"Gritty realism" and or extreme cynicism in fantasy.

[Agrippa]

Does anyone here favor "gritty realism" in fantasy, with death, disease and famine every where, or the extreme cynicism of works like G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Fire and Ice? I don't, but I wonder if anyone here does.

[FlaminCows]

I haven't read A Song of Ice and Fire yet, but yeah, gritty realism is a factor in games I like to play. I don't like the term "realism" though, since I do prefer some magic even in my grittiest games.

[wotmaniac]

First things first: "grittiness" and "being a masturbatory, superfluously-cynical fuck" are 2 different things -- when the 2 happen to coexist, it is mere happenstance.

But yes, I do indeed like grittiness in my games; and generally prefer it, for the most part. 
Of course, I am willing to admit that this may be do to a certain amount of intellectual laziness on my part.

[Nicklance]

I always try to encourage some theme and issue-thinking when I am DM-ing. Kinda like to engage with deeper thoughts.

For example, in a game I am about to run this month, my players will have an opportunity to acquire rulership, and I will be engaging them with issues like failing crops, taxes, law and order, civil matters. And this isn't just some self-gratification on my part, I will endeavor to make those issues relevant to the game at large.

But is that gritty or realism? I am not sure.

[Agita]

It can be pretty cool and thought-provoking in stories.
I couldn't care less for it in RPGs. If I want to think about the depressing realities of real life, I have, you know, real life.

My stance on this is partially informed by the experience that a lot of "gritty realism" in gaming that I've seen comes down to, as wotmaniac puts it, "being a masturbatory, superfluously-cynical fuck", as well as shoehorning the wrong system into it, so bad experiences. For the most part, though, I simply want to pretend to be a badass, not pretend to care about starving villagers, and I most certainly don't want to be made to care.

[Raineh Daze]

Realism and I cannot coexist in the same room where fiction is involved. It's boring (I may as well just watch a history documentary), it imposes annoying limitations that defeat the whole point of having any unrealistic elements, and it tends towards the mundanely depressing. If I wanted that, I'd just read the news, not seek out fantasy.

A whole city being driven mad and turned into undead? Gloomy, but fantastic. Said city starving to death? Why is this given so much importance in a fantasy setting?

[Sinfire Titan]

Realism and I cannot coexist in the same room where fiction is involved.

Same here. People say that games should emulate real-life, but if they did Call of Duty wouldn't allow a respawn and would format your console's hard drive every time you died.


Keep realism out of my escape from reality!

[oslecamo]

Realism and I cannot coexist in the same room where fiction is involved.

Same here. People say that games should emulate real-life, but if they did Call of Duty wouldn't allow a respawn and would format your console's hard drive every time you died.


Keep realism out of my escape from reality!

Count me in that as well. Screw realism, I want my giant flying lizards with fortresses on their backs to be a part of the game!

[dman11235]

There's a difference between realistic and what you guys apparently think it is.  You can have that flying lizard with a fortress on its back AND the realism too.  All that's changing is the laws of physics.  So you can make a new world with new laws of physics that allows for the fantasy elements while still being realistic.  To me, the realism helps a game out tremendously.  I can't get immersed in a game that's so far removed from reality that logic fails you (and not in a good way like a Cthulhu or similar game would).  For this, think of Avatar (Cameron movie).  Alternatively, if the laws are internally consistent  and seem logical, you get a much more immersive setting.  For this, think of Avatar (Nick show).

Additionally, sometimes I like a game that involves the micromanagement of real life.  DayZ may be a bit too much for me, but Kerbal Space Program and Dwarf Fortress scratch that itch usually.  Dwarf Fortress is probably the best example.  Realistic injuries, and dragons exist.

[Raineh Daze]

Dwarf Fortress is hilariously unrealistic, unless you consider manic-depressive alcoholic midgets too dumb to survive five minutes on their own and somehow capable of getting completely different body parts injured without things between getting so much as scratched realistic.

Also, internal consistency isn't realism. Internal consistency is a base requirement of any good fiction: if things aren't consistent from one scene to the next, and no explanation is given, then you cannot tell a story.

Also, never seen the movie, so I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. Humans are bastards and strange blue people with no technology can win with a little help against spacefarers, because apparently only one human ever has two brain cells to rub together? No clue.

