[Yes, I know this isn't a complete list of large scale conflicts by any means. I want to see how these particular options fare against each other.]

Which of these setting-defining conflicts would interest you the most and why? Does your opinion change if you would be running it as a GM or playing through it as a player?

If some of the options are ambiguous to you, feel free to define them as you please.

Sword and sorcery fan here.

I actually enjoy all of them, save Good vs Evil or Law vs Chaos, as I feel like I've just been there too many times.

Can you use checkboxes instead of exclusive choices? Anyway I picked schemers v schemers, but most of the rest are fine with me, too. Except good v evil (tends to be railroady; besides, I hate good, while evil is full of posers) and world v world (sounds like dimension-hopping, which is often arbitrary and ungrounded).

Cosmic forces make me think of Cosmic Encounter, I wonder if I still own that. I voted world vs world, but any is fine as long as it is done well, some are done better than others though, and easier to do.

I put Schemers vs. Schemers as that's really a smaller scale conflict that any of the other types could also encompass and usually do.  Also, it's basically Humans vs. Humans so is almost always topical.

Pretty much tied/a close second would be Savagery vs. Civilization.

My current RQ6 Conan game is set in Zingara during the aftermath of the civil war, so Schemer v. Schemer and Savagery v. Civilization are very prevalent.

Good vs. Evil as Cosmic Forces I'm always up for.

Law vs. Chaos as Cosmic Forces is harder to get my head around without a specific setting example, like Moorcock.  However, not as Cosmic Forces, it's pretty close to Savagery vs. Civilization.

Nation vs. Nation or Community vs. Community usually always come down to some other conflict.  In other words, why are the nations or communities fighting?  Other than simple survival or resources, it's Good v. Evil, Law v. Chaos, Sav v. Civ, God v. God, Rel v. Rel, Ideo v. Ideo etc... or just politics, ie. Schemer v. Schemer.

Quote from: CRKrueger;896172I put Schemers vs. Schemers as that's really a smaller scale conflict that any of the other types could also encompass and usually do.  Also, it's basically Humans vs. Humans so is almost always topical.

I had the same thought, I like the personal and human situations and it can easily combine with any of those larger ones.

Religions/cults/sects/religious doctrines vs something else. I always liked the Bigger Picture more than local schemes.

Ideology vs whatever. For some reason its a recurring theme I've used. And looking back quite a few of my characters have ended up through no aegis of their own at the forefront of some ideology war.

At other times I like multiple layers. Schemes vs schems vs nation vs nation vs order vs chaos vs whatever.

And another I like thats not listed is People vs Nature.

That depends on the game system and setting (or rather genre?) used.

My favourite fantasy setting/subgenre is "tolkienesque", so when I run something in that vein the overarching campaign conflict would be Good vs. Evil but on the session level it could be nation vs. nation (equivalent to Rohan vs. corrupted steward-controlled Gondor) or schemer vs. schemer (Gandalf vs. Elrond vs. Saruman vs. Sauron).

Years and years and years ago I pitched a campaign to my players that would have been decadence (civilization) vs. savagery, but they didn't bite...

Which of your answer choices comes closest to "immortal powermonger with god-like powers (but no philosophical or religious concept/teaching) vs. immortal powermonger with god-like powers (but no philosophical, ideological, or religious concept/teaching)"?

Nation vs nation for me.  I've never understood why fantasy has to be yoked to titanic G vs E conflicts, when good old geopolitics do the job just fine.

They're all interesting, but I picked civ v. savagery because that which is "savage" is often a matter of hubris.  Civilization in the game world may be little more than organized and/or mire efficient savagery.

The two I am least interested in are Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos. That's not to say I won't play in a game with those themes.  They just don't get me immediately interested.

All the others have more potential to me. I think Krueger makes a good pitch for schemers vs. schemers as my number one pick. That's partly biased by the fact that Some of my more proactive players are good at that kind of thing. Scheming usually means that players are helping to drive the campaign rather than waiting to be pointed somewhere. Plus, schemes need to be carried out, which means you aren't missing out on action. The most interesting campaign in one where the PCs want something(s) and set out to do it. Whether that involves conflict between nations, religions, cultures, etc. is secondary.

Schemers vs. Schemers

Most of the rest are fine, and as pointed above kind of encompassed in "schemers vs. schemers" anyway.

The ones I find kind of boring are the good/evil and law/chaos on a cosmic scale. And while I don't mind some ideological or religious tension in my games, having it raised up to the level of setting-defining is a big fat no. That's just begging for the GM to try to shove some kind of religious or political point down my throat in a world where he holds all the cards. Yeah, that sounds like fun. :rolleyes:

Oh, how I wish this question actually mattered to my current campaigns. I'm lucky if I can even get my group to engage in Schemers vs Schemers. I need to put something right in front of them and wait for them to punch it in the face. That is about the level of setting buy in they usually go to.