The few times I have enjoyed an apocalypse as part of popular entertainment is when I read Stephen King’s* The Stand, watched the movie The Day After and a precious few others, including some zombie movies. On the whole, dismemberment of society does not appeal to me a great deal and I have never participated in a game where the setting is apocalyptic, either during or post-apocalyptic.
This includes apocalyptic events in established settings. In fact, they usually turn me off considerably. For example;
• I stopped following the expanded Star War universe once Palpatine came back in the Dark Empire books.
• I stopped following Dragon Lance when it moved into the Fifth Age.
• I stopped following Star Trek after they killed Data – while this does not qualify as an apocalyptic event, it was a silly bit of pointless destruction. I know there have been no more movies, but there have been books and the Enterprise series, none of which I bothered with.
• I will stop following the Forgotten Realms in 4E, now that it is, in many ways, a post- apocalyptic setting.
I prefer to play characters that can accomplish things, even if they are only small things. I do not enjoy playing characters that endless run in circles. Yet that is what playing in an apocalyptic setting is… it is not possible to accomplishing anything and the characters are essentially (if not literally) running in circle.
Dismembering an established setting does this – forces characters into situation where they can accomplish nothing and endlessly chase their own tails – and adds insult to injury by making this the state of affairs in a world where people previously could accomplish things and did not run in circles. That was a significant part of the attraction of those settings.
So, why then the apocalyptic treatment of these settings? Why is it assumed that dismembering the settings is sexy and appealing? What do people see in a setting of failure and defeat?
*He once wrote that Hell is all about repetition.
This includes apocalyptic events in established settings. In fact, they usually turn me off considerably. For example;
• I stopped following the expanded Star War universe once Palpatine came back in the Dark Empire books.
• I stopped following Dragon Lance when it moved into the Fifth Age.
• I stopped following Star Trek after they killed Data – while this does not qualify as an apocalyptic event, it was a silly bit of pointless destruction. I know there have been no more movies, but there have been books and the Enterprise series, none of which I bothered with.
• I will stop following the Forgotten Realms in 4E, now that it is, in many ways, a post- apocalyptic setting.
I prefer to play characters that can accomplish things, even if they are only small things. I do not enjoy playing characters that endless run in circles. Yet that is what playing in an apocalyptic setting is… it is not possible to accomplishing anything and the characters are essentially (if not literally) running in circle.
Dismembering an established setting does this – forces characters into situation where they can accomplish nothing and endlessly chase their own tails – and adds insult to injury by making this the state of affairs in a world where people previously could accomplish things and did not run in circles. That was a significant part of the attraction of those settings.
So, why then the apocalyptic treatment of these settings? Why is it assumed that dismembering the settings is sexy and appealing? What do people see in a setting of failure and defeat?
*He once wrote that Hell is all about repetition.