TheRPGSite

This came up in the Dark Sun thread where we talked about how the updates to the setting between its first and second editions accidentally ended up "solving" the world - killing off the sorcerer-kings and Dragon and letting the Preservers come out of their closets pretty much directly offers a solution to most of the problems facing the setting, with the upshot that the designers had to cook up new problems in a hurry which felt a little underbaked, or at best didn't feel like they belonged in the setting. What other fantasy worlds and other settings out there do you feel are prone to getting "solved" like this if you advance the timeline too far?

The two that jump out at me are Dragonlance - once the War of the Lance is done any crisis that comes up after that feels like something arbitrary intended to keep the history of the setting interesting - and especially Middle Earth, since once the Ring is destroyed and the Fourth Age sets in then you've pretty much resolved all the world's major problems in one fell swoop. (Tolkien himself actually started tinkering with a Fourth Age story, only to throw his hands in the air and give up when he realised that it'd inevitably just be a bit anticlimactic and grim.)

Pendragon is a game with its own built in conclusion.  Get to the end of the GPC, and it's over, pretty much.

Obviously, the old WoD "solved" itself in chaos and light, the screech of machines, no right and no wrong, and no in-between.

Quote from: Warthur;848551(Tolkien himself actually started tinkering with a Fourth Age story, only to throw his hands in the air and give up when he realised that it'd inevitably just be a bit anticlimactic and grim.)

Do what?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;848555Do what?

Yep - look up The New Shadow, it was going to be a story about the reign of Aragorn's son and the rise of creepy cults of men who dressed like orcs and worshipped the deceased Sauron.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;848552Pendragon is a game with its own built in conclusion.  Get to the end of the GPC, and it's over, pretty much.

Pendragon is an interesting case, actually. I tend to think of "Solved worlds" as being settings built around a major conflict or problem, like Dark Sun or Middle Earth. For instance, in Middle Earth pretty much every story of any significance follows on from Melkor's working of a discordant note into the Song of Arda and subsequent theft of the Simarils, and by the time you get to the Fourth Age more or less all the significant consequences of the War of the Jewels have been settled (right down to the elves repatriating back West) and everything that can be done within Arda to quieten the discordance of Melkor has been done.

Conversely, Pendragon's setting isn't built around a problem so much as it's built around a solution - Arthur, Camelot, the Round Table and the pursuit of Glory. It isn't that the setting ends up without problems for the PCs to face off against at the end of the GPC - if anything, the incoming Saxon invasion is a huge threat. It's just that, by definition, anything the PCs tried to accomplish after Arthur's death would seem paltry and lesser compared to their adventures under Arthur, because the golden age has passed and the enchantment has broken and we'll not see deeds of the sort accomplished during the High King's reign again.

At that point it's not so much a "solved world" as a "wrecked world", with literally the only silver lining to the situation being that the deeds of Arthur and the Round Table will live on in legend and inspire future generation. There's lots of games out there which are set in a postapocalyptic setting but perhaps the GPC is the only campaign out there I've seen that has the players go through an apocalypse worthy of the name.

New Shadow - Did not know about this! Sounds interesting. I've harped about it  mildly in other places... R. Scott Bakker's series is like a deconstructed LotR in some aspects... New Shadow sounds very "grimdark" and in a similar vein. (If you like that kinda stuff I recommend Bakker. Lordy its dark.)

As for "Solved Worlds" - I agree they fucked up taking Dark Sun beyond it's original premise. It lost a lot of its punch after that. Sure it opened up other possibilities but at the heart of the matter... one might argue at the heart of *ALL* matters that are relevant to gaming... requires conflict.

I've had some players who want their games light with a hijinks-comedy sprinkled in, and generally want to avoid conflict. But imo - that's definitely limits the scope of the kinds of games I want to run. (destroys them actually).

People shouldn't need for everything to go grimdark, but there should be some inherent conflict commensurate with the scope of your game. That actually brings up another interesting point: Does the fact that D&D is a level-based game mean that all settings should by default contain epic-level content for high-end gaming?

I think the mechanics of the system is what drives that. You certainly don't need Dragon Kings in Athas to make the Tyr Valley challenging... but you know, it's kinda awesome-epic with the Dragon Kings.

Back on topic... I think conflict is necessary. Water it down and you dilute the real core conceits of your setting.

I find this terribly interesting, because many D&D worlds have that metaplot structure built in that essentially solves the setting.

Some of the ones I personally I have put some work into on my gaming table:

1. Midnight - once you know that there is a way to destroy the sleeping god, that's where your standard campaign gravitate to. While you have to be fairly high up in epic level regions to get there, given that campaigns in Midnight usually evolve around the conflict between rebels and the mad god's evil empire, this is the logical conclusion of all positive storylines.


2. Blackmoor & Wilderlands - if you destroy the Egg of Coot, or if the last Viridian emperor dies, the setting dynamics will be completely turned upsie down. Now, again, since both the EoC, and the Green Emperor are the main villains of the setting, this is bound to happen in some form, sooner or later.


3. Ravenloft - so, at some point, one of the darklords has to go. And then --- what? Either the planar circlejerk continues, with another character taking over the place of Strahd, Azalin, and on - or you're about to "solve" the setting.


Now, one might argue that the settings' stories' conclusion is not pre-defined in detail; but the conclusion, is again, built into the gaming world's basic structure.



One of the few classic ( and rather magnificient) counter-examples to this is "Thieves' World": No matter where the stories go, you could not tell where the fate of the world in general is going. - It's usually simply a sign of lazy writing when you get that setting-ending "plot funnel".

For example, the conclusion to the original DL novel trilogy - powerful, in a way, because you, the reader, get room for imagination. As soon as each and every character starts to get a personal conclusion, which is what plot funnels usually really are about, booh.

I like when PCs "solve worlds", but its never the place for publishers to do so.

Everyone wants to live in a solved world, but nobody wants to play in one.

Dark Sun certainly did that. In a setting that was supposed to be leading to ever bleaker nhilism.

Dragonlance originally ended on a neutral tone. The heroes won. But there were still dragons and armies around aplenty to deal with. But not satisfied with that theres been god knows how many cataclysms and screwovers now to the point its the posterchild for train wreck bad plotting.

