For brainstorming purposes, it might be interesting to consider what types of settings are overdone/popular. Below, I try to classify several settings (mostly campaign). Feel free to add your own Conworlds!
Note: As per Polycarp!'s suggestion... A Matrix!
(Some appear in several boxes. If that is the case, they are Orange
Setting (Down)
Style (Across) | Adventure | Bureaucracy | Discovery/Exploration | Wonder |
| Dystopian | Changeling: The Dreaming
The GrimDark IdDark (Light Dragon) (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?78787)
Reth Jaleract (Kindling) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?35418)
|
Knife's Edge (Kindling) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?55673)
The World of Arga (Leetz) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?67289)
Tempter (Steerpike) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?58891) | Dark Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
Death From the Depths (Pair O' Dice) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?70565)
Discworld of Tu'loras (Lath) | Bas-Lag (China Mieville)
The Cadaverous Earth (Steerpike) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?56772)
World of Darkness: Dark Ages |
High Fantasy
(Magic-Focus) | Dilandri (Stargate521) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?24254)
Dragonlance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
Forgotten Realms (4E) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
The Lord of the Rings
Mystara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings) | Avayevnon (Seraphine Harmonium) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?23221.last)
Celtricia (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?39571)
Exalted
Forgotten Realms (3E) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
World of Ethshar (book: Watt-Evans) | Forgotten Realms (2E) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
The Hobbit | Planescape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings) |
Low Fantasy
(Might-Focus) | The Bronze Setting (Llum) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?65206)
Conan
Greyhawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings) | Eschaton (Phoenix) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?67552)
A Game of Thrones (book: George RR Martin) | Lords of Dus (book: Watt-Evans)
The Unfinished
World (Epic Meepo) (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?38740.0) | The Clockwork Jungle (Polycarp) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?39646) |
| Horror | Ravenloft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings) | Dystopian Universe (Biohazard)
World of Darkness
Age of Madness (Steerpike) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?115517.last) | Call of Cthulu | Haveneast (Biohazard) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?53101) |
Modern /
Superheroes | Shadowrun | World of Darkness | WonderWorld (Light Dragon) (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?64598) | |
| Space | Battletech
Firefly/Serenity
Spelljammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings) | Star Trek
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Star Wars | Dystopian Universe (Biohazard) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?59617)
Spaceships, Sixguns, and Cyclopean Horrors (Steerpike) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?61798)
Star Trek: Voyager | |
| Steampunk / Pulp | Eberron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)Pulp
Castle Falkenstein
Lincolnshire 3118 (Kindling) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?102885.last) | Broken Verge (Crow) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?67468.0) | Eberron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings) Pulp
Hollow Earth Expedition Pulp
Masque of the Red Death Horror
Frankenstein's Legions (Gypsylight) (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?81495) | Castle Falkenstein
Etherscope
Mare Eternus (Nomadic) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?64095)
Tephra (Jharviss) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?41642.0) |
| Weird | Xell: Chimera City (Steerpike) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?66961.0#post_66962) | Changeling: The Dreaming
Fluxworld (Steerpike) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?60328.last)
The Living World of Glaesra (Pair o'Dice Lost) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?52810) | Alice in Wonderland (GrimGrin)
Call of Cthulhu | Gloria (Light Dragon) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?65170)
The Land of Oz |
Adventure-Slaying bad guys is what it's all about. Traditional Fantasy.
-Hack/Slash/Magic Solves problems.
Bureaucracy-Well developed worlds with clear power-bases. Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
-Intrigue, Courtly Drama
-Solving complicated problems through diplomacy and logic.
Exploration/Discovery-Finding new things is key. Quests.
-Discovery solves problems.
Wonder-Oddness.
-No real direction except taking in the world.
--
Steampunk- A time period with displaced elements of technology that are somehow impossible.
- Candlepunk, Clockpunk, Dieselpunk, Neo-Victorianism, and some Pulpish adventures fall into this category.
--
An alternate classification scheme: (Courtesy of Ghostman)
Tone: Brutal-Despair-Grim-Medium-Optimistic-Light-Humour
Fantasy Elements: a. None-Scarce-Medium-Abundant
b. Might-Mix-Pseudofantasy-Magic
Tech Level: Stone-Bronze-Medieval-Renaissance-Victorian-Early 1900s-Modern-Future-Post Apocalyptic
Style: Action-Horror-Intrigue-Adventure-Politics
Morality: Dark-Ambiguous-Survival-Black/White
| Setting | Tone | Fantasy Elements | Tech Level | Style | Morality |
| Babylon 5 | Medium | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Future | Action, Politics, Intrigue | Ambiguous |
| The Cadaverous Earth (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?56772) | Grim | Abundant, Mix | Renaissance | Adventure, Politics, Intrigue | Ambiguous |
| Celtricia (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?39571) | Medium | Medium, Might | Medieval | Adventure, Politics | Ambiguous |
| Clockwork Jungle (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?39646) | Medium | Medium, Might | Bronze | Adventure, Politics | Ambiguous |
| Cthulhu | Despair | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Early 1900s | Horror | Survival |
| Forgotten Realms | Light | Abundant, Magic | Renaissance | Action, Adventure, Politics | Black/White |
| A Game of Thrones | Grim | Scarce, Might | Medieval | Politics, Intrigue | Ambiguous |
| Gloria (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?65170) | Optimistic | Abundant, Magic | Victorian | Adventure, Politics | Ambiguous |
| The GrimDark IdDark (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?78787) | Despair | Abundant, Mix | Medieval | Action, Adventure, Horror | Dark |
| Hyborian Age | Brutal | Scarce, Might | Bronze-Medieval | Action, Adventure, Horror | Dark |
| Mad Max | Grim | None, Might | Post-Apocalyptic | Action | Survival |
| Riddick | Brutal | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Future | Action | Survival |
Morality DefinitionsDark - Everyone's pretty much selfish, or "bad" to the core.
Ambiguous - Everyone has a dark side.
Survival - Amoral. It doesn't exist.
Black/White - Simple Duality.
Old Classification
[spoiler]
Adventure, Pulp
Knock-down craziness. Positive vibes
-Eberron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
Adventure, Low-Fantasy
A harsh world, with harsh consequences. You make your own legends.
-The Bronze Setting (Llum) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?65206)
-Conan
-Greyhawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
-Lords of Dus (book: Watt-Evans)
Adventure, High Fantasy
Here the heroes get out and get dirty and make legends. They are the powers in the world.
-Dragonlancep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
-The Lord of the Rings
-Mystara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
-Planescape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
Adventure, Space
Go wild in the vacuum of space!
-Spelljammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
Bureaucratic, High Fantasy
These are developed worlds, with well-defined rulers, and well-defined powerbases
-Celtricia (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?39571) (Perhaps Intrigue as well?)
-Exalted
-Forgotten Realms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
-World of Ethshar (book: Watt-Evans)
Bureaucratic, Space
These are developed worlds, with well-defined rulers, and well-defined powerbases
-Star Wars
Diplomatic/Intrigue
The focus is on people, not war. Very micro-view.
-A Game of Thrones (book: George RR Martin)
-Castle Falkenstein Also Steampunk
-Kushiel's Dart Series
-Lankhmar (book: Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser)
Dystopic, Fantasy
Often closely linked to Adventure, Pulp and Adventure, Low Fantasy
-The Cadaverous Earth (Steerpike) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?56772)
-Dark Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
-Knife's Edge (Kindling) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?55673)
-The World of Arga (Leetz) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?67289)
-China Mieville (Adventure, High Fantasy; some Steampunk)
-Reth Jaleract (Kindling) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?35418)
-Tempter (Steerpike) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?58891)
-White Wolf's World of Darkness Series
Dystopic, Modern
-White Wolf's World of Darkness Series
-WonderWorld (Light Dragon) (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?64598)
Dystopic, Sci-Fi
Often closely linked to Adventure, Pulp and Steampunk
-Spaceships, Sixguns, and Cyclopean Horrors (Steerpike) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?61798)
-Dystopian Universe (Biohazard) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?59617)
Horror, Traditional
-Ravenloft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings)
Steampunk/Victorianna
Close to Adventure, Pulp; with a decidedly "Weird Science" flavour
-Etherscope (Published Setting)
-Mare Eternus (Nomadic) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?64095)
-Masque of the Red Death Horror Elements
Weird Fiction
-Alice in Wonderland (GrimGrin's Adaptation of Lewis Carroll's work)
-Call of Cthulhu
-Changeling: The Dreaming (Dystopic, Adventure)
-Fluxworld (Steerpike) (Dystopic, Modern) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?60328.last)
-Gloria (Light Dragon) Positive! Hopeful! (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?65170)
-The Land of Oz
-Xell: Chimera City (Steerpike) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?66961.0#post_66962)
[/spoiler]
Currently Uncategorized
-The Jade Stage (Luminous Crayon) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?7052)
-Na Bantu (Wensleydale) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?63404.last)
-Prismatic (Llum) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?58695)
-Ptolus
-Urbis (Jurgen) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?6813)
-Weird Sun (Cowd) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?58216) (Space)
--
First off celtricia actually falls under diplomatic/intrigue much more than bureaucratic fantasy.
Secondly go ahead and throw Mare Eternus (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?64095) (weird fantasy: philosophical, existential) in there. I haven't had much time to expound on it but it is a setting I plan on eventually fleshing out.
Interesting that even though steampunk is considered to be one of the more overdone settings, we seem to have none of them : )
This is by the way a nice idea; i wanted to do something similar although i couldn't really come up with a decent categorization system. so good to see the initiative :)
I've got a fever, and the only cure is more horror...
Clearly, we need more horror. I'd definitely put my own settings Vilydunn and Haveneast into that category, but they both need more work to show the horror element.
Quote from: NomadicFirst off celtricia actually falls under diplomatic/intrigue much more than bureaucratic fantasy.
Secondly go ahead and throw Mare Eternus (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?64095) (weird fantasy: philosophical, existential) in there. I haven't had much time to expound on it but it is a setting I plan on eventually fleshing out.
Nomadic has the right of it; Diplomacy, intrigue, and social interplay are the heart of Celtricia.
However, very good idea to classify these. It is aso interesting to see what we have done and how others view our own.
Re: Celtricia... well, I am having a difficult time categorizing it as Intrigue because it seems that there is more to it and that the theme may not really be intrigue (but I certainly could be wrong)- how do your characters usually adventure in it, Vreeg? Do they ride off into the sunset as adventurers or do they solve mysteries, deal with people and personalities and courtly drama?
I added a definition for this: Diplomatic/Intrigue
The focus is on people, not war. Very micro-view. .
Although Celtricia seems to have intrigue, it does not necessarily appear to be the point.
Crow- Thank you. I see this as an easy guide for people searching for inspiration when looking to write their next piece. Perhaps it will stimulate some creativity! :)
---
Nomadic- Hmm... It seemed a bit Steampunky to me when I read it. Maybe when you add more, I can categorize it better. The "weird fantasy" section right now is distinctively set aside for pervasively odd settings- it needs to maintain the theme over description of a variety of locales for me to place something there.
---
Anyone who wishes to have their settings added, please provide a link :)
---
I'm all for neat categorization but some of this doesn't readily apply. For instance, the categories of "high fantasy" and "low fantasy" describe the "epic-ness" of an adventuring world. They are on an entirely different axis from dystopian/utopian, or from "weird fiction." That is, these terms aren't very exclusive - it's easy to imagine a dystopian, low fantasy setting (you yourself say they're "closely linked"), or a weird high-fantasy one (pseudonatural squidknights tilting at protoplasmic dream-dragons for the hands of fair fifth dimensional omni-princesses in the Far Realm, or something).
You might be better served by a matrix of different adjectives, like somebody tried to do with magic a while back. Dystopian or not? Sci Fi or Fantasy? Epic or gritty? (Because surely "high" and "low" can apply to SF or modern settings, not just fantasy.) "Intrigue" in particular could apply to many other kinds of settings. I'm not saying these are bad categories - on the contrary, you've covered most bases here - just that they aren't all on the same "level" as one another.
That might help your original purpose; that is, to consider what kinds of things are overdone/popular. By your present list, dystopianism seems awfully common, but many of those settings could be shuffled into other categories like low fantasy, weird, or even horror, leaving you with a much different picture of what is overdone and what isn't.
