So, what exactly is the appeal of GrimDark?

[Jeivar]

I mean, really? These settings that are just unceasingly dark and miserable, where every authority figure is a corrupt bastard, where the 'good guys' are amoral pricks, where the antagonists are gut-wrenchingly depraved, and so powerful that they're pretty much guaranteed to win in the end anyway?

I can never get into, say White Wolf's Vampire games, since aside from all the manipulative monsters a character is surrounded with, he's also on an unavoidable slide down into inhuman monstrousness and at best will become just another manipulative bastard.
I just can't get invested in a fiction where there is not a single ray of hope of anything turning out all right in the end, so I'm curious why other people apparently are. What's the point when everything is screwed no matter what you do?

[Tengu_temp]

Some people like dark and edgy - I don't share their views, but I accept that some people have different tastes than me. Some other people think that dark and edgy is cool, smart and realistic, and that more idealistic stories/settings are boring and stupid - and I have nothing but contempt for those people, for not only are they mistaken, but they also bash others' tastes for stupid reasons.

[Grey Paladin]

Grimdark is about meaningless people fighting meaningless battles over meaningless reasons. The hero knows there is no hope, but fights anyway because that is the right thing to do. He finds a meaning where there is none.

When everything is a shade of black, the white shines much brighter.

[chiasaur11]

Hilarity?

Schadenfreude?

[Cyrano]

Less embarrassment upon failure.

[Killersquid]

It's a taste. I love Grimdark things, I find them pretty cool. I also love Light things too.

[Oslecamo]

Hilarity?

Schadenfreude?

This. Just look at WH40K. It seems like an huge contest where each side is trying to be the more grimdark and it ends up being hilarious!

Emperium: we use genetic engineered fanatics with chainsaws and hordes of normal mens with flashlights and make them fight each other for no clear reason but our own amusement! Oh and we give them all spikes and skulls and stuff to make them look even darker! Hey, those guys look happy, kill them! And their family! And also their planet since we're at it!

Chaos: we take guys from the other factions and then give them even more spikes and skulls togheter with demonic stuff! MUAHAHA SOMETHING FOR THE SOMETHING GOD! STUFF FOR THE STUFF THRONE!

Eldar:Oh we're so angsty and doomed with your emo history! We would conquer the universe if we were not so busy making deep philosophical speeches. Also, OUR SHURIKENS WILL COVER UP THE SUNS!

Nids: Ripping off every space monster bug in science fiction since god knows when, and loving it.

Dark eldar: war and hate dude!

Tau: Communints in space! You all think we're out there to get you when we just want to develop ourselves!

Orks: Yoh gawds we heard you liked fighting to death so we're a race that cares only about fighting to death so you can fight to death while you fight to death.

[Satyr]

Many of the so-called "grim" settings aren't particular dark in comparison to reality. In comparison to the rest of often extremely euphemistic and unrealistically, contrived utopic settings, this is a pleasant diversion from the whole idealistic crap, especially if you have players who see as the world and its inhabitants as they are and not as they should be. For those who do not recognize this difference, this may seem cynical in comparison, but that is almost always a question of perspective.

And many other settings are so over the top that they aren't grim anymore, they are just hilarious thorugh overemphasise. It is not difficult ot create. They aren't hopeless, they are pretty much comedies with other props. Take Warhammer 40k for example. It's so grotesque, it is nothing but hilarious.

The settings I generally prefer are often conscidered to be darker than average - especially when I write themselves, since then I normally take more obscure historical perods and events as basics, and those aren't ful of hope and flossed teeth.

[ZeroNumerous]

Warhammer 40k appeals because, as mentioned before, it's so GRIMDARK that you can't take it seriously.

If you're talking about a realistic scenario where not everyone is a knight-in-shining armor and the 'bad guys' and 'good guys' are just people with ideological differences, then I feel it appeals because no one is the clear cut hero. A story where a person's motivations are more important than whether they're painted white or black is, in my opinion, more enjoyable than seeing Generic Hero Guy #1 and Generic Heroine Chick #1 killing Monster of the Week #34.

As for why you can't get into Vampire: I don't suggest Vampire, really. NWoD Vampire is just Goth Lite, and OWoD Vampire is so ridiculously campy I certainly can't take it seriously. Try Mage or Werewolf if you want more Heroes versus Villains since both have clear cut bad guys and clear cut good guys.

[Weezer]

Grimdark is about meaningless people fighting meaningless battles over meaningless reasons. The hero knows there is no hope, but fights anyway because that is the right thing to do. He finds a meaning where there is none.

When everything is a shade of black, the white shines much brighter.

I think that this is exactly why it is so appealing, which is much the same reason that people (including me) find existentialism appealing. The idea that there is no meaning in life, that what you do has no inherent meaning, that everything will end up that same. Thus the gimdark hero (who is often an existential hero) fights a useless battle against that which is unbeatable, as one wise hippiemancer said "Striving for the impossible doesn't mean toiling in vain." I think that it is this very sentiment that makes grimdark so appealing.

[Om]

I mean, really? These settings that are just unceasingly dark and miserable, where every authority figure is a corrupt bastard, where the 'good guys' are amoral pricks, where the antagonists are gut-wrenchingly depraved, and so powerful that they're pretty much guaranteed to win in the end anyway?You'd be surprised just how many historical scenarios you've just described

[Grey Paladin]

I think Weezer nailed it. When the trappings of hope and victory are stripped away, you are left with an hero who fights for one thing alone: an idea.

[The_JJ]

Yeah, pretty much the above. Also, refreshing realism, when things don't go overboard, and/or change, because not all books need be fluffy bunnies. I once explained to a Twilight fan with a t-shirt screaming 'Love Always Prevails' exactly how much love messes everyone up in the SOIAF books, and ended my rant "so from those four books we can assume that love makes you do stupid and/or amoral things. Like drop seven year olds out windows. Because he caught you with your sister. Now, is that realisitic? No. But neither will you ever find Edward goddamn Cullen because no man you will everfind has spent 100 years learning to be awesome, nor will they glitter in sunlight."
So yeah, the appeal is a more rounded worldview.

Irony is good to.

[Grey Paladin]

ASoIaF is not GRIMDARK :smallannoyed:

[Innis Cabal]

I mean, really? These settings that are just unceasingly dark and miserable, where every authority figure is a corrupt bastard, where the 'good guys' are amoral pricks, where the antagonists are gut-wrenchingly depraved, and so powerful that they're pretty much guaranteed to win in the end anyway?

I can never get into, say White Wolf's Vampire games, since aside from all the manipulative monsters a character is surrounded with, he's also on an unavoidable slide down into inhuman monstrousness and at best will become just another manipulative bastard.
I just can't get invested in a fiction where there is not a single ray of hope of anything turning out all right in the end, so I'm curious why other people apparently are. What's the point when everything is screwed no matter what you do?

Whats the appeal of High Fantasy? Whats the appeal of Fairy Tales? Its personal taste. Thats all it is.

[The_JJ]

No, but it's close enough that other people have called it such. I'm sure Twilight's not all fluffy bunnies. But it serves as a nice analogy/metaphor/thingy.

[Innis Cabal]

ASoIaF is not GRIMDARK :smallannoyed:

I don't know what you've been reading but you'll find most consider it rather grim and dark...even the author.

[averagejoe]

Many of the so-called "grim" settings aren't particular dark in comparison to reality. In comparison to the rest of often extremely euphemistic and unrealistically, contrived utopic settings, this is a pleasant diversion from the whole idealistic crap, especially if you have players who see as the world and its inhabitants as they are and not as they should be. For those who do not recognize this difference, this may seem cynical in comparison, but that is almost always a question of perspective.

And many other settings are so over the top that they aren't grim anymore, they are just hilarious thorugh overemphasise. It is not difficult ot create. They aren't hopeless, they are pretty much comedies with other props. Take Warhammer 40k for example. It's so grotesque, it is nothing but hilarious.

The settings I generally prefer are often conscidered to be darker than average - especially when I write themselves, since then I normally take more obscure historical perods and events as basics, and those aren't ful of hope and flossed teeth.

This offers a very narrow view of the world.