Other settings have built in plots that can be resolved. But only if the PCs become aware of them and engage in them. Which is not a bad thing if the DM is running towards a conclusion rather than just keep using the setting. Think of the setting as a big module in that case.

Hollow World, Red Steel and Birthright all play on the premise of the scattered god power causing all this trouble and lays out some seeds to possibly wrap things up. But are open ended enough that things can continue after.

Albedo, Star Frontiers, Metamorphosis Alpha, Planescape, Spelljammer and Ravenloft all have a few seeds squirreled away here and there that could lead to either a closure or at least a major shakeup.

As for new editions overwriting or resolving the setting. Those are rarer as more often you end up with some sort of reboot instead. Which is what some of the above resolutions end up being. Plot resolved, initiate same damn plot.

I think part of the reason worlds get designed which are either solved in subsequent supplements or - as seems to be a bit more common - seem to be clearly soluble comes down to the design process.

Everyone knows that a game world is improved by having some sort of conflict for the players to sink their teeth into. That much is obvious.

It's also the case that typically having a really prominent central conflict is very useful when it comes to selling people on your setting. It provides a point of distinction between your world and all the others out there, it provides a clear source of adventure fodder, and keeps things exciting. Great, all well and good.

I think you end up with a "solvable" world when you cross over from "let's give this world a prominent central conflict" to "let's build this world around that prominent central conflict". A non-solvable campaign world can still have a major central conflict, but it needs to have lots of exciting stuff going on in addition to that and it needs to be able to remain interesting if you shut down the central conflict. (In particular, if a world has multiple major conflicts happening in parallel, or if the central conflict is set up such that the consequences of it ending are just as interesting as the effects of having it ongoing, then the world probably isn't going to feel "solvable".)

Conversely, a solvable campaign world is so dependent on its central conflict that the conflict ends up being the tentpole that holds the entire edifice out, and when you take it out then the fun's largely over. Because everything is built around the central conflict and it colours so much of the campaign world, when you take it away the world just doesn't feel the same any more, and it won't feel whole again unless you provide something to replace the central conflict. This puts you in the awkward position of either retreading old ground (advantage being that the new conflict will fit nicely into the same niche as the old, disadvantage being that the new conflict won't feel fresh or novel) or trying to break new ground (advantage being that it's going to feel more fresh, disadvantage being that said new ground might not feel like it "belongs" to the campaign world like the old conflict did).

Now, I don't think "solvable" campaign worlds are a bad thing - provided the publishers don't step in and solve the world for the players - but I do find it more constraining to run a campaign in them in terms of what the campaign focuses on. In particular, it feels (to me at least) like more or less any campaign you run in that world needs to have some sort of substantial link to the "solution" or the core conflict, otherwise you're ignoring the main draw of the setting. It's like the problem Tolkien hit with the New Shadow - whilst in principle you could come up with an interesting story to tell in Middle Earth's Fourth Age, in practice all the stories which are really worth telling in Middle Earth (as opposed to some other generic setting) are on some level connected to Melkor/Sauron and the ongoing opposition to them.

While I'll agree that "solved worlds" can be a bit humdrum, I feel that a campaign or whatever setting out to solve a situation that will lead to a solved world can be a good thing.  Depending on the situation, "the world is doomed and there's nothing you can never, ever do to fix it, all your efforts are in vain and will turn to ashes" skates too close to misery tourism for my tastes most of the time.

If we're going to create specific semantics for this one - I've, mostly in the context of Blackmoor, talked about "open" and "closed" systems.

BM, I've defined as a "closed" system - as the setting is defined by it's core conflict; once that one is solved, its raison d'être is gone, or rather, there is no other storyline of similarly epic scope that the setting can offer right away.


Greyhawk, in contrast, I've often called an open setting - you can use the Greyhawk Wars in your game, but the experience isn't cheaper if you don't.


As to literary settings, like, say Tolkien's Middleearth, Artesia's Midlands, or, whatever, Glenn Cook's Black Company, I am inclined not to apply that sort of definition, though, because a storyteller's intent when creating a world is always a different one than that of a game designer. As in, especially Tolkien's stories are defined through their allegorical dimension, even if we assume he was just trying to discuss basic human values. That discussion defined the progress of his stories, not so much the desire to create fictional histories.

Quote from: Warthur;848560Yep - look up The New Shadow, it was going to be a story about the reign of Aragorn's son and the rise of creepy cults of men who dressed like orcs and worshipped the deceased Sauron.

For God's sake please don't let Peter Jackson find out about this.  "Three - no, four - no, FIVE movies!  Yes!  Five!  Each one three hours long!" :C

Quote from: thedungeondelver;848747While I'll agree that "solved worlds" can be a bit humdrum, I feel that a campaign or whatever setting out to solve a situation that will lead to a solved world can be a good thing.  Depending on the situation, "the world is doomed and there's nothing you can never, ever do to fix it, all your efforts are in vain and will turn to ashes" skates too close to misery tourism for my tastes most of the time.

I agree - in the words of TVTropes, there is a difference between "A quest", and "THE quest". Worlds with a strong metaplot/central conflict where you can perform "A quest", are alright as game settings. Worlds where you can only perform "THE quest" are a problem, game-wise.

You can always unsolve them by picking an arbitrary point and letting the players influence the outcome.

I ran a ME campaign where the party was hired by Thorin to slay Smaug. It was a back up plan before leaving Bree to meet Gandalf in the Shire. I allowed them to screw up the storyline. Of course, almost all of the party ended up being either chewed up or burned to a cinder by Smaug at the end but it was exciting.

Quote from: Lynn;848754You can always unsolve them by picking an arbitrary point and letting the players influence the outcome.

Or just ignoring the new edition wanking totally. Forgotten Realms is actually not that bad if you ignore the various crisis that WOTC keeps tossing in.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;848747While I'll agree that "solved worlds" can be a bit humdrum, I feel that a campaign or whatever setting out to solve a situation that will lead to a solved world can be a good thing.  Depending on the situation, "the world is doomed and there's nothing you can never, ever do to fix it, all your efforts are in vain and will turn to ashes" skates too close to misery tourism for my tastes most of the time.

Both of those (the campaign which leads to a solved world and the campaign in a crapsack world because its doom is insoluble) are subtypes of worlds with "THE Quest".  They omit the third road of "A quest" worlds, which (generally) can't be solved, but are also not misery tourist destinations, because there are a lot of small, solvable problems, but no Great Doom which will render the setting humdrum if solved or destroy it if not.

