D&D General Settings of Hope vs Settings of Despair

[Paul Farquhar]

For what it's worth, the last time I ran Ravenloft as part of Curse of Strahd I played up the unreality of the place and made it more theatrical - as written, only a small subset of the people there are actually "real" and the whole setup is there for the Dark Powers to torment the major players. It took a bit for the players to work it out, but they then leant into the whole thing. Essentially, not worrying about Ravenloft feeling real is fine, because in character, it's not really real.

Yeah, this is the main reason I didn't like the 2nd edition boxed set. It treated the setting like a physical world, not a nightmare world where dream logic holds sway. An idea that was firmly established in the second Ravenloft publication, I10 The House on Gryphon Hill.

I work hard to subtly undermine the players sense of reality when they are in Ravenloft, to differentiate it from when they are in the real world.

 

[Remathilis]

I reject the premise, but only because of my preference for Greyhawk. There's plenty of Hope and Despair to be had, but they are not necessarily tied to the OP's notions of good and evil. Most people are not good or evil, but neutral at heart. They care for themselves and loved ones, likely to neither help nor hurt others. Goodly nations rival with other goodly nations as often as evil ones (and evil ones fight amongst themselves as well). It's far more about "us vs. them" than "good vs. evil."

I intentionally left Greyhawk out of the examples because it has a very unique aspect: it's canonically been both types at various points. The classic era (pre FtA) is Despair coded. The 3e era feels more hopeful. When Greyhawk is mentioned in earlier 5e products (Yawning Portal is a good example) is back to despair while the Greyhawk in the 2024 DMG again has a certain hopefulness. So it's a great example of how the setting can be presented both ways. Is Greyhawk a setting where life is cheap and mercenaries so dangerous things for power and wealth, or a setting where noble knights and powerful mages rally against evil monsters, secret societies and literal demigods? Yes. Both. Depending on which story you want to tell. But it feels weird to combine them both in the same campaign.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think of it as a conflict…

My overall thought is that humans irl battle with the drive to do right for the self but that this is in dynamic tension with our drive to do for others as social animals.

The idea that most are neutral makes sense. And we have wicked people and also selfless actors too but these extremes are rarer.

Major campaign events usually involve darkness rising and a need for adventure to push it back.

So tension Come from problems…we are carrying swords and we are looking g for problems to solve.

Different areas of the world have different dominant forces. The lands of the dead or the goblinoid kingdoms are not healthy places. Darkness abounds! In other lands people band together to have better lives and to keep darkness in check.

For me, it’s a seasonal phenomenon thing but choices mean people can choose goodness as well as evil. And it swings back and forth I would say as a summary.

 

[TiQuinn]

For what it's worth, the last time I ran Ravenloft as part of Curse of Strahd I played up the unreality of the place and made it more theatrical - as written, only a small subset of the people there are actually "real" and the whole setup is there for the Dark Powers to torment the major players. It took a bit for the players to work it out, but they then leant into the whole thing. Essentially, not worrying about Ravenloft feeling real is fine, because in character, it's not really real.

Yeah, it’s a cool wrinkle to the setting. A lot of my Ravenloft games predated Curse of Strahd so I was stuck tackling the whole conundrum of what do regular people do being stuck in this demiplane? Do they even realize it’s a demiplane?

 

[Remathilis]

Quite.

Hope Setting: "We don't need to do anything, the gods will sort it out anyway."

Despair Setting: "There is no point in doing anything, it won't make things any better."

Both of these are harmful ideas.

Balanced setting: "Our actions and decisions make the difference between hope and despair".

I want to point out that a hopeful world isn't all sunshine and roses nor is a despairing world all doom and gloom. It's more a starting point than a constant. Hopeful settings have bad people, corruption and societal ills, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Despairing have apathy rather than helpful, corruption rather than good governance and society is full of injustice.

I think a good example is Metropolis vs Gotham. Both have their share of problems, but Metropolis is fundamentally more hopeful and Gotham much more despairing. It's the difference between Luthor being a single corrupt businessman in Metropolis and Bruce Wayne being the only noble businessman in Gotham.

 

[Remathilis]

I think that the idea that you can study history to avoid making the mistakes of the past is trite and unwarranted optimism. But, I do think one value of studying history is it will cure you of the idea that people are good and evil is a glitch in the system.

Having been a history teacher, I can attest to your point. I think you point I'm looking at is in the notion of creating a world that escapes Dukkha or one that embraces it. It's fantasy, I can create anything. So do I want a world that is worth fighting for or a world where even the noblest intentions cannot save it?