[Weezer]

ASoIaF is not over the top GRIMDARK like 40K is but it is pretty grim and pretty dark, lets see by the end of the fourth book:
(spoilered for those who haven't read it yet(if you haven't stop what your doing and get reading))


-there is no ruler of any sort in the 7 kingdoms (tommen doesn't count), Cersei is imprisoned for adultury, Crow's eye is pillaging not trying to do anything constructive, stannis is mucking about in the wall, all the other kings are dead.
-The rightful queen burned someone alive to hatch her dragons
-the only 2 starks left are Ayra (training to be an assasin) and Sansa (slowly being corrupted by Petyr)
- oh and basically everyone is dead


I'm not sure how you can get grimmer or darker than that

[WitchSlayer]

Because some people consider it realism, but as Grant Morrison wrote in Flex Mentallo
"Only a child could confuse realism with pessimism"

[chiasaur11]

Because some people consider it realism, but as Grant Morrison wrote in Flex Mentallo
"Only a child could confuse realism with pessimism"

Smart man, Morrison.

Or just insane. Or both.

Sometimes it's a bit hard to tell.

[Tengu_temp]

Because some people consider it realism, but as Grant Morrison wrote in Flex Mentallo
"Only a child could confuse realism with pessimism"

http://ffrpg.republika.pl/approve.PNG

[ZeroNumerous]

Because some people consider it realism, but as Grant Morrison wrote in Flex Mentallo
"Only a child could confuse realism with pessimism"

And yet in the reverse so many people readily accept utterly immaculate idealism without so much as a grain of salt. As Robert Antom Wilson put it: “Cynics regarded everybody as equally corrupt... Idealists regarded everybody as equally corrupt, except themselves.”

[The_JJ]

Because some people consider it realism, but as Grant Morrison wrote in Flex Mentallo
"Only a child could confuse realism with pessimism"

Eh. I've problems with the quote.

The way I see it, if you've got enough regular access to the intraweb to be posting on this site, then yeah, be optimistic, if you wanna. But don't go out there and say that dark stuff, pessimism, isn't 'realistic.' I've done to much travelling for that. India, for instance. However many Oscars Slumdog Millionare won, remember this, the slums were real, the fate decreed love story wasn't. Or Cambodia. All the amputees. And our tour guide nodding and saying 'yes, the Khmer Rouge shot my father for speaking French.' Anyway, what I'm saying is I have no doubts in my mind about the capabilities of the bat**** insane members of our dear species.

Yeah, universal grimdark might not be the whole truth, but it is part of it.

[KnightDisciple]

http://ffrpg.republika.pl/approve.PNG

...How do I get one of those with my screenname? :smallbiggrin:

[chiasaur11]

...How do I get one of those with my screenname? :smallbiggrin:

Change your name to some variant of Tengu?

[Rutskarn]

And many other settings are so over the top that they aren't grim anymore, they are just hilarious thorugh overemphasise. It is not difficult ot create. They aren't hopeless, they are pretty much comedies with other props. Take Warhammer 40k for example. It's so grotesque, it is nothing but hilarious.



I respectfully disagree.

If you go into the specifics of the Horus Heresy (which are widely misunderstood, by the way--it's actually both plausible and tragic), the rest of the setting and motivations make a lot of sense.

While W40K can be used excellently for dark humor and/or unbridled awesomeness, it has the capability to be extremely, genuinely dark. It's not subtle, but it doesn't have to be.

[Mr._Blinky]

ASoIaF is not over the top GRIMDARK like 40K is but it is pretty grim and pretty dark, lets see by the end of the fourth book:
(spoilered for those who haven't read it yet(if you haven't stop what your doing and get reading))


-there is no ruler of any sort in the 7 kingdoms (tommen doesn't count), Cersei is imprisoned for adultury, Crow's eye is pillaging not trying to do anything constructive, stannis is mucking about in the wall, all the other kings are dead.
-The rightful queen burned someone alive to hatch her dragons
-the only 2 starks left are Ayra (training to be an assasin) and Sansa (slowly being corrupted by Petyr)
- oh and basically everyone is dead


I'm not sure how you can get grimmer or darker than that

Well, you're also forgetting that Bran and Rickon are alive as well, but then again their home was burned to the ground, all their friends are dead, and Bran is crippled. But yeah, that's pretty much the way of it.
Actually, I would say that ASoIaF is definitely extremely grim and dark, but I'd hesitate to call it GRIMDARK. From my experience, GRIMDARK is usually used to denote settings where the GRIMDARKness is so over the top as to be almost funny, if not hilarious, like WH40K. ASoIaF is so effective because, and I know people will disagree with me on this, I think that the characters really do act like real people. If you doubt me, take a look at some of the insane wars and political intrigue throughout history; there are some crazy people in this world.

[Jeivar]

Because some people consider it realism, but as Grant Morrison wrote in Flex Mentallo
"Only a child could confuse realism with pessimism"

Hm. I generally consider Morrison an overrated fruitcake whose weirdness people have confused with talent, but THAT I can agree with.

[Oslecamo]

If you go into the specifics of the Horus Heresy (which are widely misunderstood, by the way--it's actually both plausible and tragic), the rest of the setting and motivations make a lot of sense.


No it doesn't. The Horus heresy is precisely one of the most ridiculous events of all WH40k history:

1-The primarchs get stolen and it really is never explained why. Super secret project? Yeah right.

2-If it was just random luck from the Chaos Gods, why does the Emperor trust his sons when he gets them back? Even if said sons have actually received brain cirurgy to become bloodthirsty machines of death who tell to the face of the Emperor that they hate him?

3-A thousand warnings that the Horus Heresy will happen, and the Emperor conveniently either ignores them all or tries to kill the people warning him. Wow this was suposed to be the smartest guy in the galaxy.

4-The Golden throne, wich was suposed to be a gate to Eldar getway, it's conveniently a super life suport system...

5-Horus is possessed by the 4 Chaos gods, trying to conquer Terra itself, after having left a bloody swat of destruction trough the emperium and Emperor "I killed trillions of inocents in my quest for power!" still holds back against him. When did the Emperor become a soft pansy that cares about other lives over the big picture?


There is no plausible and/or tragic explanation possible. The Emperor got drunck and lost his primarchs. Then he found them corrupted all over the galaxy and put them in comand of the SM legions whitout bothering to do any questions or investigation if they were actually fit to be trusty leaders after several decades in Chaos hands, and even after one of said primarchs telling the Emperor he didn't want to work for him!

That's WH40K grimdarkness for you. Put the clearly psychotic unknwon guys in charge of your forces, and then wonder when it all went wrong when they turn against you.

Also, the siege of Vraks, wich technically is written in a very serious tone:

A planet has such powerfull anti-ships defenses that somehow it's impossible even for the imperium to assault it from space.

BUT it's ground defences suck so much that an army armed with WW1-equivalent weaponry and tactics can actually take it down! Whitout even basic air suport!

Of course, the Emperium sudenly has no nukes or no weapon with more range than a few dozen quilometers, because then there wouldn't be any need to throw millions of mens with paper armor and flashlights into the frontline in an authentic WW1 re-actment.

Did I mention the part when the super empirial assassins with the best stuff mankind can provide does an epic fail trying to kill the leader of the heretics, by not doing any kind of reasearch of the defenses he has?

Or how the sisters of battle completely fail to notice the heresy untill they're literally being thrown into the local dungeons?


It was WW1 IN SPACE! Ok, worst than that, since they didn't even have any planes-equivalents. It doesn't make any freaking sense when you have the WH40K basic technology available for you!

[Innis Cabal]

Except thats not how it happened....at all....like even close....you need to re-read the story

[ZeroNumerous]

No it doesn't. The Horus heresy is precisely one of the most ridiculous events of all WH40k history:

1-The primarchs get stolen and it really is never explained why. Super secret project? Yeah right.

2-If it was just random luck from the Chaos Gods, why does the Emperor trust his sons when he gets them back? Even if said sons have actually received brain cirurgy to become bloodthirsty machines of death who tell to the face of the Emperor that they hate him?