Quote from: nDervish;848765Both of those (the campaign which leads to a solved world and the campaign in a crapsack world because its doom is insoluble) are subtypes of worlds with "THE Quest".  They omit the third road of "A quest" worlds, which (generally) can't be solved, but are also not misery tourist destinations, because there are a lot of small, solvable problems, but no Great Doom which will render the setting humdrum if solved or destroy it if not.

Pretty much. Worlds such as Middle Earth and Krynn were designed as settings in which to tell specific stories. Once those stories are over, the worlds purpose and usefulness is at an end.

For campaign gaming, I like to play in worlds without a major meta-story. Worlds in which much can and does happen but at the end of the day, will keep on turning no matter what the ants crawling around on it do or don't do.

There is still plenty of room for adventure, and for major consequences that are of great importance to the people that inhabit the world, but constant world-ending cataclysms get old, and even if you only feature a save the world quest once, everything after that will seem small and anti-climactic so the world is essentially "done".

I don't think there's any such thing as a "solved" world.

What there no longer is -- at least in the immediate aftermath -- is a single, overriding conflict that dominates the efforts and lives of 90% of the people in the world, readily identified, where it's easy both to identify sides and align with one.

This is like suggesting that Earth was a "solved" world just because the Entente put paid to the Kaisers.  Wait, I mean put paid to Hitler.  Wait, I mean the downfall of the Soviet Union and Communism.  Wait, I mean ...

Over and over and over again in Earth's history, the defeat of the Great Evil de Jour -- whether it be the Huns, the Nazis, the Commies, the barbarians, the Mongols, the Muslims -- has been followed by new conflicts.  The winners squabble over the spoils.  Succession battles rage over the Good Guy states decapitated by enemy action.  Ethnic and social conflicts set aside during the valiant fight break out anew, fueled by massive war debts.  Ethnic and social conflicts thoroughly suppressed by the Evil Empire break out into full flower.  New and upcoming powers, feeling their oats for the first time after the victory, decide to start the mantle of conquest.  Lands ravaged by the conflict descend to anarchy and banditry.  The remaining superpower attracts the envy and jealousy of lesser powers.  Warlords come to power in the fragmented remains of the Evil Empire.  And a small handful of embittered irreconcilables and surviving lieutenants grit their teeth, buckle down, and organize for Round II ...

There are a lot of smart folks on this forum.  Just take 1918 as an example.  How many of can't identify at least one example for every single statement in the preceding paragraph?  Or 1945.  Or 1815.  Or 1989.  Or 1648.

I don't think a realistic Middle-Earth reaches the "end of history" any more than in any other time or place, and neither does any other setting.

Quote from: Ravenswing;848793I don't think a realistic Middle-Earth reaches the "end of history" any more than in any other time or place, and neither does any other setting

True, but I don't think Middle Earth is realistic in that way - it's a world constructed to convey a particular body of invented myth, and once those myths are wrapped up it's kind of done.

The real world wasn't designed to make any particular point or serve any particular purpose. Fictional worlds frequently are. Just because something is unrealistic doesn't mean that it can't apply to a fantasy setting - if anything, unrealistic things happen in them all the time.

Quote from: Ravenswing;848793I don't think there's any such thing as a "solved" world....

I agree with you based on your historical and real-life points. But if we're taking the term at it's intended use (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) I think the idea is that most RPG's are "fixed" content in the box.

Dark Sun for instance had it's Big Bads (Dragon Kings) and the conceits of the entire world revolved around that region. The implications given in the boxset is they're defeatable as a long-term goal. Once that happens... with the assumption that no other content is available... then what?

This is why I asked the parallel question - is this observation about "solved worlds" a thing relating to D&D-style level-based games? As you've astutely pointed out, it's obviously not that way in history, because history keeps going on.

So obviously it falls to the GM's to keep churning things out. The conceits of epic gaming are that the PC's become powerful enough to deal with such conflicts. Inevitable power-creep is literally part of the mechanics of the system.

Feeding 15th-20th level characters and that level of play is generally a lot more difficult (especially from 3.x onward) for most GM's. Not to mention maintaining the integrity and fun-factor of your setting.

This is where I think skill-based games have an advantage, where all things being equal, a good roll from a Kobold might still take you out. Then, the inevitable conflicts are closer to the historical perspective you've cited (and I agree with).

Anecdotally - in 1e and 2e I could run high-powered games for a pretty long time, but the PC's transcended the scope of 90% of the content. I mean at 15th+ in my games you're probably already a king, or power-player in some nation plotting the death of Iuz or warring against Orcus or something. OR the game has gone to Spelljammer and/or Planescape. But even then, the writing is on the wall and the fun will wane. YMMV

I think that's the real point: solving lesser conflict is never as satisfying as solving the big conflict. And once the big conflict of a setting is solved - how many more big conflicts can there be without feeling this is "not fun" anymore.


Edit: I have a few other ideas on this. I need to ruminate on them for a bit.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;848637Everyone wants to live in a solved world, but nobody wants to play in one.

Nailed it.

This seems peculiar to me, as even in the unusual cases that I run game worlds where there is some huge threat, it's never the only thing going on, and the players often seem at least as interested in their own goals, fun and curiosity, even if there is some "go save the world" option available.

When I ran a "overthrow the bad rulers" revolution game, they seemed more interested in inventing and organizing the new government, than they had been in organizing and fighting the revolution.

Plots and conflicts get resolved, but worlds don't, unless they're bland, and/or the players want a conflict forced upon them. Or just the PCs - it does make sense that, say, a US squad in WW2 game, would end the war with the characters mostly going home and probably not having anyone to really fight, particularly not as a group, unless it were contrived as such by the GM.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;848747While I'll agree that "solved worlds" can be a bit humdrum, I feel that a campaign or whatever setting out to solve a situation that will lead to a solved world can be a good thing.  Depending on the situation, "the world is doomed and there's nothing you can never, ever do to fix it, all your efforts are in vain and will turn to ashes" skates too close to misery tourism for my tastes most of the time.

Yep, this is why I can't get my group to play CoC - they know as players that nothing they do ultimately matters, so they have no interest.

One way to solve the "solved world" is have the solution lead to new complications... maybe even worse ones, intentionally or otherwise.

