Apocalyptic Settings and Breaking Settings

[Fallen Seraph]

I dunno maybe it is my group, but I had one campaign where after the party got stuck in time on this duplicate artificial world (inspired by a novel) and they manage to reach their real world again. They see how it has crumbled they felt well motivated and vindicated in their wishes to rebuild because of what they had done before.

For them, they saw what legacy and self-sacrifice they had made in that world lay crumbled about them or left hidden and unknown and felt well empowered that only them can rebuild this and make their legacies shine once more and reestablish just why they did what they did in that long-ago past.

 

[Hussar]

I loved Scarred Lands. Still do. One of my all time favorite settings.

100% post-apocolyptic. Being able to rebuild from the ashes, fighting off the forces that want to destroy or dominate - that's all part and parcel to heroic tales.

Eberron, another setting I really like, is also very much post-apocolyptic. Just finished an Eberron campaign with an excellent DM. We managed to reverse the Mournlands and spark the next war as the surrounding nations gear up for land grabs.

Take from that what you will. I think I much prefer settings where things are not well settled and established. I want the conflict and that unknown. To use 4e parlance, Points of Light really appeal to me. The primary reason I shied away from Forgotten Realms, for example, is that it seemed so static. Nothing ever really changed. You had all these very well established social centers that were more or less locked into a fairly balanced cycle with no one getting the upper hand for very long.

I want a setting where the players can make a difference. If everything is already locked down, they cannot make a difference IMO.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

That is the opposite of my experience. The apocalyptic settings and breaking settings are favored by GMs who like beat down and torment players (rather than the characters) and call it fun to destroy what they've done and spit in their face and deride them as weak if they don't eat all the crap like it was candy.

That's just because of bad GMing, instead of something inherently deficient in the setting.

Take Exalted (which I am running right now):

First Age: A golden utopia where almost everyone gets all the basic necessities of life - even if some of the 300 demigods ruling over the world are slowly sliding over the deep end. In my opinion, it's hard to GM for this setting since there are fewer external threats which could be fought and the PCs risk getting overshadowed by some of those ancient demigods.

Second Age (the default setting): This definitely counts as "post-apocalyptic". The Solar demigods of old have been overthrown, their usurpers generally made a mess of things, a great plague wiped out more than 90% of all people, and an invasion of entities of primordial chaos from the borders of the world threatened to swallowed it. A powerful woman who became empress beat them back and ruled for more than 700 years, but she recently vanished mysteriously, the Realm that rules much of the world is on the brink of civil war, barbarian hordes lead by creatures half man, half animal are sweeping in and threatening to destroy civilization, and the forces of the Underworld - the realm of the Dead - are rising up and attempt to kill all life. And in the middle of it all, the Solars of old are reincarnating - some of whom are just as arrogant and prideful as their predecessors, and they carry a grudge.

The Second Age is easy to GM. You have all sorts of threats to throw at the PCs - and the PCs can really make a difference, especially if they play the (default) Solar Exalted. These are really very likely to rule a rapidly expanding kingdom in short order (if they aren't killed yet).

And that's what a post-apocalyptic setting can be - an opportunity for the player characters to rise to the top of the food chain very quickly.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I like settings that start out and are meant to be post-apocalyptic.

I cannot stand pre-existing settings going through the wringer to become post-apocalyptic.

 

[Baron Opal]

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?

An apocalyptic setting gives you the opportunity to build a bright future from whole cloth that honors the past. The setting lets your accomplishments shine that much brighter that they would otherwise.

If the setting, ruleset or referee specifically hinders you or prevents any accomplishment then, certainly, that leads to frustration. I think Midnight is an exceptional setting, but if I ever ran it I would certainly allow the possibility of striking a telling blow against Azrador and his society.

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.

Not true. The gains by the characters could be modest at first, but unless the referee is determined to squelch the character's (player's even) accomplishments it is the same as any other game or setting.

People are scum and apocalyptic settings bring out the worst of them.

There is a difference between pain and trial, between loss and sacrifice. Regardless of whether a setting or ruleset was designed that way or a Fall was written in, apocayptic settings give us perhaps the best backgrounds to illustrate that difference. Yes, when someone takes something that you are fond of and purposely breaks it for no reason, that is cruel. But, I don't see what happened to the Forgotten Realms in this light.

I think we have a different outlook.

 

[Najo]

I wouldn’t limit it to bad GMs. Life is ugly and people are nasty.

People enjoy hurting each other (even if they can only do it in small and petty ways) like nothing else in life and will do it if given any kind of opportunity. If not given an opportunity to hurt others, then people will create opportunities. They ignore what others want to impose what they want on others, by hook or by crook and draw deep emotional satisfaction if this requires hammering square pegs into round holes. After all, that means they defeat (and maybe broke) both the person and the situation. Some people simply manage to contain this aspect of their nature and some do not contain it. The people who do not, or cannot, contain this aspect of their natures like the apocalyptic treatment.

That is what people do.

That is what people are.

I have witnessed nothing in my life that would make me believe anything else – and no one here has come close to making a convincing counter argument.

I would suggest you see things that way and are unable to see another perspective because you choose to hang on to and push your own negative view on to everyone else around you. It is the glass half full or half empty effect.

