epiphany came when watching "Stargate: SG-1" (about a year ago - I didn't watch it at the time). Logically, the heroes should have no chance - it should take years to get to grips with the alien technology, the Goa-uld are so much more powerful than our heroes, and O'Neill keeps blundering into trouble. But that would make a bad show. Instead, they keep somehow getting out of trouble at the last minute, they are able to adapt alien tech unrealistically quickly, and eventually they are able to actually defeat their many enemies.

That model formed a core part of the foundation for my recent Star Wars campaign (with the "Clone Wars" series providing another important elements), and it worked very well indeed.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 24, 2009)

delericho said:


> And so, the PCs never get anywhere with their "fight against hopeless odds", because as soon as the PCs do anything to attract attention (which they will), the BBEG throws his elite minions after them, and crushes them like bugs. It's only logical.



 Sure, if the PCs are operating in a vacuum.

So IMHO the fun thing to do is make sure the PCs are not the only source of trouble for the BBEG. If the PCs are cornered in a bar, it should be possible (even easy) to turn their fight into a bar brawl, and for them to escape the BBEG's reinforcements in the confusion. If they're running through the slums, they -- or the BBEG's dumb minions -- could end up setting the slums on fire, thereby covering their trail.

PCs win notoriety as dragon-slayers? Well that's nice, but there's a plague of dragons, and a quarter of the Eastport has been turned to ash! The Dark Lord's Extra-Heavy Extra-Dark Infantry has been dispatched to stamp them out, and his Dark Propaganda Machine is already filling taverns with tales of how good they are at slaying dragons.

Heck, the PCs may even be forced to team up with a platoon of the Extra-Heavy Extra-Darks to defeat a particularly nasty drake.

If it's not clear yet, I'm a huge fan of solutions that involve HEAPING ON MORE TROUBLE, and may also involve SETTING THINGS ON FIRE.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 25, 2009)

delericho said:


> Sure, it can be fun to engage in a fight against impossible odds. But gamers seem to have an almost perverse need to apply logic to every scenario, ignoring story concerns. So, Luke can't destroy the Death Star, because _of course_ the Empire put a shield on that weak spot. Bond never escapes the bad guys, because _of course_ they've learned to promptly execute him after capture. And so it goes.



Except that neither of those examples are particularly logical.

Military hardware has a long history of overlooking weaknesses in its design, so the idea that a tiny exhaust port on a station the site of a small moon could prove to be a fatal liability doesn't strain my credulity meter at all.

And a live spy in the hand is worth far more than a dead one on the ground; a captured spy can be interrogated, ransomed, or traded, while a dead one just attracts flies. In fact, why on earth all those villains insisted on trying to kill an asset like Bond is the really illogical scenario.







			
				delericho said:
			
		

> And so, the PCs never get anywhere with their "fight against hopeless odds", because as soon as the PCs do anything to attract attention (which they will), the BBEG throws his elite minions after them, and crushes them like bugs. It's only logical.



You mean like when Cardinal Richelieu has D'Artagnan executed at the end of _The Three Musketeers_, then sends a troop of cavalry to kill Athos, Porthos, and Aramis as well?

Oh, wait, that's not how the story goes!

The idea here is that by the time the adventurers come to the attention of the BBEG, they may be a match for the elite minions. 

(There's also the idea that the adventurers may be worth more to the BBEG alive than dead, but that requires a little effort on the part of the referee to create multi-faceted villains, not just "MWAAHAHAHAHAHA!" guys in spiky armor and black cloaks.)


----------



## Hussar (Oct 25, 2009)

Wow, lots of painting with very, very broad brush strokes here.  There really exists a happy medium.  A world where, with a bit of flexibility on the part of the GM and the players, everyone gets their cake.  Or at least close enough.

Liking Crouching Tiger style action does not make one a pimply faced idiot.  It simply means that some people prefer different things.

Now, Thunderfoot appears from his post to be one of our putative Grim and Gritty DM's.  He claims that it's more "realistic".  So, there's another reason to add to the pot.  The DM's level of suspension of disbelief is less likely to be offended in a setting where things are closer to real world physics.

((Note, I am not making any judgements here.  It's not how I like my games to go, but, hey, different strokes))

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.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 25, 2009)

> Somehow, I don't think that that idea is being pushed by players.



Whereas it is (in my experience), and ought to be (in my opinion), the exception to the rule when a DM is _not_ also a player. A player might well not be a DM, though, and locally it seems that too few have been willing to DM in recent years.



> The PCs have considerably fewer assets with which to approach a scenario.



Thus the DM has considerably fewer assets with which to construct a scenario. I don't find it so interesting to build the upper few dungeon levels; it's only from about the fourth deep (in game "level" terms, if not literal layout) that I really hit my stride.

Anyhow, D&D would not be my first choice for a game focused on _not using_ most even of the original set. It may be a bit different when you're looking at a later version with many pages devoted to rules for combat, skills, and so on. In the old game, if you toss out most of the magic and monsters, there's not much left.


----------



## haakon1 (Oct 25, 2009)

I think several different dimensions are being confused here.

1) Grim v. happy SETTING.  

That is, the PC's come to a village.  Is it more likely run by a vampire, with a church that sacrificed virgins, a pub run by an tiefling assassin in black bondage leather, and villagers who are all looking to cheat and steal from the PC's?  In other words, the world is unrelentingly grim and evil, where even the "good guys" aren't nice at all to the PC's unless dominated by them, like "Army of Darkness".

Or is more likely to be run by some old, sotted retired adventurer -- think of the king in Conan The Barbarian -- or an aristocrat, with a church to Pelor, a pub run by a plump cheery halfling, and villagers who mostly go about their own business rather than intentionally trying to harm the PC's?  In other words, the world has good people to protect, like "Lord of the Rings".

To me, that was the question, and it didn't seem likely to me that DM's v. players who have clear preferences for one setting or the other.

2) Points of Light v. happy funland.

That is, is the good that exists rare outposts or pretty much is everywhere?

The latter seems unlikely to exist, more like a strawman, to me.  Must some campaigns have more space between the points of light than others, I'm sure.

3) Power level.  Low magic v. high magic.  PC's with races like human v. PC's with races lke angel or devil.

I don't see how this is related to the level of grimness.  It's been said that "grim" campaigns are low powered -- but I think of the vampire v. lycan movies, and I see a world of unrelenting grimness, where all the PC's are uberpowerful non-human races.  So, I don't see the two as related -- if anything, I'd think a grimmer world might require more power to survive at all.

4) Villany where there's a single opponent v. multi-vectored villany.

I have the latter, but I don't have what I consider a grim campaign.  Right now, my PC's have just some good local allies in the grimest town they've been in in the campaign . . . a town with four different evil factions competing to control it.

5) Campaigns where PC's are self-serving mercenaries on the make, versus campaigns where PC's serve a greater good.

This one is related to the first two, I think, but necessarily identical with them.


----------



## Tallifer (Oct 25, 2009)

Since Emerikol has gone AWOL from this thread without defining his question, I will simply state my views based on Haakon's excellent analysis:



haakon1 said:


> I think several different dimensions are being confused here.
> 1) Grim v. happy SETTING.




Whether I play or run, I do prefer Middle Earth, where there are good people whom the adventurers defend and champion. Or who occasionally assist the quest.



haakon1 said:


> 2) Points of Light v. happy funland.




I suppose Oz or golden age Narnia would be an example of "happy funland." And again it would be nice. Hard to generate enough action that way. Both Middle Earth and Arthur's Britain were definitely dangerous worlds with scattered points of light.



haakon1 said:


> 3) Power level. Low magic v. high magic. PC's with races like human v. PC's with races lke angel or devil.
> 
> I don't see how this is related to the level of grimness. It's been said that "grim" campaigns are low powered -- but I think of the vampire v. lycan movies, and I see a world of unrelenting grimness, where all the PC's are uberpowerful non-human races. So, I don't see the two as related -- if anything, I'd think a grimmer world might require more power to survive at all.




I think the key word was "gritty" in the phrase "grim and gritty." Being a superhero is not very gritty, meaning you will not get much sand between your teeth or have to sleep in the alley.



haakon1 said:


> 4) Villany where there's a single opponent v. multi-vectored villany.




<shrugs>



haakon1 said:


> 5) Campaigns where PC's are self-serving mercenaries on the make, versus campaigns where PC's serve a greater good.
> 
> This one is related to the first two, I think, but necessarily identical with them.




This point demonstrates that "grim and gritty" can work for the players as well as against them. I have seen campaigns quickly ruined by chaotic evil players... characters?


----------



## nightwyrm (Oct 25, 2009)

I don't think it's necessary that players don't want dark and gritty and loves happy funland. What players want is for their actions to make a difference to the world. What they want is for their characters to _matter_. I don't think any PC would object to _starting_ a game in grimdark deathland ruled by vampire overlords as long as they get the chance to kill the overlords/liberate the people/become vampire overlords themselves. What PCs want to do is to be able to eventually say "I changed the world", no matter whether they changed it for the better or the worse. That is something that most of us in the real world could never say and what I think is one of the greatest attraction of playing RPG. 

What happens too often in "dark" or "realistic" settings is that it would end up having the PCs ultimately not mattering in the world. PCs defeat evil overlord A and make way for overlord B. They defeat overlord B only to find out they were all pawns in overlord C's plan. They save the princess from overlord C only to have her die of the plague unleashed by overlord D. What happens is that the PCs end up becoming just another cog in the machine instead of being masters of their own story. At worse, the game turns into a shoot the shaggy dog story. Now, I'm not saying that all "dark and gritty" settings always ends up this way. I'm just pointing out that it's a very easy trap to fall into when everything is GRIMDARK.

On the other hand, the characteristics of a "dark and gritty" world can be very attractive for a DM. The ever present darkness is a great source for conflict and plot. It's much easier for the DM to threaten the PCs in such a world. Where the PCs are limited in their ability to change the world, the DM has a much easier time generating formidable antagonists. 

When the DM has set up a "dark and gritty" world that he likes, he often wants to keep it that way and is reluctant to have it changed by the PCs. A characteristic of D&G is that it stays D&G, which means that there is a certain static-ness in the setting, thus implying a limit to the PCs' ability to changed the world. 

DMs may want a world where status-quo is king since it's easier to make adventures in such a world, while the PCs wants to advance and increase their influence in the world.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 25, 2009)

Heh - I think that I have a fairly Grim 'n' Gritty setting, and I _love_ it when the PCs mess with it.  Hell, that is the whole point of the thing! I _want_ them to destroy my cleverly crafted (TM) plot.

My 1600s game has a bad guy behind what, in our world, was the Thirty Years War. Someone is manipulating the nations into a catastrophic war that will nearly destroy both sides. And the PCs have a chance to stop him/her/it [pick one]. They can trim ten years off of the war, and salvage much from its destruction.

The players aren't alone, there are folks on _both_ sides of the war who are trying to tame things back down. Some of them are even cooperating across the divide.

In the meantime plague, war, fire, and rapine sweep across the land. Mercenaries, loyal only to themselves, turn brigand when work is scarce, others take entire towns hostage, or just take over as de facto rulers.

Then add in witchcraft trials, and even some genuine evil witches - who are generally _not_ the ones being stoned to death in the town square.

And there are people who are caught up in eye for an eye vengeance, sowing the seeds of atrocity.

Add to this the fact that the disruption of the Faith is allowing magical things back into the world and you begin to see what the villain is up to, and why he is doing what he does.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 25, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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.




I certainly see that...   first thing out of the box I do make raise dead more interesting... it involves a mystic quest by those most motivated and who knew the character the best in to the "grey realm" to attempt to recover the spirit before they pass too far from the world. On the way they might find themselves encountering nightmare like "things" to distract or way lay them ... 

For me this is a "Yes but" ... I resist the temptation to say no I don't want your characters death to feel cheap and similar things.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Oct 25, 2009)

First off, I want to apologize - (yeah you heard right).  I get passionate when an uber-fantasy fan calls grim and gritty a power trip, it set me off and so - I'm sorry.

I do have a couple of comments to sharpen my point without being as confrontational...

Auld Grump has the right of it.  I like having a solid starting point so that when the players go far afield it makes me smile.  I don't like when the rules go far afield and the players take it farther, it makes my head hurt....

It's more of a sense of foundation to build off of than power control.  G&G is a personal thing, I get that, Hussar, thanks for not blasting me for my ill timed comment though you could have rightfully done so.  But I think you saw through what I said to what I was "trying" to say.  

It IS possible to have an epic campaign without losing that "realistic" feel, it takes work, a lot of work, but that becomes a labor of love.  My last campaign was co-DM'd with a more free form DM who interjected a bit of fantastic magic without first consulting me.  I let it stand, obviously you can't take back what was given without making people go, huh?  But we had a long civilized discussion of why it could be dangerous - "power corrupts and absolute power...." - even in the hands of NPCs.

I guess my point is I like to see players use something other than uber powers to overcome obstacles.  I guess it comes from having to do it when I was a young player and I just expect it to be a part of the hobby for the ages, and whether rightly or wrongly (IMO) I see newer players being less imaginative and more imitative.  I did it too, but only in doses, I liked to emulate the heroes I read about, but it was finite, I see a trend to recreate whatever is popular this week and completely import it into home-games.  Yes, I'm getting old, yes I'm becoming that grognard I reared and respected when I was but a lad in the 70s; I have kids that play that will soon enough be having their own kids (but not too soon I hope) that will also play, I guess for me it is a little personal when I see the future of gaming move towards technology versus imagination and that "my" game is becoming "their" game.  

I realize I've gone far afield and hijacked this thread a bit, sorry for that, but I think it is relevant in that approach is, by and large, a learned thing in DMing.  I learned gritty, I live gritty, I teach gritty, seeing something else just makes me scratch my head and go, why?


----------



## JohnSnow (Oct 25, 2009)

Lots of good points here. Personally, I'm not sure it's a strict dichotomy of "DM's like dark and gritty settings and players don't." I think there's a couple of different issues at play here.

Firstly, I have noticed some preference for dark settings in gamers of a certain type, more of whom tend to be DMs. Let's bluntly state that only more committed/serious gamers are likely to take up the reins of the DM. More casual gamers just don't DM. That said, more serious gamers are more likely to favor a dark and gritty setting. Partially, that's a desire for variety and involvement. Hack and slash dungeon crawl settings are perfectly fine for casual gamers - for the more "involved" players, they get real old, real fast.

Secondarily, I think DMs tend to favor worlds that have more adversaries. As a DM, it's much easier to move from one adventure to the next if you don't constantly have to either a) randomly move from one adventure to the next, or b) invent reasons why the foes are connected (or fall back on the old stereotype of the BBEG and his legions of goblins, undead, and yadda, yadda, yadda). Hence, "more evil" (i.e. darker) worlds are easier to create adventures for, because you have more adversaries to pick from for any given adventure.

Finally, there's the issue of "world consistency" versus "player options." Now, while these aren't _necessarily_ in conflict, they tend to be. Players, naturally, like to have plenty of options for their characters - often gravitating to an unusual race so that they don't have to play "the same character" over and over again. DM's, by contrast, tend to like worlds where each race has a set "place" and role. Partially, that's the influence of the fiction on which we're basing stories. Most fantasy novels feature between 1 and 4 protagonist "races." Fitting in more than that can start to feel very cluttered from a DM's point of view. And it presents a problem.

As a DM, you have a couple options. First, you can embrace the "Mos Eisley Cantina" feel of D&D and let your players play any race imaginable. But the problem with this approach is that it tends to feel very "unrealistic" very quickly. Mos Eisley has dozens of sentient races because it's a waypoint for hundreds (thousands?) of worlds. A D&D world (other than, say, Sigil) is, almost by definition, a SINGLE world. It's hard to imagine all those races in a single world "getting along." Tolkien made it work (mostly) for 4 races (Men, Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits). But each added race raises the complexity level (and hence creative challenge) required to make the world "work" in a consistent way. For obvious reasons, halfbreeds and related races don't increase the complexity level much.

Multiple races tend to feel more "logical" in higher fantasy settings (like Eberron, for example). Why that is, I don't exactly know. Maybe it's the influence of, on the one hand, the Star Wars cantina, and on the other, classic Sword & Sorcery novels, where there's only usually ONE protagonist race - men. But for me, multiple races fit better in a freewheeling high fantasy mix. Lower, more "down-to-earth" settings seem to call for fewer races.

I hesitate to say this, but I'm tempted to think of Athas (Dark Sun) as down-to-earth - which makes it an exception to the general rule.

Personally, my current conundrum is making room for Dragonborn (which I like the idea of being available) into my setting. For the record, I have the same problem with all the different kinds of "magic" in D&D. But that's me.

Just a few thoughts. Cool discussion thread.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Oct 25, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> I think several different dimensions are being confused here.
> 
> 1) Grim v. happy SETTING.
> 
> ...



This is a nice analysis. I think there's one additional aspect that often colors how gamers talk past each other when discussing these things:

6) Lethal vs non-lethal.

Many people roughly equate "lethal" with "gritty".  This, of course, is loosely tied to power level, and addresses questions like:  Is Death effectively permanent, or is it relatively easy to overcome with magic, "hero points", or some other mechanic?  Are conditions like ability damage, blindness, insanity, etc. significant drawbacks, or just tactical inconveniences?


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 25, 2009)

Thunderfoot said:


> I guess my point is I like to see players use something other than uber powers to overcome obstacles.  I guess it comes from having to do it when I was a young player and I just expect it to be a part of the hobby for the ages, and whether rightly or wrongly (IMO) I see newer players being less imaginative and more imitative.




