The Campaign Builder's Guild

Is it just me, or do a lot of settings and setting ideas on here seem to have very depressing moods?

Particularly mine...

Mine are fatalistic in the darkest possible way.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawIs it just me, or do a lot of settings and setting ideas on here seem to have very depressing moods?

It is my opinion that it isn't just you.  Of course, we would need to define "depressing" and get some numbers for how many settins on the boards here fit the criteria, but I'll leave things like that to someone with a bit more time on their hands.

However, depressing settings are rather common on these boards, largely because it's easy and/or interesting to write about.  Also, "impending doom" is very in-style these days, as far as world-building goes.

You see, if someone writes a world where everyone lives in peace and harmony, and ponies rule everyone and give out free candy, then few people will take it seriously and/or find it interesting.  However, if someone makes a world where humanity is slowly teearing the world apart and committing atrocities more terrible than those found in hell itself...  Well, it might get a few more reads.

Did I answer the question? :P

Believe it or not, I actually prefer happy settings where the good guy wins, but I loathe settings where the good guy has the opportunity to win forever.  I wouldn't call myself a "realist" be any stretch (a contemptible term, in my opinion), but I do think myself ultimately a nihilist.

My settings have an air of "we both know we'll all be dead one day, but I'm not the one running from the fact".  The sense of "doom" is, I think, humbling, because it reminds us that the end will come inevitably, be it in an hour or an aeon.

In Antebellum for instance (I'm guessing that setting prompted this thread's creation), the "present" universe is a true paradise.  However, it is a paradise humanity created, but ultimately could not inhabit, and they destroyed themselves before its realisation.  I don't really see the setting as negative or depressing: men had their time (which, I might add, lasted millennia), then were undone, as I believe is inevitable anyway.

Calling that a "bad end" is, to me, simply denying that which follows in the universe's natural course.  It's ultimately a happy ending (at least in the setting's context), just not for us.  Those are my favourite endings.

Doom settings also present interesting themes.  Antebellum was inspired by a very interesting question: when we're all dead, how will we be judged by that which comes after us?  Think of the ending of Spielberg's AI.  It's less of a setting and more of a philosophical musing, but I'd like to see how it works in play...

Quote from: Critical ThreatDid I answer the question? :P

I suppose.  I just wanted to know if it was only me because I may interpret something more harshly when it comes to negative emotions (such as feel depressed or sad).

Quote from: Critical ThreatYou see, if someone writes a world where everyone lives in peace and harmony, and ponies rule everyone and give out free candy, then few people will take it seriously and/or find it interesting.  However, if someone makes a world where humanity is slowly teearing the world apart and committing atrocities more terrible than those found in hell itself...  Well, it might get a few more reads.

I don't expect settings of that saccrine magnatude, but I tend to expect settings with less gratuitous grit.  (And before I get chewed-out, I mean "expect" as "I'm looking for something" not "it has to be this way because I require it to be".)  I acknowledge that there are settings on here that don't have that.  But I haven't seen any settings that seem like they are designed to just go wild and crazy in.

You want wild and crazy?  Maybe I should dig out my old "Perfectworld" setting, which is a fairy-tale satire.  It's got a few dark themes, but it's approach is lighthearted.  Kinda like a Rackham interpretation of Brother's Grimm.

No matter what happened, the player's knew that at the end of the day they were the "heroes" of the story.  They could sell the damsel to the dragon and all that meant was that they'd get her sister's hand in marriage instead.  Or maybe hers, if the dragon didn't digest it properly...

Quote from: IoValdeBelieve it or not, I actually prefer happy settings where the good guy wins, but I loathe settings where the good guy has the opportunity to win forever.  I wouldn't call myself a "realist" be any stretch (a contemptible term, in my opinion), but I do think myself ultimately a nihilist.

Me too, but I tend to feel that's no reason that the entire setting needs to feel that way.

Quote from: IoValdeMy settings have an air of "we both know we'll all be dead one day, but I'm not the one running from the fact".  The sense of "doom" is, I think, humbling, because it reminds us that the end will come, be it in an hour or an aeon.