3-A thousand warnings that the Horus Heresy will happen, and the Emperor conveniently either ignores them all or tries to kill the people warning him. Wow this was suposed to be the smartest guy in the galaxy.

4-The Golden throne, wich was suposed to be a gate to Eldar getway, it's conveniently a super life suport system...

5-Horus is possessed by the 4 Chaos gods, trying to conquer Terra itself, after having left a bloody swat of destruction trough the emperium and Emperor "I killed trillions of inocents in my quest for power!" still holds back against him. When did the Emperor become a soft pansy that cares about other lives over the big picture?


These are actually rather easy to explain.
1- Tzeentch. Incredibly easy to explain since there's basically nothing that can be kept secret from him since the very act of keeping said secret draws his attention.

2- Because he's a father. Even on some basic level, every father feels an obligation to his child. It just so happens that the Emperor feels obligated to trust.

3- Again, because the Emperor is a father he puts his children above all whom would slander them. And because Horus is his first and only, he believes him over Horus' brothers.

4- The Emperor -did- believe in proactive planning.

5- Again, the Emperor is a father first and a god-killing abomination of man second. The prospect of saving his son is more important than the fact that he's an unredeemed murderer. Ironically, it's his reckless idealism that puts him in a super-coma.

[Oslecamo]

These are actually rather easy to explain.
1- Tzeentch. Incredibly easy to explain since there's basically nothing that can be kept secret from him since the very act of keeping said secret draws his attention.

2- Because he's a father. Even on some basic level, every father feels an obligation to his child. It just so happens that the Emperor feels obligated to trust.

3- Again, because the Emperor is a father he puts his children above all whom would slander them. And because Horus is his first and only, he believes him over Horus' brothers.

4- The Emperor -did- believe in proactive planning.

5- Again, the Emperor is a father first and a god-killing abomination of man second. The prospect of saving his son is more important than the fact that he's an unredeemed murderer. Ironically, it's his reckless idealism that puts him in a super-coma.

Oh, how sweet, love can indeed bloom in the battlefield!

1-It still doesn't explain how he stole them.

2, 3, 5-Then I proved the Emperor was a maniacal madman, because he puts the fate of all the other SM , who technically were also his children, into the hands of the clearly corrupted ones. A father does not sacrifice 99.99% of his children for the sake of the others! That's not love, that's psycopathic obsession.

4-Pro-active planning like, making sure that if his children rebelled he could counter is quickly and effeciently? Like having a secret code to disable all their ships and equipment should they turn against him?




Innis Cabal:By all means tell us your version of what hapened! Because there's a billion diferent Horus Heresies going around in the net right now, and I'm not really willing to read them all right now.

[Innis Cabal]

I don't have to tell it....http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Horus_Heresy

Thats all I need to do.

[Irenaeus]

SnipAny question asking "What is the appeal of [polemical category]?" is pretty pointless.

Unless people appreciate a product on some ironical meta-level, they will pretty much define everything they like outside of said category.

Trying to discuss a single work or series would seem more productive, or at least have more examples of exactly what kind of gritty you have a problem with.

Watchmen gritty? WH40k? WoD? ASoIaF? Deadwood? When Trumpets Fade? TheShield? The Wire? The Dark Empire Series? Anything by Mark Miller? All Quiet on the Western Front?

[TheFallenOne]

ASoIaF is not over the top GRIMDARK like 40K is but it is pretty grim and pretty dark, lets see by the end of the fourth book:
(spoilered for those who haven't read it yet(if you haven't stop what your doing and get reading))


-there is no ruler of any sort in the 7 kingdoms (tommen doesn't count), Cersei is imprisoned for adultury, Crow's eye is pillaging not trying to do anything constructive, stannis is mucking about in the wall, all the other kings are dead.
-The rightful queen burned someone alive to hatch her dragons
-the only 2 starks left are Ayra (training to be an assasin) and Sansa (slowly being corrupted by Petyr)
- oh and basically everyone is dead


I'm not sure how you can get grimmer or darker than that



Pretty easily actually. While the setting definitely has a dark tone and portrays rape, murder, torture etc, Martin contrary to what most people believe acutally goes out of his way not to show some really disturbing things. Or haven't you noticed that none of the main characters got raped so far although given the situations they were in render this possibility slightly improbable?

- Arya was a prisoner of the Brave Companions and Gregor Cleganes bunch for a rather long time. Still, she got away
- Brienne, again the Brave Companions. Same as above
- Sansa. Joffrey acutally announced he wanted to take her by force and had ample opportunity

Given the circumstances they were in I think it's rather unrealistic all POV characters got away like that. It's easy to miss this detail if you only look at the dark aspects and don't pay attention to the more disturbing things that could happen. Well, to tell the truth, I certainly don't want to read about a POV character getting raped, just remember that Martin could certainly make ASOIAF grimmer and darker without much effort

[Talkkno]

Trench warfare is used in 40k because it is effective against there most common enemy, Orks. Their strengths in mobility (red wunz go fasta!) and close combat skills are negated by a defense in depth strategy. Such as in Death or Glory the Ork headway managed to rapid gains but after the inital shock, the Imperial Guard managed to create a solid defense line that stopped the orks dead in their tracks. Similar to Germans in WW1, with their superior mobility and better trained army managed to get within reach of Paris but after the Battle of the Marne, it lead the war's bloody stalemate.

[Irenaeus]

Some people like dark and edgy - I don't share their views, but I accept that some people have different tastes than me. Some other people think that dark and edgy is cool, smart and realistic, and that more idealistic stories/settings are boring and stupid - and I have nothing but contempt for those people, for not only are they mistaken, but they also bash others' tastes for stupid reasons.I'm not trying to be difficult here, but can you explain how you are any different from them? Judging purely from thtat post, you would seem to be quite alike. I also suspect that somebody with a Rorschach avatar would feel that some grit can be good. :smallsmile:


ASoIaF is not over the top GRIMDARK like 40K is but it is pretty grim and pretty dark, lets see by the end of the fourth book:
(spoilered for those who haven't read it yet(if you haven't stop what your doing and get reading))


-there is no ruler of any sort in the 7 kingdoms (tommen doesn't count), Cersei is imprisoned for adultury, Crow's eye is pillaging not trying to do anything constructive, stannis is mucking about in the wall, all the other kings are dead.
-The rightful queen burned someone alive to hatch her dragons
-the only 2 starks left are Ayra (training to be an assasin) and Sansa (slowly being corrupted by Petyr)
- oh and basically everyone is dead


I'm not sure how you can get grimmer or darker than thatFirst and foremost, the way the category GrimDark is used on these fora has just as much to do with being condascending towards other peoples' tastes than it has to do with the adjectives gim and dark. It's a polemical category, and it is quite unfit for use in an analysis. GrimDark implies the two adjectives, and that you don't appreciate the product, except in a possibly ironic sense.

Also, you can get grimmer and darker than that by reading a history of the 100-years war. I'm just happy the characters in the books don't use all their time onstage killing the peasants of their enemies. I won't read the fourth book. Three was enough for me.


Because some people consider it realism, but as Grant Morrison wrote in Flex Mentallo
"Only a child could confuse realism with pessimism"Pessimism is realistic when things turn out bad. Pessimism neither excludes nor implies realism.

Is The Naked and the Dead GrimDark, realistic or nihilistic? It's not optimistic, that's for sure. What about a good old-fashioned tragedy. I would hardly say many of those are praised because of their realism.

[GolemsVoice]

I think what some people also enjoy simply letting go. The univere is inherently corrupt and everything must go downhill, so you don't need to bother with morality or taking the straight and narrow path. You can embrace your beast, or struggle against it, but you are damned. But the characters have the option to sell their soul dearly, not go quietly into the night and give the torch of hope to those who follow them in their steps, or to be the immoral beast that you actually are, to let loose. And that is what players can do, and some players like to do this. It's just the same as with overly optimistic and postivie setting with defined viewpoints on Good and Evil. In the real world, you know you wouldn't get away with the things that are standart in most darker settings, just as you would never be able to be as wholly good as a (well-played) D&D paladin.