[blockquote=PC]You might be better served by a matrix of different adjectives, like somebody tried to do with magic a while back. Dystopian or not? Sci Fi or Fantasy? Epic or gritty? (Because surely "high" and "low" can apply to SF or modern settings, not just fantasy.) "Intrigue" in particular could apply to many other kinds of settings. I'm not saying these are bad categories - on the contrary, you've covered most bases here - just that they aren't all on the same "level" as one another.[/blockquote]
Just what I had been thinking, more of a matrix, as setings are hard to pigeonhole sometimes.
Quote from: Light DragonRe: Celtricia... well, I am having a difficult time categorizing it as Intrigue because it seems that there is more to it and that the theme may not really be intrigue (but I certainly could be wrong)- how do your characters usually adventure in it, Vreeg? Do they ride off into the sunset as adventurers or do they solve mysteries, deal with people and personalities and courtly drama?
I added a definition for this: Diplomatic/Intrigue
The focus is on people, not war. Very micro-view. .
Although Celtricia seems to have intrigue, it does not necessarily appear to be the point.
Well, they do adventure. Does that help? :weirdo:
They limp back into the town as adventurers and then they solve mysteries, deal with people and personalities and court some major drama, including jumping into the thick of the politics and the 'behind the scenes' movers and shakers. They also spend a lot of time in the intra/inter guild conflicts and in the bardic nightlife. A lot of time in the bardic nightlife.
Nomadic has been reading my stuff for a while, and while there is a lot of adventuring, it is normally done in support of political/social goals. I hope that helps.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowInteresting that even though steampunk is considered to be one of the more overdone settings, we seem to have none of them : )
This is by the way a nice idea; i wanted to do something similar although i couldn't really come up with a decent categorization system. so good to see the initiative :)
Actually you know Mare Eternus is steampunk (just a weird philosophical fantasy version). So might be better to file it under that.
Edit: Ah I see this was already noticed. Anyhow the reason it also falls under weird is because it is a very strange setting where things don't really make sense. Alot of its essence is the mystery.
Quote from: Polycarp!I'm all for neat categorization but some of this doesn't readily apply. For instance, the categories of "high fantasy" and "low fantasy" describe the "epic-ness" of an adventuring world. They are on an entirely different axis from dystopian/utopian, or from "weird fiction." That is, these terms aren't very exclusive - it's easy to imagine a dystopian, low fantasy setting (you yourself say they're "closely linked"), or a weird high-fantasy one (pseudonatural squidknights tilting at protoplasmic dream-dragons for the hands of fair fifth dimensional omni-princesses in the Far Realm, or something).
You might be better served by a matrix of different adjectives, like somebody tried to do with magic a while back. Dystopian or not? Sci Fi or Fantasy? Epic or gritty? (Because surely "high" and "low" can apply to SF or modern settings, not just fantasy.) "Intrigue" in particular could apply to many other kinds of settings. I'm not saying these are bad categories - on the contrary, you've covered most bases here - just that they aren't all on the same "level" as one another.
That might help your original purpose; that is, to consider what kinds of things are overdone/popular. By your present list, dystopianism seems awfully common, but many of those settings could be shuffled into other categories like low fantasy, weird, or even horror, leaving you with a much different picture of what is overdone and what isn't.
I agree with this assessment. The only thing I'd add is that the matrix would still be very limited because you can use more than two words. Eberron could be listed as: Pulp Low-Tech Fantasy, and then depending on where and how you run it you can add Adventure or Mystery.
My consideration is what's been overdone is anything gritty, dark, low fantastic, and/or dripping with sh*t about to/already happening (note: on this last one I said "dripping with" as I know some people consider it necessary that some sh*t be going down to have a good campaign for adventuring in). In addition I don't see enough sci-fi settings, at least not here.
Polycarp! = Perhaps I should define high and low fantasy. I do not see the differences as necessarily being scales of epic-ness. I see them as difference in terms of magic. Low fantasy has a low emphasis on magic- it is more freedom and swords of the swords/sorcery style. High fantasy focuses on magic and wizards and some bureaucratic structure.
Vreeg- Well... I think I solved the difficulty- by eliminating Intrigue... Now it falls under Bureaucracy. So you are now in the correct place! :) ... I think.
Silver Cat- For Space... look at weird sun (above, uncategorized).
Eberron should be under Adventure: it's not focused on finding new things but about the action. If the game is significantly about fighting bad guys on you home turf it shouldn't be Dis/Ex. (If you want something you can mention there put down Hollow Earth Expedition.)
I'm also not sure about Superheroes being setting type. Default it's not any different from Modern, just higher-powered (you could consider it similar to Low vs. High Fantasy). But you can do it in any kind of setting. The point is that Superheroes isn't characterized by the environment but by the characters.
To get off my subject completely I wonder what would characterize Space Wonder?
Space Opera kinda seems like it could fill in the Space Wonder category.
I'll give Superheroes its own setting type if only because its so distinct, it has really become its own thing. And not all Superheroes are modern (original Ghost Rider, Jonah Hexx although these could be called western. Other Superhero could be called science fiction as well.)
Perhaps it would help to hear how the rest of us categorize stuff. Here is generally how I view things.
Categories:
Adventure/Exploration - The classic RP style that centers on a wandering group, often of questers or explorers that solve problems, fight baddies, and uncover ancient wonders.
Dystopian - A realm where grime is the norm and twisted representations of reality assault your perceptions wherever you go. Dystopian settings focus not on the triumph of one group over another but instead on the simple struggle to survive.
Horror - Horror settings explore the struggle to fight off unseen and vastly more powerful evils that are actively out to hurt the characters. Much of the essence of horror is drawn from not knowing exactly what it is that is out to get you.
Superheroes - A style centered around individuals that are far stronger than the average person. Common conflicts result from fighting counterparts, protecting or controlling weaker individuals, and many other settings drawn from the vast power difference.
Types:
Magic - Magical settings have a connection to the arcane, a not fully explained force that permeates the world and enables the inhabitants to do things outside what would be considered normal in the real world.
Might - Might settings are focused on the martial aspect. They often have little technology or magic (if any at all) and instead center on physical prowess.
Modern - Modern settings are reflections of the current world, often in fact they are alternate realities of the present time.
Science Fiction - Science Fiction is a focus on technological wonders, often in a futuristic setting. The technology in science fiction tends to take up the same position as the magic in a magical setting.
Steampunk - Steampunk is technology blended with a fantasy style. This often results in a blending of magic and science with strange and generally impossible (in regards to reality) results.
Note that a setting can have more than one type (for example you could have a modern dystopian magical setting). Oh and as a side superhero is one for me because it can fit any genre where you have a group of elite above the average man.
Quote from: Perhaps I should define high and low fantasy. I do not see the differences as necessarily being scales of epic-ness. I see them as difference in terms of magic. Low fantasy has a low emphasis on magic- it is more freedom and swords of the swords/sorcery style. High fantasy focuses on magic and wizards and some bureaucratic structure.[/quotecomprehensive[/i] descriptions of fantasy that have meanings far beyond how widespread magic is.
As for my own setting, I consider it pretty standard Low Fantasy both in terms of magic and morality, though I don't really know whether it would fit better in "exploration" or "wonder" as per the present grid. I guess it depends on how "odd" you find the Clockwork Jungle to be.
To me, Lord of the Rings is Low-Fantasy by today's standards. Sure there were Wizards and magical trinkets but there weren't constructs, lightning rails, commonplace portals, or anything of the like.
Also, where would we put Clockwork Jungle on this chart? It's sort of fits Wonder... Maybe Low-Fantasy Wonder? Perhaps High Fantasy Wonder...
It's hard to say since we aren't provided with definitions for the left-hand axis.
EDIT: Ninja'd by the Creator!
Quote from: Elemental_ElfTo me, Lord of the Rings is Low-Fantasy by today's standards. Sure there were Wizards and magical trinkets but there weren't constructs, lightning rails, commonplace portals, or anything of the like.
high fantasy[/i] with
high magic. The lack of clear moral purpose, at least to me, is more important to the definition of high fantasy than anything else - if you've got a monolithic evil overlord, it's high fantasy. If your evil is more petty, uncertain, fractious, and realistic, it's probably low fantasy.
Dystopian worlds can be either. A dystopian world could be high fantasy - think the world after Lord of the Rings, but if
Sauron had won - or low fantasy, in which moral contrast is still low (nobody is "pure" good or evil) but in general things tend towards the evil, petty, venal, and corrupt.
Quote from: Polycarp!Quote from: Elemental_ElfTo me, Lord of the Rings is Low-Fantasy by today's standards. Sure there were Wizards and magical trinkets but there weren't constructs, lightning rails, commonplace portals, or anything of the like.
high fantasy[/i] with high magic. The lack of clear moral purpose, at least to me, is more important to the definition of high fantasy than anything else - if you've got a monolithic evil overlord, it's high fantasy. If your evil is more petty, uncertain, fractious, and realistic, it's probably low fantasy.
I've never interpreted High and Low as being anything other than a measure of how widespread magic is and how much it impacts society. However, having read into the issue, I am indeed confusing High-Magic with High-Fantasy.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: Polycarp!Quote from: Elemental_ElfStuff on High Fantasy
Even more stuff on High Fantasy
Ok, turns out, this is the most discussion this thread has seen on the topic. Here's what I mentioned to PC awhile ago:
the "height" of fantasy is defined by the number of OMGWTFBBQ moments portrayed realistically (that is, with enough internal consistency) to keep you from actually going OMGWTFBBQ. I used Tolkien, Lewis, and Carrol as examples. Each one had more of those moments than the last, and each one was "higher" fantasy than the last. Sauron is just as much fantasy as the White Witch, but Narnia has talking animals. Like Narnia, Wonderland has talking animals, but also has playing cards painting roses. Dunno how close this falls to standard definitions of High Fantasy, but that's just me.
as a sidenote, on the "height" of fantasy:
Hyborea < Middle Earth < Narnia < Wonderland
you can put my Discworld of Tu'loras as Dystopian/Exploration or low fantasy(might)/Exploration its a bit of both.
I think the whole debate on High Fantasy needs to be settled. I say we just use Wikipedia's definition and move on.
Quote from: WikipediaThese stories are generally serious in tone and often epic in scope, dealing with themes of grand struggle against supernatural, evil forces.[1] It is one of the most popular subgenres of fantasy fiction. Some typical characteristics of high fantasy include fantastical elements such as elves, fairies, dwarves, magic or sorcery, wizards or magicians, invented languages, quests, coming-of-age themes, and multi-volume narratives.
High fantasy is a well-defined genre with established characteristics. This contrasts with low fantasy, a term that can be defined in many contradictory ways, each separate in its own way from high fantasy.
In some fiction, a contemporary, "real-world" character is placed in the invented world, sometimes through devices such as portals to other worlds or even subconscious travels. Purists might not consider this to be "true" high fantasy, although such stories are often categorized as high fantasy due to the fact that they've yet to be classified as their own distinct subgenre, and often resemble this subgenre more closely than any other.
High fantasy worlds may be more or less closely based on real world milieus, or on legends such as Arthurian. When the resemblance is strong, particularly when real-world history is used, high fantasy shades into alternate history.
High fantasy is the most popular and successful subgenre of the fantasy fiction. Its fandom ranges from Tolkien to contemporary. Recent screen versions of Rowling's Harry Potter, Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, and Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe have contributed to the subgenre's continuing popularity. Moreover, film adaptations of some novels are in preproduction, such as David Farland's The Runelords, and also Terry Brooks' Magic Kingdom of Landover and The Elfstones of Shannara.
It's a pity we can't have more axes...
Settings are defined by:
Their level of magic: none, low, med, high
Their level of technology: low, medieval, renaissance, indsustrial, modern, future, steampunk.
Their scope: location, region, world, universe, multiverse
Their purpose: adventure, wonder, bureaucracy/intrigue, discovery, survival, horror etc.
Their morality: black/white (high fantasy), gray (low fantasy)
Their realism: gritty, game-ish/artificial (erfworld-esque), cinematic, simulation
Their style: alternative history, classic fantasy, exotic, dystopian
Of course, this system has the downside of not giving any kind of overview of the distribution. But i think we have to set down some definitions for style/setting in the above diagram; isn't pulp and adventure pretty much the same?
I think level of Magic and Tech are good scales to add... Though how you could incorporate 2 more axis on the current chart defies my 2 AM logic node...
I don't think we should define it as "level of magic". Magic is just a type of power, the category should reflect the fact that not all power used is magic.
Okay, level of supernaturality then? Or what did you mean?
and as to the axes, we could have a few keywords in parentheses after each campaign or so...
