My main point is essentially that if the world were simply to be reset on its destruction then there is far less motivation to prevent it than there is for a smaller threat that will persist if successful, and some potential for drama is lost.
A post-apocalyptic scenario definitely would be a great way to revisit the world.
]]>If the world is destroyed should the setting come to an end, for that play group? In that incarnation - probably yes. By which I mean it might make an excellent setting for (in this example) a fantasy post apocalyptic game, for example. And of course, it does end for all players around the world too - even players playing the same adventures in another group are playing in a slightly different (albeit very similar) setting; NPCs will have reacted differently and have different personalities for example.
But there's no argument for stopping playing with a rules set the group likes because of it.
As to providing a more meaningful roleplaying experience, that's doable and I'd certainely be happy to run it. I don't think you'll necessarily get it from published adventures often, because I think (and I may well be wrong) what you're alluding to is a more character-centric campaign (and it needs to be a campaign rather than one-off adventures as well).
I think a part of the problem however might be that 'a meaningful experience' means different things from one person to the next and understanding what each player is looking for in that respect is not necessarily an easy task, let alone meeting it for each player.
]]>