This question was originally started by Señor Leetz in his Arga thread, but I wanted to expand on it without derailing his thread. So far, the two posts that related to it are located below. So what do you think? Do you like the Dying Earth Subgenre? What do you like or dislike about it?
Quote from: LordVreeg
Quote from: Steampunk Knight
Now this is coming from the perspective of someone who has not yet had a chance to read your setting, but I would say drop it. I have never found it fun to read about or play in worlds that are dying, unless the goal of the adventure is to save said world. Now you have said that you were moving away from it already. If it doesn't feel right I wouldn't try to force it. Then again this is just me rambling on, but when I get a free moment I will sit down and review your setting.
I have to disagree here.
Dying earth and the shadow of the torturer come to mind, but there are hundreds more. He'll, in some ways, middle earth was dying, and least for the demi humans...dying welds are pretty fascinating for me, at least.
So what makes it fascinating to you?
Surely all worlds are dying in one way or another?
The prospect of oblivion, the juxtapositions of decadence and austerity that often results, the delicious bleakness and melancholy, the combination of intense strangeness and haunting familiarity, the macabre gloom, the interplay of futility and hope.
As a GM, I implement this trope when I can conceive of a successful effort by the PCs at great personal cost to reverse the planet's fortunes or at least save its inhabitants.
The last campaign I ever ran in Dystopia involved an attempt by the players to infiltrate Penumbra and destroy the very seat of the IoValde's power, thus saving the world from Anathema, the fourth and final member of the cosmic godhead.
They failed. The world ended. There are no more adventures in Dystopia.
The cycle is an important concept in many relgions and in psychology. (as is breaking a cycle)
we talk of political cycles, voting cycles, weather cycles, seasonal cycles...hell, it is everywhere.
And some of the best poetry and music deal with the inevitable end. Sometimes, as in Elric's case, the dying of the old world gives birth to something eelse, sometimes not. But pathos is a powerful energy, and the idea of creatures living through the ending part of a story, dealing with the part of it they can, instills a huge amount of pathos to a setting. Even the actions of the Gods are different...
I enjoy "the World is Slowly Dieing" campaign settings.
Steampunk Knight, no worries- I'm here with you in preferring gumdrops and glitter and hope and PROGRESS! to a glum dying world. See, e.g. Gloria. http://www.thecbg.org/index.php/topic,65170.html; ebil http://www.thecbg.org/index.php/topic,72315.html; Tatterdemalion http://www.thecbg.org/index.php/topic,74722.html
that being said- Steerpike and China Mieville do it really well- they execute the dying earth genre and the gothic decay in a flavorful macabre fashion that excites the senses. For the genre to be done well, I think, it needs a dash of the fantastic and the grotesquerie so as to raise the ID in the soul, to excite the sense and to titillate, like a good horror novel--except whereas many horror novels focus on psychology or on pure shock, the dying world genre excites the feeling of existential dread that one also achieves from a good Lovecraft Novel. It makes one think of survival, of the self, of the tribe and it gets at people's primal instincts.
I like dying worlds.
I am honestly tired of the whole "fight the Great Evil"/"save the cheerleader, save the world" mantra. You do not have to save the world to be a hero. Everything does not have to be part of the greater cosmic scheme. The actions of ordinary people, anyone really, matter too.
The dying earth is as valid a premise as the renaissance earth, the industrial earth, or any other premise in between. These are simply ideas and periods that fascinate humans.
You choose to create a dying world because it helps bring about a specific tone that you desire for your setting. In this case, there will be a general sense of desperation-turned-passion and the characters often have to come face to face with the inevitablity of decline.
As a thought experiment, I feel it's interesting to explore how humans (and inhumans) would react when their whole foundation teeters on the edge of an abyss. Would we hang on to past glories? Turn on each other? Make the most of the little time left to us? Do we put our trust in the afterlife(s) promised to us by oh-so-many prophets?
Humans, as beings, are fascinating not because we are rational, but because we are irrational. The dying world is one of the few genres that actually explores human nature beyond the capability of traditional fiction.
I can understand if it doesn't appeal to you (or a hypothetical someone), though. The danger with DE settings is that they have a tendency to revel in their own bleakness to the point where they forget there is anything good left in the world. For all the decay and ashes there needs to be elements of beauty and life to balance it out or it all devolves into rote horror.
Obviously, I like dying world settings. But I'm of the opinion that its a broad genre, and not all DWs are, or should be, presented in the same way.