Addendum: realistic injuries and consequences are the quickest way to ruin a lot of the fun you can get out of a fantasy setting (well, except low fantasy, but that means they're pretty much normal people anyway, so this stuff is considerably less relevant as it's defined by being less fantastic).

[Sinfire Titan]

There's a difference between realistic and what you guys apparently think it is.  You can have that flying lizard with a fortress on its back AND the realism too.  All that's changing is the laws of physics.  So you can make a new world with new laws of physics that allows for the fantasy elements while still being realistic.  To me, the realism helps a game out tremendously.  I can't get immersed in a game that's so far removed from reality that logic fails you (and not in a good way like a Cthulhu or similar game would).  For this, think of Avatar (Cameron movie).  Alternatively, if the laws are internally consistent  and seem logical, you get a much more immersive setting.  For this, think of Avatar (Nick show).

Additionally, sometimes I like a game that involves the micromanagement of real life.  DayZ may be a bit too much for me, but Kerbal Space Program and Dwarf Fortress scratch that itch usually.  Dwarf Fortress is probably the best example.  Realistic injuries, and dragons exist.

Oh I agree that games need some degree of realism, but it's when people try enforcing the laws of physics to the point that noncasters can't longjump more than the real-life world record that I start taking issue.


Shit like that can die in a fire.

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

I don't know that "realism" is the best word for what some contemporary fantasy is shooting for with grittiness and suchlike.

Interal consistency is one aspect of this thing we're talking about and it's one that many works of fiction and/or RPG campaigns tend to lack. More than you would think considering that it is, as Raineh said above, a basic requirement of good storytelling.

I think that is sometimes referred to as "realism" because there is this idea that if there are things like giant fortress backed flying lizards in your story that means you no longer have to worry about consistency. I don't know where that idea came from but it needs to die in a fire.

I think "gritty realistic fantasy" is, to some extent, a reaction to the sort of story that thinks because it has dragons it doesn't need to care about consistency.

[Raineh Daze]

The type of realism I object to is not, I would like to note, the way characters act. There is a reason why humans, or characters capable of expressing humanlike emotions and concerns, are normally viewpoint characters. It's the mundane. This is fantasy, at what point do the daily concerns of medieval peasantry, or nobility tax laws and noblesse oblige, matter? At most, it should lead to something extraordinary. Fantasy isn't meant to be a simulator for day to day life in X culture and social station.

Unless this is the day to day life of Roman emperors when they were getting through rulers before they even had time to get used to the spot.

[SneeR]

I must also draw a thick line between grittiness and realism.
As a DM, I like to apply realistic consequences in the mix from fantastic events, such as famine or economic hardship as the result of frequent demon raids and subsequent drop in trade to the area. These realistic consequences tend to make things gritty.

"Realism" in the sense of trying to limit characters to IRL physics and logic is retarded. I like, though, the idea that IRL logic can apply to the ramifications of actions. Flood the economy with gold? It's worthless! Throw produce fire spells in the fields? Starvation galor!
Encouraging players to use long-term thought really makes for interesting games.

Oftentimes my games are very political in nature. I have a rule, though, that I call the "God of War Rule": Take every opportunity to let the players feel awesome; if they want to do something outside the rules, say you will check its legality later, and let it work the first time. We play to escape reality, so let it show!
However, letting the players dance wantonly through the streets will have ramifications: these may be gritty, but they are "realistically foreseeable" in that using an ounce of foresight should dissuade certain actions.

[Raineh Daze]

I must also draw a thick line between grittiness and realism.
As a DM, I like to apply realistic consequences in the mix from fantastic events, such as famine or economic hardship as the result of frequent demon raids and subsequent drop in trade to the area. These realistic consequences tend to make things gritty.

"Realism" in the sense of trying to limit characters to IRL physics and logic is retarded. I like, though, the idea that IRL logic can apply to the ramifications of actions. Flood the economy with gold? It's worthless! Throw produce fire spells in the fields? Starvation galor!
Encouraging players to use long-term thought really makes for interesting games.