This may, in fact, be where I differ from everyone else: for me "we both know we'll be dead one day" is immediately followed by "of course, your day is today, since that wine you just drank was poisoned".  I don't think approaching doom is humbling at all: it places a feeling of limitations on the consequences of one's actions, and may in fact increase the feelign of worth because there isn't enough time for your actions to be erased.  Whereas a setting that at least seems like it'll be around forever turns me into an infinitely small speck in the vastness of time.

Plus doom makes all those funny things that people do, which is what I think of as 99% of the fun of life and entertainment, insignificant.  The villain's completely cliché monologue isn't as fun when you've been told "it's all going to be destroyed so nothing matters".  My personal feeling is it doesn't matter anyway, we don't need doom to reinforce it.

Quote from: IoValdeIn Antebellum for instance (I'm guessing that setting prompted this thread's creation), the "present" universe is a true paradise.  However, it is a paradise humanity created, but ultimately could not inhabit, and they destroyed themselves before its realisation.  I don't really see the setting as negative or depressing: men had their time (which, I might add, lasted millennia), then were undone, as I believe is inevitable anyway.

I like crushing humans dreams a lot, but I felt like Antebellum made it sound like a bad thing.  Whereas I would have seen it as a kind of joke.

Quote from: IoValdeYou want wild and crazy?  Maybe I should dig out my old "Perfectworld" setting, which is a fairy-tale satire.  It's got a few dark themes, but it's approach is lighthearted.  Kinda like a Rackham interpretation of Brother's Grimm.

No matter what happened, the player's knew that at the end of the day they were the "heroes" of the story.  They could sell the damsel to the dragon and all that meant was that they'd get her sister's hand in marriage instead.  Or maybe hers, if the dragon didn't digest it properly...

Don't dismiss that approach.  I'm not looking for "Perfectworld", I'm looking for "Perfectworld: Behind the Scenes" where it turns out the dragon kidnapped the princess because they're really eloping (insert your D&D dragon breeding joke here), or after the knight defeats the dragon the dragon has a change of heart and decides to join the knight on his quest to rescue maidens in distress who he then doesn't marry because he'd really like a girl who can take care of herself.  The PCs don't need to win or be heroes, they just have to realize that they are existing in a real world, and real worlds don't play by the rules or give in to clichés.

QuoteMe too, but I tend to feel that's no reason that the entire setting needs to feel that way.

next day[/i] of their lives, can be as beautiful and affirming as it can be "depressing".

Doom, I think, can cause a reevaluation of what one has.  The very impermanence of the things we love makes them all the more powerful, because one day we will say goodbye.  It's not that it matters less, but that it matters more, and in the end it's not about the inevitability of silence, but the song that comes before.

To put it the way I explained it to a friend: I don't tell stories about death, I tell stories about deifance.

(All this is getting very philosophical...)

Wow folks, kudos for an intelligent discussion.

Me?  I write worlds about death because I'm miserable, and I like to revel in my sorrow.  No complex philosophical reasoning here at all, just me and the darkness that lives in my soul. :D

This certainly did spark quite the discussion.  Even dating back to the earliest times, many myths have dark, fatalistic elements.  Most cultures have their own end-of-the-world myth.

I mostly agree with everything that has been said, especially what IoValde said about defiance.

I suppose heroes facing supposedly insurmountable odds can help to show us how they are really heroes.  And people faced with tragedy really show their true character.  There is something deeply moving and profound about tragedy.  It's why a movie that can bring people to tears gets nominated for awards and the slapstick comedies don't (oversimplification, of course, and some comedies do get awards, just not as much as dramas it seems).

I love the darker settings, and tend to go darker myself, for these reasons.  I could enjoy running a Perfect setting like mention SCMP, but any longterm project I have is going to tinted with some grit.

My pet theory is that a lot of the darkness in contemporary fantasy is a backlash-- deliberate and conscious or otherwise-- against the "Happily Ever After" syndrome that so often seems to rear its ugly head in fantasy literature. Most of us were raised on some highly sanitized fairy tales which served as an introduction to this faux-medieval, swords-and-magic-and-chivalry genre. I suspect that in a way, myself and many others are subconsciously (or overtly!) rebelling against the simplistic and cheerful nature of that sort of story, with an implicit cry of "I can write something more thought provoking, something more mature!"