My son plays (11 year old) and my daughter at 4 likes to play (well sort of). I see their imagination far more vivid.. than mine even now...  I see my son describing and interpreting the 4th editions powers in various different ways and using the environment of the battlefield and keying off what I say...in combination with this... and it makes me go "its better than ever before". One of my sons friends who hadn't played till just yesterday commented after my son made a particularly vivid description of a green flame blade attack... "wow, I am beginning to really see this"


----------



## Derren (Oct 25, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> My son plays (11 year old) and my daughter at 4 likes to play (well sort of). I see their imagination far more vivid.. than mine even now...  I see my son describing and interpreting the 4th editions powers in various different ways and using the environment of the battlefield and keying off what I say...in combination with this... and it makes me go "its better than ever before".




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


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 25, 2009)

> Hack and slash dungeon crawl settings are perfectly fine for casual gamers - for the more "involved" players, they get real old, real fast.



Simple "hack and slash"? Yes, *whether in "dungeons" or not*. Proper underworlds with plenty of tricks, traps, puzzles, mysteries, intrigue, comic relief, wonders, portents, treasures, etc., _and_ opportunities for fights? Not so much. In a milieu that also offers wilderness expeditions and urban excursions; adventures nautical, aerial and interplanar; politics by diplomacy as well as by other means; romance, friendship, family; exploration, discovery, and development; no end of new frontiers ...

"Grim and gritty" is hardly necessary to variety and involvement. Indeed, a devotion to such a tone and theme seems quite likely to _limit_ the dynamic range by excluding whatever seems incompatible.


----------



## JohnSnow (Oct 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Simple "hack and slash"? Yes, *whether in "dungeons" or not*. Proper underworlds with plenty of tricks, traps, puzzles, mysteries, intrigue, comic relief, wonders, portents, treasures, etc., _and_ opportunities for fights? Not so much. In a milieu that also offers wilderness expeditions and urban excursions; adventures nautical, aerial and interplanar; politics by diplomacy as well as by other means; romance, friendship, family; exploration, discovery, and development; no end of new frontiers ...
> 
> "Grim and gritty" is hardly necessary to variety and involvement. Indeed, a devotion to such a tone and theme seems quite likely to _limit_ the dynamic range by excluding whatever seems incompatible.




Agreed. Which is why I deferred on the originally presented dichotomy, and instead characterized the differential in 3 ways:

1) Involved setting vs. Serial Adventure
2) Darker worlds (more adversaries) vs. Brighter (more settled) ones
3) Low Fantasy (with fewer races) vs. High Fantasy (with more races)

I've seen the phrase "Dark & Gritty" used to represent the left side of each of those 3 dichotomies. Notice that I specifically eliminated "Grim and gritty" because I feel that has a very strong connotation of utter hopelessness. It carries an almost Lovecraftian feeling of impending doom. And I don't know many DM's (or players) who enjoy THAT. Certainly, not in their D&D.

"Dark & Gritty" can describe, for example, the world of _A Song of Ice and Fire._ And while I suppose some might call that setting "grim" as well, I wouldn't. One doesn't have the sense that the world is well and truly "doomed." It's just in deep doodoo - that, hopefully, the protagonists can save it from. I say "protagonists" because the main characters in that series aren't (all) particularly "heroic." Which is part of why it's still a "dark" setting.

Just clarifying.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 25, 2009)

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


----------



## Nifft (Oct 25, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> 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 (Oct 25, 2009)

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 (Oct 26, 2009)

Emirikol said:


> 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 (Oct 26, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 26, 2009)

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 (Oct 26, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> <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 (Oct 26, 2009)

howandwhy99 said:


> 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 (Oct 26, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> 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 (Oct 26, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 26, 2009)

Dannager said:


> 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:


----------



## Mircoles (Oct 26, 2009)

Darkness hides the monsters.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 26, 2009)

Mircoles said:


> Darkness hides the monsters.



 I cast Magic Missile at the darkness.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 26, 2009)

Nifft said:


> I cast Magic Missile at the darkness.



Careful, there could be a gazeebo in there.


----------



## Betote (Oct 26, 2009)

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 (Oct 27, 2009)

Derren said:


> 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 (Oct 27, 2009)

Betote said:


> 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 (Oct 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Oct 27, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> 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 (Oct 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 27, 2009)

Betote said:


> 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.


----------



## Betote (Oct 27, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> 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.




I wasn't talking specifically about character advancement, but the players' sense of wonder.

In G&G, if you keep it low, you don't need to best yourself when picturing the opposition. Alatriste doesn't face more and more dangerous challenges during his career.

On the other hand. take Marvel or DC, for example. There's little to none character advancement in terms of power, but once you've seen Superman or Thor fighting against whole alien invasions, godlings or Death itself, if on the next issue you see them catching a petty thief, your reaction would be "meh". You want their adventures bigger, badder and louder, whether or not the characters themselves advance in power.


----------



## woodscanner (Oct 27, 2009)

(Long term lurker first time poster). 
I've found this thread very intersting as my experience tallies with the OP. 
There have been some very insightful replies, especially when trying to define the problem more accurately. 
As a GM I certainly went through a phase ?6-8 years ago when I was running the Iron Kingdoms. I love this setting and ran it as my first 3rd ed campaign. I don't think it was a success (for a variety of reasons). 
I agree that dark'n'gritty (by which I mean limited player options, limited power levels) is great from a GM point of view for telling a story. You can plan to take the players through the campaign from humble beginnings to great power. They will really appreciate the magic items they get because they started with so little. They will be using their wits more than dismissing problems with high level powers etc, etc. 
However, I think the players have to trust you. Otherwise they can feel they have little control over events, that you are on a power trip etc, etc. 
Coming from a long running high powered 1st ed campaign and starting 3rd ed the players were excited by all the new options. They didn't want to be told "no hobbits, no elves, no drow. Magic works differently. No raise dead. And we're switching to point buy"
I screwed up. To paraphrase the op, I as GM loved dark'n'gritty, the players didn't. I learnt al lot about DM pitfalls from that campaign, and this thread has helped me spot a couple more - thanks.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 27, 2009)

I think it's important not to *mis*-identify GMing problems, and in a sense that's what this thread has been about in my opinion.  Players want options.  They want to feel in control of their characters.  They want to feel like they're significant.  Poor GMs restrict too many options, restrict player control, drive the game in the direction _they_ want it to, and in general lord it over their players, making the game less fun for the players.

_Maybe_ there's a correllation between this type of poor GMing and grittier, darker settings, although I'm not convinced of it.  But if so, the problem isn't a gritty, darker game, the problem is poor GMing.

I certainly "specialize" in darker, grittier, games, and yet my player in several groups over the years have seemed to really enjoy them.  Why?  Because 1) I make sure they have lots of options to build diverse and interesting characters, 2) I make sure that the PCs are at the center of the game, if not necessarily the center of the world, 3) I don't try to deliberately punish characters for my own amusement, and 4) I allow the PCs to take control of the game, and make it their own.

But those are good GMing principles no matter the power level, and I've seen plenty of high magic games that I disliked because of the GM hoarding power and control over the players.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 27, 2009)

woodscanner said:


> I agree that dark'n'gritty (*by which I mean limited player options, limited power levels*) is great from a GM point of view for telling a story. (Emphasis added - *TS*)



I know part of my own cognitive dissonance with respect to this thread is that this is nothing like my understanding of what "grim'n'gritty" or "dark'n'gritty" means in the context of roleplaying games.

When I think of grim'n'gritty, it has nothing to do with the relative power level of the characters _vis-à-vis_ the setting. Characters with great skill and martial prowess and access to powerful magic can easily coexist with a dark, dangerous setting - one does not in any way preclude the other.

Where I agree with the original poster is that characters in dark, dangerous settings don't get to "push the win button," I disagree with the notion that that's what most players are looking for.


----------



## Andor (Oct 27, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> I know part of my own cognitive dissonance with respect to this thread is that this is nothing like my understanding of what "grim'n'gritty" or "dark'n'gritty" means in the context of roleplaying games.
> 
> When I think of grim'n'gritty, it has nothing to do with the relative power level of the characters _vis-à-vis_ the setting. Characters with great skill and martial prowess and access to powerful magic can easily coexist with a dark, dangerous setting - one does not in any way preclude the other.
> 
> Where I agree with the original poster is that characters in dark, dangerous settings don't get to "push the win button," I disagree with the notion that that's what most players are looking for.




The problem with a high powered yet darkly dangerous world is it quickly leads some types (like me) to wonder how the hell normal people survive in a world where roving packs of beholders jump you as you leave the shower.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 27, 2009)

Andor said:


> The problem with a high powered yet darkly dangerous world is it quickly leads some types (like me) to wonder how the hell normal people survive in a world where roving packs of beholders jump you as you leave the shower.



 That would ruin my sense of disbelief, because Beholders don't have tentacles. Clearly, when leaving the shower, you'd be jumped by a pack of grell.

"_Grim & Deeply Uncomfortable_", -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 27, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Clearly, when leaving the shower, you'd be jumped by a pack of grell.





Finally, a post in this thread that matches *my* experience!


----------



## Scribble (Oct 27, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Finally, a post in this thread that matches *my* experience!





You guys need to call upon the power of the scrubbing bubbles domain.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 27, 2009)

Andor said:


> The problem with a high powered yet darkly dangerous world is it quickly leads some types (like me) to wonder how the hell normal people survive in a world where roving packs of beholders jump you as you leave the shower.



Heroes, of course.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 27, 2009)

Betote said:


> I wasn't talking specifically about character advancement, but the players' sense of wonder.
> 
> In G&G, if you keep it low, you don't need to best yourself when picturing the opposition. Alatriste doesn't face more and more dangerous challenges during his career.
> 
> On the other hand. take Marvel or DC, for example. There's little to none character advancement in terms of power, but once you've seen Superman or Thor fighting against whole alien invasions, godlings or Death itself, if on the next issue you see them catching a petty thief, your reaction would be "meh". You want their adventures bigger, badder and louder, whether or not the characters themselves advance in power.




Superman went from leaping buildings in a single bound to flying faster than the speed of light.... they sometimes pretend the advancement doesnt occur but DC are prime offenders. 

Spidermans moral compass means he holds back big time when fighting street thugs... sort of a way to sneak in a very similar power rewind that DC has to do more explicitly. Supermans experience with kryptonite color x has left his bodies ability to absorb certain bandwidths supressed so he can no longer do that xtra add on power which was only necessary for the last plot that was too over done anyway ;-). Doctor Strange gets periodic power rewinds too.. so it isnt just DC.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 28, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> No, I think the premise of the question is flawed, so I'm dismissing the question. There's a difference.Because what you wrote applies so well to your own posts.




Buh?  Then why are you quoting me?

The idea was posted that a player's children really get a kick out of narrating their abilities.

Derren raised the point that it was still only using their abilities, not actually challenging the player.

I wondered what the problem was.

Perhaps you are reading something that I'm not.  I'm a bit lost now what your issue is.  What question is flawed?  

The only question I asked was, "Is there a problem with only enjoying your character's in game abilities".  I asked why some people think it is superior to challenge the player and not the character.

Where is the flaw in these questions?


----------



## Thunderfoot (Oct 28, 2009)

Hassar - I don't think The Shaman read through the posts.  He wasn't the original poster who challenged your child's imaginative use of skills, but he did hop on the band-wagon.

In response, I think it's awesome he can do that - my kids (now 20 and 16 (as of today)) have been playing since they were old enough to chew on the dice.   

I guess I just miss the infancy of the game when player thoughts equaled character action, and a really good player could be brilliant and act like a moron, and a half-wit player (though rare - but did exist) could, after some time, really start putting the gray matter to work in order to bring themselves up above their normal operational mode.  

Is it less imaginative that your son can incorporate the skills into his narrative, by no means, in some ways, it might be more so.  However, it has been my experience (YMMV) that the reverse is the norm, where players have gotten so used to skill checks that they forget what that actions entail. 

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.)  

BTW - My example was using 3.x skills, successes over failures is worse IMO as the rule just plays wonky...


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Oct 28, 2009)

Andor said:


> The problem with a high powered yet darkly dangerous world is it quickly leads some types (like me) to wonder how the hell normal people survive in a world where roving packs of beholders jump you as you leave the shower.



Who needs suspension of disbelief when you have a *Bathrobe of the Archmagi* and a *Showercap of Teleportation*?


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 28, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Buh?  Then why are you quoting me?
> 
> The idea was posted that a player's children really get a kick out of narrating their abilities.
> 
> ...




The chess game of character movement (Chess a game my son has played since he was a little over 3) and resource game of managing dailies and encounters and healing surges  seems to be an element of challenging a player and the original post I was responding to was asserting that "powers" were somehow repressing imagination and inducing imitative fantasy.. I was pointing out that the powers seemed to inspire imagination in my experience.

We play pretty liberal (exploiting page 42 of the dmg a lot) and both I and my son when he DM's (hes learning 4e but has played freeform roleplaying since dice chewing age too...we just didnt bother with dice then) give bonus's when the situation arises based on how well the description given merges with the described scene whether the thing used is a basic attack a power or a skill use or whatever. The Green Flame Blade attack by the way was described as a heated blood splattering from one enemies severed head towards the adjacent one.. and he described the Kobolds response to it vividly as well facial expressions etc.

I feel the Shaman was saying that it is hard to ever just challenge one...  both player ability and character ability are so used in tandom that the assertion that something being "just" the players ability or just the characters is not very reasonable he wasnt even agreeing with Derren *of the intentionally offensive version bashing sig* - who I generally have on ignore.  For instance my son arranged his character to be in the position to use that ability by choices and using other abilities of the character and so on and so forth and similar things... my son considered the ranger of the party taking too much damage a personal failure or was it a failure of his character? Actually the other player had the dice rolling so badly against him that I dont know what could have been done to prevent that...


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 28, 2009)

I can't speak for Derren as to his/her particular issues. I can guess that the relevance to this thread would be that players tend to have access to greater "character abilities" in higher-level games (which some people oppose to "dark, gritty worlds").

As a general principle, that it is better to challenge a player's skill than to have outcomes determined independently of that is pretty much a truism in the world of games! Managing chance can be part of that skill, of course.

It's pretty widely agreed in theory that an RPG player's will should (perhaps with rare exceptions such as a mesmerizing spell) not be infringed upon in choosing a character's actions. However, it's a practical and an aesthetic question just where the line between character _ability_ and player _volition_ lies. For instance, what should be made of "mental abilities" such as intelligence, wisdom and charisma scores?

In all my experience prior to 3e -- which mostly involved "character skill system" games, starting with _Traveller_ and _RuneQuest_ -- the emphasis was on challenging the players rather than "challenging the characters" (which is rather a euphemism, really). What I read in the 3e books was still consistent with that tradition, but apparently players in the 2e era had already begun to overturn it.

D&D of course had gone into the 1st Advanced and "BECMI" editions without any systematic treatment of such matters. Dungeons quite often tested the players' cunning, and included clues and even jokes that depended on real-world knowledge. So, it's a pretty radical change when D&Ders start to hold forth that dice rolls ought to replace such traditional features. It would not be quite as startling in the context of some other games.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 28, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> I feel the Shaman was saying that it is hard to ever just challenge one...  both player ability and character ability are so used in tandom that the assertion that something being "just" the players ability or just the characters is not very reasonable . . .



That was my point exactly.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 28, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> It's pretty widely agreed in theory that an RPG player's will should (perhaps with rare exceptions such as a mesmerizing spell) not be infringed upon in choosing a character's actions. However, it's a practical and an aesthetic question just where the line between character _ability_ and player _volition_ lies. For instance, what should be made of "mental abilities" such as intelligence, wisdom and charisma scores?



A topic worthy of its own thread.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 28, 2009)

the_orc_within said:


> Who needs suspension of disbelief when you have a *Bathrobe of the Archmagi* and a *Showercap of Teleportation*?



Don't forget the _soap on a rope of protection versus evil +4_.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 28, 2009)

*Character ability v. player volition: INT, WIS, CHA*

Mis-post. Nothing to see here. Move along, citizens.


----------



## Betote (Oct 28, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Spidermans moral compass means he holds back big time when fighting street thugs... sort of a way to sneak in a very similar power rewind that DC has to do more explicitly. Supermans experience with kryptonite color x has left his bodies ability to absorb certain bandwidths supressed so he can no longer do that xtra add on power which was only necessary for the last plot that was too over done anyway ;-). Doctor Strange gets periodic power rewinds too.. so it isnt just DC.




Well, I didn't want to get specific because comic books (specially mainstream, Marvel/DC ones) experience a lot of creative changes. What you're describing is, in fact, changes in the tone of the comic itself, not a variety of stories within the same genre.

My point was that, in grim & gritty, you try to appeal to the players' sense of danger, whereas in high fantasy/colorful, you're targeting the players' sense of wonder.


----------



## Snoweel (Oct 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> _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 (Oct 28, 2009)

Thunderfoot said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> 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.


			
				SnowEel said:
			
		

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



No it doesn't.


			
				SnowEel said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				SnowEel said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> 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.



			
				hobo said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 28, 2009)

Thunderfoot said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2009)

Thunderfoot said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2009)

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 (Oct 28, 2009)

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 (Oct 28, 2009)

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 (Oct 28, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> 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.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 28, 2009)

Mallus said:


> 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).



 We used to have to make our own maps, too. (As players, not in character.) That totally sucked.



Mallus said:


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



 Oh, I still do that.

"You guys need a short rest? Fine. I magic missile the big statue until it's rubble. The two other statues, too."

Cheers, -- N


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 28, 2009)

I am certain that I'm not the first person to state it on this thread, but I like dark, gritty, settings as both a GM _and_ as a player.


----------



## Andor (Oct 28, 2009)

Hussar said:


> The only question I asked was, "Is there a problem with only enjoying your character's in game abilities".  I asked why some people think it is superior to challenge the player and not the character.