Quote from: tenbones;848808I think that's the real point: solving lesser conflict is never as satisfying as solving the big conflict. And once the big conflict of a setting is solved - how many more big conflicts can there be without feeling this is "not fun" anymore.

Or loses the tone of the setting.

In Dark Sun, bumping off all the SKs and the Dragon removes all the oppressive tyrants, and then a campaign can go on to rebuilding Athas or something, and that might be interesting, for sure. But when I look into buying a Dark Sun product, I want deserts and Sorcerer Kings. That's precisely why I got the 4th ed Dark Sun books. It was the Dark Sun I have come to expect.

I guess another question is how far can a setting be changed and still retain the tone that the players are expecting?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;848749For God's sake please don't let Peter Jackson find out about this.  "Three - no, four - no, FIVE movies!  Yes!  Five!  Each one three hours long!" :C

Ha ha. No worries. He doesn't have the rights to any of that.

(He does have the rights to use the Appendices of LotR though, and I have heard whispers that he's actually thinking about using this)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;848844Or loses the tone of the setting.

In Dark Sun, bumping off all the SKs and the Dragon removes all the oppressive tyrants, and then a campaign can go on to rebuilding Athas or something, and that might be interesting, for sure. But when I look into buying a Dark Sun product, I want deserts and Sorcerer Kings. That's precisely why I got the 4th ed Dark Sun books. It was the Dark Sun I have come to expect.

I guess another question is how far can a setting be changed and still retain the tone that the players are expecting?

Definitely.

I'm with you 100% on this. One of the difficult things is, if you're not going to do the Sorcerer Kings and Dragon... how do you make Dark Sun, post-SK's be meaningful in a manner that is as intriguing and compelling as before?

It's one of the reasons most people like the first book of Dune... The planet itself was a character. Once it was "mastered" later... most readers had fallen off. But Herbert, imo, made the context of the God Emperor pretty fucking compelling - moreso than the first book.

But that's another thread.

Dark Sun could be about the "greening" of the planet and having the players be part/against it. But then it would involve creating a greater conflict than that represented by the SK's and the Dragon...  That's tough to top in terms of scale and style.

Quote from: Ravenswing;848793I don't think there's any such thing as a "solved" world.

Let's clarify what people (or at least what I believe) mean when they 'solved worlds'.

It's a setting in gaming that once you defeat, stop or otherwise resolve the big issue, the only thing you can do is escalate to the point of silliness (Saved the world?  Let's save THE UNIVERSE!), or anything the characters can do seems (and that's a key word, this is another subjective topic) to be anti-climatic.

After all, once you save the world, everything else you can do after seems small and inconsequential.  And, repetitive world shaking threats get dull after a while, no?  It's not always inconsequential, but it feels that way to a fair amount of gamers.

This is why I prefer the more personal adventures of Sword and Sorcery over the ones of High Fantasy, because a lot of people seem to mix that into Epic Fantasy (Which is what Dragonlance and Tolkien's Lord of The Rings trilogy are.)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;848780Pretty much. Worlds such as Middle Earth and Krynn were designed as settings in which to tell specific stories. Once those stories are over, the worlds purpose and usefulness is at an end.

Totally untrue. Especially for Dragonlance. There were stories untold and stories yet to be told. The evil armies did not just evaporate at the ends.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;848878Let's clarify what people (or at least what I believe) mean when they 'solved worlds'.

It's a setting in gaming that once you defeat, stop or otherwise resolve the big issue, the only thing you can do is escalate to the point of silliness (Saved the world?  Let's save THE UNIVERSE!), or anything the characters can do seems (and that's a key word, this is another subjective topic) to be anti-climatic.

After all, once you save the world, everything else you can do after seems small and inconsequential.  And, repetitive world shaking threats get dull after a while, no?  It's not always inconsequential, but it feels that way to a fair amount of gamers.

Not a tabletop game, but this pretty much sums up how I've felt about World of Warcraft ever since (after) Wrath of the Lich King. Killing Arthas pretty much "solved" Warcraft for me, though there were still adventures to be had — they contrived Deathwing for the following exoansion, which was okay, I guess; and a far-off continent that didn't really interact with the rest of the story (except for a single, minor supporting character) for another; pulled a time travel/alternate history trick for this one; and seem surprisingly back on track for the next (though you could argüe that both Warlords of Draenor and Legion are, each in its way, rehashes of Burning Crusade).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;848878This is why I prefer the more personal adventures of Sword and Sorcery over the ones of High Fantasy, because a lot of people seem to mix that into Epic Fantasy (Which is what Dragonlance and Tolkien's Lord of The Rings trilogy are.)

Absolutely. Well put.

What I liked most about Athas from its first incarnation is that it is essentially a planet at the end stage of the star going red giant. There was a golden age, several in fact, and it never will be as it was regardless at efforts of "re-greening." It is futile, the gods have left, the magic is tainted, the psionics will only increase, you are all fighting for what's left. Make meaning of the final ebb.

Ripping out the big magical movers and shakers, the Sorcerer Kings and the Dragon, is annoying, but easily replaceable. There'll always be another person with bad intent who wants a shot at the top. What is irritating is the attempt at "re-greening." That requires a GM willing to either put the kibosh on its expansion potential, or somehow corrupting it. Otherwise you slip into parasidaical parody, "good guys won, onward to utopia!"

There's a reason games about angels and demons repeatedly comment that heaven is not all that interesting a place for adventure. When it's heaven, there's little tension for the street level player; no tension, no adventure. If it's on the prime material plane at all, and has any sort of mixture of alignments, (let alone schools of thought), it has to by nature decay and corrupt into something interesting. Even a universe of LG is going to bicker about something to the point of conflict.

Personally (and that's just my opinion) I've been trying to figure out what D&D, Runnequest, Dragon Warrior, et al style of High Fantasy should mean.

On one hand we have all these settings that are Epic Fantasy (as per the tropes presented by Tolkien's Lord of The Rings and various other authors, like Terry Brooks and David Eddings.)  Where you have a big bad that the protagonists need to defeat to 'save the world'.

On the other hand, we have settings like Greyhawk, Mystara and The Forgotten Realms, which are -and ESPECIALLY the Realms- very much like how Robert E. Howard set up his lands of Hyboria, where you have Medieval England, Renaissance Italy, Ancient Egypt, Mongolia and the Jungles of Africa all on the same continent, and where you have old ruins and ancient civilizations to loot and plunder.

