Why is Post-Apocalypse Fantasy so Popular?

[khyron1144]

Why is Post-Apocalypse Fantasy so Popular?


I notice that a number of worlds on these boards begin with some sort of disaster, cataclysm, war, or dark age that is in the past of these worlds.  My own world of Tera is as guilty as any.

I notice that it's a theme in professionally published worlds too, like Dark Sun and Dragon Lance.

[Kalos Mer]

Because it produces lots of ruins with powerful ancient treasures and bizarre monsters for adventurers to explore!

[Elven Doritos]

Post-apocalyptic campaigns represent the best and worst of humanity-- the sprawling achievements of mankind dashed down by the gods, nature, cosmic tragedy, or their own hubris. The variety of games available in post-cataclysmic games vary as well-- in some regions, survival itself is the ongoing source for daily adventure, whereas the exploration of the remnants of a society's glory while uncovering the reasons for its destruction provide an underlying plot in some.

In my opinion, at least.

[brainface]

Limited resources and desperation are fun. It requires inventiveness and kamikaze tactics. (I don't think D&D does limited resources that well, but that's a rant for another time.)

[Xeviat]

One thing that is also fun about them is that they blur the line between science fiction and fantasy. The two primary elements of science fiction is that sci-fi usually takes place in the future ("speculating" what things will be like if ...), and "the other" (technology, robots, aliens, psychic powers ...) is a primary character rather than simply flavor. Fantasy, on the other hand, has "the other" (generally magic) as a tool, not a character.

Post Apocalyptic fantasy allows players to play in a somewhat familiar world; Los Angeles and New York at least used to exist, people are around, technology in 2007 was the same as it is now.

Also, post-apocalyptic settings are set back to the dark ages, which makes it decidedly more fantastic than science-fictiony.

[Polycarp]

The history of Earth is full of wars, dark ages, disasters, and other dire events that shook things up, bringing down older powers and ushering in new eras for other peoples.  In my own campaign setting, several disasters have happened in the past, not just the one immediately preceding the action.  Empires rise and fall, and sometimes it's dramatic in a helpful way to facilitate that fall with an apocalyptic event.

Functionally, I think that games really benefit from having a vaccuum of power, whether that means unexplored lands, countries in chaos, or lands just opening up to trade and intrigue after a "dark age" or cataclysm.  The apocalypse functions as a useful "reset button" that creates opportunities for enterprising characters.

[khyron1144]

Because it produces lots of ruins with powerful ancient treasures and bizarre monsters for adventurers to explore!

That sounds like a good bet.

1) The history of Earth is full of wars, dark ages, disasters, and other dire events that shook things up, bringing down older powers and ushering in new eras for other peoples.  In my own campaign setting, several disasters have happened in the past, not just the one immediately preceding the action.  Empires rise and fall, and sometimes it's dramatic in a helpful way to facilitate that fall with an apocalyptic event.

2) Functionally, I think that games really benefit from having a vaccuum of power, whether that means unexplored lands, countries in chaos, or lands just opening up to trade and intrigue after a "dark age" or cataclysm.  3) The apocalypse functions as a useful "reset button" that creates opportunities for enterprising characters.

1) Totally true.  A world based on the modern world could be called post-apocalyptic because it's after the death of the dinosaurs, etc.  Maybe there's no way to avoid post-apocalypse elements at least a little.
2) Also sounds about right.
3) Again right.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

I would argue that the post-apocalyptic genre generally implies that the apocalypse was relatively recent (within the last millenia), or else that the world has never recovered.  I do not think modern Earth qualifies because dinosaurs suffered an apocalypse millions of years ago.

Nor do I consider Kishar post-apocalyptic, despite its many cataclysms (nor the fact is destroyed every million years cyclically).

On the other hand, take something like The Terminator, and you see a post-apocalyptic future.

[Polycarp]

I would argue that the post-apocalyptic genre generally implies that the apocalypse was relatively recent (within the last millenia), or else that the world has never recovered.  I do not think modern Earth qualifies because dinosaurs suffered an apocalypse millions of years ago.

I disagree, because I don't see the end of the dinosaurs as the relevant apocalypse here.  Think more in terms of man-made apolcalypses; the fall of the Roman Empire, for one (standards of living did not approach that of the Romans for more than a millenia afterwards); the ravaging of much of Asia by the Mongols; both World Wars.  Imagine Colonialism as an apocalypse, with the systematic plunder, domination, and subjugation of countless nations by distant foreign powers, suddenly vanished in the space of a few decades, leaving the victims to pick up the pieces.  Consider the destruction of the Aztecs, Incas, and other native american peoples at the hands of the conquistadores and their plagues; to the average Aztec, the conquest of Mexico must have seemed like the end of the world.  Our history is full of such struggles where we attempt to pick up the pieces left by war and disaster and move on.

