I'd have to say optimistic.  I once played in a Midnight campaign with a German GM of Nietszchean beliefs, whose husband had died horribly of cancer.  A very smart lady, but not a cheerful lady, and that game was Grim with a capital G.   I do like Blakes' 7, but overall I play & GM for escapism.  The world has been going to Hell since 2000-01, my games may reflect that in some ways, but they also offer hope for a better Tomorrow.  Or at least hint that way.

Gonzo characters in a pessimistic setting happens more often then not. =D

It's fun.

Dark with the PCs acting as the blazing light in the darkness.

So...optimistic if you look past the surface.

Pessimistic if you're looking for some kind of utopia on the horizon. Guardedly optimistic if you're looking to make your way in the world on wits, luck, and a willingness to risk it all.

Optimistic in terms of self-reliance and individual and group effort still usually able to make a difference.

And although I don't plan it, a lot of my games tend to feature some aspect or plot point regarding redemption.  So I'd say more optimistic than not.

Quote from: beejazz;310249Pessimistic if you're looking for some kind of utopia on the horizon. Guardedly optimistic if you're looking to make your way in the world on wits, luck, and a willingness to risk it all.

Yes indeed.

Optimistic

I'd say optimistic by default, because a pessimistic game will be short-duration and have only lmited interest from potential Players. It should also be noted that even the most grim setting may be an actual optimistic game when played, see Twilight: 2000 and Call of Cthulhu as examples.

Where do you draw the line? Is the definition of an optimistic game "a game where the PCs can survive in the long run" or "a game where the PCs can change the world for the better"? In the former case, I think the only pessimistic game I run is Paranoia: in everything else the PCs at least have a chance of survival, though they also have a chance of screwing it up horribly.

In the latter case, it honestly depends on what's best for the genre. An optimistic approach is perfectly appropriate high fantasy, space opera, and pulp, because even if things get really dark at points those are ultimately genres in which heroes have the power to change the world for the better. I go with pessimism for genres like horror and cyberpunk, where the world's a bag of shit and the PCs just have to accept that and survive the best they can.

It largely depends on the actions of the PCs.

Quote from: aramis;310157Optimistic, but not "Happy Happy Joy Joy"...

:ditto:

My settings and campaigns are usually somewhat pessimistic (more 'Hyboria' than 'Midnight').  However, the characters have a chance to improve things, albeit usually on a small scale (e.g., saving a city-state from serpent cultists, as opposed to saving the world from the Dark Lord TM).

i'll go with "optimistic characters in a pessimistic setting", also.  especially with the Dead, although that might be more pessimistic/pessimistic...

The setting is pessimistic and morally ambiguous.  History has ultimately proved that optimism leads to tragedy and sacrifice.  There are some upright and dedicated groups, and some forms of racism are slowly being fought through,  but the weight of history is crushingly heavy.

Quote from: Drew;310298It largely depends on the actions of the PCs.

To expand, if things aren't likely to turn to shit then there's very little reason for PCs in the first place.

Of course, "shit" is a relative term. For some groups I've GM'ed it's meant the end of the world, for others it's the Era of Profound Peace Peace in Smiley Jolly Fantasy Land.