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowOkay, level of supernaturality then? Or what did you mean?
Probably we should have both a level of supernaturality and a level of "powers". So you could have a high-power low-supernatural setting that has incredible abilities but everything is based on at least pseudo-science, and low-power high-supernatural which is any setting where rather ordinary people have to fight the "supernatural forces".
You could make several tables with different axes. For example...
Table 1:
* Tone (upbeat --- grim)
* Scope (cosmic --- backwoods)
Table 2:
* Technology (futuristic --- primitive)
* Fantasy elements (commonplace --- absent)
Table 3:
* Oddness (OMGWTFBBQ --- the world as we know it)
* Intrigue (high intrigue --- no intrigue)
When i say level of supernaturality i just mean how much it pervades the setting. I can see what you mean by a power axis, but most settings should be able to accomodate many levels of power. The magic axis would be set equally high for a campaign where mages can blow up worlds as one where idiotic but virtually powerless faeries are everywhere.
Don't get me going on frequency distributions of power vs availablity...in my book, that's it's own statistical test.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowWhen i say level of supernaturality i just mean how much it pervades the setting. I can see what you mean by a power axis, but most settings should be able to accomodate many levels of power. The magic axis would be set equally high for a campaign where mages can blow up worlds as one where idiotic but virtually powerless faeries are everywhere.
But there should be a category for settings with nothing supernatural but with the availability of powers and how much.
Power falls into several categories. Whether the residents of the creators realm know which category their power falls into is up to the world builder.
Power of Mortals: Power derived from science, technology, or pure cussed willpower. Most often takes the form of technological wonders.
Power of Nature: Power derived from a neutral force, either a non-sentient presence (such as nature), or one or more powerful and uncaring beings. Often shows up in the form of supernatural abilities.
Power of Divinity: Power derived from a more powerful force or being(s) with their own conflicts and agendas. Tends to be common in many fantasy settings with definite gods.
It's quite possible to model tables/charts with more then 2 axis, its just complicated and doesn't lend itself to a 2d forum.
Now I have to ask a question. Is the source of Power, really that important? Or is it unecessary detail. I'm sure we can make up thousands of filters and tables and graphis etc... The question is, where do we draw the line.
I just wanted to throw that out there before we all get too carried away. More so we can realize the pit were about to step into ~~
The source of the power is all flavor and meaningless to the discussion. What does matter is how much magic affects the society and how common it is.
I don't even get what powers you could be considering silvercat? Either they are supernatural, or included somehow in the tech level.
But it might be useful to say something about how the setting perceives gods. of course, i'm overcomplicating things like i did with magic...
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowI don't even get what powers you could be considering silvercat? Either they are supernatural, or included somehow in the tech level.
But it might be useful to say something about how the setting perceives gods. of course, i'm overcomplicating things like i did with magic...
Overcomplicating things is good but this is a more general chart, not a focused one. :)
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowI don't even get what powers you could be considering silvercat? Either they are supernatural, or included somehow in the tech level.
I think the problem is that I'm defining "supernatural" as akin to "unnatural"/"unscientific". You may be defining it as "beyond what we currently see, whether natural or not".
What I most worry about is lumping powers that are based on a scientific or pseudo-scientific method but NOT technology in with a made up method (e.g. magic/psionics).
I can't see how that would be an issue. Scientific magic still leads to a higher level of "strangeness" in the setting
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowI can't see how that would be an issue. Scientific magic still leads to a higher level of "strangeness" in the setting
I just read one too many sci-fi settings that have allowed themselves to use psionics as if it doesn't destroy their scientific feel.
And are we talking about "strangeness" seen by those within the setting or outside?
What? psionics is still magic. So for a sci-fi setting you would be able to discern whether you'd like it just by looking at whether it had a non-zero magic level.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowWhat? psionics is still magic.
I know, I said that.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowSo for a sci-fi setting you would be able to discern whether you'd like it just by looking at whether it had a non-zero magic level.
But what would I look at to tell me that non-magic powers existed?
but what are non-magic powers?
Where are we drawing the line? What's really real or what can be explained using real or near-real words/ideas?
I see non-magic powers as anything where you do not need to make up words/ideas not found in the laws of physics.
Use a baseline of the real world. If the effect seems magical, then its magic. If the effect is created by technology, then its tech.
And if it's created by both then either it's a form of steampunk... or you're drunk
Cool, so we have now settled the High Magic debate as well as the Tech v Magic debate. Beers all around! :drunk:
I'd like my two settings added... Dystopian Universe should probably show up in two places: under Space/Exploration and Horror/Bureaucracy. As for Haveneast it should probably be in Horror/Wonder.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfUse a baseline of the real world. If the effect seems magical, then its magic. If the effect is created by technology, then its tech.
But what determines what is "magical"? That's a very arbitrary categorization. I would term anything explainable using words/ideas drawn from real physics as "not magic" no matter how weird or outlandish.
Just ask yourself a simple question: would this be possible in our world? If you can answer the question positively, then it's definitely science. If you can answer the question by using an actual theory and possibly feasible theory (time travel, string theory, wormholes etc.) then it would also fall under science (although futuristic or speculative). If you only answer by using theories that are either fictive or disproven it would be magic. (and please don't blame me for my possibly bad examples)
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_ElfUse a baseline of the real world. If the effect seems magical, then its magic. If the effect is created by technology, then its tech.
But what determines what is "magical"? That's a very arbitrary categorization. I would term anything explainable using words/ideas drawn from real physics as "not magic" no matter how weird or outlandish.
Bastardizing a quote from Justice Potter Stewart "I can't define magic, but I know it when I see it."
@EE that's another way to define it easily ^^
I hardly think any of us have a problem determining whether something is magical
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowJust ask yourself a simple question: would this be possible in our world? If you can answer the question positively, then it's definitely science. If you can answer the question by using an actual theory and possibly feasible theory (time travel, string theory, wormholes etc.) then it would also fall under science (although futuristic or speculative). If you only answer by using theories that are either fictive or disproven it would be magic. (and please don't blame me for my possibly bad examples)
Then I could live with "Science" and "Magic" categories, though I really think there should be some way to avoid the confusion one might get from encountering odd powers in a purely Science setting. One thing I don't want science lumped under "Technology".
Quote from: Elemental_ElfBastardizing a quote from Justice Potter Stewart "I can't define magic, but I know it when I see it."
That sort of stance comes down to inexplicable personal preferences that should have no place in categorization.
UPDATE:
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowI hardly think any of us have a problem determining whether something is magical
Relying on personal preferences precludes the preferences of others that may differ from yours. Definitions others give to something is not always the one
you would give.
Okay, SC, you really need to give some examples on odd powers in a science setting that you wouldn't consider magical.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowOkay, SC, you really need to give some examples on odd powers in a science setting that you wouldn't consider magical.
Any power that works purely via the functions of a material reality the operating patterns of which do not allow for anything separate from that reality and especially do not allow for the "thoughts" or "feelings" of any kind of brain to influence them alone.
...what would that include?? Seriously, power is an odd word to use here. Do you count a flamethrower as a power, or are we talking scientific "spells" or what? Give me an example of a scientific "power"
I basically term anything that can arise from inside an object/creature without outside intervention a "power".
Igniting airborn oxygen with your breath is a power. Igniting airborn oxygen with an object (i.e. a flamethrower) you hold is technology.
The difference between breathing fire as a scientific power and breathing fire as a magic power is that magic must eventually invoke an abstract/unproveable concept such as one's "will", whereas the science power will stick to scientifically-provable concepts even if we in the real world do not know of them yet.
Hello. Sorry for the tardiness, I was busy yesterday.
1. Merged Pulp into Steampunk... It didn't seem different enough to warrant a spread out. Pulp generally has a lot of "weird science."
2. Merged Superheroes into Modern... While I think Superheroes really is different; technically their Super powers are magic by any other name. When I list an actual super hero setting I'll make a point to distinguish it from Shadowrun-like settings.
3. All, thank you so much for listing your settings, if you would link to them, that would be appreciated- some of them can be a bit difficult to find.
4. "Eberron should be under Adventure: it's not focused on finding new things but about the action. If the game is significantly about fighting bad guys on you home turf it shouldn't be Dis/Ex. (If you want something you can mention there put down Hollow Earth Expedition.)"
Eberron is difficult to classify. I'll put it in both places. When I run an eberron game, it's often about going to xendrik, the demon wastes, and retrieve X, Y, Z. and make a map, and report what you see.
5. "To get off my subject completely I wonder what would characterize Space Wonder? "
I don't know. It would be interesting to try to create something for that block, though!
6. Thank you for the categories Nomadic. Your category of Dystopian is intriguing. I will think about it for a while. Maybe it will replace discovery and discovery will fold into adventure? I still think discovery and adventure are different enough, though. As for horror, I don't see too much actually fitting under the horror banner the way you described it.
Quote from: Polycarp!I don't think that's a very comprehensive view. The Lord of the Rings is considered the original "high fantasy," but it features swords much more prominently than spells, especially when compared to high fantasy today (the Wheel of Time, for instance). While the presence of magic may be one possible method of distinguishing between high and low fantasy as usually defined, it is certainly not the only way. For instance, one of the traditional defining features of high fantasy is having "the Good" pitted against "the Evil," whether the latter is Sauron, Shaitan, Voldemort, or the White Witch. Low fantasy typically rejects such a dichotomy and favors moral uncertainty, anti-heroes, and sympathetic villains, in order to portray a more "realistic" ethical universe.
That's not the only possible dividing line between High and Low, but the point is that those are comprehensive descriptions of fantasy that have meanings far beyond how widespread magic is.
As for my own setting, I consider it pretty standard Low Fantasy both in terms of magic and morality, though I don't really know whether it would fit better in "exploration" or "wonder" as per the present grid. I guess it depends on how "odd" you find the Clockwork Jungle to be.
I think there are several interpretations of High and Low Fantasy.
that being said, the magic in LoTR is integral to the plot- the one ring. And when people adventure in the LoTR, they undoubtedly emphasize magic.
Perhaps I should retitle the squares "Might" and "Magic" rather than High Fantasy/Low ... to reduce the controversy somewhat?
Thank you!
Quote from: Light DragonPerhaps I should retitle the squares "Might" and "Magic" rather than High Fantasy/Low ... to reduce the controversy somewhat?
How about "Might Focus" and "Magic Focus", just to be better-descriptive?
Quote from: CrowIt's a pity we can't have more axes...
Settings are defined by:
Their level of magic: none, low, med, high
Their level of technology: low, medieval, renaissance, indsustrial, modern, future, steampunk.
Their scope: location, region, world, universe, multiverse
Their purpose: adventure, wonder, bureaucracy/intrigue, discovery, survival, horror etc.
Their morality: black/white (high fantasy), gray (low fantasy)
Their realism: gritty, game-ish/artificial (erfworld-esque), cinematic, simulation
Their style: alternative history, classic fantasy, exotic, dystopian
Of course, this system has the downside of not giving any kind of overview of the distribution. But i think we have to set down some definitions for style/setting in the above diagram; isn't pulp and adventure pretty much the same?
This is interesting... but splitting things up as you note would almost defeat the purpose of clarity and easy-to-see differences.
Re: Silvercat: Might-Focus v. Magic-Focus... Good idea!
Quote from: GhostmanYou could make several tables with different axes. For example...
Table 1:
* Tone (upbeat --- grim)
* Scope (cosmic --- backwoods)
Table 2:
* Technology (futuristic --- primitive)
* Fantasy elements (commonplace --- absent)
Table 3:
* Oddness (OMGWTFBBQ --- the world as we know it)
* Intrigue (high intrigue --- no intrigue)
I will keep this in mind. I like the arrangement, but I do not like the need for 3 tables.
After reviewing everything, I have begun to wonder whether Dystopian is more of a "setting" or a "style"... There seem to be a lot of steampunk dystopian, or modern dystopian, or low fantasy dystopian floating out there. Should I move it to the other axis? I do not think that would solve the problem of double-listing, but would it seem more coherent?
I suppose this is a good argument for Ghostman's solution of more tables... "Tone" seems to be different from setting or style
Dystopian (A terrible place. You are unlikely to win.)
Harsh (A land of struggle, but you can win and gain great honor.)
Neutral or Lazy Morality (Basically Good v. Evil... eternal struggle, no real indepth study). Good is going to win.
Happy (Generally positive vibes even though the world may be bad. Good always wins.)