I also have suspicions that settings often tend toward "depressing" moods, because those moods are an outgrowth and consequence of the inclusion of the dormant tensions that help make an interesting setting for games. Bear in mind that this is a bunch of wild speculation that I have no real way to back up with evidence of any sort. Nevertheless, compare a sample "World of Cheerful Sunshine" and a sample "World of Grim Grittiness," and I suspect you will usually find that the latter example has a lot more hooks upon which a DM can hang plots for a game. Conflict drives gaming (which is about conflict resolution), and a proliferation of conflict tends to create tension and stress within a setting that some people will consider dark and depressing. That's my theory, anyway.

Quote from: IoValdeDoom, I think, can cause a reevaluation of what one has.  The very impermanence of the things we love makes them all the more powerful, because one day we will say goodbye.  It's not that it matters less, but that it matters more, and in the end it's not about the inevitability of silence, but the song that comes before.

Again, another place to point out difference: for me, doom tells me I'm half-worthless.  I have only two results from any action: it makes me feel good right now, or it impacts on something in the future that I can look ahead and see and again it makes me feel good.  Insert doom and half the point of my existence is gone because there is that looming specter threatening to cut off my future.

Now I know that things end.  What do I do about it?  I ignore it.  "What?! :huh: " you say, "You think that it'll go away if you don't acknowledge it?" (Or maybe you don't say that, it's just the reaction I normally get when I say that to people.)  No, I ignore it so that it won't crush me.  Doom for other people may counterbalance their natural feelings of immortality; doom for me simply adds to my feeling that there's just nothing interesting.  You say that doom helps you appreciate things more because they are going to end.  To me, that's a load of four-letter words.  I appreciate things irreguardless of outside forces.  Doom not only does not make me apprecaite things more, but makes me appreciate things less because there is always the feeling of "Why bother?".

But I don't necessarily ignore doom all the time: I look forward to it.  Complete non-existence, for one.  No nothing.  People seem to be afraid of that: they are afraid that death means the end of sensation.  Me, I'm looking forward to it: no more loud noises, bright lights, hot and cold, dryness and wetness, emotions, thoughts.  Like being asleep without dreams, and I hate dreams.  I'm not in a hurry to get there, I just don't know what people are so worried about.

Quote from: IoValdeTo put it the way I explained it to a friend: I don't tell stories about death, I tell stories about deifance.

Really?  I write stories about death: thats all the universe is, a mass of decaying junk.  Things break, and what's funny is people thinking that the breaking isn't suppoed to happen.

Quote from: IoValde(All this is getting very philosophical...)

Sure, why not?

I'll think up a longer one later, but for mow, my short answer is that the settings are meant for a dark game. It involves mass-slaughter as the central motif, and so either has to be fairly dark, or else take on a bleakly humourous tone, or else be downright cheery (which i would find more disturbing). in fact the ease that PC's kill even other humanoids is kind of frightening. I would prefer a darker gme where the players actually roleplay how hard it would be to kill all their foes, or if they don't then role play the fact that their characters are either emotionless or psychotic.

I have a book to recommend to the attention of my fellow posters.  It is entitled Finite and Infinite Games, by James Carse.  It is essentially a treatise on the application of simple games theory to philosophical questions - although it has been out of print for some time, it is well worth the search through the local library (or Amazon, or Ebay).  

The basic premise is that there are generally 2 kinds of games that people can play, finite games and infinite games.  The 2 types are alike in one important way - they require volition.  Whoever is compelled to play cannot properly be a player.  Other than this, they stand in sharp contrast - finite games are played to win, infinite games are played with the object of assuring continued play.  Finite games are serious and theatrical, infinite games are dramatic but filled with laughter.  Finite players play for titles, infinite players have only their names.  Finite games are played within boundaries, whereas infinite players play  with boundaries.  

The point of playing an infinite game lies in starting something you will not live to finish; since an infinite game cannot be permitted to end, death as a boundary must be taken into infinite play - death may end an individuals experience, but it cannot end the game.