And yet, especially in the Realms of late, there's been this rash of world shaking disasters one after another, making it more like Epic Fantasy.

I wish we could have some of the older feel of some modules.

Quote from: Warthur;848805True, but I don't think Middle Earth is realistic in that way - it's a world constructed to convey a particular body of invented myth, and once those myths are wrapped up it's kind of done.

Quote from: tenbones;848808I agree with you based on your historical and real-life points. But if we're taking the term at it's intended use (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) I think the idea is that most RPG's are "fixed" content in the box.

Oh, sure.  I am foursquare in my admiration for JRRT.  He was a heck of a storyteller, mythmaker and philologist.  But I knew decades before ICE paid me to fill in some of the gaps that he blew chunks as a demographer, historian, economist and sociologist.  Not that having sensible nation-states with inhabitants that reacting the way inhabitants do was any part of his goal: he wanted a place setting to tell his tale, and did that.

And that's the case for the "fixed-in-the-box" RPGs.  As a rule, most game writers -- indeed, most gamers -- suck at those things too, and have a bunch of weird shibboleths which are mishmashes of their favorite fantasy book, that pseudo-historical movie they saw that time, Things They Heard From Some Dude Somewhere, and dimly remembered 10th grade social studies classes.

Not, of course, that the vast majority of published settings goes in-depth into the economic interconnections within their nations, or that the vast majority of published adventures spend more than a couple paragraphs speculating on the aftermath of plot lines after the PCs are rewarded for their heroism.  Since most players aren't interested, that's okay.

The others play in my campaign.  :hatsoff:

Quote from: tenbones;848808This is why I asked the parallel question - is this observation about "solved worlds" a thing relating to D&D-style level-based games? As you've astutely pointed out, it's obviously not that way in history, because history keeps going on.

I seem to have missed your parallel question initially, but, no, I don't think it's something specific to level-based or zero-to-hero games.  Any game, at any power level, can have "save the world"-type campaign structures and, as you said later in your post:

Quote from: tenbones;848808I think that's the real point: solving lesser conflict is never as satisfying as solving the big conflict. And once the big conflict of a setting is solved - how many more big conflicts can there be without feeling this is "not fun" anymore.

The "solved world" phenomenon arises from the setting being based around "The Big Conflict" and the difficulty of finding something else meaningful to do after The Big Conflict has been dealt with, not from the game's advancement mechanics.

Quote from: Omega;848882Totally untrue. Especially for Dragonlance. There were stories untold and stories yet to be told. The evil armies did not just evaporate at the ends.

From a gaming perspective, following the destruction/defeat of entities like Sauron and Takhisis, the cleanup of lesser minions and the righting of lesser wrongs feels more like puttering on after the story is essentially over than anything else.

" You just took out the overlord that would destroy the world, what are you going to do?'

Cleanup on aisle four is just such a letdown after that.

That is why I think worlds without a built-in apocalypse or uber-overlord who must be stopped before destroying everything are better left to novels. Epic fantasy and superheroism has crept so far into most fantasy gaming that some players today feel like their exploits have to be turned up to 11 just to feel like they are doing something heroic.

A game world that is more stable and less prone to being obliterated by something every other Tuesday has more potential for long term campaigning. It also has the added benefit of still being around if the players fail while doing something important. There may be terrible consequences if the big bad completes his/her plan, but as long as the world keeps spinning, there is a chance to make things right.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;848935Personally (and that's just my opinion) I've been trying to figure out what D&D, Runnequest, Dragon Warrior, et al style of High Fantasy should mean.

Runequest doesn't really have a big bad that you can or are supposed to defeat. The Second Age setting that Moon Design used is followed by the Third Age setting that the original game used. And when the Third Age ends there will be a Fourth Age which undoubtedly will have some central conflict or conflicts of its own.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;849005From a gaming perspective, following the destruction/defeat of entities like Sauron and Takhisis, the cleanup of lesser minions and the righting of lesser wrongs feels more like puttering on after the story is essentially over than anything else.

" You just took out the overlord that would destroy the world, what are you going to do?'

Cleanup on aisle four is just such a letdown after that.

That's why most of the games I run are less epic. I think an epic game, like Pendragon, is fun, but it is also in my mind, a limited setting. If the big bad is defeated, the surviving players probably do live happily ever after and if they fail, the world ends. Either way, the campaign is over.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;849005" You just took out the overlord that would destroy the world, what are you going to do?'

Stop them when they return, or whomever tries to replace them, next time.

The world is always in need of saving.

The Illithids are trying to snuff out stars. ALL OF THEM..
The Beholders are building a DEATH STAR SIZED ARTIFACT...
Some wizard just KILLED ALL THE GODS...

This of course assumes the PCs even participated in the big events. Towns still need saving. Dungeons need delving.

Quote from: Omega;849166Stop them when they return, or whomever tries to replace them, next time.

The world is always in need of saving.

The Illithids are trying to snuff out stars. ALL OF THEM..
The Beholders are building a DEATH STAR SIZED ARTIFACT...
Some wizard just KILLED ALL THE GODS...

This of course assumes the PCs even participated in the big events. Towns still need saving. Dungeons need delving.

And that doesn't getting boring?  Man, I sincerely wish I could hold on to that sense of wonder.  After the sixth or seventh world disaster, I get jaded.

Quote from: Omega;849166Stop them when they return, or whomever tries to replace them, next time.

The world is always in need of saving.

The Illithids are trying to snuff out stars. ALL OF THEM..
The Beholders are building a DEATH STAR SIZED ARTIFACT...
Some wizard just KILLED ALL THE GODS...

This of course assumes the PCs even participated in the big events. Towns still need saving. Dungeons need delving.

Those are all great epic adventures to END a campaign.

 After stopping the Illithids from destroying all the stars, going and cleaning out a dungeon just feels so hum drum.