Utopian (A great place. Almost nothing is wrong. And good will always win.)
Would it be a good idea to take Dystopian out and label every setting either (D), (H), (N), (A), (U)... or would that be too complicated and distract from the chart?
Perhaps place them in different colors?
or you could do as previously mentioned and make 5 tables: one for each tone.
I feel like an applied version of this cube in the form of tags (which would allow for more than two dimensions) would be a powerful reference tool for the site (or just the wiki). I'd put my own CBG-published setting (Wake) in High Fantasy/Wonder-Discovery; it'd be cool if visitors looking for Wake (laugh) or, more likely, Wondrous High Fantasy could find similar settings by theme rather than combing through all of the available content. Similarly, reviewers not interested would know what to avoid before opening it.
Of course, you could theoretically manage wiki pages that mimic a tag, but that requires effort!
would actually be quite brilliant to tag the main pages of each setting on the wiki with its various "attributes"
Crow- the problem with tables is that it makes the classifications too intimidating. Your magic classifications are interesting, but it is not too helpful to understand how things work when the differences are too accentuated. I am trying to classify by a broad stroke.
I think that separating out Tone from Style and Setting makes sense... but after that is done (by colors or letters), I think the chart will be about as complicated as it can be without reducing its utility.
--
Eladris- Great idea. That is what I was hoping to accomplish with this listing- to help myself and others find inspiration or find the type of setting they want to use. I think it can be really useful for casual visitors to the site- to help them make sense of the myriad settings.
--
And I have a new technology idea for Polycarp! here... You know how Images sometimes have "onmouseover" text that will appear- if text on this site could have onmouseover text that appears when the mouse goes over it , then more useful information could be jammed onto the chart.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawThat sort of stance comes down to inexplicable personal preferences that should have no place in categorization.
Actually its one of the big ways the US government defines obscenities, it works a lot better than you'd think.
Quote from: Light Dragon4. "Eberron should be under Adventure: it's not focused on finding new things but about the action. If the game is significantly about fighting bad guys on you home turf it shouldn't be Dis/Ex. (If you want something you can mention there put down Hollow Earth Expedition.)"
Eberron is difficult to classify. I'll put it in both places. When I run an eberron game, it's often about going to xendrik, the demon wastes, and retrieve X, Y, Z. and make a map, and report what you see.
The new 4E Eberron will be emphasizing its Pulp roots, to differentiate it from other 4 E settings (since 4E stabbed Eberron and stole its good ideas).
Another kind of way to organize this would be putting the actual settings on the vertical axis and the qualities describing the settings on the horizontal axis. This way, you need only one table. Here's a quick & dirty example for you:
| Setting | Tone | Fantasy Elements | Tech Level | Style | Morality |
| A Game of Thrones | Grim | Scarce, Low | Medieval | Politics, Intrigue | Ambiguous |
| Hyborian Age | Brutal | Scarce, Low-Medium | Mixed (bronze age to medieval) | Action, Adventure, Horror | Dark Ambiguous |
| Forgotten Realms | Medium | Abundant, High | Renaissance | Action, Adventure, Politics | Simplistic |
| Babylon 5 | Medium | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Hi-Tech Future | Action, Politics, Intrigue | Fairly Ambiguous (initially deceiving) |
| Mad Max | Grim | n/a | Modern Post-Apocalyptic | Action | Rugged Survival |
| Cthulhu | Despair | Scarce, Low-Extreme | Early 20th Century | Horror | n/a |
| Riddick | Brutal | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Hi-Tech Future | Action | Cynical |
Quote from: GhostmanAnother kind of way to organize this would be putting the actual settings on the vertical axis and the qualities describing the settings on the horizontal axis. This way, you need only one table. Here's a quick & dirty example for you:
| Setting | Tone | Fantasy Elements | Tech Level | Style | Morality |
| A Game of Thrones | Grim | Scarce, Low | Medieval | Politics, Intrigue | Ambiguous |
| Hyborian Age | Brutal | Scarce, Low-Medium | Mixed (bronze age to medieval) | Action, Adventure, Horror | Dark Ambiguous |
| Forgotten Realms | Medium | Abundant, High | Renaissance | Action, Adventure, Politics | Simplistic |
| Babylon 5 | Medium | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Hi-Tech Future | Action, Politics, Intrigue | Fairly Ambiguous (initially deceiving) |
| Mad Max | Grim | n/a | Modern Post-Apocalyptic | Action | Rugged Survival |
| Cthulhu | Despair | Scarce, Low-Extreme | Early 20th Century | Horror | n/a |
| Riddick | Brutal | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Hi-Tech Future | Action | Cynical |
That's pretty good, though we'd have to come up with definitions about what words are and are not allowed in each column.
P.S. I'm not sure Babylon 5 was psuedo-fantasy, save for the technomages and the mention of 3 ages...
Quote from: Elemental_ElfActually its one of the big ways the US government defines obscenities, it works a lot better than you'd think.
Not if you don't agree with their choices.
Things can still work if you don't agree with them. Perhaps they could be better, but they can work without being good.
Also relevant to this discussion is the good old setting stat-block:
http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?50164
Ghostman's idea is excellent. Some definitions are in order, though - what's the difference between "brutal," "grim," and "despair?" I think it's a great way to categorize settings, but it would probably be best to set down some standard meanings of words (particularly with regard to tone) to prevent a plethora of near-synonyms.
Edit: Or in other words, exactly what EE said.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowThings can still work if you don't agree with them. Perhaps they could be better, but they can work without being good.
And people can make decisions based upon personal preferences that they then decide everyone else will agree with based on some imagined similarity.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Cataclysmic CrowThings can still work if you don't agree with them. Perhaps they could be better, but they can work without being good.
And people can make decisions based upon personal preferences that they then decide everyone else will agree with based on some imagined similarity.
SCMP what EE was talking about with the Government and obscenities works. That's how we did it back when I was administrating forums and it is effective. The key is to talk with everyone and make sure the definitions are clearly stated
Quote from: NomadicSCMP what EE was talking about with the Government and obscenities works. That's how we did it back when I was administrating forums and it is effective. The key is to talk with everyone and make sure the definitions are clearly stated
And all I'm staying is don't believe a method is objectively good or even necessary just because you can't personally see a problem with the decision.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: NomadicSCMP what EE was talking about with the Government and obscenities works. That's how we did it back when I was administrating forums and it is effective. The key is to talk with everyone and make sure the definitions are clearly stated
And all I'm staying is don't believe a method is objectively good or even necessary just because you can't personally see a problem with the decision.
Name some settings where you see a grey area. We'll use the stated method to determine if its Magic or not.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfName some settings where you see a grey area. We'll use the stated method to determine if its Magic or not.
I wasn't talking about settings in that instance.
And I can't think of a setting that has them. But if we simply use labels that already have one meaning we run the risk of implying that there can never be anything else.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_ElfName some settings where you see a grey area. We'll use the stated method to determine if its Magic or not.
I wasn't talking about settings in that instance.
And I can't think of a setting that has them. But if we simply use labels that already have one meaning we run the risk of implying that there can never be anything else.
But the whole point of the chart is to make generalities about campaign settings and books. By being general, it precludes the addition of too much specificity because most specific examples will be covered by the general types we have listed.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfBut the whole point of the chart is to make generalities about campaign settings and books. By being general, it precludes the addition of too much specificity because most specific examples will be covered by the general types we have listed.
Then shouldn't the word used be more general than "magic", especially since that word already has certain connotations?
Quote from: GhostmanAnother kind of way to organize this would be putting the actual settings on the vertical axis and the qualities describing the settings on the horizontal axis. This way, you need only one table. Here's a quick & dirty example for you:
| Setting | Tone | Fantasy Elements | Tech Level | Style | Morality |
| A Game of Thrones | Grim | Scarce, Low | Medieval | Politics, Intrigue | Ambiguous |
| Hyborian Age | Brutal | Scarce, Low-Medium | Mixed (bronze age to medieval) | Action, Adventure, Horror | Dark Ambiguous |
| Forgotten Realms | Medium | Abundant, High | Renaissance | Action, Adventure, Politics | Simplistic |
| Babylon 5 | Medium | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Hi-Tech Future | Action, Politics, Intrigue | Fairly Ambiguous (initially deceiving) |
| Mad Max | Grim | n/a | Modern Post-Apocalyptic | Action | Rugged Survival |
| Cthulhu | Despair | Scarce, Low-Extreme | Early 20th Century | Horror | n/a |
| Riddick | Brutal | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Hi-Tech Future | Action | Cynical |
-That is a good solution which permits proper display of the settings.
-However, I am not certain that it does what I wanted- which was to provide an easy way to see at a glance the major differences between settings and to see what is vaguely and generally specific. (Or to be easily searchable... once could use FIND... but that is a bit inelegant) This spreadsheet could quickly become a hunt and peck wall of text. (If only we could have EXCEL built in to the forums to do a SORT...)
I like it, but I do not know if it is optimal to display what I am trying to do.
-That being said, if someone else wanted to cross-classify using your system, so that we have two different styles of charts to present the roughly the same information in different graphical ways, that would be very useful!
-I think that limiting the adjectives for each square to 4-5 would work well.. any more than that would make it difficult to paint broad strokes and would lead to overlapping adjectives.
I think the matrix works wonderfully the way it is. It fits both of my settings quite well, and with the option to show different colors to declare it's in multiple columns, you can't really miss any aspect of the setting. In its current rendition it'd be a very nice way to showcase all of the registered settings either on the homepage or through one link from it to help new people look for specific ones to read and to allow longtime members to compare settings underlying structures.
I like the way the material is presented in the first matrix rather than Ghostmans simply because it groups similar settings.
I think we should use both; one to give a general overview, and one to differentiate the settings a bit. So people would go to table 1 to check what they settings they would probably be interested in, and then table 2 to figure out which one of them they should read.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowI think we should use both; one to give a general overview, and one to differentiate the settings a bit. So people would go to table 1 to check what they settings they would probably be interested in, and then table 2 to figure out which one of them they should read.
(http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/7268/crowftw.png)
CCrow- That's what I was suggesting. :)
All- thank you for the tacit approval of my system as well. :)
Interesting thread. I'll play the game:
Eschaton (http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Eschaton) is historical fantasy. I might also call it Dark Fantasy or Alternate History.
Probably this means Low-Fantasy (or Medium Fantasy??), Bureaucracy. Not sure how to reflect Dark Fantasy, because dystopian implies things I'm not sure I'd want to imply, and it's certainly not horror. Of course parts of the tales edge into Wonder.
Quote from: Light DragonCCrow- That's what I was suggesting. :)
Ahh, yes, i was just agreeing with that option. Didn't mean to take all the praise for your idea. :)
I'm a bit late to the party, so if you don't want to change things around dramatically, that's fine-- but this system doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.
Star Wars is a "Bureaucracy"? That doesn't seem to be the focus in any of the movies. What if something is horror, with high magic? Or high magic in space like Spelljammer? Right now, Spelljammer and Firefly/Serenity are in the same box, despite being very, very different. I don't see how Shadowrun isn't "Dystopian," either-- some of these are subjective distinctions, I admit, but I think that the real problem here is that categories aren't a real matrix, because there's no real way to define what your categories are.
My suggestion, to try to fix it with a minimum of upheaval, is to make the rows correspond to the level of development of the civilization (akin to Ghostman's tech level column, GURPS Tech Level, etc.), and the columns correspond to the general tone of the setting (somewhat like your Style, Ghostman's Style and Morality columns, etc.)
I'm not sure yet whether it'd be better to have the magic level be part of the level of development, or encoded by some other means. In the case of "Fantasy," I think that "High Fantasy/Magic Focus" and "Low Fantasy/Might Focus" are both viable, important categories and probably should both be included. However, in higher levels of technological development, a note that the setting got there by means other than what we conventionally understand as technology might work better, somewhat like GURPS' "+" tech levels. Spelljammer could also benefit from this disambiguation, as it's something of a "Space adventure," but with a very different means of flying through space.
I suppose I'm a bit biased in making sure to include some notation for the alternate development of different development/technology levels, too, by my own setting Crystalstar, which I'd categorize generally as somewhat like pulp adventure/sci-fi, but based on crystal-based technomagery rather than conventional science. (or even conventional magic)
Just a few random thoughts, I guess. :D
Good thoughts nonetheless.
Although i concur with our previous definitions of high fantasy and low fantasy, i would like to argue that only high fantasy is a necessary style. Something being high fantasy alludes to a specific stereotype. Saying that something is low fantasy is similar to stating that it isn't high fantasy.