So, it all comes down to hat roleplaying is. Making a character that can do things, experience things and think things you would never be able to do, experience or think in the real world. Whether those are good-to-boot paladins, characters struggling between good and evil, or totally evil bastards, is up to what you like.

Also, I tend to not confuse my own world-views with those of the game-world I play in. I believe in the good in man, and are, of course, utterly abhorred by things like the Holocaust or the massacres in Vietnam. On the other hand, I would have no problem playing a commisar in Dark Heresy, and enforce the Emperor's justice upon both subhuman filthy Xenos scum and worthless cowards. I can both embrace the darkness of the setting and revell in it, while still fighting against these things in real life, and I see no problem with that. After all, that's what role-playing is about, isn't it?

And I don't think we need to turn derail this thread into another 40K discussion, which, ironically, resembles trench warfare quite well.

[Oslecamo]

I don't have to tell it....http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Horus_Heresy

Thats all I need to do.

A fan-made site wich can be altered by anybody and everybody, excuse me if I don't trust the words of fanboys that much.

And even then that story is still ridiculous. Wounded primarch, how about we heal him by transfering his soul to the demon infested warp? Hell yeah! They could as well have handed Horus to the chaos gods in a silver platter. That's not tragic or beliveable, it's GRIMDARK. When posed with a problem, solve it by the most painfull and destructive way possible!


Not to mention Horus brilliant plan of challenging the emperor to 1 to 1 duel when he could just have:


1-Lure the emperor in.
2-Teleport out.
3-Self destruct ship.
4-?
5-Profit.


So no, even if that version was 100% acurate, it's still nothing more than a twisted parody that can't really be taken seriously.

[GolemsVoice]

Would you, and by that I mean the entire Warhammer 40K fraction, mind keeping your petty feuds to the Warhammer 40K thread? You all have made your point, and I think we can agree that the Warhammer 40K universe is pretty grim, and dark, and GRIMDARK. All further discussion doesn't belong here. Please.

[Lord of Rapture]

A fan-made site wich can be altered by anybody and everybody, excuse me if I don't trust the words of fanboys that much.

And even then that story is still ridiculous. Wounded primarch, how about we heal him by transfering his soul to the demon infested warp? Hell yeah! They could as well have handed Horus to the chaos gods in a silver platter. That's not tragic or beliveable, it's GRIMDARK. When posed with a problem, solve it by the most painfull and destructive way possible!


Not to mention Horus brilliant plan of challenging the emperor to 1 to 1 duel when he could just have:


1-Lure the emperor in.
2-Teleport out.
3-Self destruct ship.
4-?
5-Profit.


So no, even if that version was 100% acurate, it's still nothing more than a twisted parody that can't really be taken seriously.

There's an idea floating around out there that the Emperor KNEW they were going to rebel, but didn't do anything about it anyway, because he was planning something.

Now how that plan is anything other than totally insane... yeah, back to parody again.

[Tengu_temp]

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but can you explain how you are any different from them? Judging purely from thtat post, you would seem to be quite alike. I also suspect that somebody with a Rorschach avatar would feel that some grit can be good. :smallsmile:


The difference is that I don't bash people who simply enjoy grimdark stories - I bash people whose love of grimdark stories makes them bash more idealistic stories, and people who like them, as naive and childish. It's like the difference between being straight, but tolerant of alternate lifestyles, and being a homophobe.



Yeah, universal grimdark might not be the whole truth, but it is part of it.

Yeah, there's a lot of horrible things in real life - but guess what? There's also a lot of wonderful things. And just like extreme idealists don't see the former, extreme cynics don't see the latter.

[Lord of Rapture]

The difference is that I don't bash people who simply enjoy grimdark stories - I bash people whose love of grimdark stories makes them bash more idealistic stories, and people who like them, as naive and childish. It's like the difference between being straight, but tolerant of alternate lifestyles, and being a homophobe.



Yeah, there's a lot of horrible things in real life - but guess what? There's also a lot of wonderful things. And just like extreme idealists don't see the former, extreme cynics don't see the latter.

Nobody here's attacking you for liking idealistic stories. We're simply defending our right to like grimdark stories. There's no use lashing out at us for defending our opinion.

Seriously, relax, nobody's intruding on your right to like light, happy stories. You ought to respect that some of us like depressing, dark, cynical stories.

Quite frankly, my favorite stories are the ones that start cynical and end idealistic, like FMA*

[Irenaeus]

The difference is that I don't bash people who simply enjoy grimdark stories - I bash people whose love of grimdark stories makes them bash more idealistic stories, and people who like them, as naive and childish. It's like the difference between being straight, but tolerant of alternate lifestyles, and being a homophobe.Thank you. I couldn't quite figure that out from your original post.

I suspect that many of us would object to the very term being applied to the stories we like, though. Hence the above debate on A Song of Ice and Fire. I sure didn't like it when somebody called Blade Runner GrimDark. It's a silly category.

[Killersquid]

Nobody here's attacking you for liking idealistic stories. We're simply defending our right to like grimdark stories. There's no use lashing out at us for defending our opinion.

Seriously, relax, nobody's intruding on your right to like light, happy stories. You ought to respect that some of us like depressing, dark, cynical stories.

Quite frankly, my favorite stories are the ones that start cynical and end idealistic, like FMA*

The thing is, I think Tengu also likes Grimdark stories. And he's not bashing people who like them, like he said. It's just there are people (fanboys) who's rabid devotion to a genre, show, or idea can blind them from other cool things. There are people who won't watch shows because they deal with things in certain ways, and that really ruins their experience, because they are narrow-minded.

[Morty]

As much as I don't think questions like "Why do you like X" don't have much point, there's one issue that's unanswered: what, exactly, is GRIMDARK? It seems that as usual, noone can quite agree on what it is. One time, it means a rather pessimist story without an obvious happy ending and another, it means a blood-soaked angstfield like Warhammer 40k. Such is the life of Internet phrases, I suppose.

[The_JJ]

Yeah, there's a lot of horrible things in real life - but guess what? There's also a lot of wonderful things. And just like extreme idealists don't see the former, extreme cynics don't see the latter.

Yes I get that. Hence the "It's not the whole truth" qualifying statement.

I was merely a. objecting to the quote that said it was childish to think that pessimism was realism, which I think came from someone who has not in fact ever experienced what reality is for some people, and b. attempting explain that GrimDark allows for a nice change of pace from the generally more uplifting mainstream. Sort of an attempt to get a more rounded view and avoid the extremes, as it were. :smalltongue:

I totally get it if you want to bash on GrimDark fanboys who like to think they're mature because they read GrimDark and only GrimDark and call it the whole truth and bash everything else.

[Rutskarn]

Osclecamo: Yeah, the canon is inconsistent. That's what happens when you have so many editions, novels, and Word-of-God announcements. The same thing happened with Star Wars, and nobody's gonna deny either.

Personally, I go with the Horus Heresy series of novels, the first of which is by Dan Abnett. It paints a pretty stark, man-on-the-ground portrayal of the heresy which shows exactly why thousands and thousands of supposedly-loyal soldiers would defect to chaos and to Horus.

(The reason, by the way, is that Horus's charisma and presence on the front lines meant that inevitably, the soldiers owed more allegiance to Horus than to the distant emperor they'd never seen.)

[Tyrant]

There are people who won't watch shows because they deal with things in certain ways, and that really ruins their experience, because they are narrow-minded.
Isn't this just right back to insulting other's taste? I don't watch things I don't like therefore I am narrowminded? Let's say for argument sake that I don't like shows overflowing with happy thoughts and where everything always works out for the best. That makes me narrow minded?

I think you and Tengu need to work on your wording. I took his comments as insulting just as others did. The poorly worded, preemptive insult defense against as of yet non existent insults isn't the best way to make yourself sound reasonable.

As for the topic, I like darker stories. I believe some of their elements are closer to reality. That is not to say I think they perfectly mirror reality. I think they are closer than stories that are nothing but rainbows and sunshine. It's a nice change of pace, for me anyway. I do like lighter stories as well, but I view them as even more escapist entertainment than darker stories. Darker stories (that I have read anyway) tend to ask questions that actually have some relevence in the real world or are at least interesting from a moral standpoint. Lighter stories seem to mostly about feeling good that good wins in the end. I like some of both, but for different reasons. I don't criticise people who only like one or the other.