Arga, I would say, is not so much about stopping the world from dying, but it is more of a mechanic that allows many different things to make sense. In my case, the dying of Arga represenst the natural decay and entropy of things as opposed to something that has been deliberately done and lets me play around with things like lots of dead empires, entropic magic (Phaen), and in my case a feeling of ruggedness and danger.
I do agree with SC in that some DW settings can be bleak to the point of "Who cares", as it seems like the ending of the story has already been written.
I don't mind "dying world" type settings, but I too often prefer more "hope and progress!" oriented settings. That said, being a fan of putting everything together means I don't mind putting the two of these together, as well. In Asura, I go less for the bleak overt "dying" motif but use a lot of similar imagery to create a sense that everything is spiraling out of control. However, the demise of one dying world will only lead to the birth of another, hopefully better, one. I like to think this is fitting, given the creators-preservers-destroyers motif that is frequent in the Asura cosmos.
Quote from: Steerpike
The prospect of oblivion, the juxtapositions of decadence and austerity that often results, the delicious bleakness and melancholy, the combination of intense strangeness and haunting familiarity, the macabre gloom, the interplay of futility and hope.
That is very will said.
Quote from: Sleipnir
As a GM, I implement this trope when I can conceive of a successful effort by the PCs at great personal cost to reverse the planet's fortunes or at least save its inhabitants.
The last campaign I ever ran in Dystopia involved an attempt by the players to infiltrate Penumbra and destroy the very seat of the IoValde's power, thus saving the world from Anathema, the fourth and final member of the cosmic godhead.
They failed. The world ended. There are no more adventures in Dystopia.
See that is a trope that I am all for. Yes the world can end, but there is still a chance, even if it is a small one to stop it from happening.
Quote from: LordVreeg
The cycle is an important concept in many relgions and in psychology. (as is breaking a cycle)
we talk of political cycles, voting cycles, weather cycles, seasonal cycles...hell, it is everywhere.
And some of the best poetry and music deal with the inevitable end. Sometimes, as in Elric's case, the dying of the old world gives birth to something eelse, sometimes not. But pathos is a powerful energy, and the idea of creatures living through the ending part of a story, dealing with the part of it they can, instills a huge amount of pathos to a setting. Even the actions of the Gods are different...
See I don't have a problem with cycles. Yes the cycle may end and begin again, but it continues on. My dislike of with parts of the Subgenre is with the stories where no matter what you do, or how hard you try there is no way to stop the end.
Much like Kirk, I don't believe in a no-win scenario.
Quote from: Light Dragon
Steampunk Knight, no worries- I'm here with you in preferring gumdrops and glitter and hope and PROGRESS! to a glum dying world. See, e.g. Gloria. http://www.thecbg.org/index.php/topic,65170.html; ebil http://www.thecbg.org/index.php/topic,72315.html; Tatterdemalion http://www.thecbg.org/index.php/topic,74722.html
that being said- Steerpike and China Mieville do it really well- they execute the dying earth genre and the gothic decay in a flavorful macabre fashion that excites the senses. For the genre to be done well, I think, it needs a dash of the fantastic and the grotesquerie so as to raise the ID in the soul, to excite the sense and to titillate, like a good horror novel--except whereas many horror novels focus on psychology or on pure shock, the dying world genre excites the feeling of existential dread that one also achieves from a good Lovecraft Novel. It makes one think of survival, of the self, of the tribe and it gets at people's primal instincts.
When I get a free movement I will look at the links that you have provided. There are so many settings on here, it is a huge task to read them all, but I am attempting to do so.
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
I like dying worlds.
I am honestly tired of the whole "fight the Great Evil"/"save the cheerleader, save the world" mantra. You do not have to save the world to be a hero. Everything does not have to be part of the greater cosmic scheme. The actions of ordinary people, anyone really, matter too.
The dying earth is as valid a premise as the renaissance earth, the industrial earth, or any other premise in between. These are simply ideas and periods that fascinate humans.
You choose to create a dying world because it helps bring about a specific tone that you desire for your setting. In this case, there will be a general sense of desperation-turned-passion and the characters often have to come face to face with the inevitablity of decline.
As a thought experiment, I feel it's interesting to explore how humans (and inhumans) would react when their whole foundation teeters on the edge of an abyss. Would we hang on to past glories? Turn on each other? Make the most of the little time left to us? Do we put our trust in the afterlife(s) promised to us by oh-so-many prophets?