I've had plenty of hardship in my own life, just as many others do. In life you can choose to have it jade you or push you to make your stronger. My friends and family I've always worked through our conflicits. It causes frustration, pain and suffering when we do not resolve problems and we do not enjoy it. The harmony, understanding and growth that comes from working through difficulty brings joy, happiness and unity to those working together to achieve it.

I think there are plenty of people in the world seeking to cause harm. I think even "good" people are bad some times. But life is not black and white, and most people do not seek to cause suffering anymore than most people are seeking to be good in their lives. I think most people want contentment and to feel like their life matters in some way, and some people gain a false sense of achievement by stepping on others. But that is not all people all of the time.

Of course you could take my post as trying to put you down or prove you wrong, and thus proving your point. Or, you could see me as trying to provide another perspective counter to yours, and take it in with a constructive open mind that I am choosing to spend my time and energy sharing my own perspective to offer you a seed of peace. It is all how you choose to percieve it.

 

[RabidBob]

People enjoy hurting each other (even if they can only do it in small and petty ways) like nothing else in life and will do it if given any kind of opportunity. If not given an opportunity to hurt others, then people will create opportunities. They ignore what others want to impose what they want on others, by hook or by crook and draw deep emotional satisfaction if this requires hammering square pegs into round holes. After all, that means they defeat (and maybe broke) both the person and the situation. Some people simply manage to contain this aspect of their nature and some do not contain it. The people who do not, or cannot, contain this aspect of their natures like the apocalyptic treatment.

That is what people do.

That is what people are.

I have witnessed nothing in my life that would make me believe anything else – and no one here has come close to making a convincing counter argument.

Gosh. I don't want to come across as judging you because honestly I'm not, but in my experience with life if you focus on the negative then more negative is soon to follow. Focus on the positive and more positive follows. It's a pretty hippy way of looking at things, but all empirical evidence gained by yours truly points to this being true.

I've seen lots of horrible, nasty and at times downright evil things (and yes I really do mean evil in the fullest sense of the word), but I've also seen as many if not more wonderful uplifting incredible things in life. I started life in a cardboard box, literally and was kept by a mother who told me later she should have left me at the hospital to be adopted. I was beaten, mentally, physically and emotionally abused as a child because I didn't fit in to the cult that my parents were a part of. I left home at 14 and lived in a foster home with other children, some of whom had experienced far worse things than me. And you know what? Life is incredible; I have a beautiful, kind, loving girlfriend and there is so much to experience, so many things to learn, so many beautiful places to see and so many wonderful people to meet. It's all good, honestly. Focus on the good stuff and you will find that life will change; however you may need to change in order for life to change.

I like settings that start out and are meant to be post-apocalyptic.

I cannot stand pre-existing settings going through the wringer to become post-apocalyptic.

Actually I can't think of anything better to do with Forgotten Realms!

 

[Mercule]

Part of my problem with settings that change by massive apocalypse or some other trope, is that it neglects any effect the PCs have had on the world. No matter how many times they saved Elminster's butt, they have no control over the world. What the hell is the point of adventuring. They should have left that setting alone.

That depends on how it's handled.

In my long-standing home brew setting, I've played through many different eras. The PCs who did significant things during previous campaigns have made it into history. Even if it doesn't make sense for the barbarian kingdom founded 1500 years ago to still exist in anything remotely resembling its founding glory, the founder's sword is still legendary and elements of his life are still retold to new PCs/players. There are many instances of this, IMC.

I wouldn't want to force the next batch of PCs to live in the shadow of the previous group. But, if the world never moves on, if the accomplishments of old PCs are sacrosanct, there comes a time when there is little choice. Sure, there is always the next cataclysm to thwart, but how many incorruptibly benevolent kingdoms can be founded before reason strains?

Keep the stories, but let the world move on. Evil occasionally wins. New heroes -- and new evils -- come on the scene.

 

[Vanuslux]

Demons overrunning my campaign setting was the logical outcome of the failure of the PCs in my last 2E campaign. Granted, I could have deux ex machinaed it, but there was a new edition coming out and it seemed like a good time to shake my home brew world up a bit and do something to make it different from just another Middle Earth wannabe. However, despite the fact that most of civilization was razed to the ground, there were still plenty of things left around to reflect the actions the PCs had made during that fateful campaign. Much of the stage was set with things that had come of their actions...humans and orcs working together, the most powerful of the human leaders being an NPC the 2E PCs had put their lives on the line to save, elves being hated because the PCs had spread the truth of their involvment with the demons far and wide. Some of the battles from that 2E campaign became songs and stories told around campfires all over the lands still held by civilized races.

If bringing a demonic apocalypse to my setting had been about being cruel to the players and their PCS out of some sadistic power trip, those campfire tales would have been about the PCs less glorious moments...like, oh...the fighter turning tail and running during the climactic battle after only losing a handful of hitpoints.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Demons overrunning my campaign setting...

This has gotten a bit off topic, but my original post was about imposing an apocalypse, about creating a post-apocalyptic situation in a setting/world where that had not been the case. This includes Star Wars following the Vong invasion, Dragon Lance in the Fifth Age, and Forgotten Realms 4E.

It is not about a setting always meant to be post-apocalyptic, such as Dark Sun and Exhalted, or some home game where it happens to the players.

I do not buy, for a moment, that breaking these setting and setting the bits on fire is anything less than an exercise in cruel vanity. I do not believe it is about discovery, unless vivisection is about science.