Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9781713" data-attributes="member: 7635">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,</blockquote>

Verification