So an idea for a "cleaner" matrix: genre out of one axis and type out of the other. So types would be factions (setting covered in cities, nations and/or controlled by powerful factions), apocalyptic (ruined worlds), pulp (exciting and dangerous worlds), oddity (campaigns with high to extreme levels of originality), good vs. Evil (very classical stuff)
Genres could be: sci-fi (scientifically possible futures or alternate worlds), space opera (less serious sci-fi), fantasy (standard magical world), high fantasy (swords, gods & sorcery ad libitum), grim (alternate realistic world), alt. History (different timeline, but our world)
well, it's almost the same... but somewhat cleaner. perhaps. I'll let you decide.
I think that's definitely closer to workable, CC. Of course we might specify more distinctions within sci-fi, as well. Or maybe hard sci-fi and space operas are broad enough?
Hmm, yeah, we just have to take into account we can't make infinitely long axes. Okay, one of them could be quite long, but the other is somewhat limited by page width.
But we should probably add/remove some types and genres before it's perfect.
I think hard sci-fi and space opera is good enough though for sci-fi distinctions.
What about Sci-Fantasy?
Wouldn't that just be a subgroup of space opera?
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowWouldn't that just be a subgroup of space opera?
I suppose. Most sci-fantasies are space operas, but you could have space opera without sci-fantasy, and even sci-fantasy without space.
hmm, let's go into that discussion when we have settings that necessitate it ^^
I've put some effort on better categorization. This should be able to cover just about everything discussed here so far, and thus might be bloated. The idea is that each heading (marked in red) corresponds to some aspect of a setting, while the types that fall under the heading describe how that setting handles said aspect. Feel free to critique and suggest improvements on this!
Fantasticity measures how abundant the various fantasy elements are within the setting and how much attention is placed on them.
* Mundane: There are no fantasy elements at all.
* Rare Fantasy: Fantasy elements are scarce and more of a backdrop than the focus, though they may take the spotlight occasionally.
* Common Fantasy: Fantasy elements are very common, perhaps even part of the everyday life of some characters. They are often the focus of stories.
* Absolute Fantasy: The setting is utterly fantastic.
Fantasy Strength measures how 'powerful' these elements are.
* Weak Fantasy: Fantasy elements present in the setting are ultimately of little consequence to the world at large. Things would not change much if they were removed.
* Medium Fantasy: Fantasy elements have significant influence on the setting; many things about society, technology etc. would be very different if they were removed.
* Strong Fantasy: The setting's internal structures rest heavily on the presence of one or more fantasy elements. Without them, the flavour of the setting might be drastically altered or the setting may even lose it's raison d'etre.
Technology refers to the flavour (not the same thing as level) of technology in the setting. A setting may have more than one type of tech flavour in it.
* No Tech: There is no technology at all.
* Primitive: Technology is comparable to the Stone Age.
* Ancient
* Medieval
* Early Modern
* Modern: From the near past to the near future.
* Hi-Tech: Technology clearly more advanced and complex than contemporary times. Speculative but still reasonably explainable.
* Super Tech: Extremely advanced and complex technology. Clarke's third law may apply.
* Steampunk: Technology takes an intentionally unrealistic flavour, with focus on weird steam-based inventions.
* Magitech: Magic and technology are blended, possibly to the point where they become indistinguishable.
* Other possible types: Biotech, Jules Vernean
Morality refers to how moral issues are vieved by the setting.
* Simplistic: Morality is presented as clear-cut, black and white, good vs evil - or by using some other comparably simple structure.
* Ambiguous: Morality is painted in shades of gray.
* Cynical: Morality is sidelined; characters are motivated only by their interests and base desires, even if they convince others (and/or themselves) to believe otherwise.
Focus refers to the things that the setting highlights over others. A setting may have more than one focus.
* Politics: The structures of power within and between societies, and the people who influence them.
* Intrigue: Complex plots and schemes, conspiracies, betrayal etc.
* Action: Danger and excitement.
* Horror: Focus on invoking suspence and dread.
* Other possible types: Drama, Mystery, Humor, Romance.
Style, aka here goes all the stuff I couldn't fit under other headings x. A setting may correspond to any number of these, or none...
* Survival
* Post-apocalyptic
* Weird
* Cinematic
* Superhero
* Fairy Tale
* Pulp
* Space Opera
That looks very nice :D
Of course, it should be used as the second more detailed table and not the general overview one. So this one we can bloat all we want :p
Maybe a line on divinity or realism? or we could have tone/bleakness to account for dystopias and utopias?
Oh, and i love the word fantasticity now.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowOh, and i love the word fantasticity now.
Yeah. It's fantasticitytic.
I don't think "naive" is a good term for black-and-white morals because the term itself is pejorative. You may well feel those that believe moral absolutism are naive, but that doesn't mean we want to call a setting with traditional morality a "naive" category setting.
Quote from: PhoenixI don't think "naive" is a good term for black-and-white morals
Alright, it is dubbed simplistic now.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowMaybe a line on divinity or realism?
Could you clarify what you mean by this?
Divinity would be how the setting views the divine: do gods exist, do they grant powers, do people only believe in their ancestor spirits? (okay, the two first might be the most relevant)
Realism would be a heading where you could fit cinematic in, as well as simulationist (settings meant to depict alternative worlds with excessive amounts of detail), game-ish (settings that intentionally take distance to reality; erfworld for example, most old pc-game settings, and perhaps some cyberpunk settings), or realistic (the less extreme version of simulationist).
I'm not sure I fully grasp the difference between Fantasticity and Fantasy Strength. So "Weak Absolute" would be a world that is "utterly fantastic," but where fantasy is of little consequence to the rest of the world? What about a "Strong Rare" situation in which the setting "rests heavily" on fantasy elements, but those elements are "scarce" and seldom leave the backdrop?
How does this work, exactly?
Hmm, it's the difference between a game where every small rodent can talk, teleport and glow in the dark, and an example of the other end of the spectrum could be a WoD-like campaign where the players take the roles of strange supernatural creatures in an otherwise normal world.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowDivinity would be how the setting views the divine: do gods exist, do they grant powers, do people only believe in their ancestor spirits? (okay, the two first might be the most relevant)
Keep in mind that a single setting can include limitless number of different kinds of faiths. Defining
what people believe in is getting a little too detailed IMO. Much better to stick to a vague concept of divinity and just measure it's 'realness' in the context of the setting. Like so:
Divinity refers to things that are beleived to be supernatural and religiously significant by the inhabitants of a setting.
*
Non-religious: Religion is absent in the setting.
*
Fake Divinity: Religion exists, but any divinities featured in it are either imaginary or simply mundane things that are wrongly elevated to status of divinity.
*
Passive Divinity: Divine things are real but do not play an active role in the setting.
*
Active Divinity: Divine things are real and actively influence the setting.
*
Obscure Divinity: The realness of divinity in the setting is left unknown.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowRealism would be a heading where you could fit cinematic in, as well as simulationist (settings meant to depict alternative worlds with excessive amounts of detail), game-ish (settings that intentionally take distance to reality; erfworld for example, most old pc-game settings, and perhaps some cyberpunk settings), or realistic (the less extreme version of simulationist).
I'm still confused about this. Do you mean realism in terms of what is realistic in the real world, or do you mean settings that have established sets of rules for what's realistic in that setting VS those that don't? Either way I'm not sure if this really needs it's own category.
Quote from: Polycarp!I'm not sure I fully grasp the difference between Fantasticity and Fantasy Strength. So "Weak Absolute" would be a world that is "utterly fantastic," but where fantasy is of little consequence to the rest of the world? What about a "Strong Rare" situation in which the setting "rests heavily" on fantasy elements, but those elements are "scarce" and seldom leave the backdrop?
I'll give you that neither the commonness nor the strength of fantasy elements should say anything about how much focus is given to the elements - because that really depends on
both aspects, and can also vary wildly from story to story.
A world of "Weak Absolute fantasy" isn't very likely, but not inconceivable. Imagine a world that's just like ours, except that all shapes are deformed (like seen reflected by an amusement park mirror) and constantly changing colors. And that despite these deformations, everything still functions the same way as in reality (laws of physics being replaced by laws of oddness that MAKE it all work just so). This world is utterly fantastic because almost
nothing in it is truly familiar or 'realistic'. Yet, all the differences to our reality are ultimately superficial, bearing no real influence on how the world works. A character in this world could live his life the same way as one in our world would, going through the same situations and events, meeting the same people and making the same choises. Granted, this example isn't very interesting, and probably the combination isn't useful for more than mental exercises.
A less extreme example could be a world where common everyday appliances are replaced by minor magical spells taught to people in school. These spells accomplish exactly the same things as the appliances would (and nothing more). So despite being all over the place, the magics don't result in huge consequences - just some minor savings in electricity and the like.
As for a world of "Strong Rare fantasy", imagine a handful of magical smurfs with godlike powers invaded through a dimensional portal and enslaved mankind. These smurfs are the
only fantasy element around, yet their presense and actions are what defines the setting and drives the stories taking place in it.
I like this sort of categorization. Sure it could get bloated but so far I don't think it's too bad. As an example my setting would look like:
Name - Fantasticity - Fantasy Strength - Technology - Morality - Focus - Style - Divinity
Mare Eternus - Absolute Fantasy - Strong Fantasy - Steampunk/Magitech - Ambiguous - Mystery - Wonder/Weird - Obscure Divinity
Although i find it far from bloated, i do fear that it comes off as a bit too complex. I'm not sure the fantasticity and fantasy strength will appeal to everybody, or even helps as such. We should perhaps just dump it.
Also, technology should perhaps be used to describe how advanced the culture is rather than what technology they utilize. None-Primitive-medieval-renaissance-industrial-modern-advanced-futuristic.
Steampunk could be industrial but it might as well be futuristic.
Also, just having a "misc." section seems somewhat low.
What alternatives are there to the fantasticity & fantasy strength division? We've already seen here that the "High Fantasy" and "Low Fantasy" stereotypes are just confusing people. But there should be some way to give an idea of how much a setting dabbles with fantasy elements.
And I see problems with the idea of replacing technology types with culture types. What if someone makes a setting that has technology similar to renaissance era (incl. gunpowder and all), but culture and society is mostly inspired by pharaonic Egypt?
Quote from: GhostmanWhat alternatives are there to the fantasticity & fantasy strength division? We've already seen here that the "High Fantasy" and "Low Fantasy" stereotypes are just confusing people. But there should be some way to give an idea of how much a setting dabbles with fantasy elements.
And I see problems with the idea of replacing technology types with culture types. What if someone makes a setting that has technology similar to renaissance era (incl. gunpowder and all), but culture and society is mostly inspired by pharaonic Egypt?
Then its tech level would be listed as Renaissance. The tech level just gauges how advanced a setting is, not what culture derived the tech.
Well, both fantasticity and fantasy strength both describe prevalence. One how often it is seen and one how often it is featured. They both describe a level of magic(-ity). a world where everything is twisted and a world where every player plays a vampire both have a high level of magicity, but in different ways. I'm not sure we need that division.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: GhostmanWhat alternatives are there to the fantasticity & fantasy strength division? We've already seen here that the "High Fantasy" and "Low Fantasy" stereotypes are just confusing people. But there should be some way to give an idea of how much a setting dabbles with fantasy elements.
And I see problems with the idea of replacing technology types with culture types. What if someone makes a setting that has technology similar to renaissance era (incl. gunpowder and all), but culture and society is mostly inspired by pharaonic Egypt?
Then its tech level would be listed as Renaissance. The tech level just gauges how advanced a setting is, not what culture derived the tech.
What about a tech that is both low and high at the same time (like steampunk). You might need a separate category for that.
I believe that separate category IS called steampunk :p
For simplicity sake, I prefer some kind of matrix style thing. Its good, its intuitive, nice too look at. Even if there has to be 2-3 matrix, while a lot of work. I think its better then having each setting with a bunch of labels under it.
Quote from: NomadicWhat about a tech that is both low and high at the same time (like steampunk). You might need a separate category for that.
I thought about this, because my own campaign setting mixes very primitive and fairly advanced technology. A type like "varied" sounds good, but it doesn't actually describe anything except that the technology is varied (thus, a steampunk setting and a setting that has lasers but is otherwise bronze age would have the same descriptor). A better solution is to simply state what the blend is; in the Clockwork Jungle's case, I'd probably just put "Ancient-Renaissance" because technology ranges between these two extremes depending on what kind of technology you're talking about.
yeah, we can use slashes if necessary, but steampunk usually describes a specific period and can apply to any setting from industrial and up that involves steam. If you have steam FTL travel, then it's still future technology no matter whether it runs on steam or not.