The whole point of the game is to challange the player. Usually he is challanged through the _medium_ of his character, but not everything the character finds challenging is challenging or even interesting to the player.

A character with an Int of 3 might find tying his shoes to be a great challange, but few would care to RP through it. Certainly not more than once. 

Similarly if the PCs are climbing a 5 mile spiral staircase winding it's way up and around a volcano it is an extremely arduous physical and probably mental challenge to the character, but aside from some flavor text all the player wants to know is of he is fatigued at the top and can he roll for initiative yet?

Conversely a magical puzzle might be the simplest of childs play for your Int 20 wizard who has been steeped in magical lore since he was 3, but for the player it's more fun to actually be presented with a puzzle than to hear "You come up to the door. There is a puzzle. Bhab solves it and you move on."


----------



## Nifft (Oct 28, 2009)

Andor said:


> The whole point of the game is to challange the player. Usually he is challanged through the _medium_ of his character, but not everything the character finds challenging is challenging or even interesting to the player.



 Ah, now this is interesting, and may explain some of the disconnect.

See, IMHO the whole point of the game is to *entertain* the group (players and DM alike). The game's challenges are there to entertain -- but like many things, if you take them beyond a certain point, they just become work.

That point, between fun challenge and work, is going to vary from person to person.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 28, 2009)

Andor said:


> The whole point of the game is to challange the player. Usually he is challanged through the _medium_ of his character, but not everything the character finds challenging is challenging or even interesting to the player.



It's not the "whole point", some of it is involve, illuminate, to the present the player with something to explore,  entertain and similar "not necessarily" challenges.  (remember the different player types in the DMG I would list them If I had the book handy ... well at least in the 4e DMG) not everyone is at the table with identical motivations... only catering to one limits you.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 28, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Ah, now this is interesting, and may explain some of the disconnect.
> 
> See, IMHO the whole point of the game is to *entertain* the group (players and DM alike). The game's challenges are there to entertain -- but like many things, if you take them beyond a certain point, they just become work.
> 
> ...




Heh you beat me to the punch.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 28, 2009)

Right, and I don't find puzzles entertaining.  

Maybe that's my background coming at RPGs as a fan of fantasy fiction.  How many times do fictional characters you read about stop in the middle of a "dungeon" and solve "puzzles?"  Unless you only read D&D fiction (and even then), probably not a whole heck of a lot.  

So to me, a lot of the paradigm of playing D&D, especially the dungeoncrawling aspect of it, is jarringly gamist, and therefore not fun.  Same thing with having superpowers useable at will.

One thing that I don't think's been mentioned yet is that so-called "grim and gritty" settings is really a relative descriptor.  What is "grim and gritty" for D&D is not in fiction, and fiction that played out like D&D would seem bizarre.

In case we needed another reason pointed out why both players and GMs might prefer that style.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Same thing with having superpowers useable at will.



Heh and for me... being a 34 year old apprentice who instantly forgets even the simplist things that he knows so you have to throw darts or pick up a crossbow is jarring... to each there own.


----------



## Andor (Oct 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Right, and I don't find puzzles entertaining.
> 
> Maybe that's my background coming at RPGs as a fan of fantasy fiction.  How many times do fictional characters you read about stop in the middle of a "dungeon" and solve "puzzles?"  Unless you only read D&D fiction (and even then), probably not a whole heck of a lot.




Off the top of my head... The riddle game with Gollum, The doorway into moria. Sinbad dealing with the genie. Ali Baba dicovering the key to the magic cave. The Sphinx. 

You must read diffferent fiction than I read.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 28, 2009)

Andor said:


> Off the top of my head... The riddle game with Gollum, The doorway into moria. Sinbad dealing with the genie. Ali Baba dicovering the key to the magic cave. The Sphinx.
> 
> You must read diffferent fiction than I read.



I'm afraid I'm out of experience to award, so I'll simply say, excellent reply.


----------



## Snoweel (Oct 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> _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




That's exactly what it means.

If there's a correlation (and I believe we agree that whether or not there is a correlation is a matter of opinion) then the two by necessity go hand in hand.



> and misidentifying the problem as the tone of the game rather than poor DMing remains just as much a problem.




I would argue that attempting to establish the two as unrelated is the real problem here.



> Correllation, contrary to what you imply, does not mean causality.




I am in no way implying that the one is the cause of the other, and your stating so appears to be a convenient strawman.



> Correllation could exist for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with causality.




Wrong.

If there is a correlation then there is an underlying cause somewhere.



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




Fair enough. Even though I do believe there is an obvious correlation I am also speaking hypothetically.




Umbran said:


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




See above.

I never used the term 'causation'. What I did say, however, is that if there is a correlation then there is a problem.

That is, if there is a correlation between grim-and-dark play and poor GMing then grim-and-dark play is problematic.



> 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.




Although I am a professional analyst I still thank you for your parable about correlation. You're like some kind of modern day geek Messiah.

For the record, I smoke and do not have lung cancer. Neither do any of my friends who smoke (as far as I know).

In my anecdotal experience then there is no correlation between smoking and lung cancer is there?

However it appears that close to 100% of us take far too many breaks, according to our non-smoking colleagues.

There is no proof of causality here but it is clear that the correlation means that smoking is clearly problematic.

And interestingly, I may be the only smoker I know who believes that smoking does impact on work performance. In keeping with the parable theme, all the others seem to firmly believe that "their players love playing in their dark-and-gritty campaign".


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 28, 2009)

Yeah, well if you haven't established what the cause is, merely pointing out the correlation, you haven't really accomplished much, have you?  And if you overcompensate and falsely blame the correlated variable, then if you've accomplished something, it's the _wrong_ thing.

Either way, I don't know where you're trying to go with this.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 28, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> I'm afraid I'm out of experience to award, so I'll simply say, excellent reply.




Covered.

(Also comes up in ERB and REH)


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 28, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Covered.



Thanks!


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 28, 2009)

White Wolf's *Exalted* is an interesting case: epically dark and gritty world, superheroic player-characters. As is standard with WW, aspiring-novelist STing (by the "Story Teller") -- and playing by players -- seem pretty much assumed.

Although the PCs are immune to disease and other unpleasantnesses, they are in the position of hunted pariahs. Plus, an astounding mess of truly huge problems is in the pipeline -- seemingly way too much even for half a thousand demigods -- and the big gods have charged the PCs with trying to make the world a better place.

My impression is that a lot of players like it bunches.


----------



## aboyd (Oct 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> 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.



Not to me.  Just thought I'd note that players out there like this stuff.  Boring is subjective.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 28, 2009)

aboyd said:


> Not to me.  Just thought I'd note that players out there like this stuff.  Boring is subjective.



Yes.... again, thank you for that insight.

Folks, for the record (again) that was _my opinion_.  I already _*know*_ that spending half an hour of game searching the room is not objectively boring.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 28, 2009)

Hobo said:
			
		

> "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 assume that's meant as an interior monologue? It would make no sense to _tell_ the players!

Players: "Just *assume* that we look everywhere!"
GM: "Okay ..."

"Well, you didn't specifically say that you *did not* look behind the cabinet, which required moving it ... so you set off the trap!"

Look, it's about having enough decision points so that one can actually *play a game* instead of being reduced to a dice-rolling or DM-driven automaton.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 28, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Players: "Just *assume* that we look everywhere!"
> GM: "Okay ..."
> 
> "Well, you didn't specifically say that you *did not* look behind the cabinet, which required moving it ... so you set off the trap!"



Nice. 


			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> Look, it's about having enough decision points so that one can actually *play a game* instead of being reduced to a dice-rolling or DM-driven automaton.



Agreed.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 28, 2009)

> I already _*know*_ that spending half an hour of game searching the room is not objectively boring.



It's not even at issue! Half an hour? Seriously? When?

On the other hand, half an hour seems about the bare _minimum_ in 4e for a combat encounter. I have seen a player fall asleep waiting for his turn, and the tedium is certainly not my idea of a good D&D game.

In old D&D, we go about 10 to 15 minutes per encounter (which could be exploring a single room with some interesting features to investigate, or a bloody battle). A really major event would be more like 20 to 30 minutes.

We sure as heck don't crawl along looking for secret doors and traps in every square foot of dungeon. We don't just wander about and loiter in one random room after another until wandering monsters attack us. We go in with an objective to accomplish.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 28, 2009)

> Right, and I don't find puzzles entertaining.
> 
> Maybe that's my background coming at RPGs as a fan of fantasy fiction. How many times do fictional characters you read about stop in the middle of a "dungeon" and solve "puzzles?" ... So to me, a lot of the paradigm of playing D&D, especially the dungeoncrawling aspect of it, is jarringly gamist, and therefore not fun.




So naturally you choose an RPG titled *DUNGEONS & DRAGONS*.

"Gamist"?? It _is_ a game; it was _designed_ to be that "not fun" thing.

This is what drives crazy people who actually find the game fun. There are plenty of other games designed with "anti-D&D" premises, positrons to its electron. It had already been bashed from pretty much every angle 30 years ago.

Oh, well. The bell has tolled. Next on the chopping block: *Warhammer FRP*. Because of course players were disappointed to find within "A Grim World of Perilous Adventure", just as billed on the cover, right?


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 28, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Next on the chopping block: *Warhammer FRP*. Because of course players were disappointed to find within "A Grim World of Perilous Adventure", just as billed on the cover, right?



"Waddya mean I'm a *RATCATCHER*?!?!"


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 28, 2009)

"Unlike most MMOs, though, where killing rats is the newbie step *..."

*"Warhammer" and "rat catcher" are An Item. If you've heard about the one, odds are you've heard about the other. The game has a reputation, on the basis of which people can have reasonable expectations. (And, yes, rat catcher is a possible basic career -- that comes with a pretty excellent set of skills for "dungeon delve" pursuits a la the D&D thief.)


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Oct 29, 2009)

Plus, early in your career you can make money selling ingredients to pie shops.

Oh and I like grim'n'gritty, both as a player and a GM. ANd most of my players over the years have liked my GMing.  But not rat-pie.


----------



## Dannager (Oct 29, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I have seen a player fall asleep waiting for his turn, and the tedium is certainly not my idea of a good D&D game.



Given how counter this has been to my experience (in a number of games, with a number of different DMs and players), I'm very strongly inclined to believe that this is a classic case of PEBSAC.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 29, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> If there is a correlation then there is an underlying cause somewhere.



No, not necessarily.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 29, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> (And, yes, rat catcher is a possible basic career -- that comes with a pretty excellent set of skills for "dungeon delve" pursuits a la the D&D thief.)



_And_ a small but vicious dog.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 29, 2009)

> I'm very strongly inclined to believe that this is a classic case of PEBSAC.



When it comes to games, _every_ like or dislike is that. However, that does not make it _not_ also something to do with the game design.

In this case, we have a single activity taking up BIG chunks of play-session time (and usually several of those, so also _most_ session time, but that can vary) -- commonly 45 minutes or so at a stretch.

That actual-factual state of affairs is in interesting contrast to the hyperbolic "half an hour of game searching the room".

"Too much" of anything can get boring. A one-note game is a lot less engaging if it's the "wrong" note for a particular player. For those who can't get enough of it, it's the best. For anyone else, a bit more variety is probably preferable. Old D&D facilitates that variety, with pacing that many people prefer.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 29, 2009)

Thunderfoot said:


> /snip
> 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.)
> 
> BTW - My example was using 3.x skills, successes over failures is worse IMO as the rule just plays wonky...




Put me in the "pixel bitching" camp.  I loathe, with the fire of a thousand suns, this sort of thing.  Don't mind traps from time to time, but, this level of detail?  Nope.  Hate it as a player and hate it as a DM.

And that hate pales before my utter and complete hatred of puzzles in game.  Yeah, I know they might be a trope in fantasy.  I know.  I still absolutely hate them.  Playing through the Shackled City AP a while back, we came to one of the puzzle problems with colored mirrors.  

I tried for about thirty seconds, realized that I do not want to do that, and went and did something else while the party worked on it.  

Was I being a dick as a player?  Quite probably.  But, I do not want to screw around with my very, very rare free time trying to do this.  I don't like it and now, I just refuse.

Other people might like this, fine.  But, me?  Not a chance.  

And really, it's because puzzles only challenge the player.  There's nothing in my character at all trying to solve this puzzle.  It yoinks me straight out of play worse than the grindiest combat slog. Instead of acting in character or trying to at least, I'm forced to focus on the game as myself, solely.

Sorry, not why I game.


----------



## Snoweel (Oct 29, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> No, not necessarily.




Congratulations for completely missing the point.

We've already covered the Fisher Price My-First-Law-Of-Logic.

While correlation does not imply causation, as we all seem to agree, some of you are missing the fact that the _effect_ of the correlation itself must have a cause.

This correlation (if indeed there is one), and its underlying cause is probably the basis for why many people *do not enjoy* dark-and-gritty in their Dungeons and Dragons.


----------



## aboyd (Oct 29, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And really, it's because puzzles only challenge the player.  There's nothing in my character at all trying to solve this puzzle.



I don't know your situation entirely, so I can't _really_ comment, but couldn't this problem be bad DMing rather than an issue with player/character separation?

For example, my players (well, one in particular) like to gamble.  They like it so much we eventually bought Three Dragon Ante, and use the optional perks based upon character abilities.  So for example, if you're playing an amazing rogue, you get bonuses based upon your sleight of hand.  If you're a fighter, your intimidate skill might help.  Every player is playing a real card game and using their real wits, but they each get character-based advantages.

On another angle, my PCs will indeed be trapped and given riddles soon.  Players will have to solve the riddles themselves, using their own intelligence.  However, those playing high INT characters will be given easy riddles, to reflect the advantage that their characters would have.  Those with INT so low as to get negative modifiers will get insanely difficult riddles.  They might solve them, which would be out of character, but that's OK.  It's part of the fun.

I like this stuff.  Combat gets boring to me quickly.  I want 5 or so "encounters" each session, but I can happily write off a big trap as one encounter, and a social interaction as another, etc.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 29, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> We've already covered the Fisher Price My-First-Law-Of-Logic.





Snark doesn't convince anyone.  Ever.

Play nice.  Show respect.  You know, all that stuff that you shouldn't need to be told at this point?


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 29, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> On the other hand, half an hour seems about the bare _minimum_ in 4e for a combat encounter. I have seen a player fall asleep waiting for his turn, and the tedium is certainly not my idea of a good D&D game.



I don't see how that's relevant.  Nobody's talking about 4e.  I don't play 4e either.

Thanks for the non sequiter, though.


			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> In old D&D, we go about 10 to 15 minutes per encounter (which could be exploring a single room with some interesting features to investigate, or a bloody battle). A really major event would be more like 20 to 30 minutes.



Yes.  And yet... you just said half an hour was an exaggeration, right?

Also; the idea that searching a room and having a combat takes the same amount of time is just... bizarre to me.  That's a game that would bore me to tears.

I mean, I know in real life if you were to get into a quick skirmish with a handful of bandits in the woods, it would happen really fast.  Quite likely, if you had to go take a dump in the woods, it would take longer.  However, in a game or in fiction either one, we tend to focus and spend a lot more time on the combat than on taking a dump.  The reason for this is that _some things are really boring and should just be breezed over_.  For me, highly detailed explorations of dungeons is super boring.  Blah.


Ariosto said:


> So naturally you choose an RPG titled *DUNGEONS & DRAGONS*.



So naturally you assume that the one paradigm that you're familiar with is the only way the game has ever been played?  Why yes, yes you do.  I've got that vibe consistently from you.  You've got a very close-minded approach to gaming.

And for the record, yeah... I _did_ quit playing D&D.  Back in the mid-80s.  Because the system and paradigm was not to my taste at all.  The arbitrariness, the strange limitations, the lack of focus on things that made the game fun, and the focus on things that made it boring and bizarre; D&D was not the game for me.

Still have a love-hate relationship with it today.  I play it a fair amount because at least since 3e it's been robust enough to adequately support my playstyle too.


			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> "Gamist"?? It _is_ a game; it was _designed_ to be that "not fun" thing.



Oh, how I wish that we still had the roll-eyes smilie.  Yes, yes, yes of course Mr. OSR.  The Holy Gygaxian-approved gaming style and all that.

Or wait... maybe folks wanted different things from the game?  Oh, and guess what?  Maybe the game actually does support them too?  It does?  Yes, as a matter of fact it does quite well.

You mean that searching rooms for traps is _not_ somehow ingrained in the rules as a mandatory activity?

Please, Ariosto.  At least _try_ here.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 29, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> Congratulations for completely missing the point.
> 
> We've already covered the Fisher Price My-First-Law-Of-Logic.
> 
> ...



Yes, well thank you.

That's what I said from the get-go.  So I'm so glad that you took us on a pointless tangent just to bring us back to exactly where we started again.


----------



## wolff96 (Oct 29, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> _And_ a small but vicious dog.




I actually find that most players who roll the Rat Catcher as a starting career are convinced _by the dog_.  

I once had a player roll Rat Catcher and NOBLE.  He chose the Rat Catcher, primarily for the dog.

The best part of that little story?  When the poor dog died (Chaos Magic) the player's character went ballistic.  He charged a (minor) demon, three cultists, and an evil magus and _killed ALL of them_.  His dice did everything but light on fire.  I've never seen so many Ulric's Fury rolls in a single combat, before or since.  Not to mention that his 40-ish weapon skill didn't miss the entire time...

It's kind of an epic story in our group.


----------



## Snoweel (Oct 29, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Snark doesn't convince anyone.  Ever.
> 
> Play nice.  Show respect.  You know, all that stuff that you shouldn't need to be told at this point?




Where I come from, explaining something to somebody that he should already know is the height of disrespect. It's called 'condescension'.

The implication being that I'm unaware that correlation does not equal causation and I'm sure you can understand why I took The Shaman's post as unnecessarily antagonistic. Especially since we had covered the point only a handful of posts earlier.

