The Campaign Builder's Guild

Hello there, everyone. In preparation for working on the massive wall of text that is my homebrew setting, I had a few questions about some general ideas and principles that I would like some additional input on. I do not usually see these kinds of questions asked, and since ya'll seem to have a lot of time here working on your own worlds, I thought this to be a pretty good place to start with some questions I had before I work to scrounge up every last text file I have written about my setting.

1. A sustainable economy for the 'Evil Empire'. While I prefer to keep morality in the gray regions of a setting, I like the potential for a big-bad country to decide to mobilize for a grand ol' war-- but also for it to have a believable enough infrastructure to survive shifting over to a war-time economy. Obviously, this is hard to address in detail without the specifics of the setting. However, I recall reading an essay many years ago concerning the best-bet economy for such a nation: Much of it boiled to a government regulated guild system, with some minor support from a caste system (I forget the term used, but the caste system allows for some upward or downward progress within its confines. More Roman than Indian, if I have my history correct). Does this indeed sound like something that would work to sustain a large (U.S.S.R. sized) country in the view of a generic fantasy setting? Is it completely infeasible? I would be pleased to hear some thoughts on reasons why either this works or does not work-- at least in a more broad ideal.

2. The eternal question of Magic versus Science. Is it bad? Is it overdone? Can it be done well? I am curious as to what you guys think about this general principle. I enjoy Steampunk or Cyberpunk as much as the next person, but can either one also survive when paired with the more common 'lightning and thunderbolts' kind of magic? I have ideas about how to handle this for my setting, so you can read about it when I get that far, but I am interested to hear about the idea in general. Do you think it is a realistic idea, or is it merely something kitschy and pulpy, rather than something that can be spun into a creative and exciting dichotomy? Really, this boils down to the 'You got your fantasy in my science fiction!' 'No, you got your science fiction in my fantasy!' issue. At what point, if at all, can these genres meaningfully coexist? Aside from the same section in a bookstore, of course.

3. Systems. No, not solar systems. Game systems. I have played numerous published game systems, so I have a lot of weird mechanics knowledge rattling in my head. However, I have also come to the realization that many different systems have their own... mood or attitude to them. Now, I understand the Homebrew aspect means that you get free reign to do what you see fit, but in some ways, I have noticed that many published settings borrow the state of that tone. So, is it a mistake to try and design a setting for a single system (Be it DnD, Cthulhu, Exalted, et al), or is it more consistent to try to work out ways to accommodate numerous different systems. For example, when I started writing my setting, it was when I was most into DnD, and much of how the setting works reflects that. However, since then, I have played many other systems-- and liked them! As a result, my impression of what I want from my setting has changed, making me wonder if it is a mistake to try and adapt too many potential systems to use with my setting. So, simply put, the question I put forth is whether or not it is better to design a setting for one system, or to allow for numerous systems to be accommodated.

4. High Fantasy versus Low Fantasy. This was one of those distinctions that I always had issues with. By definition, I am under the impression that having something like an 'elf' or a 'fireball' in your setting is pretty much High Fantasy, no matter what. However, Low fantasy seems to mostly be focused on vague morality-- that there is no clear-cut good and evil. In this sense, what does something like Steampunk call itself? Is it High Fantasy, or can it be considered Low Fantasy as long as it meets the moral ambiguity that comes with the name? If it does match Low Fantasy, at what point does something really become High Fantasy? This may seem like an irrelevant question, but it is a distinction that has always bothered me, for I feel that it leads to an unjustified bias towards what is expected from a setting.

5. I was going to ask about the cabbage here... but then I thought it was probably better not to ask. >.>

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage1. A sustainable economy for the 'Evil Empire'. While I prefer to keep morality in the gray regions of a setting, I like the potential for a big-bad country to decide to mobilize for a grand ol' war-- but also for it to have a believable enough infrastructure to survive shifting over to a war-time economy. Obviously, this is hard to address in detail without the specifics of the setting. However, I recall reading an essay many years ago concerning the best-bet economy for such a nation: Much of it boiled to a government regulated guild system, with some minor support from a caste system (I forget the term used, but the caste system allows for some upward or downward progress within its confines. More Roman than Indian, if I have my history correct). Does this indeed sound like something that would work to sustain a large (U.S.S.R. sized) country in the view of a generic fantasy setting? Is it completely infeasible? I would be pleased to hear some thoughts on reasons why either this works or does not work-- at least in a more broad ideal.

If by size you mean geographic area, USSR-sized would be too large to be long-term stable for a generic fantasy setting unless you justify it through the fantasy elements. The biggest problem with such size is the slowness and unreliability of communications and logistics. When it takes months for a message sent from the fringes to reach the capital, keeping the empire from fragmenting becomes very difficult indeed. Nothing that couldn't be avoided with a few carefully placed wormholes...

As for economy, a large surplus of population, food and raw materials, coupled with an efficient infrastructure for processing and distribution is pretty much vital. You need enough people to keep the country running even when many of the working-age men have been drafted. You need to produce (or acquire through trade) enough food to keep the army fed, and enough other materials to keep the production of goods going.

Pay careful attention on the ownership of these key resources and infrastructure. Those who own the means of production and transportation must be in support of the war. For this to be the case, they should be in position to gain something from it. They should not be the ones to bear the burden of wartime spending, at least not as long as victory is expected. Otherwise they may be tempted to act against the state - and they are in a position to do much harm.