What if we give each entry a "rank" from 1-10 on how much/strong/prevalent/rich the setting is in the Catagory, that way we can argue if Dark Sun is 2 or a 4 in tech level instead of the definitions of the terms we are using to describe. Lemmy see if i can wing an example of what i mean..
Tu'loras
Magic - 6 Tech - 3 Morality - 6 Heroics - 8 Realistic - 8
Divine Influence - 4 Plot - 8
You would have define (give examples) of what a 10 in magic setting is; a 5, and 1. 0 = no magic/supernatural (Prachett's Discworld, LOTR, Earth History (Myth only) respectively???)
Tech 10 - Ancients of Stargate
5 - modern earth
1 - bronze age/agriculture
0 = Hunter/gatherer
one set of examples for 10,5,1 (if in a matrix the examples would be the "other well known works" that we were adding to the matrix at the beginning)
Columns of the table being the categories, and then the rows across representing 1-10. Each world put in the matrix would show up once on each column.
Technically steampunk isn't a setting where tech runs on steam (that's industrial revolution tech level). Steampunk is a flavor born from the clunky yet elegant feel of brass, glass, chugging gears, pumping pistons, and all the rest of that good stuff that gives it that particular feel.
Quote from: Polycarp!Quote from: NomadicWhat about a tech that is both low and high at the same time (like steampunk). You might need a separate category for that.
I thought about this, because my own campaign setting mixes very primitive and fairly advanced technology. A type like "varied" sounds good, but it doesn't actually describe anything except that the technology is varied (thus, a steampunk setting and a setting that has lasers but is otherwise bronze age would have the same descriptor). A better solution is to simply state what the blend is; in the Clockwork Jungle's case, I'd probably just put "Ancient-Renaissance" because technology ranges between these two extremes depending on what kind of technology you're talking about.
The problem with that is that most settings have a mix bag of tech levels, even our own world suffered from this problem. While Europe was beginning a massive technological upheval, there were still large swaths of the world that did not know how to make iron, or even mastered rudimentary farming. The point is that if you cast your net too widely, multiple campaigns can be had in any world.
Personally, I think steampunk is a viable term for tech level since it codifies a lot of themes.
However I'd say we should have a set number of words that can be put in teh tech slot. A setting's tech can be defined by any combination of those terms.
Quote from: LathWhat if we give each entry a "rank" from 1-10 on how much/strong/prevalent/rich the setting is in the Catagory
This might work with some aspects, but there's a risk of dumbing things down if you try to express qualities with numbers. I'd rather stick to descriptive words.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowWell, both fantasticity and fantasy strength both describe prevalence. One how often it is seen and one how often it is featured. They both describe a level of magic(-ity). a world where everything is twisted and a world where every player plays a vampire both have a high level of magicity, but in different ways. I'm not sure we need that division.
Fantasy Strength doesn't describe how often something is featured, it describes how significant the fantasy elements are. I think the division is needed, because you can have worlds that are chock full of fantasy but where most of it is superficial, and worlds where there's very little fantasy but those few bits count for much. It's kind of like the difference between a world where everyone is a weak magic user, and another where only a few people can use magic at all but they are extremely powerful - just that we're talking about fantasy elements in general, not only magic. If we only had one term describing the prevalence of fantasy elements, we would not be able to represent this difference.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI'd say we should have a set number of words that can be put in teh tech slot. A setting's tech can be defined by any combination of those terms.
That sounds good to me. In fact, we could make most of the terms work in this way. We could even roll the Fantasticity and Fantasy Strength into a single column by filling each slot under it with two words, eg. 'Rare-Strong', 'Common-Weak', 'Common-Strong' and so on.
The downside is that the slots will have more stuff inside them. But even so this should be less of a problem than with the other matrix form, where settings go into the slots (could could potentially end up with
lots of settings in one slot) since the number of words will be limited.
I still think that, from a setting maker's perspective, you don't really need the two. But it could perhaps work if we roll it together in one column as you suggest.
I do think you need the two. Without both of them for example you couldn't describe either my UR or vreeg's Celtricia, both of which have magic everywhere but the magic tends to more often be weak and/or mundane.
I do like the idea of rolling them together though as that's removes some of the complexity of extra categories while still maintaining needed description.
Note: First chart updated (only with a few links and requested adds. I think I added all who requested.)
I think 2 are needed. One is a general categorization of settings, clumping them by a similar feel. While the second chart is a more detailed look into each individual setting.
It sounds complicated but in reality it isn't.
in the updated matrix a MINOR change if time, Forgotten Realms 3rd Ok Bureaucracy, can we list 2nd Edition FR as discovery/exploration, maybe more might focused (more fighters before magic power creep) i dunno. Just the two FR as so different. more different than 3.5 and 4e..
Quote from: Lathin the updated matrix a MINOR change if time, Forgotten Realms 3rd Ok Bureaucracy, can we list 2nd Edition FR as discovery/exploration, maybe more might focused (more fighters before magic power creep) i dunno. Just the two FR as so different. more different than 3.5 and 4e..
If you're going that far, you may as well include the 4E Realms, which are more High Fantasy Adventure, as there are good Kingdoms and Evil kingdoms now and a lot of empty space between them.
Alright, I've got a revised table here, with settings ripped from Light Dragon's matrix. Damn lot of work to make it x.
Style - corresponds to the 'Style' axis in Light Dragon's matrix.
*
Adventure*
Bureaucracy*
Discovery/Exploration*
Wonder*
Survival (not in LD's matrix)
Genre - corresponds to the 'Setting' axis in Light Dragon's matrix.
*
Dystopian*
High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)*
Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)*
Horror*
Modern / Superheroes*
Space*
Steampunk / Pulp*
Weird*
Fairy Tale (not in LD's matrix)
Tone - general feel of the setting.
*
Lighthearted*
Medium*
GrimFantasticity - how common fantasy elements are, and how significant/powerful they are. Both qualities should be included (separate with a | character).
*
Absent/Rare/Common/Ubiquitous: Measures the commonness; from non-fantasy to utterly fantastic worlds.
*
Weak/Medium/Strong Measures the significance/power of the elements.
Technology - the flavour of technology in the setting. Instead of a single type, a setting may have a range of tech types or a mix of them.
*
No Tech*
Stone Age*
Ancient*
Medieval: Dark Ages to Renaissance
*
Pre-modern (I think a better name is needed here)
*
Modern: Early 20th century to contemporary times.
*
Futuristic*
Steampunk: Technology takes an intentionally unrealistic flavour, with focus on weird steam-based/clockwork inventions.
*
Magitech: Magic and technology are blended, possibly to the point where they become indistinguishable.
Morality - how moral issues are presented by the setting.
*
Simplistic: Morality is presented as clear-cut good vs evil - or using some other simple structure.
*
Ambiguous: Morality is painted in shades of gray.
*
Cynical: Morality is sidelined; characters are motivated only by their interests and base desires, even if they convince others (and/or themselves) to believe otherwise.
Focus - what the setting highlights.
*
Politics/Intrigue*
Action*
Horror*
Drama*
Mystery*
Humor*
RomanceDivinity - how the setting presents things that are beleived to be supernatural and given religious significance by it's inhabitants.
*
n/a: Religion is absent in the setting.
*
Fake Divinity: Religion exists, but any divinities featured in it are either imaginary or simply mundane things that are wrongly elevated to status of divinity.
*
Passive Divinity: Divine things are real but do not play an active role in the setting.
*
Active Divinity: Divine things are real and actively influence the setting.
*
Obscure Divinity: The realness of divinity in the setting is left unknown.
I'll be needing help with filling all these slots...
[spoiler=The Big Giant Table of Settings]
Setting Name[/th]
[th]
Style[/th]
[th]
Genre[/th]
[th]
Tone[/th]
[th]
Fantasticity[/th]
[th]
Technology[/th]
[th]
Morality[/th]
[th]
Focus[/th]
[th]
Divinity[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]
Changeling: The Dreaming[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Dystopian[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Reth Jaleract (Kindling)[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Dystopian[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Knife's Edge (Kindling)[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Dystopian[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
The World of Arga (Leetz)[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Dystopian[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Tempter (Steerpike)[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Dystopian[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Ambiguous?[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Dark Sun[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Dystopian[/td]
[td]Grim[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Discworld of Tu'loras (Lath)[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Dystopian[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
The Cadaverous Earth (Steerpike)[/td]
[td]Wonder[/td]
[td]Dystopian, Horror[/td]
[td]Grim[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Ambiguous, Cynical?[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][th]
Setting Name[/th]
[th]
Style[/th]
[th]
Genre[/th]
[th]
Tone[/th]
[th]
Fantasticity[/th]
[th]
Technology[/th]
[th]
Morality[/th]
[th]
Focus[/th]
[th]
Divinity[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]
World of Darkness: Dark Ages[/td]
[td]Wonder[/td]
[td]Dystopian[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Dragonlance[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td]Medium-Lighthearted?[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Medieval[/td]
[td]Simplistic?[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
The Lord of the Rings[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Medieval[/td]
[td]Simplistic?[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Mystara[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Common | Strong?[/td]
[td]Medieval?[/td]
[td]Simplistic?[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Celtricia[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Exalted[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Forgotten Realms[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td]Medium[/td]
[td]Common | Strong[/td]
[td]Medieval[/td]
[td]Simplistic[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
World of Ethshar (book: Watt-Evans)[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][th]
Setting Name[/th]
[th]
Style[/th]
[th]
Genre[/th]
[th]
Tone[/th]
[th]
Fantasticity[/th]
[th]
Technology[/th]
[th]
Morality[/th]
[th]
Focus[/th]
[th]
Divinity[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]
The Hobbit[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Planescape[/td]
[td]Wonder[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Simplistic[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
The Bronze Setting (Llum)[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Conan/Hyborian Age[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)[/td]
[td]Grim-Medium[/td]
[td]Rare | Medium[/td]
[td]Ancient-Medieval[/td]
[td]Ambiguous, Cynical[/td]
[td]Action, Horror[/td]
[td]Fake/Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Eschaton (Phoenix)[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Greyhawk[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Medieval[/td]
[td]Simplistic[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
A Game of Thrones (book: George RR Martin)[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)[/td]
[td]Grim[/td]
[td]Rare | Weak-Medium[/td]
[td]Medieval[/td]
[td]Ambiguous, Cynical[/td]
[td]Politics/Intrigue[/td]
[td]Obscure Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Lords of Dus (book: Watt-Evans)[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][th]
Setting Name[/th]
[th]
Style[/th]
[th]
Genre[/th]
[th]
Tone[/th]
[th]
Fantasticity[/th]
[th]
Technology[/th]
[th]
Morality[/th]
[th]
Focus[/th]
[th]
Divinity[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]
The Clockwork Jungle (Polycarp)[/td]
[td]Wonder[/td]
[td]Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Ravenloft[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Horror[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Horror[/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Dystopian Universe (Biohazard)[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Horror[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
World of Darkness[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Horror, Modern / Superheroes[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Haveneast (Biohazard)[/td]
[td]Wonder[/td]
[td]Horror[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Shadowrun[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Modern / Superheroes[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
WonderWorld (Light Dragon)[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Modern / Superheroes[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Firefly/Serenity[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Space[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][th]
Setting Name[/th]
[th]
Style[/th]
[th]
Genre[/th]
[th]
Tone[/th]
[th]
Fantasticity[/th]
[th]
Technology[/th]
[th]
Morality[/th]
[th]
Focus[/th]
[th]
Divinity[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]
Spelljammer[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Space[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Space[/td]
[td]Medium[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Futuristic[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Politics/Intrigue, Drama[/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Star Wars[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Space[/td]
[td]Medium[/td]
[td]Rare | Medium[/td]
[td]Futuristic[/td]
[td]Simplistic[/td]
[td]Action, Drama[/td]
[td]Passive Divinity (The Force)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Dystopian Universe (Biohazard)[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Space[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Spaceships, Sixguns, and Cyclopean Horrors (Steerpike)[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Space[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Star Trek: Voyager[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Space[/td]
[td]Medium[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Futuristic[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Eberron[/td]
[td]Adventure, Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Steampunk / Pulp[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Castle Falkenstein [/td]
[td]Adventure, Wonder[/td]
[td]Steampunk / Pulp[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][th]
Setting Name[/th]
[th]
Style[/th]
[th]
Genre[/th]
[th]
Tone[/th]
[th]
Fantasticity[/th]
[th]
Technology[/th]
[th]
Morality[/th]
[th]
Focus[/th]
[th]
Divinity[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]
Hollow Earth Expedition[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Steampunk / Pulp[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Masque of the Red Death[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Steampunk / Pulp[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Etherscope[/td]
[td]Wonder[/td]
[td]Steampunk / Pulp[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Mare Eternus (Nomadic)[/td]
[td]Wonder[/td]
[td]Steampunk / Pulp[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Xell: Chimera City (Steerpike)[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Weird[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Changeling: The Dreaming[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Weird[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Fluxworld (Steerpike)[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Weird[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Alice in Wonderland (GrimGrin)[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Weird[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][th]
Setting Name[/th]
[th]
Style[/th]
[th]
Genre[/th]
[th]
Tone[/th]
[th]
Fantasticity[/th]
[th]
Technology[/th]
[th]
Morality[/th]
[th]
Focus[/th]
[th]
Divinity[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]
Cthulhu Mythos[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Horror, Weird[/td]
[td]Grim[/td]
[td]Rare | Weak-Strong[/td]
[td]Modern[/td]
[td]Ambiguous[/td]
[td]Horror[/td]
[td]Fake/Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Gloria (Light Dragon)[/td]
[td]Wonder[/td]
[td]Weird[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
The Land of Oz[/td]
[td]Wonder[/td]
[td]Weird[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td][/tr]
[/table]
[/spoiler]
I could cut the 'Style' and 'Genre' columns out, since that information is already included in LD's matrix (although he doesn't list as many options as I do, and some of the settings obviously fall to more than just the categories he currently has them listed under).