Clearly your mileage varies.



Hobo said:


> Yes, well thank you.
> 
> That's what I said from the get-go.  So I'm so glad that you took us on a pointless tangent just to bring us back to exactly where we started again.




No.

I'm not saying exactly what you said at all.

What I'm saying is that while dark-and-gritty play is not the cause of poor DMing, the fact* that there is a correlation between the two (*and I'm aware we don't agree that there is, however the assumption is essential here) means that *there is a problem with dark-and-gritty play*.

This is the exact opposite of what you have been saying.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 29, 2009)

No, what I said is that the problem _isn't_ grim n gritty play, because that's a correlated variable and not the cause.

You took us 'round the merry-go-round to say the same thing.  Now you're trying to spin it around again, for reasons that are not entirely clear.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 29, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> What I'm saying is that while dark-and-gritty play is not the cause of poor DMing, the fact* that there is a correlation between the two (*and I'm aware we don't agree that there is, however the assumption is essential here) means that *there is a problem with dark-and-gritty play*.




That doesn't follow at all simply from there is a correlation (assuming there is one). If most DMs ran dark and gritty games and yet most DMs did a poor job in general, there'd be a correlation that would not at all imply that the problem was with dark-and-gritty play itself.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 29, 2009)

Hobo, you only make your attitude toward D&D and D&Ders more offensive the more you respond to any critique of your attack with put-downs. Dislike for a game on YOUR part is no evidence of "a very close-minded approach to gaming" on OUR part.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 29, 2009)

IF there is a true correlation between bad DMing and a type of setting, then of course there is some underlying factor connecting both. It does not follow that the setting is "a problem", unless the correlation is _exclusive_ enough. If most DMs using that type are good, then it is hardly to blame for the bad ones just because most of them also use it.

My standard of "hardly to blame" involves a pragmatic acceptance of the premise that _nothing_ we may contrive is perfect and incorruptible. "Nothing is idiot-proof, because idiots are too ingenious."

Anyhow, Snoweel, what is your theory as to _why_ that type of setting should especially encourage bad DMing?


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 29, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Hobo, you only make your attitude toward D&D and D&Ders more offensive the more you respond to any critique of your attack with put-downs. Dislike for a game on YOUR part is no evidence of "a very close-minded approach to gaming" on OUR part.



It's not offensive just because you say so.  The whole attitude of, "well if you don't like the way _*I*_ play D&D, which I'm going to assume is the only way _*too*_ play D&D despite tons of evidence to the contrary, then you shouldn't even play D&D at all" coupled with a bunch of condescending, "didn't you see the name of the game?  Didn't you know it was a game?" posts hardly make me feel like I need to worry too much about how offended you might feel just because I pointed out that pretending D&D can only be played a certain way is close-minded.

It _*is*_ close-minded.  That's not insulting; that's just descriptive.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 29, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> Where I come from, explaining something to somebody that he should already know is the height of disrespect. It's called 'condescension'.




*As you've only been a member for seven years, perhaps you haven't had time to learn the rules of ENWorld, oh wait, never mind.

If you have an issue with a mod, email him.  Responding in thread is not the way to do it.  Enjoy your vacation.*


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 30, 2009)

Hobo, YOU wrote, "Because the system and paradigm was not to my taste at all. The arbitrariness, the strange limitations, the lack of focus on things that made the game fun, and the focus on things that made it boring and bizarre; D&D was not the game for me."


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 30, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> Congratulations for completely missing the point.
> 
> We've already covered the Fisher Price My-First-Law-Of-Logic.



And up 'til now I was thinking I might say yes to a second date.







			
				Snoweel said:
			
		

> While correlation does not imply causation, as we all seem to agree, some of you are missing the fact that the _effect_ of the correlation itself must have a cause.



That's a circular argument.







Snoweel said:


> Where I come from, explaining something to somebody that he should already know is the height of disrespect. It's called 'condescension'.
> 
> The implication being that I'm unaware that correlation does not equal causation and I'm sure you can understand why I took The Shaman's post as unnecessarily antagonistic. Especially since we had covered the point only a handful of posts earlier.



You may feel that you "covered the point earlier," but I disagree with what you posted, so while you may consider it settled, I don't.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 30, 2009)

wolff96 said:


> I actually find that most players who roll the Rat Catcher as a starting career are convinced _by the dog_.
> 
> I once had a player roll Rat Catcher and NOBLE.  He chose the Rat Catcher, primarily for the dog.
> 
> ...



Sweet.


----------



## Emirikol (Oct 30, 2009)

wolff96 said:


> I actually find that most players who roll the Rat Catcher as a starting career are convinced _by the dog_.
> 
> I once had a player roll Rat Catcher and NOBLE.  He chose the Rat Catcher, primarily for the dog.




Good story.  In one of my Maptool WFRP games, a guy chose noble and picked up a trained dog..kind of like a rich rat catcher 

jh


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 30, 2009)

A lot of DMs pretty naturally turn to heroic-fantasy fiction for inspiration. As someone observed earlier, "gritty" or even "low powered" has a different bar in D&D (which quickly shoots through "mythic" to "Silver Age Marvel Comics"). Middle Earth is positively grim by that standard, and although the rogues of Nehwon and the Hyborian Age have their jollity they are usually awfully impoverished by D&D standards. The Young Kingdoms are doomed in short order, and the Dying Earth has been doing so for ages in self-conscious cynicism.

Outside of game-based fiction, I don't think a big helping of earthiness and darkness is something that has become outmoded. Even Marvel Comics seem pretty "dark" these days.

Players, though, might be more likely (when reflecting in a game context) to focus on the heroes of novels and not take in the background so much. It might even be that when players think of inspirations for their characters they think of stories that don't _have_ much well-developed background.

Just speculating! What would be current examples of "the opposite" (non-dark, non-gritty) in fiction popular among D&Ders?


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Was I being a dick as a player?



Quite probably. 







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> But, I do not want to screw around with my very, very rare free time trying to do this.  I don't like it and now, I just refuse.



If I had a player who did this in a game I'm running, I would ask that player to leave the game.

It's rude to the referee, and it's rude to the other players.


----------



## Andor (Oct 30, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> A lot of DMs pretty naturally turn to heroic-fantasy fiction for inspiration. As someone observed earlier, "gritty" or even "low powered" has a different bar in D&D (which quickly shoots through "mythic" to "Silver Age Marvel Comics"). Middle Earth is positively grim by that standard, and although the rogues of Nehwon and the Hyborian Age have their jollity they are *usually awfully impoverished by D&D standards*. The Young Kingdoms are doomed in short order, and the Dying Earth has been doing so for ages in self-conscious cynicism.




Ths is a (I think) a key point. D&D not only expects but in many senses _requires_ the PCs to rapidly become extremely wealthy in order to match the foes they are presented with on a regular basis. It's hard to maintain a hard scrabble atmosphere of dearth and privation when the party could build the Taj Mahal out of pocket change. 

It's particularly strange the 4e not only continues this trend but actually ramps up the expected wealth considerably. (Why strange? A: the default PoL setting should not be a get-rich-quick kinda place and B: The system keys so many aspect of magic items off of character level it's nigh bizzare they didn't toss the bonus into that pool and state that magic items run off personal mojo.)

Now there are many possible fixes to this problem, but it _is_ a problem.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 30, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Outside of game-based fiction, I don't think a big helping of earthiness and darkness is something that has become outmoded. Even Marvel Comics seem pretty "dark" these days.



The _Captain Alatriste_ novels are much darker than many of the earlier works in the swashbuckling or cape-and-epee genre, though, significantly in my view, not the _The Three Musketeers_ saga; in fact, I would argue that Perez-Reverte is closer to Dumas than many of the authors in the genre.







			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> Players, though, might be more likely (when reflecting in a game context) to focus on the heroes of novels and not take in the background so much. It might even be that when players think of inspirations for their characters they think of stories that don't _have_ much well-developed background.



I would also guess that some number of players don't consider the background - light, dark, or any shade in between - at all and instead focus solely on what kind of character the rules enable them to create.

Whether this is a few, some, many, or most players I won't hazard a guess.


----------



## Dannager (Oct 30, 2009)

Andor said:


> (Why strange? A: the default PoL setting should not be a get-rich-quick kinda place



On the contrary, that's exactly what the profession of adventuring is billed as!

The default PoL setting is based on the idea that huge, magnificent empires _used to exist_, but for whatever reason collapsed into history and legend. Now mere points of light exist to hold the darkness at bay, but that darkness contains the bones of those ancient empires, and among those bones are the riches of kings, just waiting to be reclaimed from that same darkness.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 30, 2009)

Yeah, "points of light" sounds like the old D&D premise, although it was at first more implicit than explicit. Greyhawk fits, I think, and I seem to recall the published Forgotten Realms having been more like that initially.

Of course, with the huge influx of unearthed gold, the dungeon explorers are not the _only_ ones getting rich! In some campaigns, it may seem that they end up with just a fraction of their loot.

Eventually, the hoards in a particular area of ruins ought to run out. By then, civilization is likely to have moved in, and monsters mostly moved on.

On the other hand, a proper underworld, a la that beneath Greyhawk Castle, or the Ruins of Undermountain, is not something to clean out. It makes sense that a great city should flourish near it.

Piles of treasure look good, and present challenges as well. Dig those thousands of really heavy coins old-style! There's glamor in that, and wish-fulfillment fantasy in spending the riches.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 30, 2009)

Andor said:


> It's particularly strange the 4e not only continues this trend but actually ramps up the expected wealth considerably. (Why strange? A: the default PoL setting should not be a get-rich-quick kinda place and B: The system keys so many aspect of magic items off of character level it's nigh bizzare they didn't toss the bonus into that pool and state that magic items run off personal mojo.)




By keeping the personal mojo somewhat distinct we can still get cake and eat it too...  see as follows

With the "Alternate Rewards" system of Boons and Grand Master Training individual heros could have there personal mojo be the source of the their +1 to +6 and bonus.  Lancelot can have boons like Grand Master Swordsman/Duelist and Strength of 10 men ... and in the same story King Arthur can have his relic of kingship. Gawaine had Might of the Sun (strongest at noon .. weakest at midnight).

I think the alternate rewards technique is newish and needs the kinks worked out of it, but seems a natural enabler for controlling the style of your world. Beowulf wasn't dependent on magic items but he sure had dragon hoard
And as you point out might even make PoL feel more natural.

An Object becoming spontaneously enchanted (gaining a boon) as part of the action can be a treasure parcel... feels very cool and if you want less magic items simply being constructed and found.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20090908


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 30, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Hobo, YOU wrote, "Because the system and paradigm was not to my taste at all. The arbitrariness, the strange limitations, the lack of focus on things that made the game fun, and the focus on things that made it boring and bizarre; D&D was not the game for me."



Yes, I know.  So?  What point are you trying to make here?

Because it seems to me that you're saying that because I don't like dungeoncrawling and careful, extremely detailed search checks that I shouldn't even be playing D&D... as if that's what D&D means or something.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2009)

Hobo said:


> ... as if that's what D&D means or something.




Your quote seems to imply that that is what D&D meant.  If not, why "Because the system and paradigm was not to my taste at all....D&D was not the game for me" if the system and the paradigm of D&D did not mean "The arbitrariness, the strange limitations, the lack of focus on things that made the game fun, and the focus on things that made it boring and bizarre"?


RC


----------



## cmbarona (Oct 30, 2009)

Well... While Snoweel is on hiatus, I should quickly attempt to clarify the analytical point he was trying to make.

Correlations do not imply causation.

BUT, in the world of statistical analysis, it is assumed that a strong enough correlation still has SOME underlying cause.

Let's assume for a moment that there is a correlation between two variables:

Variable A: Bad DMing
Variable B: the darkness/grimness/grittiness of a world

Let's further assume that this correlation is positive (when one variable increases, the other variable increases).

If this is true, it is assumed that one of three possibilities exist:

1) Variable A causes Variable B
2) Variable B causes Variable A
3) Some third, unknown variable is the cause of the correlation between A and B

That's all that was meant when he said there has to be some underlying cause.

However, I believe he made a separate point assuming that option 2 is in some way true. Someone please correct me if I misinterpreted his post, or if I am wrong in my recollection. But this new argument (option 2 is correct) is distinct from the point he was making about statistical analysis (one of the three options must be correct).

All that being said, first, I disagree with his correlation, and second, he really should know better than to postulate conclusions on a correlation that has no evidence for its existence. Perhaps he was just hypothesizing, but hypotheses usually come before a study, and can only be (usefully) discussed after those results are in. They are not valid points of argumentation in and of themselves.

P.S.: I'll take one step farther and point out that correlations still have some degree of predictive value. One can look at a correlation and say that, if one variable increases, chances are, the other variable will increase. However, attempting to explain that increase without further study is usually unhelpful.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 30, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Your quote seems to imply that that is what D&D meant.  If not, why "Because the system and paradigm was not to my taste at all....D&D was not the game for me" if the system and the paradigm of D&D did not mean "The arbitrariness, the strange limitations, the lack of focus on things that made the game fun, and the focus on things that made it boring and bizarre"?



I don't see the implication.  He asked, and I answered, but the fact that I didn't much like D&D during the "golden age" of the late seventies and early 80s and in fact left D&D for greener pastures during those years was tangential and unrelated to my point.

D&D has always been playable under a variety of playstyles, not just a single one.  The mechanics sometimes didn't support you as well as I'd have liked, but that's really beside the point.  Especially since they do now, under several possible rulesets, including late era 2e, 3e and 4e.

In fact, if anything I'm an example of what I've been talking about all along.  There's a reason that a lot of people would rather just make a search check instead of give a detailed account of my searching... they think it's boring.  Apparently the game designers agree, since several iterations of the rules now have allowed for that option.

Ariosto made a rather smug and dismissive claim that such players might as well not even play D&D at all, don't even recognize that it's a game, or are lacking in imagination, to paraphrase.

I don't see how that's a cause for confusion.  I'm refuting the rather insulting notion that only unimaginitive people could possibly have a reason for that playstyle.  Also, his claim that I might as well not play D&D at all then is nonsensical; for one thing, I _don't_ play the editions that are most closely associated with the playstyle he's talking about, and the editions I do play address that problem to my satisfaction.  Therefore, I can play them, they support my preferred playstyle, and we all have fun.  What's the problem?

Other than that Ariosto is making the bizarre claim that there's only one way to play D&D, and he's completely ignoring any developments in the rules systems that post-date 1985 or so?  And is being insulting and dismissive to boot?


cmbarona said:


> However, I believe he made a separate point assuming that option 2 is in some way true. Someone please correct me if I misinterpreted his post, or if I am wrong in my recollection. But this new argument (option 2 is correct) is distinct from the point he was making about statistical analysis (one of the three options must be correct).



It's not 100% clear if he was making that point, but it sure seemed like he was implying it.  Since correlation (which I don't believe exists) does not demand causality, my point was from the beginning that even if this hypothetical correlation exists, it's some other variable that's the cause of the problem.


----------



## cmbarona (Oct 30, 2009)

Hobo said:


> It's not 100% clear if he was making that point, but it sure seemed like he was implying it.  Since correlation (which I don't believe exists) does not demand causality, my point was from the beginning that even if this hypothetical correlation exists, it's some other variable that's the cause of the problem.




Agreed. I think poor DMing can take just about any form and happen in just about any world. These interactions of variables also hinge on different ways of defining poor DMing: "gotcha" moments, forced bad choices, and railroading are all things I can think of off the top of my head that both 1) are poor DMing and 2) can exist in both G&G and non-G&G games. A detailed analysis of DMing style and world characteristics would need to evaluate a multitude of data points.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2009)

Hobo said:


> I don't see the implication.  He asked, and I answered, but the fact that I didn't much like D&D during the "golden age" of the late seventies and early 80s and in fact left D&D for greener pastures during those years was tangential and unrelated to my point.




There is a difference between the point one might intend to make, and what one says, however.

If I say "I don't like 0e, because 0e is X, Y, and Z", I might have meant to say many things, but the most rational interpretation is that I think X, Y, and Z to be characteristics of 0e, and that on this basis I don't like it.

Similarly, if one says "I don't like D&D, because D&D is X, Y, and Z".

Ariosto may not have understood what you meant, but I don't think he can be blamed for it if that is the case.

YMMV, of course.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 30, 2009)

And I'm not sure that I understand what he meant.  It's possible that we're talking past each other entirely.

In any case; hence the follow-up clarification.  Also:


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If I say "I don't like 0e, because 0e is X, Y, and Z", I might have meant to say many things, but the most rational interpretation is that I think X, Y, and Z to be characteristics of 0e, and that on this basis I don't like it.
> 
> Similarly, if one says "I don't like D&D, because D&D is X, Y, and Z".



Then again, if I say, "I don't like X, Y and Z" with no reference to D&D until asked at all, then it's not my fault if someone assumed that X, Y and Z are integral and mandated by D&D when in fact that's not the case at all and never has been.  If I've been misunderstood, it's because unwarranted assumptions have been... well, assumed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2009)

Hobo said:


> And I'm not sure that I understand what he meant.  It's possible that we're talking past each other entirely.




I think that might be the case.



> Then again, if I say, "I don't like X, Y and Z" with no reference to D&D until asked at all, then it's not my fault if someone assumed that X, Y and Z are integral and mandated by D&D when in fact that's not the case at all and never has been.  If I've been misunderstood, it's because unwarranted assumptions have been... well, assumed.




If you say, "I don't like X, Y and Z" with no reference to D&D, then it's not your fault if someone assumed that X, Y and Z are integral and mandated by D&D.  As soon as you link your dislike of X, Y, and Z to D&D (or vice versa) it is not a simple assumption that they are linked.