As someone else mentioned, there is an appeal for some people knowing that everything that happens is pointless. It's even better if the hero realises this. Like Spike and Angel in Angel. They accept that no matter what they do, they are going to Hell. Yet they still try to fight the good fight because in their words, what else are they going to do. Personally, I believe heroism in these settings can be even more heroic in some ways. Knowing that what you do is completely futile and nothing can fix things and instead of just giving up you keep fighting for what's right. It's easier being heroic if you know things at least have a chance of working out in the end than knowing you're screwed no matter what.

I also like some of these types of stories because we get a glimpse of what could happen if the villains win (when their plans aren't universal destrution anyway), or in some cases what happens if the good guys win and become so blinded by their own greatness that they become tyrants or worse. Sometimes they show that it doesn't take much to destroy all that is good and that it can be very hard to get those things back.

I also like darker stories because they seem to allow a greater range of emotions and character flaws in the characters. I know this is a generalisation, but like most people I don't have time to read every last book or watch every last movie so I have to stick to what I have read or watched. Characters can seem more like real people in that they aren't perfect. In lighter stories imperfection is something like not looking great or not being an expert soldier, or maybe being a jerk, etc. In darker stories imperfection is everything from being a racist to a reformed criminal of some type who still has lapses. Human beings simply aren't perfect and never will be so I like to see real flaws. It can become overbearing if everyone is that bad, but in some situations they would be.

I suppose those are all reasons I like zombie movies. The situation is usually completely hopeless, the characters are mostly flawed, and everything ends up in ruins more often than not. Then again Shaun of the Dead was great too and it was more comedy than anything.

As for GRIMDARK, from what I can tell most people seem to like it for it's over the top approach. That seems to be the appeal of WH40K anyway. The only exposure I have to it is the Dawn of War video game and reading about it here so I could be way off.

[Fri]

Strangely, I don't really like grim story with hope out of the horizon like Berserk, and I prefer, really prefer, happy ending.

But there is one, rather grim, trope that I like. It's when a small army or group doing last stand against an overwhelming enemy force. I like it if they succeed, but even if they don't, that's fine with me. A lot of people dislike defend mission in rts, but I like it since it evokes this trope.

[puppyavenger]

(The reason, by the way, is that Horus's charisma and presence on the front lines meant that inevitably, the soldiers owed more allegiance to Horus than to the distant emperor they'd never seen.)

hurray for roman allegories!*

anyway, considering how many different genres 40k can fit into, trying to define it as anything other then "not happy or idealistic" is kind of pointless." I mean, wasn't there an inquisitor web book that gave what was pretty much a synopsis of alien as a sample plot?.

anyway, I like dark stories (40k, ASOIAF) as well as ambivalent and grey stories. Mainly I just really hate stories where I can guess with reasonable certainty how the ending will go by the end of the first third.

also, the vision Horus has described in the 40k wiki article is really sadly funny.



*I have nothing against them, and its not like that's the only roman influence the Imperium** has, for example, see its name.


**also a great historical fiction book

[Verruckt]

A fan-made site wich can be altered by anybody and everybody, excuse me if I don't trust the words of fanboys that much.


you would do well to note the enormous "THE MAIN SITE IS FOR OFFICIAL CANON AND OFFICIAL IMAGES ONLY." tag on the front page before decrying the page's accuracy. The Horus Heresy page takes all of its information from the books that BL wrote about the Horus Heresy, which again you may want to read. (Not only for educational purposes but they're also really quite good.) Also, if you don't trust the word of fanboys then who pray tell should tell you what happened? Those rare scholars of 40k fluff that absolutely hate the setting but just grin and bear it so they can inform people like you of what really happened?



And even then that story is still ridiculous. Wounded primarch, how about we heal him by transfering his soul to the demon infested warp? Hell yeah! They could as well have handed Horus to the chaos gods in a silver platter. That's not tragic or beliveable, it's GRIMDARK. When posed with a problem, solve it by the most painfull and destructive way possible!


If you'd read further, or at all so it seems, you'd realize that this was their only recourse. Their choices were to let the Davinites try to heal Horus, or let him die. The reason they got screwed into that situation in the first place was because of Erebus' machinations. It is tragic and believable, the mournival, men who were essentially his brothers/sons, saw the man they loved most dying and were willing to do anything to save him, even if it risked losing him, anything was better than simply letting him die.



Not to mention Horus brilliant plan of challenging the emperor to 1 to 1 duel when he could just have:


1-Lure the emperor in.
2-Teleport out.
3-Self destruct ship.
4-?
5-Profit.


So no, even if that version was 100% acurate, it's still nothing more than a twisted parody that can't really be taken seriously.

No, I have no idea why someone with kingsize daddy issues like Horus would want to confront his father. The reason he challenged him to one on one combat was because he needed to end the battle NOW, before reinforcements arrived and he honestly thought he could win. He probably didn't enact your plan because he really wanted to confront the Emperor, and it would have left him short one rather important flagship if he had.

[Irenaeus]

While I applaud the effort to discuss something concrete when we are dealing with a vague and difficult term, discussing the plausibility of WH40k mythology in depth strikes me as largely irrelevant to the thread's subject. It could certainly be done in a separate thread, if desired.

A question. How do people feel about exceedingly dark or hopeless tales in a historical/ historically inspired war setting (such as either ASoIaF, or tales set in historical wars)?

Is this just appropriate, considering the setting? Or just one sided?

According to your own prefereces, to what degree does a tale need to be representative of the setting it depicts?

[Satyr]

I have yet another hypothesis for the appeal of supposedly dark settings: As we probably all know fantasy is strongly connected to escapism. Fantasy - and I will include the moe fantastic science fiction in the term for the purpose of the hypothesis - are a mean to evade the banality of everyday life. Therefore, fantasy needs to be different from the reality the reader/player/whatever copes with on a daily base.

Now, the average consument of fantasy media - may they be in the form of games, books etc. - is a pretty much priviledged individual. He or she has enough money to purchase media for entertainment, has enough leisure time to induce escapism and has probably access to a secure shelter, a steady social and/or family network and more than enough food. That is actually a good life.

Now, a grim and desperate setting offers an alternative to this secure life. Because of the effectively nice life of the reader, the desperate style of the fiction is an actual diversion from everyday life and therefore obtain the necessary variety to qualify for the escapism route.

So, essentially. people like gritty stuff because their life feels good.
And yes, this hypothesis at least works for me. I may have an unromanticised world view, but in my life is actually good. Yay for the priviledged!

[Lord of Rapture]

I have yet another hypothesis for the appeal of supposedly dark settings: As we probably all know fantasy is strongly connected to escapism. Fantasy - and I will include the moe fantastic science fiction in the term for the purpose of the hypothesis - are a mean to evade the banality of everyday life. Therefore, fantasy needs to be different from the reality the reader/player/whatever copes with on a daily base.

Now, the average consument of fantasy media - may they be in the form of games, books etc. - is a pretty much priviledged individual. He or she has enough money to purchase media for entertainment, has enough leisure time to induce escapism and has probably access to a secure shelter, a steady social and/or family network and more than enough food. That is actually a good life.

Now, a grim and desperate setting offers an alternative to this secure life. Because of the effectively nice life of the reader, the desperate style of the fiction is an actual diversion from everyday life and therefore obtain the necessary variety to qualify for the escapism route.

So, essentially. people like gritty stuff because their life feels good.
And yes, this hypothesis at least works for me. I may have an unromanticised world view, but in my life is actually good. Yay for the priviledged!

...I don't know how else I could put it any better.

You win this thread.

[rubakhin]

You know what, I think it's just easier to get into a world that's darker, because everyone's been screwed up, angry, and depressed at some point and felt like the world is a rough place. But there are comparitively less times we've felt like our whole lives are a Grand Adventure and our breasts were swollen with heroic chivalry or whatever.