OK guys awesome, last session you maneuvered down a trench and hit a tiny target, blowing up the beholder's death star. This session, you are celebrating in the village when you notice that someone has been stealing apples from the orchard!  Can you solve this mystery? :p

Pretty much any Campaign Setting based on a book series - depending on whether the Campaign Setting writers set it before or after the events of the novels.
Sovereign Stone was a pretty good 3e D&D variant but they set it after the books. A less thoughtful player could interpret that as making any PCs be "cleanup" for the NPCs.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;849005From a gaming perspective, following the destruction/defeat of entities like Sauron and Takhisis, the cleanup of lesser minions and the righting of lesser wrongs feels more like puttering on after the story is essentially over than anything else.

" You just took out the overlord that would destroy the world, what are you going to do?'

Cleanup on aisle four is just such a letdown after that.

Heh. I'd expect many of the players I've played with would be relieved and hope the GM would stop forcing them to save the world so they could get up to more personally interesting things. But on the other hand:

* They might suspect that the world doesn't have a whole lot of real interest, if the GM was pulling this, and...

* If the PCs were pumped up with enough power to be the ones whom the world needed to save its butt from destruction by some awful threat that they could beat, that may (...) imply that they're way overpowered for the world they're in, and so the GM may (...) be hard-pressed to challenge them in other ways.

QuoteThat is why I think worlds without a built-in apocalypse or uber-overlord who must be stopped before destroying everything are better left to novels. Epic fantasy and superheroism has crept so far into most fantasy gaming that some players today feel like their exploits have to be turned up to 11 just to feel like they are doing something heroic.

Huh? Even if those silly players want to stay inside the silly mindset created by bad stories, I wouldn't call it better.

QuoteA game world that is more stable and less prone to being obliterated by something every other Tuesday has more potential for long term campaigning. It also has the added benefit of still being around if the players fail while doing something important. There may be terrible consequences if the big bad completes his/her plan, but as long as the world keeps spinning, there is a chance to make things right.

Yes. Is Dr. Deaddoomdreamdude _really_ going to destroy the GM's world if the players don't do X, and is there really a worthwhile world there to save, or is the GM bluffing to try to force the players down his railroad plot, or just trying for a cheap way to make the players care about something? It all sounds far more lame and uninteresting to me than most of the other campaign settings I've seen. It actually detracts from my interest in the world to have the GM threatening to have it destroyed.

I've seen players complain that certain GMs (not me) were always running "collapse of the great nation" worlds, and saying they'd rather play a game set during the rise of a great nation, than the fall. But even a fall of an empire sounds more interesting than the bluff of the destruction of an otherwise-not-so-interesting world.

Seems to me there are two separate concepts here.  One is the continuation of a particular campaign where the primary threat has been defeated.  The other is starting a new campaign in the aftermath of the primary threat being defeated.

My 5e game of Tyranny of Dragons is about 3-4 sessions from completion.  The players have already said they want to continue the game, but I have struggled with it.  The game has focused so much on the dragon cult that it feels the game should be over at the adventure's culmination.  When a campaign focuses upon saving the world, I agree that it feels hollow to continue the game.

I have no problem, however, in starting a new campaign in the wake of a setting's primary threat being defeated.  I've long wanted to run a Middle Earth hexcrawl set a year or so after the War of the Ring.  A new campaign will create its own threats and enemies.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;849176OK guys awesome, last session you maneuvered down a trench and hit a tiny target, blowing up the beholder's death star. This session, you are celebrating in the village when you notice that someone has been stealing apples from the orchard!  Can you solve this mystery? :p

Sure, we meteor swarm the orchard! That will stop the thieves from stealing any apples.

Quote from: Bren;849232Sure, we meteor swarm the orchard! That will stop the thieves from stealing any apples.

After the apple orchard burns to the ground, you see the elderly Ms. Agathor walking towards your party.  She sees the smoldering embers of the once-proud orchard, and mutters "Well, maybe the rats in my cellar can just STAY..."

Quote from: Thornhammer;849268After the apple orchard burns to the ground, you see the elderly Ms. Agathor walking towards your party.  She sees the smoldering embers of the once-proud orchard, and mutters "Well, maybe the rats in my cellar can just STAY..."

:) Yep...killed two problems with one meteor shower. :D

Quote from: tenbones;848860Definitely.

I'm with you 100% on this. One of the difficult things is, if you're not going to do the Sorcerer Kings and Dragon... how do you make Dark Sun, post-SK's be meaningful in a manner that is as intriguing and compelling as before?

It's one of the reasons most people like the first book of Dune... The planet itself was a character. Once it was "mastered" later... most readers had fallen off. But Herbert, imo, made the context of the God Emperor pretty fucking compelling - moreso than the first book.

But that's another thread.

Dark Sun could be about the "greening" of the planet and having the players be part/against it. But then it would involve creating a greater conflict than that represented by the SK's and the Dragon...  That's tough to top in terms of scale and style.

Oh that's easy.  To restore a conflict, take the base conflict and flip it on its head.  

In this case, Sorcerer-Kings destroy nature is base conflict.  So they're gone.  What happens?  Nature comes roaring back.  But not happy, pleasant fields, not rolling green.  Oh no.  The Sorcerer-Kings drained everything nice and forgiving from the world's magic, and all that's left is the mean, hostile things that could hide away and hoard their magic.  And now all that was holding them down is gone.

The people turn to the mages, the sorcerers, out of desperation.  Some enslave the mages, trying to force them to use their magic to hold back the tide.  Some of them rise up, become the Sorcerer-Kings of old, but with their magic the only thing that protects the people from the Green, tames the power enough that crops can flourish without rogue elementals or dryads tearing them apart.  

This new dystopia has its desert, but it's being reclaimed by a dark and evil jungle, filled with newer and more terrible monsters. Travel is harder than ever before, and only those places that can establish magical portals (at dreadful cost) can boast any regular contact with other civilizations.

See?  There's always conflict to be had.

Quote from: GreyICE;849526Oh that's easy.  To restore a conflict, take the base conflict and flip it on its head.  

In this case, Sorcerer-Kings destroy nature is base conflict.  So they're gone.  What happens?  Nature comes roaring back.  But not happy, pleasant fields, not rolling green.  Oh no.  The Sorcerer-Kings drained everything nice and forgiving from the world's magic, and all that's left is the mean, hostile things that could hide away and hoard their magic.  And now all that was holding them down is gone.

The people turn to the mages, the sorcerers, out of desperation.  Some enslave the mages, trying to force them to use their magic to hold back the tide.  Some of them rise up, become the Sorcerer-Kings of old, but with their magic the only thing that protects the people from the Green, tames the power enough that crops can flourish without rogue elementals or dryads tearing them apart.  