Hence the pertinence of this book to this thread - a theme of doom is depressing only to the extent of its completion.  If even a remnant of a culture remains  after it's destruction, the people who left it behind are still in play, in a sense.  The generations of people who erected Stonehenge are utterly forgotten, but the edifice they left behind continues to inspire with its implication of what people can do when they commit the strength of their bodies and their lives to something whose conclusion they don't have to see.  

Whether a setting is 'doom oriented' or not should really be up to the players.  That's why I don't much care for Ravenloft and other such 'horror-only' settings - I can run a horror game, or go through one, with perfect pleasurable fear, precisely because even if the heroes die or emerge horrifically scarred, there remains the implication that they have stood between horror and something that has value - an order of existence that has a chance to end with poignance and acceptance rather than yet another frantic flailing against unrushing death.  

I can appreciate settings where the heroes challenge is fearsome and outrageously overwhelming - I don't much care for settings where everyone is walking wounded, and the only eternal verity is evil.  That's the distinction I draw, for what it's worth.

QuoteWhether a setting is 'doom oriented' or not should really be up to the players.

This I agree with.
  A campaign world should be a world, full of options, not a place forcing a certain form on the players.  Themes laid down by a GM are limiting and have, in my experience, a short life span.  Horror, or gloom, or glitter, or anything else should be based on player desires/choices.

QuoteFinite games are serious and theatrical, infinite games are dramatic but filled with laughter. Finite players play for titles, infinite players have only their names. Finite games are played within boundaries, whereas infinite players play with boundaries.

In a word: crap.
 I play golf without a serious bone in my body.  
Many of my rpg sessions (what I assume you refer to as infinite games, though your definitions are lacking, as are decent examples) contain little drama, though it may not be infinite by your standard because I do not start it with the intention of never finishing it.


Back to the topic at hand, gloom settings, the get tedious after awhile.
[sarcasm]Ooh, another setting where everything defaults to death and drek!  
How delightful!  How one dimensional! [/sarcasm]

Overarching themes, whether gloomy or My Little Pony happy, are limiting and tend to be quickly abandoned in favor of wider themeless settings.  Greyhawk survived as long as it has because it can be anything the players and GM want.

Well, I for one don't tend to create dark, gloom and doom settings. I prefer settings where there are lots of possibilities. Ones where there's always a good guy around to right the latest wrong; and always a bad guy to wrong the rights.

I tend to take a rather dualistic view of human nature. We all have elements of good and bad built right in to us. Through culture, circumstance, and personality various different elements of this can be enhanced or snuffed out. I like my settings to reflect this.

That's not because I think they are better in any absolute sense, just that settings like that engage my imagination more.

Quote from: CYMRO ARBITER BRASSICI

QuoteFinite games are serious and theatrical, infinite games are dramatic but filled with laughter. Finite players play for titles, infinite players have only their names. Finite games are played within boundaries, whereas infinite players play with boundaries.

In a word: crap.
 I play golf without a serious bone in my body.  
Many of my rpg sessions (what I assume you refer to as infinite games, though your definitions are lacking, as are decent examples) contain little drama, though it may not be infinite by your standard because I do not start it with the intention of never finishing it.

Definitions and examples were intentionally omitted in the interests of not having to transcribe the entire book.  It is 149 pages long, and while it is a fairly easy read it also provides the depth that would clarify its pertinence to the topic at hand.  I hope you will excuse me for my own incoherence; I assure you that it made sense before I tried to set it down.  

Regarding golf, or other such game (including a role-playing game), it is possible to laugh while playing such a game precisely because you are simultaneously playing an infinite game.  Indeed, playing an infinite game inside another, finite, game is only possible by metaphor - as indeed, everything in an RPG is a metaphor.  My argument here is that 'horror-only' games (or 'drama-only', or 'romance-only', or 'comedy-only' games) are necessarily metaphors for one-dimensional life, and so represents an attempt to establish boundaries within the game that aren't necessary to play.

Does that at least make sense?

If you cannot concisely define infinite and finite games, with examples of each, then what we have here is just so much mental masturbation.
If this Carse guy is trying to say life is a game, then he needs to grow up.  Or put down the opium pipe.