When I want to play in a game, it's for fun and not to exercise my brain overly much. So, I find myself applying to more realistic, modern day-ish settings closer to grimdark than not, because that's easier to get into for me. I generally have to really work to get into the mindset of a nauseatingly noble guy living under a gentle-hearted philosopher-king or whatever, so I play those type of characters much less. The style isn't as anywhere near as engaging to me. But, er, maybe I'm just a really bad person. :smallfrown:

Also: personally I think gritty stuff tends to be more interesting. But it's corrolary, not causation. Like, for instance Watchmen is grittier than what superhero comics were at the time. It was also lot more nuanced and intelligent. So, sometimes when I see a darker setting, I feel like it means I'll be more free to develop a character having to deal with moral issues, difficult choices, emotional scars, social issues like racism, homophobia, poverty, childhood sexual abuse, or whatever, which is just what I find personally interesting. With whitewashed worlds in a happy mood your character is going to be a lot less troubled. I like troubled, because what I enjoy more than anything else in a game is ferreting out my character's neuroses, and it's most fun for me if I can make my character emo suitably complex. I really like taking apart a broken character and figuring out how it impacts what they do, even in everyday life.

It should be noted, though, because what really interests me at the end of the day is complexity and intelligence, I have as much of a problem with "grr we are all manly men who will spend the entire campaign clumsily insulting passerby, fighting child raping corporate executives and shaving before we go to bed" as I do with "okay, we're all Lawful Good paladins and the evil guy is a wizard in a tower who wants to take over the world for no halfway decent reason." The idea for me is just, okay, can I make a complex character in this setting and will it be second nature for me to slip into his/her head and have fun?

[GolemsVoice]

I think people must not confuse non-grim/light stories with the polar opposite of grimdark. I often see people in this thread talking about how they like (moderatly) grim tales because they feel it is more realistic, and, while I think this is a viable argument, many contrast this with the happy-sunshine world we find in some good D&D-societies or in very cliche heroic fantasy. What I'm trying to say is that the opposite of dark(er) is not totally happy, but a world in which the characters may be flawed and miserable, probably drawing from the same backgrounds that dark characters use, but that, in one way or another, they manage to acheve some good. Of course not all barons in their world will be wise, generous and loved by the people, or not all corporations will be open, friendly and fait, but the heroes fight against them and manage to change things, and be it on the smallest level. That's the real difference, for me anyway, between moderatly grim and moderatly happy, both hero-types may be flawed and human, but the grimmer tales will depict the heroes changing very little, or indeed failing to do anything, while the lighter heroes may achieve victory in one form or another. And, looking at te world I live in, I find both to be realistic.

[Dervag]

I think Satyr and rubakhin said it well: the appeal of GRIMDARK settings is that they are foreign to the reader's daily life, while invoking emotions that the reader has personal experience of. We've all despaired at some point, we've all seen examples of systems that were badly messed up. The idea of a whole world dominated by such systems may be different from the one we live in, but it's imaginable even to people who don't live in such a world.

Hmm... I wonder how WH40K does in Russia?
______

Of course, the same can be said of "true love triumphs over all!" settings. Almost everyone has experienced love, even if we don't live in a love story. Or "Super-heroic people save the day!" settings. Most of us have at some point felt good for helping someone out, and the combination of power-fantasy and altruism is appealingly foreign to our daily experience.

To be honest, almost any kind of setting that can be classified by its tone and central theme (be it "the power of friendship" or "in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war") will work for at least some people. All it needs is to appeal to emotions they understand while presenting them with something foreign enough to engage the imagination.
______


(The reason, by the way, is that Horus's charisma and presence on the front lines meant that inevitably, the soldiers owed more allegiance to Horus than to the distant emperor they'd never seen.)Worked for Julius Caesar.

[JonestheSpy]

Just to get a little pschological, I've read that when society is feeling a lot of anxiety about the state of things as a whole, dark, apocolyptic fantasies get popular. Kind of a playing-out-of-cultural-fears sorta thing. Apparently in the years leading up to WW1 tere was a glut novles about huge, civilization-destroying wars and disasters.

I don't think that it's a coincidance that we really saw the rise of grimdark in pop culture in the 1980's when, if I can avoid any specific politics, I think I can say a whoile lot of folks thought things were seriously going wrong.

[Graymayre]

ASoIaF is not over the top GRIMDARK like 40K is but it is pretty grim and pretty dark, lets see by the end of the fourth book:
(spoilered for those who haven't read it yet(if you haven't stop what your doing and get reading))


-there is no ruler of any sort in the 7 kingdoms (tommen doesn't count), Cersei is imprisoned for adultury, Crow's eye is pillaging not trying to do anything constructive, stannis is mucking about in the wall, all the other kings are dead.
-The rightful queen burned someone alive to hatch her dragons
-the only 2 starks left are Ayra (training to be an assasin) and Sansa (slowly being corrupted by Petyr)
- oh and basically everyone is dead


I'm not sure how you can get grimmer or darker than that

Cormac McCarthy's The Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road).

Hot Wheels, beat that!

[The_JJ]

I think people must not confuse non-grim/light stories with the polar opposite of grimdark. I often see people in this thread talking about how they like (moderatly) grim tales because they feel it is more realistic, and, while I think this is a viable argument, many contrast this with the happy-sunshine world we find in some good D&D-societies or in very cliche heroic fantasy. What I'm trying to say is that the opposite of dark(er) is not totally happy, but a world in which the characters may be flawed and miserable, probably drawing from the same backgrounds that dark characters use, but that, in one way or another, they manage to acheve some good. Of course not all barons in their world will be wise, generous and loved by the people, or not all corporations will be open, friendly and fait, but the heroes fight against them and manage to change things, and be it on the smallest level. That's the real difference, for me anyway, between moderatly grim and moderatly happy, both hero-types may be flawed and human, but the grimmer tales will depict the heroes changing very little, or indeed failing to do anything, while the lighter heroes may achieve victory in one form or another. And, looking at te world I live in, I find both to be realistic.

Yeah, you've got some points. Thing is, even the SoIAF falls under this. The Starks are decent people, overall, and Jon and Dany certainly seem to be gaining ground, not losing it. Dorne's turning out okay, methinks, and the Queen Bitch of the Universehas been served her just dessert. And Jaime, he of the child window pushing has gone through charactor development.
Point is, even though bad stuff happens with a far higher frequency, good stuff does happen.
Err... where was I going with this? Ah yes, you are right, balence is good, moderatly happy is perfectly legitimate, as is moderatly dark. And both are realistic, as is extremely dark, for a little bit, and blah blah light.
Except for the dragons. I don't think those are real. Of course, I might have a 5-legged invisible dragon in my house, but I can't disprove that. :smallbiggrin:

[KnightDisciple]

See, I tend to like more hopeful stories. Not entirely sure why, mostly my taste.

Grimdark like the Cain novels is fun, because it doesn't take itself seriously.

SoIAF, on the other hand...The first book, I was shocked at a death. By the beginning of the third book, I was shocked when a main character that wasn't utterly evil didn't die a horrible death with their ideals ground into the dust. It got tiring after a while.

[Weezer]

Okay I admint that i exaggerated when I said you cant get grimmer or darker than ASoIaF, though it is undeniably high on the scale of grim and dark stories.

[kpenguin]

Except for the dragons. I don't think those are real. Of course, I might have a 5-legged invisible dragon in my house, but I can't disprove that. :smallbiggrin:

I saw The JJ with the Devil!

[Swordguy]

"I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something."

"What are we holding on to Sam?"

"There's some good in this world. And it's worth fighting for."

[rubakhin]

I think Satyr and rubakhin said it well: the appeal of GRIMDARK settings is that they are foreign to the reader's daily life, while invoking emotions that the reader has personal experience of. We've all despaired at some point, we've all seen examples of systems that were badly messed up. The idea of a whole world dominated by such systems may be different from the one we live in, but it's imaginable even to people who don't live in such a world.

Hmm... I wonder how WH40K does in Russia?

Really well I think. They released the localized Russian version of online just a few months after the American/European release, they translated at least some of the novels, and I've seen some pretty funny nerdrage when I feel adventurous enough to hang around runet. I checked it out on the Russian Wikipedia article, which is about as long as my arm and has enough tangential articles to make Zampanò cry - a good indication that there's a solid fanbase. I know it's like the end all and be all of RP in Poland*, and if anyone got a fuzzier side of the socio-political lollipop than Russia, it's Poland. So maybe even better than it does in the West.