But, as you indicated, I think that you are talking past each other.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 30, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Quite probably. If I had a player who did this in a game I'm running, I would ask that player to leave the game.
> 
> It's rude to the referee, and it's rude to the other players.




But, it's okay for the referee to ram his preferences down the player's throats and we should just sit and accept it?  Should the players ALWAYS be beholden to whatever the referee decides will make a "good game"?  

Sorry, no thanks.  I was not disruptive.  I simply absented myself from that part of the game.  You guys want to play Minelayer in D&D (a la Gorgoland's Gauntlet) go right ahead.  Just don't expect me to sit through it.  

In exactly the same way that I should respect what the DM/GM/Referee/whatever wants, I expect the same in return.  

Like I said, I refuse to piss away my free time just because someone wants to play Sudoku or whatever other logic problem he or she has come up with this week.  It has nothing to do with my character, it's 100% meta-gaming, and it's about as far from role play as you can get.  (in my not so humble opinion of course.   )


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 30, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> But, as you indicated, I think that you are talking past each other.



Sometimes this Internet thing is hard work.


----------



## Rykion (Oct 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, it's okay for the referee to ram his preferences down the player's throats and we should just sit and accept it?  Should the players ALWAYS be beholden to whatever the referee decides will make a "good game"?



No, it's not okay.  If the other players aren't enjoying it, you should bring it up with the GM as a group.  If the other players are enjoying it, you might be in the wrong group.  


Hussar said:


> In exactly the same way that I should respect what the DM/GM/Referee/whatever wants, I expect the same in return.



An RPG is a collaborative effort.  Not everyone at the table will enjoy every part of the game.  Walking away from a game during the parts you don't like is rude, no matter how you do it.  You aren't respecting what the DM/GM/Referee wants at all when you walk away.


Hussar said:


> Like I said, I refuse to piss away my free time just because someone wants to play Sudoku or whatever other logic problem he or she has come up with this week.  It has nothing to do with my character, it's 100% meta-gaming, and it's about as far from role play as you can get.  (in my not so humble opinion of course.   )



Puzzles and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive.  If you are playing a low intelligence character, limit how much you help the party, even if you've figured out the puzzle.  Of course your low intelligence character can "stumble" onto the right answer by accident if everyone else is stuck.  If you play a high intelligence character, but are bad with puzzles, you can see if the GM will let you make a roll that earns some hints for the party.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Sometimes this Internet thing is hard work.




Quoted for truth!


----------



## holyground (Oct 30, 2009)

I know i'm coming late to this conversation, but, for me, Gritty and dark are the hallmarks of "grown up fantasy." When I was younger, The stories I liked were simpler, and the characters were less angsty. As I grew up, I came to enjoy deeper, darker grittier stories and felt that the books I enjoyed earlier held less appeal. Now that I'm entering my 30th year, I can appreciate a balance between my grime and my... less grimey stories. 

When I struggle to make settings for the game I DM, it's always when I try to reconcile my desires to go beyond "traditional" "simple" fantasy tropes. Even though there are no new stories to be told, covering traditional plot elements in a layer of grittiness is a way for me to approach things freshly. My players don't always need to be the anti-hero though. Sometimes they just like rescuing the villagers.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 30, 2009)

Rykion said:


> An RPG is a collaborative effort.  Not everyone at the table will enjoy every part of the game.  Walking away from a game during the parts you don't like is rude, no matter how you do it.  You aren't respecting what the DM/GM/Referee wants at all when you walk away.



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.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 30, 2009)

To pull back from the various tangents and general pedantry that have kinda taken over the discussion...

For those of you players who don't like Grim and Gritty; what don't you like about it, and what would it have to have to make it enjoyable to you?  Or is it just the entire concept that you're bothered by?


----------



## Nifft (Oct 30, 2009)

Hobo said:


> To pull back from the various tangents and general pedantry that have kinda taken over the discussion...
> 
> For those of you players who don't like Grim and Gritty; what don't you like about it, and what would it have to have to make it enjoyable to you?  Or is it just the entire concept that you're bothered by?



 IMHO this question merits a thread fork.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 30, 2009)

Sorry; I'm a signatory on the anti-thread proliferation treaty.


----------



## Andor (Oct 30, 2009)

Nifft said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2009)

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


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 31, 2009)

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 (Oct 31, 2009)

> 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 (Oct 31, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2009)

> 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 (Oct 31, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2009)

PoeticJustice said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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.


----------



## Andor (Nov 2, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> *You do recall the term "Monty Haul" DM or Dungeon don't you?*




I wonder how many people who use that term now actually remember Monty Hall?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> 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 agree with you wholeheartedly!  

This is hardly new.  What is new is that the DM is now encouraged to say "Yes" to this mindset, whereas previously the DM was encouraged to make the players work for what their PCs got.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And that hate pales before my utter and complete hatred of puzzles in game.  Yeah, I know they might be a trope in fantasy.  I know.  I still absolutely hate them.  Playing through the Shackled City AP a while back, we came to one of the puzzle problems with colored mirrors.
> 
> I tried for about thirty seconds, realized that I do not want to do that, and went and did something else while the party worked on it.
> 
> ...





I don't think that we have enough information to know how rude this was (apart from "Was I being a dick as a player?  Quite probably.").

Imagine if you would that the puzzle scene comes up, Hussar tries for about thirty seconds, and then says (to the other players):  "Sorry, guys, but I'm no good at this sort of thing.  If Bob will control my character if something happens, I'll run out and get some more chips." I doubt that most of us would think that was rude.

It very much depends upon presentation.  If Hussar left the table to send a message, then I would have a problem.  Without the overtones of "sending a message" I would, generally, be okay with that on occasion.

However, if I had a player who consistently left every time X happened, then I would consider how much that player contributed to the game, and whether or not that player were a good fit.  That has nothing to do with rudeness (which can be a "kick to the curb" offense very quickly), but rather to do with what sorts of games folks enjoy.


RC


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I agree with you wholeheartedly!
> 
> This is hardly new.  What is new is that the DM is now encouraged to say "Yes" to this mindset, whereas previously the DM was encouraged to make the players work for what their PCs got.
> 
> ...




Actually the DM and player both are given very comprehensive guidlines about the toys and what level they are appropriate for... so no that isnt correct.

And say yes appears to not be what you think it is because it reallly is more improvisational maneuvering


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Actually the DM and player both are given very comprehensive guidlines about the toys and what level they are appropriate for... so no that isnt correct.
> 
> And say yes appears to not be what you think it is because it reallly is more improvisational maneuvering




Sorry, but a limitation on how much you can get for nothing is not the same as not saying Yes to the "Something for Nothing" mentality.  In 1e, if you earned nothing, you got nothing.  If you fail to find the treasure, too bad.  In 4e, it teleports after you until you find it.  That is a very different philosophy of what "game rewards" represent.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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.





Sorry, but I have to disagree with both premises here.

Episodic with overarching plotlines include the new Doctor Who, Torchwood, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and Star Trek Enterprise.

Likewise, a sandbox can have many overarching plotlines.....it just should not force the players to follow them, and the results of not foiling them therefore should not destroy the campaign milieu.


RC


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but a limitation on how much you can get for nothing is not the same as not saying Yes to the "Something for Nothing" mentality.  In 1e, if you earned nothing, you got nothing.  If you fail to find the treasure, too bad.  In 4e, it teleports after you until you find it.  That is a very different philosophy of what "game rewards" represent.
> RC




Making a good die roll or not is an interesting idea of what "earning" is... 
but putting that aside I as a dm put effort in to designing interesting magic items (now in 4e I use the players ideas along side mine) ... or interesting challenges ... it was very frequent that something I didnt use one occasion I would use it another. Was that something suggested by the other roleplaying game I was playing at the time? nope...  I like having my players contributing to the game world anyway... so when they dont like a monster type (I down play that too or adjust the gameworld based on those opinions).


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but I have to disagree with both premises here.
> 
> Episodic with overarching plotlines include the new Doctor Who, Torchwood, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and Star Trek Enterprise.
> 
> ...



I think that you have differing definitions of 'episodic' - by their nature both television and role playing games tend to be episodic. I think that he is referring to the 'reset to start' that many, mostly older, series have, including the original Star Trek - where very little carried over from one episode to the next. (I seem to recall The Simpsons even made that a gag in at least one episode.)

The Auld Grump, sorry guys, you ignored the main plotline, and the tarrasque just ate Waterdeep....


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2009)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I think that you have differing definitions of 'episodic' - by their nature both television and role playing games tend to be episodic. I think that he is referring to the 'reset to start' that many, mostly older, series have, including the original Star Trek - where very little carried over from one episode to the next. (I seem to recall The Simpsons even made that a gag in at least one episode.)





Unless he means that the PC XP reset to 0, this doesn't apply IMHO.  In any event, I am not saying that one cannot do episode without overarching plots, but that one can do either.  As the examples I gave demonstrates.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Making a good die roll or not is an interesting idea of what "earning" is...




This is either a really, really transparent strawman, or you never played 1e.  Pray tell, to which die roll are you referring?!?!


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is either a really, really transparent strawman, or you never played 1e.  Pray tell, to which die roll are you referring?!?!



Sorry... you went through all that work to accomplish the adventure lots of intelligent choices and battles fought... then you missed the cool magic item I stuck behind a hidden door. You must not have earned that magic item.  There were tons of reasons other than you didnt deserve the reward why somebody could end up missing something.

Reusing things both rewards and challenges that didn't get used  last adventure (and sometimes reskinning them a little) is and was very common before 4e wish lists.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Sorry... you went through all that work to accomplish the adventure lots of intelligent choices and battles fought... then you missed the cool magic item I stuck behind a hidden door. You must not have earned that magic item.  There were tons of reasons other than you didnt deserve the reward why somebody could end up missing something.





Sure.  In an ongoing campaign, you might come back and find it later.  Or another creature/character might find it.  Lots of things might happen.  One thing that surely didn't happen, though, is that you didn't find it this time.  And if you were following the guidelines in the 1e DMG, it was not suggested that you teleport it or make it easier to find next time, either.

Surely it is not _*that*_ difficult to envision a gaming philosophy where "winning" and "earning treasure" are not all-or-nothing on/off switches, isn't it?  


RC


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure.  In an ongoing campaign, you might come back and find it later.  Or another creature/character might find it.  Lots of things might happen.  One thing that surely didn't happen, though, is that you didn't find it this time.  And if you were following the guidelines in the 1e DMG, it was not suggested that you teleport it or make it easier to find next time, either.




Suggested or not I designed my own adventures and rarely used modules.  Encounters, monsters and or rewards that weren't used including room detailed descriptions that nobody seen in one game was often used in a game coming down the road. There is no issue of oops that got teleported. ..if they revist a place I am not leaving that place the same as it was anyway the details of how or why it wasnt the same is something the dm can elaborate on as much or as little as he wants to. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Surely it is not _*that*_ difficult to envision a gaming philosophy where "winning" and "earning treasure" are not all-or-nothing on/off switches, isn't it?
> RC



Nothing wrong with it. ---  That thinking was real not a game encouraged thing either..Even if you had no interest in gold...  experience points and gold all wrapped in to one huzzahh!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> That thinking was real not a game encouraged thing either..Even if you had no interest in gold...  experience points and gold all wrapped in to one huzzahh!




Sure it was.  The DM's perspective and the player's perspective in 1e are different.  That the player says "experience points and gold all wrapped in to one huzzahh!" doesn't mean that the DM should simply begin flinging gold like a mad Midas who......Oh, sorry, that comes from the 1e DMG.

Nor does it matter if you use modules or design your own, re: my earlier comments.  Nor does it matter if the area changes or not between visits (depend upon location & time between visits IMHO, YMMV).  "Ongoing campaign" =/= "using modules".  

As a note, TSR-D&D encouraged you to create your own areas and, if using modules, to adapt them to fit your campaign milieu.

Discussing the merits of the DMG philosophy between 1e and 4e is a seperate issue to whether there is a difference between the two philosophies.  I have a hard time believing that anyone who is familiar with both books would claim that there is not!  



RC


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 2, 2009)

Andor said:


> I wonder how many people who use that term now actually remember Monty Hall?




Me!

...wait, that makes me old...

Who?


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 2, 2009)

As a DM, one ought to *expect* secret doors not to be found. Not that one should make everything depend on players _not_ finding one, either, which would also be foolish.

"Monty Haul" is an issue with DMs who make things too easy, predicated on the assumption that players *want* challenges commensurate with rewards. The ideal (presumed to be shared by players who really understood the situation) was "The Price is Right" (a la Goldilocks  -- Monty HALL hosted "Let's Make a Deal"). If players quite honestly view D&D not as a test of skill but as the story of "my awesome character getting always more awesome", then the only trouble with an old-style "give-away" game is that it's too hard! The new scheme is not a little boost of "something for nothing" -- more accurately too much for too little -- but _everything_ as entitlement.

See how it's not "just a matter of degree" but a fundamentally different conception of the purpose of the undertaking? I recall no evidence of such a conception up to the 1990s at least. Even in Candy Land (which involves no decision-making at all), one can get stuck (losing turns) or sent backwards.

I suppose some players in the 1970s might seriously have entertained the notion under false pretenses; today, it's "out of the closet". Indeed, its expectations seem to carry about as much weight in "official" circles as the traditional expectations of a well-run D&D game.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 2, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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.






Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but I have to disagree with both premises here.
> 
> Episodic with overarching plotlines include the new Doctor Who, Torchwood, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and Star Trek Enterprise.
> 
> ...




What I was going to say...said better.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 2, 2009)

> Discussing the merits of the DMG philosophy between 1e and 4e is a separate issue to whether there is a difference between the two philosophies.



Yes! For that matter, I do not see that the designers of 4e have fully embraced the "entitlement" concept. They have bowed in its direction, though. The new work goes further faster than 3e in dumping 'sacred cows', but still tries to be both fish and fowl.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 2, 2009)

Unfortunately Skidace and Raven Crowking, you ignored the other half of what I said.

Yes, certainly, you can have ongoing, overarching plotlines in a sandbox campaign.  However, if you are "free to ignore them" then they are hardly threatening the entire realm are they?

That's what characterizes high fantasy - that threat to the entire realm.

So, yeah, sandbox campaigns _could_ have overarching plotlines, but the fact that the players can ignore them with no consequence (at least no personal consequence - like Sauron winning and everyone being killed/enslaved) means that it's not high fantasy.

Thus, sandbox does not lend itself well to high fantasy.

Sandbox, otoh, because the players can ignore whatever they don't feel like persuing, fits an episodic campaign much better, since you have no reason to follow a particular plot threat, other than personal interest.  

Buffy's plotlines were contained to a single season and besides that, I'd hardly call Buffy episodic.  It was serial.  You started each season with a large plotline and probably half a dozen subplots that would take the entire season to resolve.  How is that episodic?  ((To be honest, I only really watched Buffy from about season 3 onwards, so maybe the first two seasons were more self contained, but, most of the series was certainly not episodic.))

Star Trek:TOS was purely episodic with almost no carry over between episodes.  ST:TNG carried some over, the Borg for example, but, the vast majority of episodes were completely self contained.  DS9 was serial.  Voyager was more episodic although, obviously, it had one large plotline - trying to get home.  

The new Dr. Who is almost entirely self contained.  One episode does nothing to inform the next episode.  Other than the Bad Wolf plotline of the first season, which was simply a series of foreshadows, a theme that was repeated in the last season, what carries over from episode to episode?  Character changes I suppose.

Anyway, I've wandered far afield.  You guys are arguing only half of the equation.  Can you have sandbox with long term plots?  Sure.  But, high fantasy is characterized by world threatening events.  Sandbox isn't.


----------



## Stoat (Nov 2, 2009)

You could do something like Morrowind or Oblivion, where the overarching plot advances whenever the PC's turn their attention to it, but that seems somewhat contrary to my understanding of sandbox D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 3, 2009)

Stoat - I haven't played those games, but, I suppose the Baldur's Gate would be an example too.  The main plot basically only advances when the player chooses to do it.  Otherwise, you can wander around, doing a plethora of side plots as long as you like and the main plot will wait on hold until you come back.

Agreed, this runs contrary to how I view a sandbox campaign as well.


----------



## DanM (Nov 3, 2009)

The DM's whom like this type of setting only want to eliminate people. They are evil. That, is why...


----------



## DanM (Nov 3, 2009)

who cares... you forgot about my Karma GEM and its hands-of-f.a.t.e...........


----------



## Nifft (Nov 3, 2009)

DanM said:


> The DM's whom like this type of setting only want to eliminate people. They are evil. That, is why...






DanM said:


> who cares... you forgot about my Karma GEM and its hands-of-f.a.t.e...........



 Never have I seen a poster write such a rude reply to himself.

"_Be good to yourself_", -- N


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure it was.  The DM's perspective and the player's perspective in 1e are different.  That the player says "experience points and gold all wrapped in to one huzzahh!"
> RC



The game said to the players here is your prizes ... and defined how you get them. Real mechanics here ... not an abstraction and it wasnt players that made it up.  THE method for winning was kill it and take its stuff ... you were the one asking why? there needed to be a correlation between treasure and winning, the game tied them together in a neat little bow saying not only do you want gold you are going to be a lesser hero if you don't get it...  That is built in to the game mechanics..     

And this is more about... 
You took the left hand curve instead of the right.... I put coolness both you and I wanted in the game trust me it will show up later and not because of abstract philosophy or what was written in the DMG. *It is because yeah I don't have the time to make up scads and scads of coolness and throw away large chunks of it for some philosophy.* That is the part which makes whether you make up the adventures yourself or not more significant I will save cool room descriptions and magic items and treasure and bring them along which is a step further than saving the treasure and adding it to future tallies ...