[Kalos Mer]

It's true, we need to make a distinction between an actually post-apocalyptic setting and a setting which has had apocalypses in it's past.  My rather 'pragmatic' answer applies equally well to both types of settings, but some of the more philosophical responses are more appropriate to an actual post-apocalyptic setting.

[Kalos Mer]

I would argue that the post-apocalyptic genre generally implies that the apocalypse was relatively recent (within the last millenia), or else that the world has never recovered.  I do not think modern Earth qualifies because dinosaurs suffered an apocalypse millions of years ago.

I disagree, because I don't see the end of the dinosaurs as the relevant apocalypse here.  Think more in terms of man-made apolcalypses; the fall of the Roman Empire, for one (standards of living did not approach that of the Romans for more than a millenia afterwards); the ravaging of much of Asia by the Mongols; both World Wars.  Imagine Colonialism as an apocalypse, with the systematic plunder, domination, and subjugation of countless nations by distant foreign powers, suddenly vanished in the space of a few decades, leaving the victims to pick up the pieces.  Consider the destruction of the Aztecs, Incas, and other native american peoples at the hands of the conquistadores and their plagues; to the average Aztec, the conquest of Mexico must have seemed like the end of the world.  Our history is full of such struggles where we attempt to pick up the pieces left by war and disaster and move on.

Right, but modern earth cannot really be called a 'post-apocalyptic' setting, because the intense ramifications of, say, the Mongol hordes, do not continue to dominate the very existences of those Asians today except in very subtle ways.

[Polycarp]

Right, but modern earth cannot really be called a 'post-apocalyptic' setting, because the intense ramifications of, say, the Mongol hordes, do not continue to dominate the very existences of those Asians today except in very subtle ways.

Maybe this is just my college emphasis on colonial politics talking, but I do see sizeable parts of the world as dealing with post-apocalyptic issues from the European Imperial Age.  Look at the Congo today; the consequences of Belgium's reign of terror over the natives there have yet to fade away.  The World Wars profoundly shook the balance of power in the world, and created radical changes in human history.  Any Rwandan or Jew that lived through their respective genocides might well describe their attempt to rebuild their lives afterwards in post-apocalyptic terms.  Europe could have been considered "post-apocalyptic" for hundreds of years after the last gasps of the Roman Empire, if not today.  I concede that there is no global catastrophe that acted as an apocalypse for the whole world, but I do think that human history is defined by many smaller-scale apocalypses that would not have seemed small at all to those who lived through them, and the struggles of the survivors to find direction, peace, and stability afterwards.  Post-apocalyptic fantasy simply expresses real post-apocalypic life, writ large - one genocide becomes a global genocide, one war becomes a world-consuming age of strife.  It is exaggeration, but also imitation.

[Kalos Mer]

Well, I guess to me the scale matters.  I can't call Earth post-Apocalyptic because there've been World Wars any more than I can call it a sci-fi setting because we have small-scale cloning now.

There is a huge difference (to me) between settings where there are political implications of massive world wars two or three generations back and settings where governments have completely collapsed, civilization reverted and every day is a fight for survival.  The one is not post-apocalyptic, the other is.

[Polycarp]

As I said, I agree there is a difference in scale, but I think fiction is often an exaggeration of what we already experience (1984 is, for instance, surveillance and fascism on a grand scale).  In the same way, I think post-apocalyptic settings are grander, more global versions of similar - if more localized - events that are rife throughout human history.

[Sarandosil]

The answers will probably vary greatly depending on the appeal to each individual, but for me it's always been two things:

1)resource scarcity combined with high technology. It's always been interesting to me to think how people would live when they're in poverty but with relatively advance technologies. It's a step outside of the regulat model, where high technology is automatically associated with wealth and a good standard of living (and realistically so, since all that technology needs an economy that can support it's repairs and upkeep).

2)In the same vein as what Elven Doritos said, they represent the best and worst of humanity. Heroics are always a lot more interesting when the stakes are high, this underlies just about all fantasy ever written. When the world is destitute, barren and provides every incentive to be a bastard, any achievement towards 'good' is spectacular.

Similarly they show how far and low people will go to survive, although generally real life outdoes any post apocalyptic campaign in this regard. Still, it's farther that what most people in the more affluent countries will experience.