This new dystopia has its desert, but it's being reclaimed by a dark and evil jungle, filled with newer and more terrible monsters. Travel is harder than ever before, and only those places that can establish magical portals (at dreadful cost) can boast any regular contact with other civilizations.

See?  There's always conflict to be had.

I think this is a good and solid concept.

The only logistical issue I see is playing through the transition. Ostensibly it should take a long time to go from Desert-DS to Jungle-DS and let's face it, the PC's would be fucked, being specialized desert-dwellers having to deal with jungle conditions, but to me, that's just more fun conflict.

Okay I'm sold. Write that bitch up!

It depends on what narrative themes you're interested in exploring. Don't put your eggs in one basket. That's why I like Pathfinder's Golarion - there are several problems that require solving, and new issues crop up as others are resolved, like any reasonable world or setting. This is what makes for a viable, interesting adventure gaming setting, with multiple nations and cultures that resembles Earth history. Settings should be places with different things going on, not one big problem to solve.

One interesting plot twist ...

There was a book called Villains By Necessity, written by the daughter of Robert Forward.  (It was poorly written, which is why I dumped my copy at the used bookstore, which I'm gritting my teeth about now because it seems that the long-out-of-print book is going for big bucks on Amazon.  Anyway ...)

The premise is that the final triumph of Good vs Evil has happened -- the mighty questers sealed the evil Darkgate for good, and nothing new that is evil can be.  The good guy New World Order is industriously mopping up remaining solitary evildoers, but instead of mere extermination, they're using magical attitude adjustment to turn them into Good Guys.

But with the Balance turning to the Light permanently, it's getting brighter and brighter.  Night time is becoming shorter and shorter.  Predators are starving because they don't feel like prediting.  Etcetera.

So a handful of evil types (joined, incognito, by one of the good guy questers responsible for it all), fueled by a prophecy or three, go questing for the dingus that will open up the Darkgate once more and restore evil to the world.

As I said, it was an interesting premise marred by lame and predictable writing, but it'd work well in one of the "end of history" settings.

"solvable" worlds (or their flipside, "unsolveable" worlds; which is to say worlds where one thing is the problem and the PCs are expressly forbidden from ever being able to fix it) tend to be tremendously shallow and largely uninteresting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;850796"solvable" worlds (or their flipside, "unsolveable" worlds; which is to say worlds where one thing is the problem and the PCs are expressly forbidden from ever being able to fix it) tend to be tremendously shallow and largely uninteresting.

Lord of The Rings is shallow?  Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is shallow?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;850823Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is shallow?

The pool is really big and it has an awful lot of water in it, I'll grant you, but it doesn't really have a deep end.

But as to your main point, yeah Pundit is full of shit on that one.

Quote from: Bren;850831The pool is really big and it has an awful lot of water in it, I'll grant you, but it doesn't really have a deep end.

Epic Fantasy often has a detailed world with established kingdoms and an all powerful wizard archetype.

Quote from: Bren;850831But as to your main point, yeah Pundit is full of shit on that one.

Yeah.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;850823Lord of The Rings is shallow?  Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is shallow?

Last I checked, Lord of the Rings and the Wheel of Time series were novels.  They're not game settings.

Quote from: Ravenswing;850882Last I checked, Lord of the Rings and the Wheel of Time series were novels.  They're not game settings.

They both had gaming companies use them as settings.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;850985They both had gaming companies use them as settings.

To middling success at best. ;)

I always felt Shadowrun 4e had this problem - all the uber-cool metaplots of 1e, 2e and 3e got "solved", and the new metaplots just didn't fill the vacuum. I mean, Shadowrun used to have Bug Spirit conspiracies, Bug City, the Arcology/rogue AI stuff, Earthdawn connections, Horrors and the Aztlan stuff related to them, Saito taking over California and so on. All so cool. Now all are solved, so a lot of the coolness is gone...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;850823Lord of The Rings is shallow?  Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is shallow?

Books are not RPGs. Many books tend to have a resolution of the core problem by the final chapter (or 3rd volume). And then thats it.

RPGs are (usually) very open ended. Even if you beat Vecna and Iuz once and for all. There is always something else in the world that needs saving or putting down.

The heroes might even retire and leave it to the next generation to handle. Or they might settle and work on running a kingdom. And you thought Vecna was a terror? Wait till you have to manage the crops during a droubt and someone is inciting the villagers to riot.

etc.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;849005" You just took out the overlord that would destroy the world, what are you going to do?'

Become the overlord yourself.

After all, someone is going to try and fill the power vacuum and you would be better than someone else who would be as bad as the previous overlord.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;850985They both had gaming companies use them as settings.

Look, man, if you're just arguing for the sake of hearing your voice (however metaphorically), why bother?  Do I really need to break down for you why novels and game settings are two completely different animals?

Hrm.  Maybe I do.

A novel is one guy telling a story:

* It is, obviously, a complete railroad: it moves on the plotlines the writer wants, and ONLY on the plotlines the writer wants.  

* The whole rest of the world, and everyone and everything in it, is immaterial except in so far as it informs the plot or the various characterizations.  Neither does it have to make sense: a Minas Tirith can be depicted as the height of civilization, even in a depopulated Gondor without a vestige of industry or international trade.  Travel can work on the speed of plot, and entire subsystems (magic is a usual one) don't have to make any sense whatsoever, internally or otherwise.  

* "Game balance" doesn't exist: not only is there nothing preventing a novelist from teaming up incredibly experienced adventurers with schmuck villagers fresh off the farm, it's a time-honored literary trope going back to the Bronze Age for those schmuck villagers to get face time, and not be sensibly relegated to holding the superheroes' golf bags.  

* Consistency doesn't have to exist: The group wizard can be a colossus in one encounter, and not be able to do much more than light the campfire the rest of the time, and no one blinks an eye at the discrepancy.  The designated beefcake can hold up a portcullis in Chapter 15, and no one questions the several instances that such extreme strength might have been obviously handy in Chapters 3-14.

* The odds don't matter: if it suits the author's plot for a bunch of hobbits who'd never been in a serious fight before to fail to get TPKed by a horde of freaking Nazgul, then they aren't.  The Davids one-shot the Goliaths, seldom the other way around.