Oftentimes my games are very political in nature. I have a rule, though, that I call the "God of War Rule": Take every opportunity to let the players feel awesome; if they want to do something outside the rules, say you will check its legality later, and let it work the first time. We play to escape reality, so let it show!
However, letting the players dance wantonly through the streets will have ramifications: these may be gritty, but they are "realistically foreseeable" in that using an ounce of foresight should dissuade certain actions.

'Realistic' ramifications such as famine etc. (why magic can cause all these problems but not solve any one of them is a major question) would just serve as encouragement for me to play a character that doesn't care about such petty concerns, just so I don't have to pay attention to them.

And it honestly seems to be ridiculous beyond a certain point: characters are these amazingly competent bastions of 'insert race here', yet they're expected to deal with farming and economics? Riiiiight, I didn't know all these levels in wizard were a banker substitute.

[oslecamo]

And it honestly seems to be ridiculous beyond a certain point: characters are these amazingly competent bastions of 'insert race here', yet they're expected to deal with farming and economics? Riiiiight, I didn't know all these levels in wizard were a banker substitute.

I'll have to agree with that one as well. In what other place than in D&D can you make your character dance trough the fields/streets while setting them on fire? Sure, that may atract the local guards, but then you get to use all those fancy battle powers you picked along the way.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

4th-ing Raineh Daze on realism ... 



Now that's not to say, you can't have a phase
of the game mimic very closely the (so called)
Real World.  Some people clearly prefer early
Harry Potter or combat similar to MMA ... or
even Pokeman with the kiddies.

"Gritty" can be either an adjective, or a crunch mechanic.
You don't have to play 4e where the PCs cakewalk.
You can play 3e with the Lords Of Madness tougher difficulty.
But in both cases, the Party could be Heroes defending
the little people from the bbeg, triumph over evil, etc.
And in all these cases, the feel might not be gritty at all.

"extreme cynicism" ... might be a completely reasonable
attitude by non lawful evils, trapped on the 7th level of Hell.
I can help you get out. 
No, you can't ; not even gonna say prove it.

[wotmaniac]

When I think "gritty realism", in the context of a fantasy world, my mind, by default, goes immediately to Conan.
But more than constraining characters to RL-style physics, the term is really a state of mind and an attitude.  To me, it says that real danger is actually a thing for PCs; it says that PCs are not going to be coddled -- decisions are important because there will actually be consequences: the Law of Natural Consequences if in full effect, and karma is ultimately unavoidable.
Cynicism may be present, but it's not necessarily a driving theme. (or maybe I'm too cynical to recognize it  )


My comment on "being a masturbatory, superfluously-cynical fuck" was directed specifically at Martin.  That dude wears his world view on his sleeve; and I have to say that the area inside his brain casing must be a sorry, miserable place .... it's kinda sad really; and it wouldn't be near as infuriating if he wasn't such a colossal dick.

[Agrippa]

When I think "gritty realism", in the context of a fantasy world, my mind, by default, goes immediately to Conan.
But more than constraining characters to RL-style physics, the term is really a state of mind and an attitude.  To me, it says that real danger is actually a thing for PCs; it says that PCs are not going to be coddled -- decisions are important because there will actually be consequences: the Law of Natural Consequences if in full effect, and karma is ultimately unavoidable.
Cynicism may be present, but it's not necessarily a driving theme. (or maybe I'm too cynical to recognize it  )

I like this kind of "realism". Otherwise over the top and even superhuman characters are fine by me, but all major actions must have consequences. Also real-world diasters (floods, famines and the like) can happen, but the heroes, for lack of a better term, can overcome them.

[veekie]

I prefer to avoid the term 'realism' and go for more attention to detail. It doesn't matter that a dragon can't fly in real life, or that people(and monsters) can be disabled by taking small amounts of damage in a large variety of areas. It DOES matter that such things be made to serve the narrative(in a story) or the fun(in a game).

Narratively, it provides an avenue for reversals and hole cards hidden in plain sight when used right, but becomes unsatisfying when you have "shit happens" as neither purpose nor outcome.

In games, it supports and describes how game balance should look. If taking wounds would be crippling and rapidly fatal, it means the game should ALSO have evasion based defenses, and develop combat pacing appropriately. You pay attention to what the setting requires of pacing and consequences, THEN set things up so they will be so.