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> As a DM, one ought to *expect* secret doors not to be found. Not that one should make everything depend on players _not_ finding one, either, which would also be foolish.



Item placement based on logic sometimes resulted in things you want to be found ... being mechanically hard to find.



Ariosto said:


> "Monty Haul" is an issue with DMs who make things too easy, predicated on the assumption that players *want* challenges commensurate with rewards.



The same presumptions are true across game editions some editions were way less guided about how much or what treasures were appropriate to the levels of the characters than others.



Ariosto said:


> If players quite honestly view D&D not as a test of skill but as the story of "my awesome character getting always more awesome",



The strategic movement and resource management of 4e which everyone partakes of in 4e is very much player skill oriented..  what exactly are skills are you promoting as a feature of AD&D?


----------



## FireLance (Nov 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Surely it is not _*that*_ difficult to envision a gaming philosophy where "winning" and "earning treasure" are not all-or-nothing on/off switches, isn't it?



On the other hand, surely it is not that difficult to envision a gaming philosophy where XP and treasure are bundled together as a single reward for overcoming challenges, right?

This is what I had previously written on the subject:
The way I read the DMG guidelines is this: you are okay as long as you keep the treasure earned by the party in line with the XP earned by the party. In other words, if there are ten treasure parcels, the party should find approximately one treasure parcel every time it earns 10% of the XP that it needs to get to the next level.

The key idea behind this guideline is to avoid parties that are XP-heavy and treasure-light, e.g. parties who have fought several tough creatures that have no treasure, or vice-versa, e.g. parties who happen upon a stash of gold and magic items without overcoming any challenges that provide XP.

It does not mean that the party has to find every treasure parcel in an adventure: if the party misses Encounter #3, which has treasure parcel #3, it misses out on the XP and the treasure for Encounter #3. Doing so means that the party will gain levels slower than another party who has gone though the same adventure and did overcome Encounter #3. However, by the time the party has gained its next level, it would have had to overcome another encounter (possibly Encounter #1 of the next adventure) and in doing so, would have earned enough XP to gain a level and a treasure parcel approximately equal in value to the one they missed (or even the same one, if the DM wants to re-use it).

In short, XP and treasure should be bundled together as a single reward. A party can miss out on both, but should not miss out on one if it has already earned the other.​


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Unfortunately Skidace and Raven Crowking, you ignored the other half of what I said.





That's because (on my part, anyway), it was a caveat, not a total disagreement.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 3, 2009)

FireLance said:


> On the other hand, surely it is not that difficult to envision a gaming philosophy where XP and treasure are bundled together as a single reward for overcoming challenges, right?





Of course it isn't!

I am merely arguing against the claim that there is no actual change.  Once change is acknowledged, it is possible to discuss the virtues and problems of each approach (and both do have virtues and problems, depending upon the kind of game you want to run).  Until then, all open discourse is shut down.

I am simply sick of "Look how much better X is than Y!!!  And at the same time X and Y are exactly the same if you happen to prefer Y to X!!!!"

I would like more honesty in the discussion.



RC


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I agree with you wholeheartedly!
> 
> This is hardly new.  What is new is that the DM is now encouraged to say "Yes" to this mindset, whereas previously the DM was encouraged to make the players work for what their PCs got.



I don't know that this was necessarily true.  I mean, there was at least some lip service to this effect, but the treasure in the printed modules themselves was at odds with this advice, quite often.

At best, you could say the message from earlier D&D was schizophrenic in this regard.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would like more honesty in the discussion.
> 
> In 4e, it teleports after you until you find it.  That is a very different philosophy of what "game rewards" represent.
> 
> ...




To further greater honesty in this discussion, please quote the text of the 4E DMG that suggests "teleporting treasure."

Thanks, VB

I am familiar with 1E and 4E. I still own both DMGs and find the advice in each helpful. I also see the contrasts between the two.

"Old School" design insinuated that once you as DM build the world it is then "static." I *don't* mean that nothing can change from that point, but if you placed the Goo-Gaw of Gax in the Dungeon of Darkness it stays there until someone finds it. It doesn't have to be the PCs, but someone has to find it or it lies dormant.

"New School" design insinuates that things in your campaign don't really exist until you reveal them to the players. Up until that point you have the right as DM to change things up to make things more fun, dramatic, etc. One modern example in another media is the show "24." Each season is a work in process. Some things that made sense in planning change over the course of the season. Some actors have no idea that their character is actually a plot twist villain.

Both design philosophies have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, you are more apt to cause plot holes with "New School" design if you're not careful, but you are more apt to paint yourself into a corner with "Old School" design if you're not careful.

On topic, I think it's really just some of the associated elements that some people have identified that cause the divide. Power levels seem to definitely be one. World setting seems to be another major issue. I think the problem of "anything goes" is generally theoretical unless a problem player or DM is involved. I know someone will come along and tell me about their player who wanted to play a telletubby in a serious campaign, that's a problem player IMO. I personally leave all options open, with one caveat. When playing something I don't initially envision being in the world I've created (or borrowed), it is the player's responsibility to create a compelling story for why his PC exists in this world. I don't want to lose a creative idea from a player just because I didn't think of it.


----------



## Stoat (Nov 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course it isn't!
> 
> I am merely arguing against the claim that there is no actual change.  Once change is acknowledged, it is possible to discuss the virtues and problems of each approach (and both do have virtues and problems, depending upon the kind of game you want to run).  Until then, all open discourse is shut down.
> 
> ...




I think you're tilting at windmills, and I think you're seeing dishonesty where none exists.  D&D has a decades long history.  It's been played by millions of people.  It has a long and illustrious tradition of house ruling, kit-bashing and home brewing.  Different people play the game different ways and always have.  Indeed, from the little I know about the subject, Gygax and Arneson played the game different ways.  Further, while some people prefer playing essentially the same type of game for decades, others change games and playstyles on a regular basis.

Consequently, when someone says, "X hasn't changed".  I don't take it to mean that person is lying.  I assume that person has been using X all along, or that person houseruled X out of the game or that X isn't important enough to that person for them to notice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 3, 2009)

Hobo said:


> I don't know that this was necessarily true.  I mean, there was at least some lip service to this effect, but the treasure in the printed modules themselves was at odds with this advice, quite often.
> 
> At best, you could say the message from earlier D&D was schizophrenic in this regard.




Not so.

Certainly there is plenty of *opportunity* in the old modules, but if you followed the advice in the 1e DMG, *opportunity =/= acquisition*.  It is only coupling the modules with a different game philosophy than earlier D&D presented that causes the apparent paradox.  In Dragon, for example, the one printed instance of someone going through the G series tournament shows that the major treasures of G1 were completely missed.
IOW, the plethora of opportunity exists because it was expected that only a fraction of that opportunity would become actualized.

I still run games this way today.  And, believe me, the fraction of opportunity that is actualized is usually less than 50%....seldom more than 75%, even for the best gamers I have played with (and my sample set numbers over 100).  IMHO, and IME, this is still the most fun type of gaming experience, with two caveats:

(1)  The DM actually allows player choices to determine how much opportunity is actualized.  I.e., the DM doesn't attempt to lead the PCs to what he thinks should happen.

(2)  The DM doesn't tell the players what the PCs missed.  I.e., the players are told what the PCs know, and are not shown the old man behind the curtain.

Together, these ensure that there is a lot to be found, that PC actions lead to every find (and hence the players have a real sense of accomplishment), and that the players don't feel screwed by what they didn't find (because, optimally, they usually don't know it).

Anyone who finds the modules and the 1e advice schitzophrenic, I expect, is doing so because they are not actually following the advice given.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 3, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> To further greater honesty in this discussion, please quote the text of the 4E DMG that suggests "teleporting treasure."




Are you objecting to the term, or claiming that the meaning of the term is not accurate?  Please note that, within the context of the discussion, "teleporting treasure" refers to the fact that the treasure is moved until the PCs find it (as opposed to potentially remaining missed), not the actual method of its being moved.



Stoat said:


> I think you're tilting at windmills, and I think you're seeing dishonesty where none exists.




Of course.  No one, for example, would make a thread asking for answers to the argument that wizards are nerfed in 4e, because no one would ever think of trying to counter a valid observation with a clever argument.

Sorry, but there are two types of dishonesty that I think damaging to discussions here:

(1)  Dishonesty with others.  I.e., I want Bob to join my 4e game, but Bob doesn't like how wizards are nerfed, so how can I convince him otherwise?  Or, as an obvious subset, some people don't like X about game Y, and I like game Y, so how can I convince them that X is the same in game Z, which they like?

(2)  Dishonest with self.  Sorry, but I am with Freud and Jung in believing that people often fail to examine/understand their own motives.  If what someone is saying is at odds with itself, or is at odds with what the person does, I generally assume that either (a) what the person does is closer to the truth than what the person says and that (b) statements that are at odds with each other mean that neither can be accepted at face value.


YMMV, of course.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 3, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> "New School" design insinuates that things in your campaign don't really exist until you reveal them to the players. Up until that point you have the right as DM to change things up to make things more fun, dramatic, etc.



That may be "old school" and "new school" or it may not.  Certainly, the "new school" way of running the game was an intuitive leap for me right from the get-go.  I have trouble seeing as "new school" the way I've been doing it for... I dunno.  27? 28? years.


Raven Crowking said:


> Not so.
> 
> Certainly there is plenty of *opportunity* in the old modules, but if you followed the advice in the 1e DMG, *opportunity =/= acquisition*.  It is only coupling the modules with a different game philosophy than earlier D&D presented that causes the apparent paradox.  In Dragon, for example, the one printed instance of someone going through the G series tournament shows that the major treasures of G1 were completely missed.
> IOW, the plethora of opportunity exists because it was expected that only a fraction of that opportunity would become actualized.



Yes, so.  That's a bit of a pedantic backpedaling, as far as I'm concerned.  _Who_ had these expectations that you're claiming existed for the play paradigm?  Where were they expressed?  Who expressed this advice?

My experience was that players under this paradigm knew that it was supposed to be hard to find stuff, so they were anal-retentive about searching and searching and searching until they had scrounged up most of the treasure to be found.  This is at once the source for my frustration with this playstyle, and the implicaton that the magic and treasure per level guidelines (such as they were) were not well represented by the modules listed.

Maybe you had players who were more interested in "moving on" than in finding as much of the loot as possible.  Well, more power to you.  But the implicit paradigm of D&D that some have expressed as a given here in this thread only lasts as long as it finds a group that plays with that same paradigm in mind.  In my experience, that meant very infrequently.  "Old school" means different things to different people, and I'm living proof that some groups _never_ embraced that paradigm, and often never even had it to begin with.  Does that mean that D&D wasn't really the right tool for the job?  Possibly.  But we didn't really know any better.  The "theory" of RPG design wasn't very well developed back then, and even if it was, we sure didn't know anything about it.  We played D&D because that's what was easiest to find in stores.

I do, however, reject the claim that unless you played D&D by the so-called implicit paradigm that you probably shouldn't have been playing D&D at all.  D&D was always a pretty flexible beast (until recently actually... at least arguably) that could support a wide variety of playstyles equally well.  Or equally poorly, depending on your point of view.

That's my major bone of contention.  This idea that there used to be a Way™ to play D&D, that was the One True Way™ that everybody did, was clearly espoused in the books themselves, and marched hand in hand with the game itself.  My experience was that _none_ of those were true; different groups came at the game with different playstyles from the get-go, the books didn't not clearly enumerate a playstyle, and the game itself was not designed in lock-step with any assumed playstyle; it accreted rules as they occured to the designers at the time.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 3, 2009)

Hobo said:


> That's a bit of a pedantic backpedaling, as far as I'm concerned.  _Who_ had these expectations that you're claiming existed for the play paradigm?  Where were they expressed?  Who expressed this advice?




Gary Gygax.

The 1e PHB.  The 1e DMG.  Writing in The Strategic Review.  Writing in The Dragon.

Really, if you view that as "a bit of a pedantic backpedaling", I would imagine that your view of the game is rather myopic.  



> My experience was that players under this paradigm knew that it was supposed to be hard to find stuff, so they were anal-retentive about searching and searching and searching until they had scrounged up most of the treasure to be found.




Then you should have applied the rules, rolled for wandering encounters, and let the dice fall where they may.  This sort of behaviour should have been lethal to the PCs.

Funny how this problem only occurs with groups who failed to follow the advice given, and then question the existence of said advice to explain their failure.  


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Are you objecting to the term, or claiming that the meaning of the term is not accurate?  Please note that, within the context of the discussion, "teleporting treasure" refers to the fact that the treasure is moved until the PCs find it (as opposed to potentially remaining missed), not the actual method of its being moved.




I am saying that the 4E DMG never uses the term "teleporting treasure" and any such labeling is created by others.

This is the first time I've seen this term described, so I guess I take issue with the term. By not knowing the terminology I believed that you were claiming that the 4E DMG suggests literally teleporting the treasure until a character finds it. This is the danger of using shorthand terminology and serves as a disservice to the writers of the DMG. Whether you agree with their design or not, labeling it in a misleading way can be miscontrued as malicious intent against the document. The gaming equivalent of "death panels."

And I still contend that there is nothing to move until it is discovered in game. Until the players interact with a part of the campaign, it only exists in the mind of the DM. For some it is fun to keep things internally consistant within their own minds. I certainly ascribed to this from the readings of 1E material and the influence of the DMs I learned from at that time. I'm sure others thought of what I consider "New School Design" besides Hobo, but the prevailing design philosophy at the time seemed to place him and those others in the minority.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Gary Gygax.
> 
> The 1e PHB.  The 1e DMG.  Writing in The Strategic Review.  Writing in The Dragon.
> 
> Really, if you view that as "a bit of a pedantic backpedaling", I would imagine that your view of the game is rather myopic.



I've read those, and yet I don't have the same impression as you.  Give me something specific.


			
				RC said:
			
		

> Funny how this problem only occurs with groups who failed to follow the advice given, and then question the existence of said advice to explain their failure.



Don't put words in my mouth; I never said this was a problem.  In fact, if that were true, what you said, it would strengthen _my_ case, not yours.  From the very beginning there were plenty of gaming groups that didn't adhere to that assumed playstyle.  There never was One True Way™ to play D&D.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Anyway, I've wandered far afield.  You guys are arguing only half of the equation.  Can you have sandbox with long term plots?  Sure.  But, high fantasy is characterized by world threatening events.  Sandbox isn't.




I see your point.

I always considered my sandbox games to be high fantasy, because they did find and act out the "world threatening" events.

However, I must concur that the big events they did not pay attention to, nor follow up, only destroyed the world once.

So I understand what you are saying about high fantasy and sandbox, they are seperate on the spectrum in most cases.

Thanks...


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 3, 2009)

Sandbox campaigns are inconsistent with world-threatening plots? Really?

Let's take a concrete example, by pulling from a piece of fiction (albeit only very marginally fantastic) with a character we all know: Indiana Jones. In the interest of avoiding a devolving argument, I propose we ignore _Crystal Skull_ and stick to the first 3 - chronologically going from _The Temple of Doom_ to _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ to _The Last Crusade_.

I would bet most people would consider Indiana Jones a pretty "down-to-earth" hero. Sure, as the main character, he doesn't die, but fundamentally, he's a middling-high heroic level character in a pretty realistic world. Indy pulls off some pretty impressive stunts - but nothing occurs that's too outlandish. Fundamentally, he's a low-fantasy character. On the other hand, he keeps an artifact of enormous power (the Ark) out of the hands of people who would have used it to overrun the world. Effectively, Indy saved the world. Now, if he hadn't, would someone else have? Maybe. Or maybe the Nazis would have taken the Ark and some other characters would have had to steal it from them.

That's how you do "world threatening plots" in a "sandbox setting" - you avoid the "imminent destruction of the world" scenario and stick to scenarios where "if nobody stops this, things will get way worse." That way, the plot your PCs ignore doesn't come back and destroy the world while their back is turned.

Oddly enough, Indiana Jones plots work very well in _Eberron_, a setting that I'm sure many of those in this thread would describe (irrespective of the truth of the setting) as "High Fantasy" rather than "Grim & Gritty." But that gets back to the whole definition problem that was raised earlier.

So...assume a D&D setting based on Indiana Jones sensibilities and plots: Is that High Fantasy? Grim & Gritty? Or something in between?


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2009)

JohnSnow said:


> So...assume a D&D setting based on Indiana Jones sensibilities and plots: Is that High Fantasy? Grim & Gritty? Or something in between?




Well, I haven't been following this thread too closely, but in my opinion there are two different meanings to grim and gritty.

1. The game setting: I think any game can have a grim and gritty setting. I think 4e is a grim and gritty setting. The world is in bad shape, evil is winning, lots of monsters etc...

2. The game rules: Some rules systems try to convey the grim and grittiness by making life hard on the players. Any damage is probably BAD news in these style of games, and PCs won't have too many big abilities, etc.. 4e is NOT grim and gritty rules wise.


I'm partial to the 1st type myself. I understand where the second type is coming from, but they just end up annoying me. 

I'd argue you can recreate Indiana Jones more easily in your game with the first type. It's a grim and gritty setting, (Oh no Nazis!) with rules that allow for Indiana Jones to do some cool stunts, avoid death much more easily then the second type that would require a VERY lucky player.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 4, 2009)

JohnSnow said:


> Sandbox campaigns are inconsistent with world-threatening plots? Really?
> 
> Let's take a concrete example, by pulling from a piece of fiction (albeit only very marginally fantastic) with a character we all know: Indiana Jones. In the interest of avoiding a devolving argument, I propose we ignore _Crystal Skull_ and stick to the first 3 - chronologically going from _The Temple of Doom_ to _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ to _The Last Crusade_.
> 
> ...




