Would you rather play in a P-A campaign that is:

a) Bleak and Hopeless

b) Challenging but Optimistic

c) Wacky and Gonzo?

A cop-out probsbly but I'd say all three. Challenging but optimistic would strike me as misplaced in a PA setting set after a nuclear holocaust, but would work for other kinds of PAs.

Human or very near-human PCs in a wacky/gonzo setting. Something like the Heavy Metal Taarna sequence maybe.

Somewhere between b) and c) with any bleakness only showing through in old world ruins or in particularly devolved human cultures.

The original Fallout setting, as portrayed in the first game, with it's future of a 50s Americana lens thrown into the nuclear war blender is probably the most fun PA setting i've seen.

The wacky aspects of the first one also worked a lot better due to being more grounded than the following ones. Contrast everyone unironically dressing like they're extras in Mad Max with an entire faction being wasted on a jab at the silliness of Scientology with stand-ins for Hubbard, Cruise and Kidman.

That said i'd play in any of them as long as they don't devolve into misery tourism.

I like to present it bleak, challenging, and with dark humor injected whenever possible. I always did like the extremely lethal Gamma World rpg, and have been working this autumn on a new Gamma World campaign set in Old Texas. I never was much one for the gonzo, and preferred the post-apocalyptic realism which included fatalism that was very much a part of my younger life because of the cold war. That said, the first stories that influenced my visions for what a post-apocalyptic Gamma World was Andre Norton's Starman's Son. My newest Texas Gamma World campaign setting pays homage to that.

Of course, both Wasteland and Fallout heavily influenced my Gamma World games as well. The original Wasteland was very violent, but also very interesting, and had plenty of dark humor. It opened up quite a few new avenues for my post-apocalyptic games.Ditto with the newest version of Wasteland as well, both Wasteland releases incidentally contained plenty of written contributions provided by Michael Stackpole.

Stormwolf, the official website of Michael A. Stackpole
http://stormwolf.com/

I started playing Fallout in 1998 when it was first released, and thought it was an ok game. Ultraviolent, just like its' predecessor, Wasteland, It was simply loaded with dark humor. At the time though, I was on a hiatus from playing RPGs so it didn't much affect my game design. I didn't like Fallout II at all, never played Fallout III, and was not impressed with Fallout III: New Vegas when I tried it last year. I did get Fallout IV when it was first released, and it is probably one of the best post-apocalyptic video games ever made. It is and remains, quite influential. I'm looking forward to picking up some minis for it starting right around the holidays this year, so I can run some Gamma World / Fallout mashups for Tabletop.

Modiphus: Fallout IV Miniatures
https://www.modiphius.com/fallout.html


How do I prefer my post-apocalyptic games? With a heavy dose of radiation, survival bunkers loaded with food, weapons, ammunition, and supply caches, and real men and women, who don't give up easily, who are determined to thrive and survive in spite of the stupidity of man (though I wouldn't be surprised these days if a woman was the person conducting the first strike launch.

I'd say Challenging but Optimistic would be the closest to my preference. I'd probably play in a Bleak and Hopeless campaign, but I'd have zero interest in any gonzo shit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1005766Would you rather play in a P-A campaign that is:
a) Bleak and Hopeless
b) Challenging but Optimistic

Some overlap of the above. I think maybe things would start out "Bleak and Hopeless", and then as the characters get things done it would transition more into the "Challenging but Optimistic" style. B&H seems like it would grow old fast, but C&O seems to be somewhere near the end of a campaign.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1005766Would you rather play in a P-A campaign that is:
a) Bleak and Hopeless
b) Challenging but Optimistic

Some overlap of the above. I think maybe things would start out "Bleak and Hopeless", and then as the characters get things done it would transition more into the "Challenging but Optimistic" style. B&H seems like it would grow old fast, but C&O seems to be somewhere near the end of a campaign.

Challenging but optimistic comes closest, I guess. Gruelling and gritty, but at with least some hope of the players making things better.

I think I just said exactly what Finarvyn said.

If I can only choose one to play ever again, I'll go with C, although I have a feeling your idea of gonzo differs from mine based on prior posts. Otherwise, I'll play around in any of the three in the short term. Postapocalyptic settings aren't really my bag in general.

A and B might make for good stories, but C makes for the better game. A table top roleplaying game lives on variety, exploration and unexpected twists and turns. You need to loosen up a bit to deliver these things.

B.  I don't do well with gonzo, and gaming's escapism for me; I prefer not to deal with bleak and hopeless.

A - The wastes. Bleak and hopeless, sometimes radioactive.

B - Settlements. Underground, under domes, or just a lucky find of a low radiation area. There are the places you can have luxuries, such as unfiltered drinking water and soil that grows plants for food.

C - The Sprawl. The middle ground between A and B, where you might have to deal with threats that emerge from the wastes, but you are close enough to a settlement to retreat to and recover from your adventures, as well as sell your salvage. The Sprawl is where most of the salvage is to be found.

B and C for me but I do love the tone of bleak games.

Assuming Gonzo is just weird as opposed to funny.

Something like the games Borderlands or Fallout.

But I do like the whole Zombie thing as well.

Yes, I love me some post apocalypse. I lean towards the first two (but not too bleak or too much optimism), but I'm ok with wacky stuff like Gamma World as long as I know that going in and the tone is appropriately weird.

On the wackier end I prefer if the tone of the game doesn't take itself seriously but is not outright silly or slapstick. While not PA the 1980s Flash Gordon movie is an example of the perfect mix of goofy and serious for me.

Generally I'm not a fan of mixing off the wall stuff with PA grounded in the real world. Mad Max will have no truck with telepathic anthropomorphic rabbits. However I'm not against including sci-fi or horror into a dark and gritty toned PA game. Radioactive mutants, alien technology and such are ok if made to fit into the world. Zombie apocalypse or alien invasion being good examples, neither is exactly realistic but they work in their particular sub genres. I think could get into a semi-realistic dark and gritty style of PA game that at the same time is a bit tongue in cheek, think Bruce Campbell as Mad Max.



On the more serious end my preferences fall between 1 and 2. I don't want bleak and hopeless that is truly hopeless, I mean if everybody is going to die in six months and there is nothing that can be done what is the point. On the other end if the players feel like everything is going to be ok, well that isn't really PA anymore.

I like that middle ground where everybody is screwed but just maybe with some hard work things will get better. Things probably won't be as before in the PCs lifetime but they can help to recover some semblance of normality. Maybe there really is a place where things didn't get so bad, just have to find it.


I guess ultimately as with most genres the most important bit is a well designed game world that is internally consistent.