Looks good so far.
Quote from: Ghostman* Pre-modern (I think a better name is needed here)
Discovery/Industrial.
Ghostman- since you have horror up there twice, I would suggest taking it out of Genre and leaving it in Focus. (Or vice versa)
I am not convinced Magitech should be a category. If it is a future setting, Magitech is Futuristic. If it is in the past, then it is probably Steampunk.
I see fairy tale genre as in the weird genre- and if you are trying to cover it by saying that fairy tale has simple morality, that's already covered by one of your other matrices.
-
I'll make a note to myself to add in the other editions of Forgotten Realms. Thank you.
You know, these tables might be much more appropiate for the wiki than the forum here. If they were in the wiki, then people could simply edit them to fill in their setting's details. On the forum we either need someone to maintain the tables for everyone else, or allow them to be copy-pasted on new posts every time someone wants to edit/add something.
Oops. I cross edited. I also added:
"I see fairy tale genre as in the weird genre- and if you are trying to cover it by saying that fairy tale has simple morality, that's already covered by one of your other matrices."
Well, perhaps they might be appropriate for the wiki, but first we'd have to get the categories solidified so that there is not a chaotic scramble of definition. Everyone will have to be limited to one choice per category.
Quote from: Light DragonI am not convinced Magitech should be a category. If it is a future setting, Magitech is Futuristic. If it is in the past, then it is probably Steampunk.
Magitech is not necessarily futuristic. It could easily be modern-like tech fused with magic, or something even less advanced.
You may be right that horror as a focus is redundant.
Stone tools with animal spirits in them might be magitech?
Did we add this to a wiki or should we try and comment on the settings here?
The table is looking pretty good now btw. About fantasy strength: does it describe how important it is to the setting as a whole or to the setting from the settingmakers viewpoint? Where would you put World of Darkness where magic is not necessarily common, but seems common because it is the focus of the setting?
I will edit the results into my second post if you post a filled out table up here with a few examples, Ghostman.
I think it would be worthwhile for it to catalogue about 15 systems- 7 famous systems and 8 from the forums here to give people a starting idea on how to quantify their settings on the wiki or in posts on the board here.
Still, I think Ghostman's table needs a little more hammering out before it is used. :)
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowSo an idea for a "cleaner" matrix: genre out of one axis and type out of the other. So types would be factions (setting covered in cities, nations and/or controlled by powerful factions), apocalyptic (ruined worlds), pulp (exciting and dangerous worlds), oddity (campaigns with high to extreme levels of originality), good vs. Evil (very classical stuff)
Genres could be: sci-fi (scientifically possible futures or alternate worlds), space opera (less serious sci-fi), fantasy (standard magical world), high fantasy (swords, gods & sorcery ad libitum), grim (alternate realistic world), alt. History (different timeline, but our world)
well, it's almost the same... but somewhat cleaner. perhaps. I'll let you decide.
@LD. I realize we are quite far in the process, and i hate to be self-aggrandizing or anything like that, but don't you think this would work better all in all? (as the simple matrix). It got some early praise (okay, only from Phoenix) but i think it got lost in all the other messages.
Feel free to disagree if you are not of the same opinion.
Hi. I actually missed that post.
That being said, I think I will keep what I have... Why?
Good v. Evil=Adventure
Factions=Bureaucracy
Pulp=Discovery
Odd=Wonder
Apocalyptic--- is new.
For your genres:
Sci Fi=I prefer to lump them all in one batch, considering how few there are.
Fantasy=Might Fantasy
High Fantasy=Magic Fantasy
Grim=Dystopian
Alt History=May be worth adding...but I think it is covered by the others
The one change I have been entertaining to my chart is to remove Dystopian from the axis and give everything either a color or a letter to indicate if the setting is TONE: (1) Utopian, (2) Good/Evil, (3) Neutral, (4) Dystopian
But thank you, regardless.
i can see your points, although i'm not sure you can call pulp discovery as such. I do think you should add apocalyptic as a style, as there is no way to differentiate between sci-fi and fantasy apocalypses. Also, having both wonder and weird seems like overkill. I think weird should be removed (although we would have to find an alternative of course which makes it a somewhat moot suggestion for now). And why do you say pulp = discovery if you have pulp under the setting headings in the left column?
And maybe you should add the definitions for my corresponding types/styles so it is clarified what each style means since we have agreed they are pretty much the same.
The tone idea is pretty brilliant though :D A very clever way to get three axes.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowAbout fantasy strength: does it describe how important it is to the setting as a whole or to the setting from the settingmakers viewpoint? Where would you put World of Darkness where magic is not necessarily common, but seems common because it is the focus of the setting?
It's not about focus, just importance to the setting/universe.
Quote from: Light DragonI will edit the results into my second post if you post a filled out table up here with a few examples, Ghostman.
I think it would be worthwhile for it to catalogue about 15 systems- 7 famous systems and 8 from the forums here to give people a starting idea on how to quantify their settings on the wiki or in posts on the board here.
I don't know all that many settings well enough to fill them out. But I'll see what I can do.
Quote from: Light DragonGood v. Evil=Adventure
I see the word adventure more as referring to the activities that characters do. Why would you need any concepts of 'good' or 'evil' to have an adventure?
Quote from: GhostmanQuote from: Light DragonGood v. Evil=Adventure
I see the word adventure more as referring to the activities that characters do. Why would you need any concepts of 'good' or 'evil' to have an adventure?
Totally agree. High Fantasy is more for Good v Evil, adventure is for actual adventuring.
Ok, here's an example table for you. I don't feel comfortable filling out anyone's homebrew setting here, so I only included published titles (Many of which I'm admittedly not as familiar with as I perhaps should be. For example, I've only read the early portions of Wheel of Time, so I'm just assuming that the series didn't turn wildly different in later books...)
[spoiler]
Setting Name[/th]
[th]
Style[/th]
[th]
Genre[/th]
[th]
Tone[/th]
[th]
Fantasticity[/th]
[th]
Technology[/th]
[th]
Morality[/th]
[th]
Focus[/th]
[th]
Divinity[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]
Cthulhu Mythos[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Horror, Weird[/td]
[td]Grim[/td]
[td]Rare | Weak-Strong[/td]
[td]Modern[/td]
[td]Ambiguous[/td]
[td]Horror[/td]
[td]Fake/Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Conan/Hyborian Age[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)[/td]
[td]Grim-Medium[/td]
[td]Rare | Medium[/td]
[td]Ancient-Medieval[/td]
[td]Ambiguous, Cynical[/td]
[td]Action, Horror[/td]
[td]Fake/Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Star Wars[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Space[/td]
[td]Medium[/td]
[td]Rare/Common | Medium[/td]
[td]Futuristic[/td]
[td]Simplistic[/td]
[td]Action, Drama[/td]
[td]Passive Divinity (The Force)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
A Game of Thrones / ASoIaF[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)[/td]
[td]Grim[/td]
[td]Rare | Weak-Medium[/td]
[td]Medieval[/td]
[td]Ambiguous, Cynical[/td]
[td]Politics/Intrigue[/td]
[td]Obscure Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Indiana Jones[/td]
[td]Adventure, Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Modern / Superheroes[/td]
[td]Medium[/td]
[td]Rare | Medium-Strong[/td]
[td]Modern[/td]
[td]Simplistic[/td]
[td]Action, Mystery, Humor[/td]
[td]Passive? Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
L5R / Rokugan[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Low Fantasy (Might-Focus)[/td]
[td]Medium-Grim[/td]
[td]Rare | Medium[/td]
[td]Medieval[/td]
[td]Ambiguous[/td]
[td]Politics/Intrigue, Action, Drama[/td]
[td]Passive/Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Wheel of Time[/td]
[td]Adventure[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td]Medium[/td]
[td]Rare-Medium | Strong[/td]
[td]Medieval[/td]
[td]Simplistic[/td]
[td]Politics/Intrigue, Action[/td]
[td]Passive/Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Forgotten Realms[/td]
[td]Bureaucracy[/td]
[td]High Fantasy (Magic-Focus)[/td]
[td]Medium[/td]
[td]Common | Strong[/td]
[td]Medieval[/td]
[td]Simplistic[/td]
[td]Action[/td]
[td]Active Divinity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Stargate[/td]
[td]Discovery/Exploration[/td]
[td]Space, Modern / Superheroes[/td]
[td]Medium[/td]
[td]Absent?[/td]
[td]Modern, Futuristic[/td]
[td]Ambiguous[/td]
[td]Action[/td]
[td]Fake/Obscure? Divinity[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[/spoiler]
I rather like it, but having only two choices for "tone" makes the category seem like a waste. Maybe:
Positive (or Progressive): The tone of the setting reflects a general belief that things are getting better, and that the best days of civilization/the world are yet to come. We are better/more advanced than our ancestors were, and our children will have a brighter future as a result. (examples: a Jules Verne industrial-age fantasy where new and amazing technology promises a whole new world of wonder; a post-apocalyptic scenario in which civilization is beginning to recover and prosper again)
Neutral: The tone of the setting reflects a general view that things are remaining pretty much as they always have, or that views are mixed as to whether things are getting better or worse. (examples: a political/intrigue medieval setting in which "progress" is not really considered and people are more concerned with their welfare in the present; a near-future setting in which the positive and negative effects of new technologies are hotly debated)
Negative (or Regressive): The tone of the setting reflects a general view that things are getting worse. The golden age is behind us, and the glory of the past will likely never come again. (examples: an ancient setting taking place in a "dark age" after the collapse of a great empire; a fantasy world in which the enlightened elder races have departed, leaving the more worldly and younger races to fend for themselves and dream about ages of wonder before them)
Grim (or Hopeless, or Doomed, etc.): The tone of the setting reflects the general belief that things are not only getting worse, they are utterly hopeless or nearly so. The world is doomed, and goodness and progress are at best flickering candles in a great darkness. The end times are upon us! (examples: a modern setting in which humanity is a hapless pawn of unthinkable powers that will eventually destroy us; a fantasy setting in which the Dark Lord/other great evil has triumphed and goodness and beauty tremble in the hidden places of the world)
I could have put a "utopia" counterpart to Grim, but I've yet to see any setting that's more positive than Positive. Such a world implies that there is very little conflict at all, which isn't conducive to adventuring and heroic struggles.
Quote from: Polycarp!Neutral: The tone of the setting reflects a general view that things are remaining pretty much as they always have, or that views are mixed as to whether things are getting better or worse. (examples: a political/intrigue medieval setting in which "progress" is not really considered and people are more concerned with their welfare in the present; a near-future setting in which the positive and negative effects of new technologies are hotly debated)
Wouldn't this also have a spin toward positive and negative? I could see a setting where the attitude is that things are always kind of bad, have always been that way, but don't really get any worse. I could also see the opposite happening.