I'd call Indiana Jones pulp fiction, not grim and gritty.  You said it yourself, he performs fantastic stunts, survives things that should probably have killed him, and is smarter and better than everyone around him.  That's pretty much stock pulp action hero.

In a grim and gritty setting, the boulder trap would have squished him in the first ten minutes of the game, because, to me, gritty=realistic.

Grim and gritty, to me, is Master and Commander, the Sharpe's stories, things of that nature.  Stories that are as close to "realistic" as possible.  That's what gritty means doesn't it?  Granted, the Sharpe's stories aren't particularly grim, but, they're certainly gritty.


----------



## The Ghost (Nov 4, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Grim and gritty, to me, is Master and Commander, the Sharpe's stories, things of that nature.  Stories that are as close to "realistic" as possible.  That's what gritty means doesn't it?  Granted, the Sharpe's stories aren't particularly grim, but, they're certainly gritty.




Realistic when referring to a setting; courageously persistent when referring to a character.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 4, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> Realistic when referring to a setting; courageously persistent when referring to a character.




I'd buy that.

See, to me, I look at Indie and company racing along on runaway mining cars, fighting, jumping etc and most of all, escaping without any injury as pretty far removed from grim and/or gritty.

The most gritty scene to me would be when the swordsman comes out of the crowd and does his whirling scimitars thing.  Indie pulls out a gun and shoots him once and he falls down dead.

That's gritty.  Apply that same standard to the PC's and you have a gritty game.

To ask it another way, what's the difference between Indie's runaway mine car scene and Legolas surfing on a shield in LOTR?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 4, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I am saying that the 4E DMG never uses the term "teleporting treasure" and any such labeling is created by others.




This is true, but again, the point is that the treasure _*will be found*_ regardless of what the PCs do.  This is a direct, and logical, extention of the idea behind the wealth-by-level guidelines in 3e, and is very different from the guidelines in TSR-D&D.

I am more than willing to accept that "there is nothing to move until it is discovered in game", but that statement doesn't change the point.



Hobo said:


> I've read those, and yet I don't have the same impression as you.  Give me something specific.




"there was at least some lip service to this effect"

I guess that you are at least somewhat aware of what I am talking about.  This is the sort of game you love to play; I do not love it so much.

I understand, from this thread as well as others, that you apparently didn't comprehend what Gary Gygax had written, and therefore had problems with 1e.  That's cool.  Gary's style was not for everyone, and it could be obtuse.  

Please note that I am not putting words into your mouth.  You never said this was a problem; however, your postings make it amply clear to anyone who can parse what you *do* say.

It goes without saying that I could run a 4e game while ignoring the guidelines, and have a crappy game, too.  Or I could ask you for explicit statements that CaGI isn't mind control, etc.  

But that wouldn't be the fault of 4e.  Either it would be a fault in my comprehension, or it would be me being a dick.  And I have had that fault in my comprehension in the past, so I am well aware of what it is like.  And I have been a dick in the past as well, so I am also well aware of what it is like.  No doubt, I will fail to comprehend something in the future, and no doubt I will be a dick in the future.  It happens to the best of us.

I don't like 4e, because the gaming philosophy does not match what I want in a game.  I don't need to pretend that it has the same gaming philosophy as older editions in order to bash it.  It is definitely true that I failed to comprehend how radical a shift in philosophy 4e has made, and I really disliked some parts of 4e as a result.  Now, 4e is simply not a game that I enjoy playing that does what it sets out to do well, but does not set out to do what I want.

Do you really need to pretend that it has the same gaming philosophy as older editions in order to support it?  _*Really?*_  Because, IMHO, this sort of dishonesty is the reason why edition wars rage so hot.



RC


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 4, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I understand, from this thread as well as others, that you apparently didn't comprehend what Gary Gygax had written, and therefore had problems with 1e.  That's cool.  Gary's style was not for everyone, and it could be obtuse.



I understood Gygax's writing just fine.  I haven't looked at it in years, so my _memory_ of it isn't good.

But I never had any problem understanding it.


			
				RC said:
			
		

> lease note that I am not putting words into your mouth.



Sure you do.  You did several times just in this post that I'm responding to alone.  For example, you paraphrased just above as "I don't understand Gary's writing."  Not the words that I had in my mouth.


			
				RC said:
			
		

> I don't like 4e, because the gaming philosophy does not match what I want in a game.  I don't need to pretend that it has the same gaming philosophy as older editions in order to bash it.  It is definitely true that I failed to comprehend how radical a shift in philosophy 4e has made, and I really disliked some parts of 4e as a result.  Now, 4e is simply not a game that I enjoy playing that does what it sets out to do well, but does not set out to do what I want.
> 
> Do you really need to pretend that it has the same gaming philosophy as older editions in order to support it?  _*Really?*_  Because, IMHO, this sort of dishonesty is the reason why edition wars rage so hot.



I don't know enough about 4e to speak about it intelligently.  I've had little interest in 4e, and am not very familiar with what its assumptions are.  So, if we're not talking about the gaming style of 4e, I don't have anything to add.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 4, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is true, but again, the point is that the treasure _*will be found*_ regardless of what the PCs do.  This is a direct, and logical, extention of the idea behind the wealth-by-level guidelines in 3e, and is very different from the guidelines in TSR-D&D.




I still detect, I will admit that I could be wrong, some negative bias in your choice of words. The treasure will be found when the PCs overcome a challenge. The contrast is that in earlier editions discovering the treasure was sometimes a challenge in itself, whereas now the suggested method focuses on the challenges the PCs face and rewarding them for overcoming those challenges. But saying "regardless of what they do" could lead a person unfamiliar with 4E to believe that the designers suggest giving PCs rewards for something unchallenging that they have done. You may not have intended that meaning but that's the inference I'm getting.



Raven Crowking said:


> I am more than willing to accept that "there is nothing to move until it is discovered in game", but that statement doesn't change the point.




My point again is that "teleporting treasure" has negative connotations. The idea of literally teleporting treasure around until PCs find it most likely sounds ludicrous to most people. But even you are willing to accept the idea that treasure doesn't actually have to exist until it is discovered. Again, someone unfamiliar with 4E could garner a negative view of the game if they accept your commentary as valid. And those who are familiar could view your choice of words as an unfounded bash of the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 4, 2009)

Hobo said:


> You did several times just in this post that I'm responding to alone.  For example, you paraphrased just above as "I don't understand Gary's writing."  Not the words that I had in my mouth.




"Putting words into your mouth" implies that I claim you said them.  

But, whatever.  Have your little slapfight with someone else, please.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I still detect, I will admit that I could be wrong, some negative bias in your choice of words.




Personal bias, not "objective" bias.


RC


----------



## aboyd (Nov 4, 2009)

I don't know why RC is obligated to use wording that protects your game.  We're not allowed to use negative connotations for a particular edition?

I do not like that early editions used THAC0.  I prefer the unified d20 mechanic.  I would describe THAC0 as "sucky."  But do I need to _not_ say the truth about my opinion to protect someone who worries that if I call it sucky "someone unfamiliar with 1E could garner a negative view of the game?"  I mean, isn't that the point?  To convey a negative view of the game?

I mean that as a legitimate question, and probably more for the mods.  I don't know if the rules of En World really suggest this heightened level of PC-ness.  I'd love to know.

In any case, with regards to the discussion about treasure parcels being coupled with the combat encounters, I actually like the idea in concept.  However, I prefer 3.x modules, which follow the "find it or lose it" philosophy.  For example, the DCC module Bloody Jack's Gold from Goodman Games has a massive treasure hoard.  It's totally inappropriate for the level.  It's also a PITA to find, and the module kinda assumes that the DM will allow the players to miss it.

The DCC module The Sinister Secret of Whiterock contains a secret treasure room near the beginning.  It's entirely possible that wily players could find it, avoid the rest of the module, and pretty much just walk away with all the loot before finishing all the encounters.  However, again, the module seems to have another assumption in mind -- the treasure room isn't obvious, and typically a party would pass it by and continue on.

So while I like the idea of spontaneously coupling a treasure parcel to an encounter, I find these DCC modules from Goodman Games are more interesting to me.  I like the "find it or lose it" mentality.  I like my dungeon to be mapped out beforehand, and to be as it is regardless of what the PCs cover.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 4, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Personal bias, not "objective" bias.






aboyd said:


> I don't know why RC is obligated to use wording that protects your game.  We're not allowed to use negative connotations for a particular edition?




I'm not saying that anyone is required to choose one wording over another. I refuted RC's terminology because of my own personal bias. And I've explained what I actually took issue with in his posts because he asked. I'm just participating in my "side" of the discussion. You can use negative connotations for any game, just expect people (myself included) who disagree with you to actually...well...disagree with you.

I did not mean to insinuate any sort of personal opinion censorship.



aboyd said:


> I do not like that early editions used THAC0.  I prefer the unified d20 mechanic.  I would describe THAC0 as "sucky."  But do I need to _not_ say the truth about my opinion to protect someone who worries that if I call it sucky "someone unfamiliar with 1E could garner a negative view of the game?"  I mean, isn't that the point?  To convey a negative view of the game?




"Sucky" is not misleading though. We are quite clear you don't like THACO in this instance. Calling advice on placing treasure so characters are sure to find it "teleporting treasure" is misleading. The advice in the books never suggests literally teleporting treasure. Now, if you were to say relocating treasure so PCs can find it is "sucky," then I have no misquote to call you out upon. I could discuss the merits and downfalls of this method and the method you prefer, but I could not dispute your opinion that you believe it to be "sucky."



aboyd said:


> I mean that as a legitimate question, and probably more for the mods.  I don't know if the rules of En World really suggest this heightened level of PC-ness.  I'd love to know.




The rules are to be courteous and play nice. Starting edition wars is a big no-no. Expessing one's opinion on how they read others' posts may help someone realize they are coming off differently than they intended. Or it may rile them up as apparently I have with you.



aboyd said:


> In any case, with regards to the discussion about treasure parcels being coupled with the combat encounters, I actually like the idea in concept.  However, I prefer 3.x modules, which follow the "find it or lose it" philosophy.  For example, the DCC module Bloody Jack's Gold from Goodman Games has a massive treasure hoard.  It's totally inappropriate for the level.  It's also a PITA to find, and the module kinda assumes that the DM will allow the players to miss it.
> 
> The DCC module The Sinister Secret of Whiterock contains a secret treasure room near the beginning.  It's entirely possible that wily players could find it, avoid the rest of the module, and pretty much just walk away with all the loot before finishing all the encounters.  However, again, the module seems to have another assumption in mind -- the treasure room isn't obvious, and typically a party would pass it by and continue on.
> 
> So while I like the idea of spontaneously coupling a treasure parcel to an encounter, I find these DCC modules from Goodman Games are more interesting to me.  I like the "find it or lose it" mentality.  I like my dungeon to be mapped out beforehand, and to be as it is regardless of what the PCs cover.




The first example I don't find enjoyable as DM. Either the PCs find the treasure and skew the balance of the game with "totally inappropriate for the level" treasure or they don't and that section of the module is wasted space. The second example is less of a problem for me as DM, but if it did trigger the party to "walk away with all the loot" and not continue with something I spent time planning for I'd be irked. Since I'm not a good "on the fly" DM I'd be left breaking the 4th wall telling my players we're done playing for the night.


----------



## aboyd (Nov 4, 2009)

I get that.  Good.  I guess I just don't know why disagreeing with RC took the form of saying, "someone unfamiliar with 4E could garner a negative view of the game if they accept your commentary as valid."  That seems less like disagreeing and more like an appeal -- "Hey, help me protect my edition from critique!"

However, I'll let go of it as either poor wording on your part or poor reading on my part.  Probably the latter, as I've not read all 15 pages of discussion and have likely missed some nuance.

I understand your clarified point now -- RC said what he said, and you disagreed.  Great.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 4, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> "
> Personal bias, not "objective" bias.
> RC




I am personally biased against experience points for finding treasure. It is philosophically repugnant. And I found it so from day one.

I have move treasure and challenges from one adventure and even details of a scenes on in to a later one and I started doing it way back many people did, they didnt exist until they were experienced is perfectly reasonable. The pretending it teleports is directly implying irrationality where none exists. It is a classic shortcut to making it easier on the DM.(Check out this - it is a theme in 4e)

Characters of a given level in D&D need approximately range x through y of Magic Items (or Boons Legendary or Divine or Grand Master Training. )The economy of those are for a large part built around treasure in 4e where either building it oneself with rituals (which cost money) or buying it from somebody who can... is fairly normal. 

(I hate game world assumptions being ingrained in game systems but this has been an issue with D&D from day one.).

They need these rewards of whatever kind in order for the system which uses character level as a measure of how bad the bad guys can be is based on measuring pcs based purely on level. DM's can adjust challenges... if the PC's do not have the amount of treasure/rewards appropriate for their level it makes the DM's job more difficult... (true to some extent I bet in every version of the game) --see there it is that theme, it makes the DM's job easier .. not doing so for philosophical reasons?? is just not pragmatic but it can be done and you need to be aware of what you are doing.

It is a basic consequence of needing to allocate a certain amount of "treasure" if they overcome a certain amount of obstacles because level is supposed to be THE actual useful measure of your characters power.

Level was less meaningful from one DMs game to another DM's game in AD&D because you had to analyse what magic items people had with a much finer comb with a clear indication of what level appropriate might be in 4e really comes a realization that NOT conforming to that is a way to make your job harder.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 4, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm not saying that anyone is required to choose one wording over another. I refuted RC's terminology because of my own personal bias.





I viewed it as a request for clarity -- which is why I noted personal bias rather than some sort of "objective" bias.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 4, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> I am personally biased against experience points for finding treasure. It is philosophically repugnant. And I did from day one.





It's funny, but when I was playing 1e back in the 80's, I disagreed with XP for treasure, too.  Nowadays, I just disagree with the "1 gp = 1 XP" ratio (RCFG used "10 gp = 1 XP", and the gp must be squandered).

Off topic, I would be interested in your take on RCFG.  You can find the current document on the last page of the link in my .sig.  Well, really I'd like your take on the monster fluff when it comes out because of your interest in the Fey Mount discussion.  But that's a topic for another day, on another thread.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 4, 2009)

aboyd said:


> I get that.  Good.  I guess I just don't know why disagreeing with RC took the form of saying, "someone unfamiliar with 4E could garner a negative view of the game if they accept your commentary as valid."  That seems less like disagreeing and more like an appeal -- "Hey, help me protect my edition from critique!"




If it makes you feel any better I will step up and defend any system, any edition, any thing whether I support it in general or not if I believe someone is misrepresenting something. When anyone can show me a section of text from a 4E book that uses the term "teleporting treasure" I'll admit the error of my ways and back off.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 4, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> It's funny, but when I was playing 1e back in the 80's, I disagreed with XP for treasure, too.  Nowadays, I just disagree with the "1 gp = 1 XP" ratio (RCFG used "10 gp = 1 XP", and the gp must be squandered).
> 
> Off topic, I would be interested in your take on RCFG.  You can find the current document on the last page of the link in my .sig.  Well, really I'd like your take on the monster fluff when it comes out because of your interest in the Fey Mount discussion.  But that's a topic for another day, on another thread.
> 
> RC




I will see about looking in to it... I am ever fond of good rich flavor elements entirely independent of mechanics.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 4, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> But, whatever.  Have your little slapfight with someone else, please.



  Uh... I tried to get the thread back on topic.  Instead, all I got in return is your pedantic wheedling about whether or not pure Gygaxian D&D was... pure or something.  I'm not even sure if you have any points in there or if you're just slapfighting nitpickety points that you want to nitpick.

So I'll ask again; for those who claim that players don't like grim and gritty; or who are players who don't like grim and gritty; what is it about grim and gritty that you don't like?  Let's get some specifics so we can identify the problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 4, 2009)

Whatever, Hobo.  Par for the course.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 5, 2009)

Hobo- I'll take a stab at that.

But first, for the purpose of this post, I'll define my take on grim and gritty.  To me, grim and gritty refers to a setting and a playstyle where the background is not a happy one (the grim part) and that actions are resolved in such a way that is as realistic as possible.  And, by realistic, I mean real world realistic, not just fantasy world realistic.

In other words, in a gritty system, when I jump off a cliff, I die.  When I jump in lava, I die.  When a snake bites me, I get poisoned, infected, burn with fever, and then die.  

And that, to me, sums up why I don't want to play gritty fantasy games.  Particularly D&D.  D&D is about combat (again, for me).  It's about going places and killin' stuff that needs killin'.  But, in a gritty setting, I should be dying just as often as I'm winning.  In the real world, Jackie Chan dies.  In a Jackie Chan movie (and insert action here as you like), he survives terrible punishment and keeps on fighting and wins out in the end.

That's what I want from my fantasy.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 5, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Hobo- I'll take a stab at that.
> 
> But first, for the purpose of this post, I'll define my take on grim and gritty.




Wow a post much closer to being on topic than many  congrats


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 5, 2009)

Hussar; that's an interesting take.  I agree that I prefer grim to gritty; I'm an example of a fan of the _Die Hard_ effect.  Although arguably _Die Hard_ was a lot grittier than the other action movies that were current in the 80s with Arnold Schwarzenegger or Dolph Lundgren or whatever.

I do think you've somewhat overstated gritty, though.  You _don't_ always die if you fall off a cliff, get bitten by a snake, etc.  Lava... yeah.  You die.  I personally know snake bite survivors (rattlers, mostly).  _Best Served Cold_ is an interesting example of a very gritty fantasy novel where, in the first few pages, the main character survives being thrown off a cliff.  And in the real world, Jackie Chan is actually still alive.