* The protagonist gets the facetime, and the other characters fill in the blanks, if at all: except in establishing scenes, our young hero does just as much, if not more, as the vastly more experienced NPCs do.

Obviously -- it should be obvious, anyway -- these elements don't pertain to RPGs.  The players have a say in plot.  The vast majority of groups are on a relative par with one another power-wise.  Most players want elements like magic to be consistent, definable and comprehensible.  The odds do matter: you don't automatically get to take out that Ancient Dragon or that Lich-King just because you think it'd be heroic to do so.  The other party members want face time.  And so on.

Quote from: Ravenswing;851220Obviously -- it should be obvious, anyway -- these elements don't pertain to RPGs.  The players have a say in plot.  The vast majority of groups are on a relative par with one another power-wise.  Most players want elements like magic to be consistent, definable and comprehensible.  The odds do matter: you don't automatically get to take out that Ancient Dragon or that Lich-King just because you think it'd be heroic to do so.  The other party members want face time.  And so on.[/COLOR]

There are a few RPGs like Buffy the Vampire Slayer which try to give the 'fiction' experience, making Zander as viable a PC as Bufffy, say. And there are heavily Narrativist games like HeroQuest which do the same, but these tend towards being story-creation games rather than true RPGs.

Quote from: S'mon;851227There are a few RPGs like Buffy the Vampire Slayer which try to give the 'fiction' experience, making Zander as viable a PC as Bufffy, say. And there are heavily Narrativist games like HeroQuest which do the same, but these tend towards being story-creation games rather than true RPGs.

HeroQuest is a true RPG. I know, because I run it. Storygames are RPGs.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;851258HeroQuest is a true RPG. I know, because I run it. Storygames are RPGs.

I've played it (though the setting was Midnight, not Glorantha). I'd put it in the grey space between RPG and story-creation game, closer to RPG though. Storygames (which I have also played) are not RPGs, you build a story as the goal and IME any roleplaying is incidental and done without immersion.

Quote from: S'mon;851227There are a few RPGs like Buffy the Vampire Slayer which try to give the 'fiction' experience, making Zander as viable a PC as Bufffy, say. And there are heavily Narrativist games like HeroQuest which do the same, but these tend towards being story-creation games rather than true RPGs.

Sure.  When, in just about any field of human endeavor, aren't there outliers?

Doesn't mean they're not outliers.

Quote from: S'mon;851266I've played it (though the setting was Midnight, not Glorantha). I'd put it in the grey space between RPG and story-creation game, closer to RPG though. Storygames (which I have also played) are not RPGs, you build a story as the goal and IME any roleplaying is incidental and done without immersion.

No, they are, my players confirm by their agency every week that story games are RPGs. My experience overrides your ideology. Narrative is immersion.

Quote from: S'mon;851266I've played it (though the setting was Midnight, not Glorantha). I'd put it in the grey space between RPG and story-creation game, closer to RPG though. Storygames (which I have also played) are not RPGs, you build a story as the goal and IME any roleplaying is incidental and done without immersion.

Definitely an RPG - We are a group of hard-core gamers and played HeroQuest as an RPG. The one player who liked storygames and that kind of thing left the group as he didn't think he could go anywhere with HeroQuest.

Quote from: soltakss;851307Definitely an RPG - We are a group of hard-core gamers and played HeroQuest as an RPG. The one player who liked storygames and that kind of thing left the group as he didn't think he could go anywhere with HeroQuest.

S'mon, have you ever played HeroQuest?

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;851317S'mon, have you ever played HeroQuest?

? Yeah, like I said above, I played it in the Midnight setting. The GM decided to convert her campaign over from the regular d20/D&D rules to HeroQuest. It was many years ago but I still remember my heart sinking every time an Extended Challenge thingummy was announced.

Quote from: Ravenswing;851220A novel is one guy telling a story:

* It is, obviously, a complete railroad: it moves on the plotlines the writer wants, and ONLY on the plotlines the writer wants.  

* The whole rest of the world, and everyone and everything in it, is immaterial except in so far as it informs the plot or the various characterizations.  Neither does it have to make sense: a Minas Tirith can be depicted as the height of civilization, even in a depopulated Gondor without a vestige of industry or international trade.  Travel can work on the speed of plot, and entire subsystems (magic is a usual one) don't have to make any sense whatsoever, internally or otherwise.  

* "Game balance" doesn't exist: not only is there nothing preventing a novelist from teaming up incredibly experienced adventurers with schmuck villagers fresh off the farm, it's a time-honored literary trope going back to the Bronze Age for those schmuck villagers to get face time, and not be sensibly relegated to holding the superheroes' golf bags.  

* Consistency doesn't have to exist: The group wizard can be a colossus in one encounter, and not be able to do much more than light the campfire the rest of the time, and no one blinks an eye at the discrepancy.  The designated beefcake can hold up a portcullis in Chapter 15, and no one questions the several instances that such extreme strength might have been obviously handy in Chapters 3-14.

* The odds don't matter: if it suits the author's plot for a bunch of hobbits who'd never been in a serious fight before to fail to get TPKed by a horde of freaking Nazgul, then they aren't.  The Davids one-shot the Goliaths, seldom the other way around.

* The protagonist gets the facetime, and the other characters fill in the blanks, if at all: except in establishing scenes, our young hero does just as much, if not more, as the vastly more experienced NPCs do.

Obviously -- it should be obvious, anyway -- these elements don't pertain to RPGs.

Maybe it should be obvious; but even on this forum, you can find people enjoying pretty much all of these in RPGs. Some of them are even viewed as respectable positions to advocate.

On the original topic, The Worm Ouroboros solved the "solved" world problem, over and over and over again.

Quote from: RPGPundit;850796"solvable" worlds (or their flipside, "unsolveable" worlds; which is to say worlds where one thing is the problem and the PCs are expressly forbidden from ever being able to fix it) tend to be tremendously shallow and largely uninteresting.

The primary example of the latter being Gilligan's Island.

JG

Quote from: soltakss;851073Become the overlord yourself.

After all, someone is going to try and fill the power vacuum and you would be better than someone else who would be as bad as the previous overlord.

And then the next campaign becomes you and your peers trying to hang on to power while suppressing opposition and fighting rivals and each other.

It worked for The Godfather.

JG