Humans, as beings, are fascinating not because we are rational, but because we are irrational. The dying world is one of the few genres that actually explores human nature beyond the capability of traditional fiction.
I can understand if it doesn't appeal to you (or a hypothetical someone), though. The danger with DE settings is that they have a tendency to revel in their own bleakness to the point where they forget there is anything good left in the world. For all the decay and ashes there needs to be elements of beauty and life to balance it out or it all devolves into rote horror.
Your right you, don't need to be the part of a greater cosmic scheme. It is when the actions are somewhat futile it was I really don't like. It is a personal dislike of mine, but at the same time I do happen to like stories about how people face death. It is a little hypocritical I know. But even in death, a person has still had a chance to do something that will continue on past their end.
I think it is the bleakness that is what I dislike the about some of those worlds. No happiness or joy. You are correct that you really have to balance all of the elements in order to avoid that.
Quote from: Señor Leetz
Obviously, I like dying world settings. But I'm of the opinion that its a broad genre, and not all DWs are, or should be, presented in the same way.
Arga, I would say, is not so much about stopping the world from dying, but it is more of a mechanic that allows many different things to make sense. In my case, the dying of Arga represenst the natural decay and entropy of things as opposed to something that has been deliberately done and lets me play around with things like lots of dead empires, entropic magic (Phaen), and in my case a feeling of ruggedness and danger.
I do agree with SC in that some DW settings can be bleak to the point of "Who cares", as it seems like the ending of the story has already been written.
Interesting, I really need to sit down a review your setting.
Quote from: sparkletwist
I don't mind "dying world" type settings, but I too often prefer more "hope and progress!" oriented settings. That said, being a fan of putting everything together means I don't mind putting the two of these together, as well. In Asura, I go less for the bleak overt "dying" motif but use a lot of similar imagery to create a sense that everything is spiraling out of control. However, the demise of one dying world will only lead to the birth of another, hopefully better, one. I like to think this is fitting, given the creators-preservers-destroyers motif that is frequent in the Asura cosmos.
Again another setting I have to sit down and read through.
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
<snip>
I can understand if it doesn't appeal to you (or a hypothetical someone), though. The danger with DE settings is that they have a tendency to revel in their own bleakness to the point where they forget there is anything good left in the world. For all the decay and ashes there needs to be elements of beauty and life to balance it out or it all devolves into rote horror.
This. I can agree with LD, Steampunk Knight, and Sparkle that "hope and progress" are my more preferred elements of design, but I'm careful not to dichotomize the two. I like having mixtures of "yes, there's progress being made," and "the world as we know it is dying," to really liven up a setting. I think it's important in latter-affiliated settings that the bleakness and decay doesn't override the experience and create a sense of hopelessness. I'm a sucker for the sappy endings, but even I want there to be losses involved in getting there.
That said, my opinion of Dying Worlds is decidedly mixed. I'm generally slow to warm up to them... I think far too many of them revolve around the idea that the world is cast in shades of grey and black and brown; I want a dying world with color and vibrancy and a general lack of the term "wastes" or "wastelands" (I'm guilty of this myself).
Quote from: WeaveI think far too many of them revolve around the idea that the world is cast in shades of grey and black and brown; I want a dying world with color and vibrancy and a general lack of the term "wastes" or "wastelands" (I'm guilty of this myself).
I'm trying for
some of this in the Cadaverous Earth... not sure if I always succeed. I want patches of colour - bilious greens and sanguine crimsons, anyway.
@Steerpike: I always saw the CE as a "dead Earth" settings, as opposed to "dying Earth."
Yeah, I guess that's sort of the idea! "This is a world no longer merely dwindling, no longer dying, but rather become a great corpse peopled by maggots and worms, the fester-spawned parasites of a Cadaverous Earth..."
But it's still closer to a dying earth style world than any other fantasy sub-genre, I'd say.
It's very good, no doubts. :)
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: WeaveI think far too many of them revolve around the idea that the world is cast in shades of grey and black and brown; I want a dying world with color and vibrancy and a general lack of the term "wastes" or "wastelands" (I'm guilty of this myself).
I'm trying for some of this in the Cadaverous Earth... not sure if I always succeed. I want patches of colour - bilious greens and sanguine crimsons, anyway.