What constitutes a difference?  Use of theatrics? Laughter?

I've had a bit of think about this, and perhaps one reason why a lot of settings seem to be quite dark, depressing and frightening is the fact that we live in quite an uncertain, quite dangerous world.  Roleplaying isnt simply escapism, but we as GMs reflect the world around us.  While my Eda setting isnt completely dark - I've tried to inject a lot of wonder into it, also - my 'Hollowrought' subsetting is pretty depressing, a world existed in the broken mind of a shattered god, where nothing makes any sense (my PCs visited it for the first time ever tonight  :D ).  Hollowrought perhaps more reflects the uncertain times we live in than Eda which is dark but positive also.  But its just a theory I suppose.


     

Cyrmo: "Overarching themes, whether gloomy or My Little Pony happy, are limiting and tend to be quickly abandoned in favor of wider themeless settings."
I agree.  A setting should be like life: something you bounce off of to define yourself, and occasionally poke holes in.  If a setting has an established theme then you are in some way telling the players not to poke holes in that part (like making jokes in a doom setting).
Cyrmo: "If this Carse guy is trying to say life is a game, then he needs to grow up."
Just so long as by "grow up" you don't mean "have to take life seriously all the time".  We'd all go crazy (more so than usual) if we did that.

Snakefing, that's a pretty mature perspective.  I'm with you.

CYMRO, At the risk of completely derailing this thread, I'll try to respond -

A finite game is a game played in order to win.

An infinite game is a game played with the object of ensuring the continuance of play.

A finite game is played within spacial and temporal boundaries, by specifically delineated players, in accordance with rules that do not change in the course of play.  A finite player is serious to the extent that he must  veil from himself his own volition in entering play, otherwise he loses competitive effort. (Examples include football, golf, civil law and war.)

An infinite game is played in accordance with rules designed to take any spacial or temporal boundaries into play, as well as to extend the infinite game to as many players as wish to join.  The laughter of an infinite game arises from the understanding that the play of a finite game is part of a larger game, and that what happens in consequence may not be in accordance with any rules.  (In the course of the book, Carse identifies culture and life as examples of infinite games.  To quote the final chapter, in its entirety - "There is but one infinite game.")

Technically, role-playing games do not qualify as either type of game in Carse's definition.  An RPG can, however, function as a vehicle for the playing of a number of finite games, such as tactical exercise, puzzle solving or the game of earning prestige among friends.  As I mentioned in passing, however, well-designed RPG rules used in a well-written setting can stand in for an infinite game; the game continues even if players (the literal players, or the PCs as metaphorical players) depart from play.

Does any of this help?

Quote(In the course of the book, Carse identifies culture and life as examples of infinite games. To quote the final chapter, in its entirety - "There is but one infinite game.")

So if Carse identifies culture as an infinite game, and he says ther is only one game, which culture is the "one"?  Sounds like a copout, his final chapter.

QuoteA setting should be like life: something you bounce off of to define yourself, and occasionally poke holes in. If a setting has an established theme then you are in some way telling the players not to poke holes in that part (like making jokes in a doom setting).

Damn right.  Every "horror" themed game I have played in over the past 26 years has died of boredom.  Whereas the longest running games have been worlds with great diversity of possible experiences.

QuoteI've had a bit of think about this, and perhaps one reason why a lot of settings seem to be quite dark, depressing and frightening is the fact that we live in quite an uncertain, quite dangerous world.

Or, more likely, they are post-adolescent rebellions against lives that are otherwise normal, predictable, and positive.

Quote from: CYMRO ARBITER BRASSICI

Quote(In the course of the book, Carse identifies culture and life as examples of infinite games. To quote the final chapter, in its entirety - "There is but one infinite game.")

So if Carse identifies culture as an infinite game, and he says ther is only one game, which culture is the "one"?  Sounds like a copout, his final chapter.

This is why you should read the book; in context, culture can be defined as the single ongoing interaction of different societies.  In that sense, there is only one culture at work in the human race.