*Might actually just be my nerdy cousins; any requests to kick Pawel in the head will be honored.

[The_JJ]

I saw The JJ with the Devil!

Now there's a GrimDark story. All the main charactor's are falsely accused, and die anyway, the protagonist cheats on his wife, and the cool old guy dies during torture.
Oh, and it's based on true events. And written as an allegory about other true events.

...[/cynisism]

Of course, the some of main charactors refuse to plead for a lesser sentence, with an awesome line, reconciles with his wife, and the cool old guy goes out with the Best Last Words Evar.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

"I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something."

"What are we holding on to Sam?"

"There's some good in this world. And it's worth fighting for."

Truer words were never spoken. I personally think there's no problem with GRIMDARK stories, but there are two things about it that bug me.

One. When a GRIMDARK world is so GRIMDARK that everything will only get worse and worse and worse, and any hint of optimism you find is immediately uprooted, tortured, raped, stomped on and sauteed with a nice defeatism sauce.

This, in my opinion, is wholly unrealistic. Sure good doesn't triumph over evil every single time, but that doesn't mean that evil should always triumph either.

Two. I hate hate hate hate hate hate HATE people who equate GRIMDARK with realism. A realistic setting has a decent measure of both good and evil. If you let one overpower the other in the setting, the characters become one dimensional and the stories end up taking the qualities of number one.

GRIMDARK is okay when used sparingly. George R. R. Martin's work I find to be just skirting the edge of too much, but it manages to stay realistic with just what bad stuff happens.

Warhammer 40K however, I find very hard to believe. I asked a friend of mine who was explaining the game to me what the average Imperium citizen's life would be like. Relatively safe and normal, though likely with a stronger emphasis on military than our world, or horribly opressive, where the average person is a slave to their brutal masters who will kill them for even thinking of heresy while they eat their own excrement to survive? He responded that the game doesn't give any indication. And I think that's crap. I know the Imperium nukes entire worlds to prevent heresy and stuff, but come on! It wouldn't be an Imperium if every planet was tainted. If the Imperium is supposed to be the beacon of hope and good in the galaxy, then they must be doing something not so GRIMDARK away from the front lines!

[kpenguin]

Truer words were never spoken.

Air is colorless.
Things tend to fall toward the Earth.
The Earth revolves around the Sun.

[chiasaur11]

Air is colorless.
Things tend to fall toward the Earth.
The Earth revolves around the Sun.

No.

Those aren't truths, they're merely facts.

Not quite the same thing.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

It's awkward when I post something brief, then edit it with a more complete thought to find that others have already responded to my earlier statement.:smallredface:

[kpenguin]

No.

Those aren't truths, they're merely facts.

Not quite the same thing.

Oh yeah? Webster says otherwise.




1 archaic : fidelity, constancy b: sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c: the body of true statements and propositions
3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality bchiefly British : true 2 c: fidelity to an original or to a standard
4capitalized Christian Science : god

[The_JJ]

Rule number X: Though shalt not resort to dictionary definitions when obviously 'slang'/noncanon terminology is being employed.

That said, I do find the 'truer words etc.' a wee bit trite.

Voltaire: "A witty saying proves nothing."

e.g. Just cause a Tolkien char said it dunt make it truf, even if this is a D&D forum.

[WitchSlayer]

Two. I hate hate hate hate hate hate HATE people who equate GRIMDARK with realism. A realistic setting has a decent measure of both good and evil. If you let one overpower the other in the setting, the characters become one dimensional and the stories end up taking the qualities of number one.

So basically you agree with my quote?

[Dervag]

Voltaire: "A witty saying proves nothing."

e.g. Just cause a Tolkien char said it dunt make it truf, even if this is a D&D forum.The fact that a Tolkien character said it is immaterial. Sam has a point. Not a 100% superpoint, but a point. And, thanks to Tolkein, that point is expressed in a way that ordinary posters on this board would be hard pressed to match.

So why not use it?

[Satyr]

A Song of Ice and Fire is a prime example why I sometimes wonder about what people conscider to be dark and grim. Most of the episodes and even the overall conflict are very similar to numerous historical events (ignore the dragons and the wights for this perception purpose). Nothing that happens between the human actors or what side of the conflict does to its enemies is without precedence in history. I would even say that, compared to the historical counterparts which are emulated in the book (war of the roses, countless wars in Europe) is still idealistic and romanticised when compared to the historical counterparts. Or even some of the modern conflicts which happened in our life times.
The problem is that most people are so detached from what violence actually means and what side effect a war can have, or more specific, what humans are able and willing to do if they lack control or have to fight for survival that Martin's presentation, which comes closer to reality than most fantasy literature seems grim and hopeless in comparison.
Yes, you can argue if such a historical accurate approach in fantasy literature is a good idea and if you like this style is a complete subjective matter. But declaring that ASOIAF is a particular hopeless and grim story is just plain wrong. If anything, life during wars in the middle ages or early modern times were much worse.

[GolemsVoice]

Saying that the real world is grimmer than ASOIAF, which I sadly don't happen to have read, so I will just go by what I've read in this thread, might be true, but it doesn't mke a good point, because, after all, it's about choice. Most (standart) fantasy, or at least heroic fantasy tends to be written in some shade of the light genre (can you have shades of light?), with many extreme examples of the "bunnies and rainbows" variant. This trend has changed somewhat in the last years, I think, but it is still dominant. So if you read something that at least subverts this, you are reading something grim and dark, and, by what I have read in this thread, ASOIAF tends to be pretty grim. So maybe not actually as grim and dark as stretches of reals history, but grim and dark compared to what other fiction is available.

And, as some movie producers don't seem to realize, lot's of blood, fighting and violence doesn't make a story realistic, just bloody and violent. Granted, the reverse isn't true, either, but just because everyone can die, and violently so, does not mean it is a more realistic story.

[kamikasei]

And, as some movie producers don't seem to realize, lot's of blood, fighting and violence doesn't make a story realistic, just bloody and violent. Granted, the reverse isn't true, either, but just because everyone can die, and violently so, does not mean it is a more realistic story.

In the real world, anyone could die at any time for a whole host of reasons. If a story shields characters from this, it's clearly less realistic than one which doesn't. It may be a better narrative, but it's not more realistic.

Of course, a story where people are killed off just to show that they can be is also unrealistic. Realism is not strictly bound to this variation.

[GolemsVoice]

In the real world, anyone could die at any time for a whole host of reasons. If a story shields characters from this, it's clearly less realistic than one which doesn't. It may be a better narrative, but it's not more realistic.

I won't argue with you on that point, but, well, stories are told because they are interesting, and because something in them is extraordinary. So, each time the hero has a fight, his life is of course in danger, but he survives, and that's why the story goes on. Of course, he could have died, and maybe many other's did, in the same situation, but because of a combination of skill, luck, and other circumstances, he didn't. Fate flipped a coin, and our hero is lucky.

This is why we see films about 007, and not about the whole host of other 00-agents who die during the course of his adventure. He is the protagonist of the story because he survived, he didn't survive because he is the protagonist. Many stories confuse both, and the result is the character shield you mention. (Granted, James Bond is probably a prime example of character shield, I just used him for this example because the numbers fit so nicely)

[Satyr]

The way I understand it, the sliding scale looks somewhat like this:

sardonic<->grim'n'gritty<->realistic (-)<->realistc (+)<->idealistic<->naive

Even realistic presentations are fluctuating on this scale, or perhaps especially realistic ones, as here the individual perception and emphases of the creator plays the most significant role. Truly sardonic works are somewhat rare, but exist (e.g. Sheep look up), and certainly the idealistic side of the scale usually get more attention in entertainment culture, which is the reason why many people are so detached from the way humans are (as opposed to how they should be). Yes, A Song Of Ice And Fire appears to be very grim, but the fact is, it isn't. It is only perceived as this because the perception of the recepients has shifted in a certain direction and fail to recognize the whole scale in relation.

