D&D General Settings of Hope vs Settings of Despair

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

one of the only fantasy settings with true hope.

... that isn't written by Sir Terry Pratchett.

 

[Scribe]

I just finished my Ravenloft campaign where while the PCs did much to stem the tide of darkness, but still the best they got was status quo. Things didn't get any better, but they also didn't get as bad as they could have.

Was that due to the setting quirk or just because thats how it ended up?

 

[DragonLancer]

I would say my homebrew setting is middle of the road, maybe sliding towards hope depending where abouts in the world you are. People are generally good folks but alignment is just guidelines. There are baddies and the idea that behind the scenes the world is always in peril unless people step up to stop it, which adventurers do.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

why are there so many threads right now that are covert socio-political threads, that purport not to talk about them, but in reality that's mostly all that they talk about... just without referring to any specific details?

Man is a political animal. Any time two humans interact, and convey an idea from one brain to another, they are engaging in politics.

The existence of the internet, a BBS, a TTRPG and the English language itself are all deeply political. I could not convey information to you in an intelligible manner without it containing socio-political undertones, even if that undertone is as base as "At one point a people called the English existed and we credit them with creating this language."

 

[Scribe]

why are there so many threads right now that are covert socio-political threads

Because...well no, I've made it so far this year.

 

[Minigiant]

Kinda reminds me of the Noble - Grim, Bright-Dari setting alignments.

To me: Dungeon TTRPGs are best as Grimbright, Strategy and Solo RPGs games are best at Nobledark.

 

[Hussar]

Tolkien however viewed it even more starkly. While evil's victory could be postponed, even the world that followed the defeat of Sauron was only given a reprieve, like cancer that has gone into remission. Some blush of health might return, but the body would still be weakened compared to before. So much beauty would go out of the world in the fight. The elves leave Middle Earth. Rivendell would stand empty, and fall into disrepair, it's Aman like beauty fading as the magic that preserved it departed. It would cease to be a place of rest and become a place of toil. So too with the wood of Lothlorien, perhaps its trees would die or become common. It's cities would tumble. The remanent of the wood elves would diminish to a dangerous and fey people, seldom to be seen and not grand to encounter. Evil was beaten, but it's works wouldn't ever be fully undone. The world was slowly winding down, each age and blossom of health to fade and to be in some way weaker than the one before. It was beyond the power of anyone in Middle Earth, even the Valar to stop it. Melkor's victory in some sense was assured, even though it wouldn't be a triumph for him either as it would be a world of ash and ruin even he could not enjoy except in spite.

Reading this, and I can't really disagree with the interpretation, does rather clearly define why I don't like fantasy as a genre. The navel-gazing of nostalgia - things were better in the past but the present is a pale shadow and the future is nothing but dissolution - of fantasy as a genre is so stomach churning for me.

I so much prefer SF where the future is possibly worse than today, possibly better than today, or possibly pretty much the same as today. The standard theme of fantasy is so depressing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Which bends me back to the premise. I cannot decide which tone I want to opt for next when I start my new game

Have you tried the coin flip trick? Heads or Tails it and if you’re disappointed by the outcome you know you actually wanted it the other way.

Personally I think I fall on the hope side of things, even if the world i might make may be a setting that’s harsh and full of danger the people in it would still be fundamentally good, pulling together to survive against the world.

 

[Remathilis]

Was that due to the setting quirk or just because thats how it ended up?

Setting quirk. They stopped a Dark Lord from taking over a powerful artifact and stopped Azalin from destroying Darkon and escape, but both of those events only foiled those dark lords plans, it didn't destroy them. They even went back to Barovia and found Strahd had returned, thus undoing the victory their other characters had done.

Like I said, despair.

 

[Celebrim]

Reading this, and I can't really disagree with the interpretation, does rather clearly define why I don't like fantasy as a genre. The navel-gazing of nostalgia - things were better in the past but the present is a pale shadow and the future is nothing but dissolution - of fantasy as a genre is so stomach churning for me.

So while I agree that Tolkien is very much the trope setter (or at least trope spreader) for all of fantasy, not all of fantasy has those tropes. Terry Pratchett tends to have fantasy where things are slowly getting better. Larry Niven's "The Magic Goes Away" actually gives voice to your complaint in literary form with the idea that the magic needs to go away to make room for something better. If fantasy seems so often to be "post-apocalyptic" in that something terrible has happened, that's usually only to set up that the hero can do something great to set things right.

And secondly, I think you need to understand Tolkien's view of history as being about more than history, but for example as a metaphor for the human life itself. You are going to die in the end. Not contending with that is not actually the hopeful take on things.