But that's the last attempt at an explanation of such a thing I'm going to make on this thread.  Feel free to PM me if you wish for more elaboration; I yet have hopes of more insights into the proliferation of Gloom as a recurring motif in the settings here.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonMy pet theory is that a lot of the darkness in contemporary fantasy is a backlash-- deliberate and conscious or otherwise-- against the "Happily Ever After" syndrome that so often seems to rear its ugly head in fantasy literature. Most of us were raised on some highly sanitized fairy tales which served as an introduction to this faux-medieval, swords-and-magic-and-chivalry genre. I suspect that in a way, myself and many others are subconsciously (or overtly!) rebelling against the simplistic and cheerful nature of that sort of story, with an implicit cry of "I can write something more thought provoking, something more mature!"

And I'm rebelling against anything that tries to slant my view toward a certain emotion.  Really, though, I don't see why "thought provoking and mature" has to mean "dark and depressing".  It seems like an overreaction to those fairy-tales of old.  Of course, it could just be I somehow missed that part of standard childhood development and thus am now counter-rebelling against the dim, depressing mood that everyone else seems to expect me to have.

Captain Obvious: "I'll think up a longer one later, but for mow, my short answer is that the settings are meant for a dark game. It involves mass-slaughter as the central motif, and so either has to be fairly dark, or else take on a bleakly humourous tone, or else be downright cheery (which i would find more disturbing). in fact the ease that PC's kill even other humanoids is kind of frightening. I would prefer a darker gme where the players actually roleplay how hard it would be to kill all their foes, or if they don't then role play the fact that their characters are either emotionless or psychotic."
That's just a flaw of D&D: too much directly about combat.

QuoteThat's just a flaw of D&D: too much directly about combat.

Not a flaw, just how the game is oriented.  It is a combat simulation at its heart.  And other means of gaining xp have always been given the shaft.  

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawReally, though, I don't see why "thought provoking and mature" has to mean "dark and depressing". It seems like an overreaction to those fairy-tales of old.

Yes, absolutely. If your car is veering off the road to the right, and you turn the wheel to correct it and end up veering off the road to the left instead, you haven't fixed the problem. :)

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAnd I'm rebelling against anything that tries to slant my view toward a certain emotion.  Really, though, I don't see why "thought provoking and mature" has to mean "dark and depressing".  It seems like an overreaction to those fairy-tales of old.  Of course, it could just be I somehow missed that part of standard childhood development and thus am now counter-rebelling against the dim, depressing mood that everyone else seems to expect me to have.

Only fools would have such expectations for you, and the settings that appeal do so in part because of the way they approach themes sensitive to you.  Which is why when you say "I ignore it," I agree wholeheartedly with your reasoning.  By and large, we don't want to be reminded of our mortality, and many of us must push the thought from our minds, because we're otherwise not equipped to deal with it.

But I make campaigns for people who acknowledge the end and remain unperturbed, or somehow validated.  They, like me, have come to the conclusion that if it's all going to fizzle out regardless, it has only as much relevance to them as they allow it to, and they give it no relevance at all.

Antebellum, in my mind, is reminiscent of our struggles, and the preposterous expectations we have in our endeavours as human beings.  We want to travel faster than light.  We want to fly.  We want to swim like fish.  We want to teleport.  We want to go to parallel dimensions and copulate with our doppelgangers.  We want to live forever.  But we always seem to forget that the universe can only be so accommodating.  We had to build great machines in order to travel the realms of fish and birds, and never under our own power.  I do not think we will ever travel faster than light, or teleport, or go to parallel dimensions.  We will not live forever.  These things will not be, not because the universe is harsh, demeaning or callous, but because it is unthinking.  It did not ask us if we wanted to be born, because it cannot ask questions.  It does not know what we want, because it does not know.

That is the humbling thing, and were it not for the part that follows, I would indeed call it belittling.  But it is not, because:

In the absence of purpose, meaning or intent beyond ourselves, our intent becomes the highest intent.