[GolemsVoice]

sardonic<->grim'n'gritty<->realistic (-)<->realistic (+)<->idealistic<->naive

I think that's a very good description of what I, and others, have been trying to say. Well done, Sir!

[Satyr]

Kamikasei said something very important which could hardly be emphasized enough:

The degree of grittyness of a tale does not necessary interconnect with the tale's quality. There are supposedly gritty and bitter stories which are just plain bad, and there are extremely bad stories with a positive mood and outlook.

[kamikasei]

So, each time the hero has a fight, his life is of course in danger, but he survives, and that's why the story goes on. Of course, he could have died, and maybe many other's did, in the same situation, but because of a combination of skill, luck, and other circumstances, he didn't. Fate flipped a coin, and our hero is lucky... He is the protagonist of the story because he survived, he didn't survive because he is the protagonist. Many stories confuse both, and the result is the character shield you mention.

Well, that's rather my point. What I like in "grim and/or dark" stories as compared to those that edge towards the "naive" end of idealism on Satyr's scale is that the characters can't count on being insulated from the consequences of bad decisions. I do not like to see people in the real world acting on an unstated assumption that bad things won't happen to them, and it damages my ability to sympathize with fictional characters when they do the same.

So yes, I'm perfectly happy to see a hero taking a chance when necessary and having things work out in his favour. I'm less happy to see everyone in a story getting by on the blind assumption that things will be okay! and constantly being proven right against all reason. Happy endings, sure... but if the stakes are high enough, there should really be some bittersweet mixed in there.

[Xuincherguixe]

That one is hard to say. They tend to be settings that encourage a lot of style. Sure, WH40K is completely unrealistic, but there's so much awesomeness about it.

While I've heard mostly bad things about Vampire, I can't imagine it's unsalvageable. You'd officially be doing it wrong, but you can't spell unsympathetic without pathetic.


Even if there is no hope, that doesn't mean the struggle is useless. At least it's still beautiful. And defiant. When faced with an impossible task, rather than simply accepting it, one can fight anyways. The power to make a choice when you seemingly don't have one.

Why such settings appeal to me, is that it's okay to problem solve. People aren't just going along on the course they're supposed to. Because if they did, they would be dead. The universe has decided everyone is doomed, but they continue to struggle.

Part of it may be though that I can't imagine a life in which anything is easy.

[Oslecamo]

That one is hard to say. They tend to be settings that encourage a lot of style. Sure, WH40K is completely unrealistic, but there's so much awesomeness about it.


I must however point out that awesomeness isn't tragedy.

WH40K tries to be a dark tragic story, but when the main character/villain chooses to pick up a pointy stick/ chainsword/powersword/(insert favorite unrealistic weapon here) when they have whole arsenals or perfectly working ranged weaponry and can call on space cruisers and orbital bombardments for suport, well, then, you know they're actually driving the story by the rule of awesome, and not by the rule of tragic, because what would be really tragic would be the villain blowing up the hero and his army from orbit with a giant rock or with heavy laser snipers, but that wouldn't be as awesome as the hero and villain choping each other to pieces with exotic melee weapons.

The WH40K universe hasn't decided the races in there are doomed. It has decided they must fight for all eternity for the fans satisfaction. And no WH40K character can escape that fate. They will fight or be forced to fight. They're all going on the course they're suposed to follow. They don't have a choice.

[Xuincherguixe]

To that I say, where is the line between tragedy and farce?

[GolemsVoice]

WH40K tries to be a dark tragic story, but when the main character/villain chooses to pick up a pointy stick/ chainsword/powersword/(insert favorite unrealistic weapon here) when they have whole arsenals or perfectly working ranged weaponry and can call on space cruisers and orbital bombardments for suport, well, then, you know they're actually driving the story by the rule of awesome, and not by the rule of tragic, because what would be really tragic would be the villain blowing up the hero and his army from orbit with a giant rock or with heavy laser snipers, but that wouldn't be as awesome as the hero and villain choping each other to pieces with exotic melee weapons.

I thinkthat GW fully acknowlegdes that, and for me, Warhammer 40000 cannot be seen without a winking eye. And there is, in my opinion, the difference between GRIMDARK and grim+dark. GRIMDARK is supposed to be over-the-top, unrealistic, and fun, while grim+dark is more thought-provoking and complex.
But that doesn't mean that Warhammer 40000 can't be grim+dark, for example, the Eisenhorn novels are pretty grim+dark, because they don't feature some of the more ridiculous things that Warhammer 40000 has to offer.

[Decoy Lockbox]

I can't believe only one person has mentioned Berserk so far!

[black dragoon]

Wait no one has once mentioned Beserk?! :smalleek: Come now this series is horrendously grimdark. For goodness sake the hero is a fairly unlikable jerk and let's never forget Cassaca(sp?)

[Decoy Lockbox]

Wait no one has once mentioned Beserk?! :smalleek: Come now this series is horrendously grimdark. For goodness sake the hero is a fairly unlikable jerk and let's never forget Cassaca(sp?)

Then again, Berserk also has some legitimately good people, many of whom even manage to survive without being horribly murdered. And to be fair to Guts, he does generally mellow out as the story progresses, even becoming a role model for some of the characters. And he's a better father figure to Isidro than Guts's stepdad ever was to him!

[LurkerInPlayground]

I have yet another hypothesis for the appeal of supposedly dark settings: As we probably all know fantasy is strongly connected to escapism. Fantasy - and I will include the moe fantastic science fiction in the term for the purpose of the hypothesis - are a mean to evade the banality of everyday life. Therefore, fantasy needs to be different from the reality the reader/player/whatever copes with on a daily base.

Now, the average consument of fantasy media - may they be in the form of games, books etc. - is a pretty much priviledged individual. He or she has enough money to purchase media for entertainment, has enough leisure time to induce escapism and has probably access to a secure shelter, a steady social and/or family network and more than enough food. That is actually a good life.

Now, a grim and desperate setting offers an alternative to this secure life. Because of the effectively nice life of the reader, the desperate style of the fiction is an actual diversion from everyday life and therefore obtain the necessary variety to qualify for the escapism route.

So, essentially. people like gritty stuff because their life feels good.
And yes, this hypothesis at least works for me. I may have an unromanticised world view, but in my life is actually good. Yay for the priviledged!
I disagree.

I view fantasy as a form of voyeurism. High fantasy is about the elevation of human virtue. "Dark" fantasy, ala Berserk, is a look into human nature when virtue doesn't necessarily prevail. Humans are innately curious about themselves and the conflicts they're presented with. There's a reason people slow down to see what happened in a car crash -- or watch footages of nuclear explosions.

It's nice to explore these things in controlled conditions - hence the appeal of rollercoasters, gossip magazines and horror movies. Fear-mongering is a successful tactic in news because people can't help but be morbidly curious. Simply put, people like being challenged.

One of the more compelling themes I find in Berserk is how the quest for exceptionalism and virtue makes monsters of men. People will seek power to escape fear. To elevate themselves out of the drudgery of day-to-day life. To escape persecution, war, famine and disease. To crush the enemies of their nation to win prestige. In fantasy, it's all about what a person does with power. LOTR even plays to this theme with . . . The Ring of Power. Berserk, like LOTR, is a meditation on power.

If people didn't have paper to write on or televisions to watch, they'd still tell stories orally. It isn't connected to privilege, it's merely human nature. Some people may already live in the "grimdark" so the appellation may be largely anachronistic, but that won't stop them from weaving a folk mythology around the events of their life and imbuing it with their own pathos.

[Drascin]

Then again, Berserk also has some legitimately good people, many of whom even manage to survive without being horribly murdered. And to be fair to Guts, he does generally mellow out as the story progresses, even becoming a role model for some of the characters. And he's a better father figure to Isidro than Guts's stepdad ever was to him!

But then, his stepfather sold him to a pedophile to be raped. I would think that being a better father figure than that would be easy, even for Guts.

That said, Berserk does seem to be getting better recently. As you said, some of the good people Guts found didn't even die!

[Fri]

Maybe it's directly related with the author's recent interest on moe :D?

(I mean cutesy anime, not the character from the simpsons)