Do you always need to save the world

[Derren]

In most fiction of today, books, films, movies, video games and also RPG stories/adventure paths it, in the end, always comes down to you or the group saving the world. This is a rather modern thing and comes to a stark contrast to the old legends even though they often serve as inspiration. Neither Achilles or Odysseus saved the world from destruction.

Why this is the case is, imo, obvious. Save the world stories are easy to tell and easy to understand. The sides are clear cut, there is no moral ambiguity and its easy to dehumanize the oppositions. Even if they are humans, why feel bad when killing someone so evil and deranged that he wants to destroy the world?

But those strengths are in my eyes also the big weaknesses those types of stories have. At least I get bored at some point with them as everything is so cliché and predictable and because the path you are supposed to take is pretty much set in stone and all roads lead to the big battle with the ultimate BBEG at the end.

So I want to know what type of stories do you run? "Save the World" stories? Or something else (what exactly?). And how did that work out for you?

 

[Razjah]

I hate saving the world. As a player it is fun.. the first time. As a character, why? Obviously, it matters to save the world. But trying to grasp saving so many people and having such an impact... the mind struggles. I much prefer to focus on things that matter more to the characters.

Take the Dresden Files, Harry saves the world several times, but often he is hanging out in Chicago, saving the area. The stuff he stops could easily spread out of Chicago, but it rarely would impact the whole world immediately.

I much prefer that. Saving the kingdom- awesome. Yeah, stopping that demon probably saved the world. But the PCs spent 6 months fighting the French, they hate them. They wanted to save England. Saving all the innocent NPCS in France is just a perk.

Also, as a player there is world-saving fatigue. If the game continues, the GM basically must keep throwing world ending problems at the PCs. The players stop caring as much about the world and the characters reflect it. In the Dresden Files game I played, the characters were extremely jaded about world ending issues. "We saved the whole world twice, this month alone. Three times before that. We'll do it again this week." We had in character jokes about how to pluralize apocalypse.

I much prefer stuff like Conan and the Black Company. Croaker and the Black Company fight to save the world multiple times, but they are really fighting for their comrades and their pay. The world is not their major concern. I would rather play games where my PC is fighting for hearth and home. Failure is not an option because his home would be destroyed. Not because the whole kingdom is destroyed- his home. His loved ones.

 

[Umbran]

I would rather play games where my PC is fighting for hearth and home. Failure is not an option because his home would be destroyed. Not because the whole kingdom is destroyed- his home. His loved ones.

My players generally figure that, should the world be destroyed, their hearth and home go too, so they are much the same - saving the world always includes saving the things you personally care about.

In my Deadlands game, there are several BBEGs, and they all have plots that would, if allowed to run their course without interference, lead to the destruction of pretty much everything, eventually. The PCs, of course, don't know this - they only know the bits of the plans they see. The are all, on some level, personally connected to one or more of the BBEGs, and the plots, being large, eventually impinge on the PC's lives and the things they care about.

 

[Derren]

In my Deadlands game, there are several BBEGs, and they all have plots that would, if allowed to run their course without interference, lead to the destruction of pretty much everything, eventually. The PCs, of course, don't know this - they only know the bits of the plans they see. The are all, on some level, personally connected to one or more of the BBEGs, and the plots, being large, eventually impinge on the PC's lives and the things they care about.

So why do the plots need to destroy everything eventually?

 

[Razjah]

My players generally figure that, should the world be destroyed, their hearth and home go too, so they are much the same - saving the world always includes saving the things you personally care about.

I understand that, and go along with adventures that save the world. But I prefer things like my character defending his home. Or fighting to protect a trade route, space station, or something else that is important to the character. Fighting to save the whole galaxy will still save that space station, but it a lot less personal.

Also, I find smaller problems more interesting to tackle. Defeating Sauron is extremely important, but convincing Theoden to take the offensive in Helm's Deep is much cooler to me as a player. Plus, I personally cannot stand when my character a a few friends saved the whole world and then still gets treated like crap. "We slew the Primoridal seeking to destroy all life in this realm and you are still charging me for healing at the temple? You're F*****G kidding me right?!?" I know not everyone will be awed, but having some people at least cheer for us would be nice, some place offering free drinks, and a discount at merchants... something!

 

[Viking Bastard]

So why do the plots need to destroy everything eventually?

Well, for one, it sidesteps a lot of possible moral quandaries—if we don't stop him, he's gonna destroy the world!

 

[gamerprinter]

Well I like all kinds of fantasy, high and low. High fantasy is typically the heroes vs. evil and the resolution of the actions affects the whole world (high fantasy is more than that, but for the sake of this conversation, its sufficient). Low fantasy are typically personal stories of the adventures where their actions are not world affecting to any great degree. High fantasy is more likely the more popular in fiction and movies - especially in movies that has such a short period of time (1.5 - 3 hours) to tell a story. A grayer, more ambiguous story is more difficult to convey and play out than to a short term audience.

As the concept creator to the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) by Rite Publishing, my goal was to build a specifically low fantasy setting, with both gothic horror and Asian horror tropes - its a dark and gritty world. Its like Ravenloft in that though a dark and evil place, there's no easy fix to kill the bad guy and end the darkness. The setting has cosmic ties to beyond the land and inhabitants itself. There is no easy high fantasy fix that will correct that accursed place, which makes distinctly not high fantasy.

So not only I do also play low fantasy gaming, I helped get a specific one published, intended for a game system with mostly high fantasy expectations, at least by Paizo Publishing.

Again, I often play high fantasy games as well - I like variety.

 

[Reyemile]

Personally, I hate "you need to save the world" stories for metagame reasons. When the whole world/universe is at stake, its basically a given that the PCs will win. The end of the world, after all, would also be the end of the campaign. On the other hand, "save the region" or even "save the city" put real tension on the PC's. My players know that I will blow up a few towns on them if they drop the ball, because the next chapter can be picking up the pieces.

 

[Razjah]

[MENTION=88660]Reyemile[/MENTION] nailed it! The given win makes it a sure success for PCs. It also raises questions why the big names aren't fighting the world ending problem. I really dislike the Elminster type character giving some mid-level dudes a quest to save existence, uh... why are you trusting us with this when you can take all of us, right now?

 

[Neonchameleon]

1: No you don't.
2: As the campaign goes on the stakes need to escalate to give you the feeling of progress. THis is one reason I prefer short campaigns.