I can assure you that just because I think too many of them rely on such sepulchral tones doesn't mean that their aren't really, really good ones that do it well anyways :wink:.
I really should revive my Verdant Apocalype setting -
Quote from: Weave
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: WeaveI think far too many of them revolve around the idea that the world is cast in shades of grey and black and brown; I want a dying world with color and vibrancy and a general lack of the term "wastes" or "wastelands" (I'm guilty of this myself).
I'm trying for some of this in the Cadaverous Earth... not sure if I always succeed. I want patches of colour - bilious greens and sanguine crimsons, anyway.
I can assure you that just because I think too many of them rely on such sepulchral tones doesn't mean that their aren't really, really good ones that do it well anyways :wink:.
Some of the best apocalypse/dying earth settings use the waste/wasteland trope very well...but I do agree it become very repetitive. It's like fantasy always including elves.
I think the trick is making your wastes more than "Barren Soil/Dust/Sand with some rocks." What I'm going to try and do for Shades and Dust is include wastes filled with toxic mushrooms, cities overwhelmed by sickly purple vines, literal junkyards with the debris of the old civilization spread about it, and areas where pulsating biomass covers the landscape - enough to keep the terrain varied, but still retain the overall idea of "wastes."
Also, at some point I really should revisit my Verdant Apocalypse setting. I (not too humbly) think that was one of my best ideas - an apocalypse of life gone rampant, as opposed to it dying.
>>Also, at some point I really should revisit my Verdant Apocalypse setting. I (not too humbly) think that was one of my best ideas - an apocalypse of life gone rampant, as opposed to it dying.
Like that one area in Polycarp's clockwork jungle? I seem to recall a portion of it was like that...if you're looking for inspiration. (sorry for the vagueness).
Quote from: XathanAlso, at some point I really should revisit my Verdant Apocalypse setting.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading about that one back on the old Wizards boards, way before I joined the CBG. You were a regular there, right Xathan?
Yup! In fact, Xeviat's comments on Verdant Apocalypse is what got me to join the CBG way back in the day.
Not to contribute to or anything, but I also remember Verdant Apocalypse from the Wizards boards. My memories of it are hazy, but I do remember thinking it was cool.
It is also possible to include part of this in a setting.
A few of my Pcs have visiting the delvan isles, where the good guys sort of won, but barely, as the isles are mainly washed under water now; or ish isle, where the zombie cults actually rule the isle. Or the worst, ruined gesana, where the mad saints battled until the undead actually won. all of these are actually the end results of older campaigns transported to celtricia, but all are dead or dying, or on life support.
i dont know much about Verdant Apoc, but that seems less dying earth than a type of alternative apocalyptic settings, as a lush, albeit overgrown world isnt exactly "dying".I would argue dying world settings is, well, about the world failing, the natural things that use to be stop working or decay, not essentially about apocalypse or some type of armageddon.
That comment begs the question: how different is the dying earth genre from the post-apocalyptic genre in tone and elements?
I think dying earth focuses on more of a gradual, but inevitable decline, while post apocalype is characterized by a sudden diasterous event that reshaped the world for the worse. That doesn't mean that the two are exclusive - the aftermath of an apocalypse can become a dying earth as people and life struggle to survive, but it could also flourish in the wake of the apocalypse into a vibrant Earth again.
Quote from: Xathan Of Many Worlds
I think dying earth focuses on more of a gradual, but inevitable decline, while post apocalype is characterized by a sudden diasterous event that reshaped the world for the worse. That doesn't mean that the two are exclusive - the aftermath of an apocalypse can become a dying earth as people and life struggle to survive, but it could also flourish in the wake of the apocalypse into a vibrant Earth again.
couldnt have said it much better myself. So then the key difference is both the pace of the downward change - as I dont think it would be sensible to argue an Apoc. to be a good thing -gradual versus sudden. Also, the fact that in a post-apoc setting the "end" has already happened, where as in a DE setting, it has yet to.
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
That comment begs the question: how different is the dying earth genre from the post-apocalyptic genre in tone and elements?
Well, to make a broad generalisation, I'd say that post-apocalypse tends to be set nearer to our own times, after a major catastrophic event or series of events have brought the structures of civilisation down and caused a social-economic-technological regression to come about either overnight or otherwise relatively quickly, whereas dying earth tends to be set in a far more distant future where more gradual change has caused a similar regression to occur over a longer period of time. In dying earth the apocalypse is slowly ongoing, in post-apoc it has happened, was over quickly, and we are dealing with the aftermath.
