D&D General Settings of Hope vs Settings of Despair

[TwoSix]

Honestly, it depends on the PCs for me.

If the PCs lean towards acting altruistically, I tend to draw my NPCs with brighter, sharper lines. Obviously good people in need of saving, obvious villains in need of smiting.

If the PCs lean towards apathy or villainy, the world is in much more "dark gray" tones, with occasional sympathetic NPCs to allow the PCs to demonstrate their lack of care for the plight of others.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This may be the most liberal thing I'll ever write but:

"The setting shouldn't just 'have hope'. You shouldn't show up, kill some monsters and suddenly fascism is cured. The game itself needs mechanics for building and maintaining a better world, and it needs to make them fun. It is irresponsible to give people hope through conspicuous violence, but right now that is what is most supported by D&D's mechanics."

A truly hopeful setting would need some sort of domain rulership rules or some sort of magical system that analogizes the health of a political entity (who had "21st century Aebrynis reboot" on their bingo card?). It could be done and appended to D&D by a good designer, but it's unlikely to happen and it begs the question of whether or not a new game with its own rules should be built from the ground up for it.

I think it depends. What you are saying is true if the source of the evil is rooted in the nature of society and the beings that make up that society. One could say that tyrrany is a disease of the culture and to play that out one would need to play out the politics/economics of the society. That is gaming in Animal Farm, by contrast, in Middle Earth before the War of the Ring, Sauron was an external force of oppression whose power was bound up in the ring and could not be opposed effectively until or unless the ring was destroyed and its destruction was accomplished by a fairly straight forward quest.
It is a different kind of game, one that does not need political or economic subsystems.

Now if one wants to talk of the War of Gondorian Succession 600 years after the death of Aragorn that is a different game again.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

I think it depends. What you are saying is true if the source of the evil is rooted in the nature of society and the beings that make up that society. One could say that tyrrany is a disease of the culture and to play that out one would need to play out the politics/economics of the society. That is gaming in Animal Farm, by contrast, in Middle Earth before the War of the Ring, Sauron was an external force of oppression whose power was bound up in the ring and could not be opposed effectively until or unless the ring was destroyed and its destruction was accomplished by a fairly straight forward quest.
It is a different kind of game, one that does not need political or economic subsystems.

Now if one wants to talk of the War of Gondorian Succession 600 years after the death of Aragorn that is a different game again.

How many times in human history has an external force of oppression actually been lifted by the destruction of a single man or macguffin?

Most of the evil of mankind, insofar as 21st century developed westerners can judge the past, originated in the society that it oppressed. Romans oppressed Romans before they had a chance to oppress anyone else. When we have external oppressors cracking down on people like Attila the Hun or Hernan Cortes, the deaths of those men don't suddenly lead to the liberation of the people or the reversal of their misfortune; in many cases the destabilization just makes things even worse for the common man.

EDIT: You can still tell a story about heroes using swords to end tyranny, it's fine and it's a traditional narrative... but don't you dare naughty word call it "hope." You're not selling people hope, you're selling people ideology.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

How many times in human history has an external force of oppression actually been lifted by the destruction of a single man or macguffin?

Are we sticking to History or including myth and other stories?

Most of the evil of mankind, insofar as 21st century developed westerners can judge the past, originated in the society that it oppressed. Romans oppressed Romans before they had a chance to oppress anyone else. When we have external oppressors cracking down on people like Attila the Hun or Hernan Cortes, the deaths of those men don't suddenly lead to the liberation of the people or the reversal of their misfortune; in many cases the destabilization just makes things even worse for the common man.

EDIT: You can still tell a story about heroes using swords to end tyranny, it's fine and it's a traditional narrative... but don't you dare naughty word call it "hope." You're not selling people hope, you're selling people ideology.

That is human history, we are telling fantasy stories and are not required to colour within the lines of real human psychology if we do not want to.

Like I said do you want to overthrow the pigs in Animal Farm or throw the ring into the fire. Both are fine, and that is really all that I am saying.

Even within human history one could improve the life of the people and bring some measure of peace to the kingdom by locating the fortress of the Jomsviking, burning it to the ground and putting everyone you find there to the sword.
It might not have been justice from our perspective but still better than the status quo ante.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Even within human history one could improve the life of the people and bring some measure of peace to the kingdom by locating the fortress of the Jomsviking, burning it to the ground and putting everyone you find there to the sword.
It might not have been justice from our perspective but still better than the status quo ante.

I mean, no? Killing the local authority doesn't suddenly put authority in place. Unless there's someone willing to step in, administrate it and maintain the monopoly of violence you're just going to end up in a warlord situation.

 

[cranberry]

Mine worlds are typically settings of hope.

 

[overgeeked]

Settings of Hope strike me as inherently unrealistic and break my suspension of disbelief.

Settings of Despair are more realistic and are easier to suspend my disbelief.

There's also more work to do in Settings of Despair.

As Gradine and others have said, turning despair into hope is some of the best fiction and gaming you can get.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I mean, no? Killing the local authority doesn't suddenly put authority in place. Unless there's someone willing to step in, administrate it and maintain the monopoly of violence you're just going to end up in a warlord situation.

The Jomsvikings were not an authority, pretty much the opposite and were (as far as I know according to legend) destroyed by Harald Bluetooth the King of Denmark.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

The Jomsvikings were not an authority, pretty much the opposite and were (as far as I know according to legend) destroyed by Harald Bluetooth the King of Denmark.

"I killed the guys that were oppressing you? My source? Me, the guy oppressing you right now? What are you gonna do about it?"

 

[Maxperson]

I'm looking for people's thoughts on the matter. Which tone do you prefer, how do you run it, and have the Recent World Events changed your take on the tone of your game. Please do not make this about actual politics to keep the topic appropriate, I'm more interested in the tone your game is taking. Hopeful or Despairing.

Thank you,

My games tend to be more middle ground, leaning a bit towards hopeful. Sometimes I run despair, but that's uncommon. Perhaps especially because of the state of the world. I want to run something that leans towards were I want things to go, rather than something that just feeds on and amplifies feelings I already have.