But still, I take your point.  There's a difference between grim and gritty, and when I say "grim and gritty" often what I really mean is just grim.  But as I was getting to earlier, gritty is a spectrum, not an endpoint.  I prefer _more_ grittiness than D&D these days offers (except at very low level) but I still don't really like things to be too much grittier than your typical _Die Hard_ movie.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Nov 5, 2009)

@Hussar - I think you've come quite close to how I define grim & gritty (though I tend to explicitly separate them out: "grim" is about ambiance, and "gritty" is about mechanics and survivability).

A lot of people use "Die Hard" as an example.  I see that as a pretty grim and gritty movie insofar as people die right and left, and winning in the end is difficult.  *That* is how I like my settings: the hero wins, but he _hurts_ doing it, and probably loses friends along the way.  The lethality, to me, is compelling, but I still like to "win" in the end.

So this leads me to a question:  *How do people view mechanics like "action points"?* Are these or other similar devices, compatible with grim and gritty?  

To take Die Hard as an example again: the setting is gritty, and Bruce Willis really takes his lumps - but, he also expends a few Hero Points to triumph in the end.

Personally, I rather like this: as a scarce resource to manage, it gives the player a fair bit of control in how and when he shines - and in a grim and gritty setting, such a hero shines particularly brightly.  But some may see such mechanics as a cop out; with them, the argument goes, it's no longer "gritty".


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 5, 2009)

the_orc_within said:


> @Hussar - I think you've come quite close to how I define grim & gritty (though I tend to explicitly separate them out: "grim" is about ambiance, and "gritty" is about mechanics and survivability).
> 
> A lot of people use "Die Hard" as an example.  I see that as a pretty grim and gritty movie insofar as people die right and left, and winning in the end is difficult.  *That* is how I like my settings: the hero wins, but he _hurts_ doing it, and probably loses friends along the way.  The lethality, to me, is compelling, but I still like to "win" in the end.
> 
> ...




That may be the crux of the problem. I don't see Die Hard as being really any "grittier" than the Indiana Jones movies. Sure, McLane bleeds more, but he's not really "hurt" in the sense of being physically impaired. Indy gets plenty hurt, and he doesn't go crashing through any plate glass windows.

Real world physics? People die falling out of a window or from being bitten by a poisonous spider or snake. They get paralyzed falling off a horse. They go into shock if they get shot. They die from a single knife wound. They break arms, legs, and ribs that put them out of action for WEEKS. And they break their necks falling down the stairs. It doesn't always happen, but for true "realism," all that has to be "possible." But if it were, most characters in an action-oriented game wouldn't make it through even 1 adventure.

That's my issue with "gritty." I don't think most people (players especially) really want "real world" physics. They just want slightly less wahoo heroics. Which is totally, fine, but realize we're mostly talking matters of degree here.

One person's "heroic" is someone else's "wahoo." Personally, for me: realistic physics? Hell no.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 5, 2009)

I think we've seen alot of evidence in this thread as to why players may tend to not like "gritty" worlds. I think we've come to the concensus that gritty=realistic. The problem with that is the average DM probably doesn't understand the reality of combat and action, or only knows bits and pieces. We've seen comments like "falls off a cliff and dies", "shoots and kills", "bit by a snake and dies", "falls into lava and dies." Very few of us have experience with these events and equate them with total or near auto-death. Many of these things aren't 100% fatal and even if they are subjecting characters to situations where these elements can "get" them even if they are careful isn't always going to be fun for players.

Even if you use a "gritty" crit system it eventually becomes distasteful to many players. Eventually they will disregard the fact that they can occasionally disembowel an orc with one swing when they realize that the lasting wounds of the crit charts typically only affect them. Their enemies generally die and don't have to worry about the long-term effects. This perception eventually switches from the individual enemy to the DM in whole. WE have to suffer long term effects, the DM never does.

I have nothing but observational evidence to support this. I don't claim any of this to be true across the board. And, unfortunately, Grim is often paired with Gritty and suffers the side-effects of the unrealitic and/or unfun realism that players perceive.


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 5, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think we've seen alot of evidence in this thread as to why players may tend to not like "gritty" worlds. I think we've come to the concensus that gritty=realistic. The problem with that is the average DM probably doesn't understand the reality of combat and action, or only knows bits and pieces.




I would submit that plenty of DMs who understand the reality of combat and action actually lean away from "realistic" physics.

For example, I took Asian martial arts when I was younger and one of my  current hobbies is swordfighting. In addition to practicing it, I've read numerous books about the reality of it. As such, I have a _very_ healthy respect for "real" combat. I also know I wouldn't enjoy it in a game. 

Why? Real combat is very swingy - you never know who is going to live and who is going to die. The greatest swordsman in the world can be killed - dead - by one lucky shot from a novice. Or he might live through an entire day on a battlefield, and face down hundreds of opponents. Worse still, the first can happen the day after the second. In real life, that's to be expected. As a player in a game, I would hate to lose my lovingly crafted PC to a random encounter because of one lucky hit. I want my (presumably) plot-important character to have some form of "plot protection."

I think some of this may be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Someone gets it in their head that the assumed rules don't jive with their concept of "reality" and claims to want a "realistic" game. In my experience, what most people really mean is "more lethal," "more realistic," or simply "less over-the-top." The first is, I think, what players hear - and have no interest in. The second and third may be what DM's intend.

But honestly, who wants to be the random extra who dies in scene 1? In a "realistic" game, that can happen to anyone at any time. Meaningless death is going to be the natural result of "action-adventure setting" and "realistic physics." Nobody objects to it in principle - they just don't want their character to be the one who dies that way.

Keep in mind that "realism" is an absurd concept in a fantasy game anyway. What's the "realistic" result of an armored knight (or swashbucking rogue) with a magic sword facing off against a monstrous troll or spellcasting dragon in one-on-one combat. None of us has a clue.

Just some food for thought.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 5, 2009)

JohnSnow said:


> I would submit that plenty of DMs who understand the reality of combat and action actually lean away from "realistic" physics.



Bingo! and my background sounds similar to yours, Gygaxian hit point abstraction was there from day one of D&D and I didnt appreciate it when I was younger... thought it was unrealistic and introduced complications like needing saving throws to determine whether a poison attack had hit etc.... but ummm I was wrong the abstraction of quantifiable trackable luck and energy, morale and skill applied to minimize attacks resulting in trivial injury ... it is a wonder to behold.  D&D4e made elements of hit points more obviously what they always were and that improved consistancy causes me to appreciate them more. 

I can visualize my halfling mostlly running out of luck and having morale failures. And my ranger sweating up a storm with desperate skill...right along side the barbarian getting the mclane treatment etc. And its all hit points huzzah for abstraction.

Realism ummm yup way way too swingy. Every attack would now be save or die. Real soldiers die over minor injuries on hospital beds next to other real soldiers who survive heinous injuries. And some times the one who died of a minor injury .. survived a heinous one previously.

That said government studies show people do indeed usually function at 96 - 100 percent ... till suddenly they are out of it damn close to what we see with hit points. The reason why? is for survivability our bodies tend to not shut down until we can find safety, we dont do death spirals, then pain sets in saying ... no more (injury doesnt shut us down unless it is really extreme most everything in between your own body does the lets stop now).
So an immediate save or die when you get hit or just extreme.. critical effects then an after the end of encounter check that gets harder the more you were hit and you are disabled or dead.


----------



## The Ghost (Nov 5, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Even if you use a "gritty" crit system it eventually becomes distasteful to many players. Eventually they will disregard the fact that they can occasionally disembowel an orc with one swing when they realize that the lasting wounds of the crit charts typically only affect them. Their enemies generally die and don't have to worry about the long-term effects. This perception eventually switches from the individual enemy to the DM in whole. WE have to suffer long term effects, the DM never does.




Why the need for rules to support "Grim & Gritty" play? Can I not play it as a overriding theme or mood?



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And, unfortunately, Grim is often paired with Gritty and suffers the side-effects of the unrealitic and/or unfun realism that players perceive.




From Merriam-Webster:

Grim ~ 2b. Somber, Gloomy; 3. Ghastly, Repellent, or Sinister in Character

Gritty ~ 2. Courageously Persistent: Plucky

Most players I know enjoy playing the "Plucky" character; however, I will grant that not everyone appreciates a Somber or Gloomy tone to the game.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> Why the need for rules to support "Grim & Gritty" play? Can I not play it as a overriding theme or mood?




Thats my preferred method of "Grim and Gritty."

I'm not a big fan/supporter of the rules needing to make life harder on the players to portray a grim and gritty setting. I think it's perfectly fine to portray the idea of a grim and gritty world through description, and background stories even when your PCs are able to pull off some fancy moves, and survive a lot of stuff that would kill a normal person.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 6, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> Why the need for rules to support "Grim & Gritty" play? Can I not play it as a overriding theme or mood?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This was kind of my point. The DMs that make players dislike "grim-n-gritty" style games have taken over the definition of gritty to mean something other than the original meaning of the word. I don't believe anyone here has espoused gritty to mean plucky. Gritty has come to mean realistic in a gaming sense. A Google search of "grim and gritty" has top results of grim-n-gritty rulesets that make things harder on your character. A search of "grim and gritty" on TVtropes.com brings you to "Darker and Edgier" or "Grimdark."

The Google search is the phenomenon that I refer to. DMs choosing a system to make the world more lethal to the characters to try to achieve a sense of real-world reality.

TVtropes has the following to say about "Darker and Edgier": link



> A process that seeks to make a work of fiction "more adult". All too often, this really means it'll be less mature about its production.
> 
> Beware any press release that promises a new character or show which will be Darker And Edgier than the competition. In theory, it means that a show will shift towards cynicism on the Sliding Scale Of Idealism Versus Cynicism. But in practice, it far overshoots the mark, ending up spiced up with gratuitous gore, cursing, and sex, none of which makes the story any better and which wouldn't impress anybody but Beavis and Butthead. The show will also demonstrate that it's a harder universe now by having lots of unpleasant things happen to the characters or giving the characters a particular issue they can spend all their time angsting about; as with the sex and violence, this will usually be done in a ham-handed and immature manner and will come off as being annoying, if not actually laughable.




Many DMs could also be making this mistake when shooting for "grim and gritty" based on popular media they have consumed. This could be another cause for the conception that players don't like grim and gritty.


----------



## Barastrondo (Nov 6, 2009)

One thing to consider is the question of optimism as far the characters' ability to have an effect on their surroundings. Given players that like to make things better (which obviously isn't everyone, but there are enough to be significant), it'd likely be appropriate to look at the question of affecting one's environment as another form of character progression. 

If a setting starts out grim and gritty but isn't intended to stay that way, then you can hand out world changes as regular rewards. If the changes for the better are spaced out somewhat infrequently, then players who look forward to environmental change as a reward may lose interest. If the setting's meant to stay grim and gritty as a whole, then that's essentially capping a kind of reward, much like saying "this game will run only to 6th level" or "there will not be powerful magic items in this game."

Now, I've obviously spent no small amount of time catering to players who are fine with worlds that start dark and end dark. But I've also gamed with people who have no interest in that kind of play style, and many times it's because they miss the reward track of "make one family's life better; improve something about a neighborhood; improve a town," and so on. Some of them care less about increasing their character's personal combat power than usual, so the social reward track is all the more important to that sort of gamer.

Not everyone who doesn't care for a dark and gritty world as a player has necessarily had a bad experience with a GM who "did it wrong." Sometimes they just want access to the "make the world a better place" reward track, and they'd like it to go farther or provide more regular payouts than the game in question assumes.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 6, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> Why the need for rules to support "Grim & Gritty" play? Can I not play it as a overriding theme or mood?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Many arguments come down to differing definitions - and I have no arguments with these.
The world should be Grim, the heroes should be Gritty, though hopefully not in the 'sand in the peanut butter' sense. 

The Auld Grump, 'cause dragons hate that....


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Nov 6, 2009)

JohnSnow said:


> Real world physics? People die falling out of a window or from being bitten by a poisonous spider or snake. They get paralyzed falling off a horse. They go into shock if they get shot. They die from a single knife wound. They break arms, legs, and ribs that put them out of action for WEEKS. And they break their necks falling down the stairs. It doesn't always happen, but for true "realism," all that has to be "possible." But if it were, most characters in an action-oriented game wouldn't make it through even 1 adventure.



Entirely true: a fall from a tree can result in ignoble death in a truly gritty system (such as the Real World).  But flip that around: more interestingly, a fall from an airplane occasionally _doesn't_ result in death.  In real life, people do survive buildings crumpled by earthquakes, or miraculously recover from terminal cancers, or get struck by lightning multiple times, or survive hails of bullets, or walk or of train wrecks with nary a scratch.

To my mind, these things are remarkable because life is, well, lethal.

Likewise in a game. There's little heroic if the hero get off scott free everytime something bad happens.

That's why I had followed up my original statement with the question about action points, or similar mechanics that provide a limited resource a player can use to counterbalance the inevitable, crushing defeats that comes with grittiness.  I like things like hero points, death flags, fate, and related mecahnics because those sorts of devices allow (at least in principle) the PC to function in a truly dangerous environment, while reserving for the player a great deal of creative control over exactly how and when his PC can be the hero.  Spending such a "fate point" (or whatever) sort of models those people who survive falling from airplanes in a world where just falling off a ladder can kill.  In other words, despite the lethality of the system, the PC's wellbeing is still largely up to the player - just so long as he doesn't play the "get out of imminent horrible destruction" card _too_ much.  I guess I just see it as a way to let the grimdarkers have their cake and eat it, too.  Most of the time.  Almost.

Anyway, that's just my 2cp worth of opinionizing.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 6, 2009)

the_orc_within said:


> Entirely true: a fall from a tree can result in ignoble death in a truly gritty system (such as the Real World).  But flip that around: more interestingly, a fall from an airplane occasionally _doesn't_ result in death.  In real life, people do survive buildings crumpled by earthquakes, or miraculously recover from terminal cancers, or get struck by lightning multiple times, or survive hails of bullets, or walk or of train wrecks with nary a scratch.



True.  But these things happen so rarely that if a system is even remotely "realistic" then they will never happen to your character the entire time you are playing.  Unless there are mechanics that make them very likely to happen.  Which makes the system no longer gritty.

If you don't have enough "hero points" or "fate points" or whatever to get out of every dangerous thing that happens to you, then you are inevitably going to die some ignoble death.  They just delay it.

If you do have enough "hero points" to get out of every dangerous thing that happens to you, then you aren't even remotely realistic anymore and the system isn't gritty.

Gritty is more of a feeling.  It requires that the characters ACT like they are scared for their life every time they are in danger even though the mechanics of the game are such that they are NEVER in any danger.  Your mileage may vary on whether this is a good thing or not.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 7, 2009)

If Gritty=Plucky, then fair enough.  Most games I've played are gritty by that definition.

Since we're playing "Pick and Choose" with dictionary definitions, as I said earlier, I see gritty as:



			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> 3. realistic, hard-hitting, unsentimental, unromantic a gritty film about inner-city deprivation




So, while I find gritty as plucky to be a good thing, the overwhelming majority of examples of "gritty" games or settings take the latter definition.  Warhammer RPG being a pretty good example.  1e D&D is often also held up as being "gritty" because of the plethora of ways of dying pretty quickly.  

The problem with critical hits and failures is that it punishes the players.  The baddies are only one stage once (usually) and they're going to die.  The PC's have to survive every time.  The longer you play, the greater the chances that the dice gods declare you dead.

On Hero/Action points.  LOVE them.  In my last 3e campaign, I allowed players to turn any fatal attack to instead leaving them stable at -9 in exchange for all remaining Action Points.  So, if you were out of AP's, you died or, if the entire party went down, you'd all die.  However, it made death a very rare thing.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 7, 2009)

Hussar said:


> If Gritty=Plucky, then fair enough.  Most games I've played are gritty by that definition.



and is probably not the one most often meant.



Hussar said:


> So, while I find gritty as plucky to be a good thing, the overwhelming majority of examples of "gritty" games or settings take the latter definition.  Warhammer RPG being a pretty good example.  1e D&D is often also held up as being "gritty" because of the plethora of ways of dying pretty quickly.




However --- dirt and detail is also gritty where you describe every flicker of light and the sound of characters breathing and sweating and the smell of fear... the location and blood of specific wounds...  could also be grit.... a gritty game can also be morally messy with ambiguous definitions of good and evil. (notice their are no mechanical requirements for this)... it can be story tone by narrative... Are there mechanics which inhibit this ... yup detect evil anyone?

I am fond of the mechanics which inhibit the lethality of the game... and having minions in 4e to highlight that heros are special in this regard is very useful (ally minions do show the fragility of the everyman - are yummy).


----------



## The Ghost (Nov 7, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Since we're playing "Pick and Choose" with dictionary definitions, as I said earlier, I see gritty as...




And this is why we have so much miscommunication in these types of debates - everyone has their definition of what these words mean. I am not saying that that is the only definition of what "Grim & Gritty" means but it is certainly one possible definition. And it needs to be considered as well as other interpretations.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 8, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> And this is why we have so much miscommunication in these types of debates - everyone has their definition of what these words mean. I am not saying that that is the only definition of what "Grim & Gritty" means but it is certainly one possible definition. And it needs to be considered as well as other interpretations.




And fair enough.

If Gritty=Plucky or determined, then I don't think anyone has an issue with a gritty campaign.  In fact, I'd argue that nearly every campaign out there is gritty by this definition since nearly every campaign out there has PC's challenging dangerous odds in order to achieve some sort of goal.  If the PC's weren't plucky or determined, they'd be at home tending the farm.

On the grim side of things, I don't think there's any argument particularly.  There are a plethora of grim settings out there - Ravenloft being a well known example, and one of my favorite settings, Scarred Lands is certainly on the grimmer side of things - that are quite popular.  So, IMO, it's not the grim side of the equation that causes problems for groups.

The gritty side, if you define gritty as "a sort of realistic portrayal" does tend to cause issues however.


----------

