Apocalyptic Settings and Breaking Settings

[Staffan]

Re Castle Greyhawk.

I don't get this reference - what do you mean?

As I understand it (I'm not quite that old), Castle Greyhawk was The Big Dungeon in Gary Gygax' campaign, sort of like Undermountain in FR, almost a setting in its own right. It kept being hinted at in Dungeon and in various books, but it was never released during Gary's time at TSR. The two EX modules (Dungeonland and Beyond the Magic Mirror, or something like that) were supposedly set in one of the weird parts of CGH, but weren't representative of Gary's campaign.

Then Gary got ousted from TSR, and a few years later Castle Greyhawk came out, and was pretty much a parody of a dungon. Lots of fans were pretty upset, and feel that the whole thing was an insult to Gary.

By comparison, I don't think I've seen many people complain that the new FR, or 4e in general, were created out of malice. Misguidedness, sure, but not malice.

Cea la veii.

It's "c'est la vie."

 

[Barastrondo]

I started the thread to try to get at why people do this, to get at its appeal. I've not gotten a satisfactory responce.

Out of curiosity, what's unsatisfactory about "there are often reasons that fans aren't necessarily aware of or agree with other than outright malice?" I know why we blew up our world, and said as much, and it wasn't for the reasons that you suggested. Is there a reason that you don't think similar reasons may have applied to the Forgotten Realms? Or is it "unsatisfactory" because it doesn't describe deep passions on the behalf of the people making the decision?

Looking at the new Forgotten Realms, I think it's pretty interesting and well-done, but not for the reasons you ascribe to it. It's not a vicarious thrill in watching things get destroyed — heck, it's a hundred years too late to watch the destruction. But it's interesting because the new landscapes and political setups are filled with a lot of interesting hooks. There I think they've achieved their goal. They've got floating islands, new civilizations struggling to establish themselves, and a whole heap of ruins full of monsters and treasure that weren't ruins a hundred years ago.

Now, that's not much consolation if you liked the old one better, but if you want an answer to why, it looks fairly obvious to me. Ascribing hate and malice to the people who broke something you really liked is just projection; it might help you feel better, but I don't think it's going to accurately get into the heads of R&D.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I started the thread to try to get at why people do this, to get at its appeal. I've not gotten a satisfactory responce.

Not to put too fine a point on it, GC, but... No. You didn't.

If you had, it would've been "Why do people do this?" That's not what you posted. You posted that "People do this because they're mean and nasty! Now, *crosses arms* convince me I'm wrong. Nope, not convinced. Nope, still not convinced. You're all wrong, and I'm right, because people are mean and nasty."

You don't want to know why people do this. As far as you're concerned, you already know, and--despite several people offering alternatives--you're not willing to acknowledge them.

I get that you've had bad experiences with DMs who do this, but come on.

 

[Dausuul]

Looking at the new Forgotten Realms, I think it's pretty interesting and well-done, but not for the reasons you ascribe to it. It's not a vicarious thrill in watching things get destroyed — heck, it's a hundred years too late to watch the destruction. But it's interesting because the new landscapes and political setups are filled with a lot of interesting hooks. There I think they've achieved their goal. They've got floating islands, new civilizations struggling to establish themselves, and a whole heap of ruins full of monsters and treasure that weren't ruins a hundred years ago.

I'll add that there is value in using the Forgotten Realms for this, rather than just creating a new setting - because now all those ruins full of monsters and treasure have reams of lore to back them up. When you come to such a ruin, it isn't just another dungeon. It's the ruins of Mithral Hall, or Cormyr, or wherever, with all the backstory associated with those places. That adds a tremendous amount of atmosphere and flavor.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I second everything Mouseferatu said. There are good and fun reasons and ways to play in a post-apoc game, or make a game post-apoc. Your (utterly unsupported) claims that all game setting apocalypses are the result of spite and an appetite for destruction are really, really silly. Can you point to even one piece of evidence that one campaign setting apocalypsification was caused by spite?

 

[Hussar]

Yet that is what happens, most of the time and in most places. And the people who still want steak are repremanded.



I don't get this reference - what do you mean?

I started the thread to try to get at why people do this, to get at its appeal. I've not gotten a satisfactory responce.

Cea la veii.

As others have noted, I was referring to the Castle Greyhawk module which parodied the setting and was... we'll just say the humour was less than appreciated by fans and leave it at that.

As to your original question, there are loads of reasons why apocalyptic settings work. For one, genre. The King Arthur stories are set against the backdrop of the greatest apocalypse Europe had ever seen - the Fall of Rome. So, it's not like the idea is a recent fad.

And, on a personal level, I think it's pretty easy to be a hero when you never have to struggle day to day to survive. At least it's far easier than if the characters are stuck in a setting where basic needs are an issue. Makes for much better moral ambiguity - do you steal to survive, thus perhaps taking away someone else's means? To be truly heroes, the heroes in this setting must rise above and provide shining examples. Remake the world as a better place.

When I think about it, settings which are not apocalyptic tend to be very static. Middle Earth in LotR doesn't actually change. You have the big threat, threatening the way of life, they fight the threat, defeat the threat and everything returns to the status quo. In apocalyptic settings, the heroes can truly make a difference. They come in when things are broken and then heal the damage, hopefully making it even better than it was before.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

I never liked the FR setting myself, too many people out there that were saving the world that were much better at it than the party was. Also, too much direct interference by the gods themselves. All of my experiences in the Realms, over the course of many years and DMs can be pretty much summed up in this line:

Forgotten Realms is a world entirely populated by DMPCs.

The novels were a different story entirely (pun optional).

I do, however, really like post-apocalyptic worlds. Sure, you're scratching to survive, but then the movie cameras focus on you, and you get a chance to change everything, to start something new, and defend it.

Yes, and breaking stuff is fun.

IMO, Mad Max > Elminster anyday.

Also, any fluff you used in 2ed, 3.0, 3.5 or whatever can still be valid in 4.0. If you don't want to break your FR, then it isn't broken. It's your world, after all. Elminster isn't around to come get you if you don't convert to PoL FR.