God would not be God if there was a higher power beyond it, but it is the highest power because it has no superior (yes, a tautology).  Similarly, if we inhabit a universe without a point or meaning beyond us, it is not an ultimately pointless and meaningless universe, we simply give it its meaning. And the brevity of that meaning does not trivialise it, because it would only be trivial if there was some grander, endless meaning to compare it to.  There isn't. (It's actually a lot more complicated and existentialist than this, but this sums it up nicely enough)

It has always seemed to me a very arrogant notion that we must matter to the universe.  Is it not enough that we matter to each other?  We affect nature, for sure, but is there anything in our experience that would suggest nature cares about us?  It doesn't.  It can't.  Why should it?  What matters is that we may choose whether or not we care about nature.

In the context of doom settings, then, I do not laugh at the fears of those who do no wish to contemplate the end of things.  I simply state that if existence is emptiness, we must fill it with our own passions, and accept that those passions are not eternal.

Doom settings, then, are not really about doom at all.

At least, mine aren't.

EDIT: This brings to mind the gaming session of which my group has the fondest memories.  It was set in Dystopia, which, in some fashion, is a doom setting too.  The PCs had just fought a devastating battle against an expansionist warlord, and knew that his allies would launch a retributive crusade against them, and they would probably lose.  But after the fight, having travelled through the desert with dwindling provisions, they finally got back to civilisation and attended the wedding of one character's daughter.

That was the best session we ever had.

I'd like to see a thread about campaign setting philosophy.  That is, what meanings can be construed from a given setting.

Of course, I could be the ony one who really gets philosophical with their settings...

Quote from: NeverthelessI'd like to see a thread about campaign setting philosophy.  That is, what meanings can be construed from a given setting.

Then I have a suggestion...

(http://thethirteenthstep.com/stfu/startmanythreads.jpg)

It shall be done!

Quote from: IoValdeBy and large, we don't want to be reminded of our mortality, and many of us must push the thought from our minds, because we're otherwise not equipped to deal with it.

I'm not saying I don't want to be reminded of my mortality.  What I'm saying is that I don't want to be told that it is what validates me.  I ignore it because it has no bearing on me.

Quote from: IoValdeWe want to go to parallel dimensions and copulate with our doppelgangers.

Red Dwarf.  A very good example of how no matter how bad a situation is there is still something funny about it.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI'm not saying I don't want to be reminded of my mortality.  What I'm saying is that I don't want to be told that it is what validates me.  I ignore it because it has no bearing on me.

Once again, no-one is making any assertions as to what validates whom.  At this point I cringe, because I'm about to say the thing I loathe most of all in intellectual discussion:

To each their own.

You ignore it because it has no bearing on you, I explore it, because I think it does, as a human being and a (ahem) "philosopher".  I marvel at what death can say about life (which is very much an issue of personal interpretation).

If that's not your cup of tea, then by golly you won't play in my settings! :-p

QuoteAt this point I cringe, because I'm about to say the thing I loathe most of all in intellectual discussion:

To each their own.

I'll give you a pass on this one, because this is not only intellectual discussion, but also aesthetic discussion, and aesthetics are dependant upon personal tastes.

In other words, "poTAYto, poTAHto," mi amigo. :yumm:

QuoteRed Dwarf. A very good example of how no matter how bad a situation is there is still something funny about it.

Years of research show Red Dwarf is infinitely more funny if watched stoned.
Though, I am glad local cable has brought it out of retirement.

Quote"poTAYto, poTAHto,"

"Spud"

Quote from: CYMRO ARBITER BRASSICI"Spud"

"Dups." And a shout-out to my homies in backwards-land.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

Quote from: CYMRO ARBITER BRASSICI"Spud"

"Dups." And a shout-out to my homies in backwards-land.

I think "Spood" would have been more in the spirit of the debate...
but to itch his own.

I would say the thread is being derailed, but you guys are far too funny.

Quote from: NeverthelessI'd like to see a thread about campaign setting philosophy.  That is, what meanings can be construed from a given setting.

Of course, I could be the ony one who really gets philosophical with their settings...

I don't think you're the only one, no.  Though I'd often say my background in philosophy is going to show more in an actual campaign than a setting.

Within the scope of a campaign, it is possible to explore many themes and philosophical questions in great detail.

A setting can explore them, too.

And I do think that meanings can be construed from settings, whether the author intends it or not.