Quote from: Polycarp!I could have put a "utopia" counterpart to Grim, but I've yet to see any setting that's more positive than Positive. Such a world implies that there is very little conflict at all, which isn't conducive to adventuring and heroic struggles.
Possibly the categorization of "Neutral" needs to be worded better, because it would seem to me that both "Grim" and "Utopia" could be seen as settings where "things are remaining pretty much as they always have".
There seems to be two factors at work here: (1) how nice/terrible a place the world is, and (2) whether it seems to be changing for better/worse/same.
Quote from: GhostmanThere seems to be two factors at work here: (1) how nice/terrible a place the world is, and (2) whether it seems to be changing for better/worse/same.
It may seem like that, but it's essentially a non-issue for a few reasons.
1. For humans, at least, happiness is based on where we are going, not our absolute position at present. A college student who lives in squalor and eats ramen every day may not have a very high absolute standard of living, but if they are confident that they are going on to better things as a result, I promise you they will be happier than a businessman who is convinced that everything is going down the tubes - even if once they do, his absolute situation will still be better than that of the college student. Thus, if a "bad world" is defined as one in which "people are unhappy," I guarantee you that "bad world" and "hopeless/regressive world" are going to be synonymous.
2. For adventurers in a campaign world, what is most important is the results of their actions. If you give your life to thwart an evil scheme, does that actually have the potential to make things better, or is it ultimately a meaningless act in a doomed world? It's this kind of optimism vs. fatalism that defines the tone of a world, not whether the world was "bad" or "good" to begin with.
3. For that matter, what is a "good world" and a "bad world?" It doesn't make sense to talk about it in terms of standard of living, or else all our medieval worlds would be bad and all our modern worlds good. Is there some kind of "evil magnitude" we are measuring here? Is a world in which the Dark Lord controls 60% of the world a worse one than a world in which the same Dark Lord controls 30% of it? I would assert that the tone of the world is going to be based on where evil is going, not how much it controls - that is, the world in which the Dark Lord controls 30% of the world and is growing more powerful every day is going to be far grimmer than the one in which the Dark Lord controls 60% but his hold is constantly slipping, even though in absolute terms one could say that the 60% world is "worse."
Ultimately, I believe there is only one factor at work - hope, or the lack of it. The states I posted could well be changed to Hopeful/Neutral/Doubtful/Hopeless, and that might assuage some of the uncertainty.
My only suggestion is to change the Fantasticity category to Fantasticity|Strength to more clearly explain which is which.
Bump for Steerpike to check out.
@ Ghostman: I'd say Stargate's divinity is fake (Asgard, Gould) but also Passive (Ancients). I'd probably put the Ori under passive as well but we never really saw how (truly) active they were...
Hmm. Well, I haven't read through the entierty of the thread yet, but I've had a pretty good look at the matrix. Insofar as my own worlds are classed I definitely wouldn't dispute the Setting (Down) descriptors; the Style (Across) descriptors I might contest. I think it would be possible, for example, to run a CE campaign in almost any of the four styles, and I don't think I'd classify Xell as a purely Adventure setting - I don't want it to be a good vs. evil, hack and slash setting. I think my problem with the styles is that, based on your descriptions of them, they seem to infer about setting as well as style ("well developed world with a clear power-base," etc). I think that "style" is almost a more fitting term for a specific campaign than a whole world; some worlds will be better suited to running certain styles of campaigns than others, but it seems hard to argue that a world itself possesses a style; a style only enters or colours the world once you've formed a narrative in it. Tone/tech level seems to work well for a world; for a campaign, I almost think style/power level (i.e. adventure/high-powered, wonder/low-powered or whatever) might work well.
I had an argument about optimism/pessemism but reading Polycarp!'s post sort of deflated it.
But for all I know these things have already been discussed...
I started reading through this recently and I find this very interesting. I've always found classifying settings to be neigh impossible due to their diversity. Your matrices seem are definitely doing the best I've ever seen!
I wanted to make some quick comments, though.
I don't care for the use of steampunk as an overarching genre. Steampunk's come to encompass too many settings, and while I love steampunk (Tephra would probably fit into the genre), it doesn't always fit. I heard the best definition for steampunk the other day: steampunk is a setting in which the information age occurred before the creation of the combustion engine, and the combustion engine was never created.
Yet there are settings that definitely don't include this exact definition. Weird West, Clockpunk, and Gaslamp Romances, and Cyberpunk wouldn't really fit under steampunk.
So, why don't we use the term Retro-Futurism? It seems to fit better and can include steampunk and every other category of weird technology in a historical fantasy. I still like steampunk being a technological level. Most definitely.
Thanks!
I don't havea huge problem with Steampunk as it re-interprets the Victorian Era-1920's tech with steam technology and typically has more of a dystopian feel to it. At its base, Steam Punk works fine however, how far does a show/setting have to go before it becomes something that isn't truly steampunk? Jetpacks are OK, but are flying cars? What about flying dreadnoughts? The more magical/far flung you go, the farther the setting differs from the core of the Steampunk genre. What then do we classify these outliers as? Far-Steampunk?
Retro-Future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro-futurism) might be a better call but even it fails to really encompass the far outliers of steam punk, like the anime last Exile, or even some of the fantastical elements in Final Fantasy. Further, Retro-Future is more akin to the old Batman cartoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Batman_&_Robin), the Superman cartoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_The_Animated_Series) and Jonny Quest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_Quest), where the world, as a whole, is more optimistic and the base civilization is more advanced, typically 30's/40's/50's, rather than Steampunk's late 19th century/early 20th.
What about calling it Anachronistic? A time period with displaced elements of technology.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowWhat about calling it Anachronistic? A time period with displaced elements of technology.
I like the word a lot more than Steampunk, as it encompasses more settings... However, the word does carry some negative connotations in the world building community.
Hmm, yeah, there are differences between deliberate anachronism and unintentional anachronism.
You could always go for alternative, but that is just one of those words that don't really say anything about anything.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowHmm, yeah, there are differences between deliberate anachronism and unintentional anachronism.
You could always go for alternative, but that is just one of those words that don't really say anything about anything.
I agree. Anachronistic is probably the best term we could use. IMO, as long as we define the term well enough, no one should have a problem with it.
Quote from: Light DragonCurrently Uncategorized
-The Jade Stage (Luminous Crayon) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?7052)
-The Living World of Glasera (Pair o'Dice Lost) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?52810)
-Na Bantu (Wensleydale) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?63404.last)
-Prismatic (Llum) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?58695)
-Ptolus
-Urbis (Jurgen) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?6813)
I can see how Urbis is hard to categorize - I mean, it could be argued that Urbis has elements of
all the listed categories, with the exception of modern/superheroes (yes, Urbis has
Space elements...).
But I'm deeply curious about how others see the setting. Which categories do you all see as dominant in Urbis?
...Perhaps High or Low Fantasy Bureaucracy?
Re: Anachronistic... Feel free to use that on your chart. I personally prefer to use Steampunk to express the same idea.
Jharviss-
"I started reading through this recently and I find this very interesting. I've always found classifying settings to be neigh impossible due to their diversity. Your matrices seem are definitely doing the best I've ever seen!"
Thank you.
"Yet there are settings that definitely don't include this exact definition. Weird West, Clockpunk, and Gaslamp Romances, and Cyberpunk wouldn't really fit under steampunk."
I actually place Weird West, Clockpunk, Dieselpunk, (some Pulp) and Victorian tales under Steampunk.
"Retro-Futurism" however is a much more apt name, I think, than "Anachronistic." Regrettably, as EE has demonstrated, it seems to likewise have different connotations.
SteerpikeQuoteHmm. Well, I haven't read through the entierty of the thread yet, but I've had a pretty good look at the matrix. Insofar as my own worlds are classed I definitely wouldn't dispute the Setting (Down) descriptors; the Style (Across) descriptors I might contest. I think it would be possible, for example, to run a CE campaign in almost any of the four styles, and I don't think I'd classify Xell as a purely Adventure setting - I don't want it to be a good vs. evil, hack and slash setting. I think my problem with the styles is that, based on your descriptions of them, they seem to infer about setting as well as style ("well developed world with a clear power-base," etc). I think that "style" is almost a more fitting term for a specific campaign than a whole world; some worlds will be better suited to running certain styles of campaigns than others, but it seems hard to argue that a world itself possesses a style; a style only enters or colours the world once you've formed a narrative in it. Tone/tech level seems to work well for a world; for a campaign, I almost think style/power level (i.e. adventure/high-powered, wonder/low-powered or whatever) might work well.
I had an argument about optimism/pessemism but reading Polycarp!'s post sort of deflated it.
But for all I know these things have already been discussed...
That was something I pondered. Tone and Style really should be split apart, but it seems difficult to do that. On page 4 ??? I believe, someone gave a try to expressing the ideas with a different sort of matrix.
How have I missed this :o
All I have to say right now, I think, that doesn't seem to have been said so far, is that "Bureaucracy" seems like the wrong word for what you mean... I mean, I know it kind of makes sense but I can't help but imagine a "Bureaucracy" type setting involving the characters having to place as much if not more importance on the paperwork resultant from their adventures than the actual adventuring...
Kindling- Thank you for the comments. Maybe there is a better word. I sort of like the term Bureaucracy, but I am open to brainstorming. (I have made about 40-60% of the suggested changes from this thread).
At least as far as Exalted goes though, and Celtricia, shuffling paperwork does play a significant part in the settings. (And in Exalted the paperwork is far from boring :! There is even a "Bureaucracy" skill to get things done quicker. :)) Ha-ha. :)
Speaking of which, I'd say Eschaton belongs in Bureaucracy more than Adventure. I don't know about paperpushing, but I believe that was the category for intrigue and politics?
Quote from: Light DragonKindling- Thank you for the comments. Maybe there is a better word. I sort of like the term Bureaucracy, but I am open to brainstorming. (I have made about 40-60% of the suggested changes from this thread).
At least as far as Exalted goes though, and Celtricia, shuffling paperwork does play a significant part in the settings. (And in Exalted the paperwork is far from boring :! There is even a "Bureaucracy" skill to get things done quicker. :)) Ha-ha. :)
The main paperpushing in Celtricia is done by the players, and we have 100% laptop compliance right now. If you mean court intrigue and social acccomplishment to be the driving raison d'etre of the setting (even as to why the pc's adventure), then, my friend, you have me.
Yes, I did mean intrigue and social accomplishments.
Ok Phoenix, I can move that!
Bump for Endless Helix.
Bump. Updated due to this thread: http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?115241.last
Also I'm revisiting Ghostman's axis idea
QuoteYou could make several tables with different axes. For example...
Table 1:
* Tone (upbeat --- grim)
* Scope (cosmic --- backwoods)
Table 2:
* Technology (futuristic --- primitive)
* Fantasy elements (commonplace --- absent)
Table 3:
* Oddness (OMGWTFBBQ --- the world as we know it)
* Intrigue (high intrigue --- no intrigue)
I'm starting to like it more since it might better represent the worlds, but it still seems a bit clunky to have 3 tables instead of one.
I guess we should do the two table system... my original matrix + Ghostman's matrix idea here.
I'll see if I can get around to working that up.
It might work best on the wiki, if you can sort the rows (like in Excel).
Quote from: GhostmanAnother kind of way to organize this would be putting the actual settings on the vertical axis and the qualities describing the settings on the horizontal axis. This way, you need only one table. Here's a quick & dirty example for you:
| Setting | Tone | Fantasy Elements | Tech Level | Style | Morality |
| A Game of Thrones | Grim | Scarce, Low | Medieval | Politics, Intrigue | Ambiguous |
| Hyborian Age | Brutal | Scarce, Low-Medium | Mixed (bronze age to medieval) | Action, Adventure, Horror | Dark Ambiguous |
| Forgotten Realms | Medium | Abundant, High | Renaissance | Action, Adventure, Politics | Simplistic |
| Babylon 5 | Medium | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Hi-Tech Future | Action, Politics, Intrigue | Fairly Ambiguous (initially deceiving) |
| Mad Max | Grim | n/a | Modern Post-Apocalyptic | Action | Rugged Survival |
| Cthulhu | Despair | Scarce, Low-Extreme | Early 20th Century | Horror | n/a |
| Riddick | Brutal | Scarce, Pseudofantasy | Hi-Tech Future | Action | Cynical |
I just updated the first post with Ghostman's chart and a few entries from the CBG.