Tone-wise, though, the divergence doesn't seem to be so clear.
EDIT: Beat me to it :(
I would also say its a matter of mechanics and not tone. As mentioned, in a post-apoc. or even a pre-apoc. setting, the chance is sudden and often unexpected, where as in a DE setting, the change is not sudden and is expected. Grammatically, using the word dying as opposed to dead, signifies that the death is happening at this very moment.
(two weeks are not necromancy, are they?)
I'm not a fan of "dying earths". I don't feel compulsed to do anything in those worlds, because if everything is already dying, what is the point? It's all gonna die soon anyway. Of course, I can utilise the "world is about to end, stop it" trope just as much as everyone, but having a world that is just bleak and beyond redemption destroys any chance of interest from me. I love the settings that give you infinite possibilities of realising your destiny and chance to actually shape the future. If you feel like being a dig and ruining all of that future, you can go ahead and do it - but you can do so much more than just pointless, mindless destruction - you can create.
Actually, I think that's a really good point and part of why I prefer post apocalypse to dying Earth. In a dying earth, the tone always seems to imply that social decay is as inevitable as your own fragile mortality, and nothing you accomplish will matter. Dying earth is about survival. Post apocalyptic is about rebuilding and creating among all this horror, giving the plaryers a chance to have a hand in bringing the world back to life.
A Different Perspective:
I've never really been able to play in a game that could said to be a Dying Earth setting. In fact, the only thing I've done that's even close to that was when I ran a game in the WotC 4e Dark Sun setting. And the world in that game wasn't dying, dead, or even hungry. Hell it wasn't even an apocalypse world. It had just been ruined by the foolish and selfish squandering of the planets magic resources (life itself) by some very bad people/rulers.
From what I've been hearing about DE settings however, I am intrigued to see what they would be like to play in. I'm not entirely sure of of what's grabbing me about the idea, but I do tend to like settings with a lot of Bleakness to them. I also use a lot of contrast and symbolic meaning when I run games. With that in mind the ideas I get when I think about running a game in a DE setting to utilize a sense of contrast from the bleakness would be small and subtle (or not-so-subtle as the case sometimes is). A small flickering of candlelight in the oppressive bleakness.
I get the feeling from this thread that that particular way of running a DE game wouldn't be the best however. Especially since (it would seem) the light in the bleak needs to shine bright and strong, even if it is a very localized light, in DE settings.
Does this genre have an effective antithesis in fantasy? Eden or Primeval might fit, if one takes the premise that a newborn world is it's opposite. I'm curios what y'all think or if there's some anti-Vance fiction I could read.
To be honest, I think that C. S. Lewis' "the Magician's Nephew" probably qualifies as anti-Vance. Not only is it about a very literally newborn world, but one full of potential and possibility and one lacking that sense of fading overgrown grandeur that suffused most of Vance's works. (though the Charn sequences are oddly Vancian, when one thinks about it).
Tolkien is pretty much the anti-Vance in a certain sense. Middle Earth is set in the distant past, not the far future. Characters in Vance's worlds tend to be motivated by greed, lust, and other venal motives. Sex is pretty prevalent. Magicians are usually petty villains at worst or enigmatic, uncaring scholars at best. Everything feels uncertain and sort of futile. The plots tend to be personal (vengeance, survival, making money). Non-human races usually want to eat and/or torture or rape you. Everything has a veneer of cynical amorality. In Tolkien's world, everything is epic. Wizards are kindly, wise, semi-angelic figures or else world-threatening tyrants. Plots have to do with saving the world from darkness or at least slaying dragons and winning wars. Characters tend to be motivated by honour, righteousness, or full-blown megalomania. Morals are hyper-prevalent and sex doesn't seem to exist, certainly not onscreen. While there's a sense of melancholy to the elves passing that might be compared to the dying earth, in Tolkien it's a kind of bitersweet mystic ascension, whereas in Vance's Dying Earth it feels like the end is totally random, entropic, meaningless.
Magicians Newphew scenes with Narnia unfolding certainly are literally oppositional. Cool thought.
Good counterbalance rhetoric for classic fantasy being anti-Dting Earth. I feel enlightened, but remain convinced that both Vance and Tolkien are ultimately smilar because they depict worlds sliding downward, with Golden Ages far behind.