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?

 

[Celebrim]

So do I want a world that is worth fighting for or a world where even the noblest intentions cannot save it?

Tolkien believed in both. My main point was that a world where even the noblest intentions cannot save it might not look like what you imagine.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This is a long and somewhat rambling essay.

Recent World Events have gotten me thinking about worldbuilding and the nature of D&D settings. Without going into details, I will simply say my view on the state of the world isn't as bright as it was a decade ago. (No further elaboration will be given). In turn, this has influenced my thoughts on D&D worlds and especially tone. Particularly, the idea that settings broadly come in two styles: Hope and Despair.

A setting of Hope is premised on the idea that, despite all its flaws and problems, things are fundamentally Good. Most people are kind, systems work as intended, and Evil is an aberration rather than a natural state. Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dragonlance, despite having a multitude of problems, villains, and conflicts, still hover on the idea that most of its people are kind, hardworking and fair, its rulers are wise and even handed, and if good people stand firm, evil will not win. It's an optimistic view of society, one where heroism is in defense of the good in the world. "There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for".

A setting of Despair is the opposite. It's a world where darkness, hopelessness and greed are the natural and prevalent state of the world. It doesn't mean good doesn't exist, but that it's an aberration to the system. People are mostly selfish and prefer not to get involved. Systems are corrupted by power, wealth, and ambition. Evil has won, even if it's not completely obvious. Ravenloft and Dark Sun are the obvious examples, though even Planescapes's cynical and jaded outlook on morality can be part of this. A setting doesn't need to be completely grimdark, it just has to reflect that standing up for what is right often means standing alone. It also means that typically, no matter what victories you achieve, you cannot make the world fundamentally better. You only can make things more bearable in the short run. “When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

D&D has flirted with both tones, both on a setting level (as I pointed out) and even on a Core Rules level (1e and 4e both had elements of Despair, while 2e, 3e, and 5e feel more Hopeful). And Neither tone is better than the other. It is simply two different approaches.

Which bends me back to the premise. I cannot decide which tone I want to opt for next when I start my new game. I was considering Hope, as my last game was Ravenloft and full of Despair. However, as stated prior, the Recent World Events have made me feel less charitable to the notion that people are good and evil is a glitch in the system. On the one hand, I think if fantasy can convince me of fantastical things like dragons and magic and elves, the idea that most people in a setting wouldn't be xenophobic greedy, or merely apathetic shouldn't be hard to believe either. On the other, I don't know if I could stand another spin through a setting where most people act like jerks, whether they intend to be or not.

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,

I want to respond to this without reading the thread.
I have always been on the hope side of the equation, I have never had much time overly dark settings, there is enough darkness in the real world for me to import it into my fantasies. Why would I do that to myself.
As for the rest of the world, I think that when times are bad people prefer more hopeful fare and when this are too good a bit of darkness can puncture the hubris.

 

[zakael19]

What's really ironic about this paragraph is Middle Earth is a setting of despair, where things are not fundamentally good, and in fact it is a world of darkness and hopelessness and greed and evil is the prevalent state of the world. Tolkien describes his world as "fighting the long defeat". It's precisely because Middle Earth is a setting of despair, that tending the little bit of good in it and acting on hope is such a valiant act of rebellion against the prevailing tide of evil.

The One Ring is pretty clear on how you’re fighting to keep the spark of hope alive until the King Returns & etc. You’re not going to defeat Sauron, but you can help ensure there’s a world to come after him.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

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.