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage2. The eternal question of Magic versus Science. Is it bad? Is it overdone? Can it be done well? I am curious as to what you guys think about this general principle. I enjoy Steampunk or Cyberpunk as much as the next person, but can either one also survive when paired with the more common 'lightning and thunderbolts' kind of magic? I have ideas about how to handle this for my setting, so you can read about it when I get that far, but I am interested to hear about the idea in general. Do you think it is a realistic idea, or is it merely something kitschy and pulpy, rather than something that can be spun into a creative and exciting dichotomy? Really, this boils down to the 'You got your fantasy in my science fiction!' 'No, you got your science fiction in my fantasy!' issue. At what point, if at all, can these genres meaningfully coexist? Aside from the same section in a bookstore, of course.

You could look into examples of successful blending of tech and fantasy elements. Eg. Star Wars, Final Fantasy.

IMO much of the trick is to simply NOT bother too much with realism, but to keep the pace and focus on the action and story so that the audience is more eager to maintain their suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage4. High Fantasy versus Low Fantasy. This was one of those distinctions that I always had issues with. By definition, I am under the impression that having something like an 'elf' or a 'fireball' in your setting is pretty much High Fantasy, no matter what. However, Low fantasy seems to mostly be focused on vague morality-- that there is no clear-cut good and evil. In this sense, what does something like Steampunk call itself? Is it High Fantasy, or can it be considered Low Fantasy as long as it meets the moral ambiguity that comes with the name? If it does match Low Fantasy, at what point does something really become High Fantasy? This may seem like an irrelevant question, but it is a distinction that has always bothered me, for I feel that it leads to an unjustified bias towards what is expected from a setting.

There is no clear and universally accepted definition for high VS low fantasy. Searching this forum for old threads should reveal quite a bit of discussion on the matter. It's better to try and describe your setting's style and feel in your own words than to rely only on referring to genres.

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage5. I was going to ask about the cabbage here... but then I thought it was probably better not to ask. >.>

Don't worry about it. You will learn to love the cabbage when the stars are right.

These are great questions.  
I will be free tonight to dig this shit with the assembled respected elders of the porno-roleplay world.  

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage1. A sustainable economy for the 'Evil Empire'. While I prefer to keep morality in the gray regions of a setting, I like the potential for a big-bad country to decide to mobilize for a grand ol' war-- but also for it to have a believable enough infrastructure to survive shifting over to a war-time economy. Obviously, this is hard to address in detail without the specifics of the setting. However, I recall reading an essay many years ago concerning the best-bet economy for such a nation: Much of it boiled to a government regulated guild system, with some minor support from a caste system (I forget the term used, but the caste system allows for some upward or downward progress within its confines. More Roman than Indian, if I have my history correct). Does this indeed sound like something that would work to sustain a large (U.S.S.R. sized) country in the view of a generic fantasy setting? Is it completely infeasible? I would be pleased to hear some thoughts on reasons why either this works or does not work-- at least in a more broad ideal.

The only way an Empire can survive long term in a world with out some form of speedy movement and long range communication is to have a de-centralized control over its territory (like the early European empires). However, if an Empire had easy access to 3.x Sending spells and teleportation magic... It could be done. Every town would be given a Sending/Receiving officer who would act very much like Telegraph guy in the old west. The Teleportaion magic could be used to send high ranking officials across the length and breadth of the empire to ensure proper control... However, unless the empire had a long coast line for speedy movement of troops (teleportation magic could be used to teleport regiment-sized blocks of men (but that would be dangerous during times of a war, especially in the hands of the enemy)), I think de-centralized control/federalism would still have to be used to maintain control. Having said that, China maintained a very large empire for thousands of years with out modern tech or magic, so if your heart is set on a big empire, I'd look to China for inspiration.

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage2. The eternal question of Magic versus Science. Is it bad? Is it overdone? Can it be done well? I am curious as to what you guys think about this general principle. I enjoy Steampunk or Cyberpunk as much as the next person, but can either one also survive when paired with the more common 'lightning and thunderbolts' kind of magic? I have ideas about how to handle this for my setting, so you can read about it when I get that far, but I am interested to hear about the idea in general. Do you think it is a realistic idea, or is it merely something kitschy and pulpy, rather than something that can be spun into a creative and exciting dichotomy? Really, this boils down to the 'You got your fantasy in my science fiction!' 'No, you got your science fiction in my fantasy!' issue. At what point, if at all, can these genres meaningfully coexist? Aside from the same section in a bookstore, of course.

Cyberpunk would be much harder to combo with Magic, though done well it'd would be pretty cool. Steampunk is rather easy to combine with Magic, Eberron did a great job of that.

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage3. Systems. No, not solar systems. Game systems. I have played numerous published game systems, so I have a lot of weird mechanics knowledge rattling in my head. However, I have also come to the realization that many different systems have their own... mood or attitude to them. Now, I understand the Homebrew aspect means that you get free reign to do what you see fit, but in some ways, I have noticed that many published settings borrow the state of that tone. So, is it a mistake to try and design a setting for a single system (Be it DnD, Cthulhu, Exalted, et al), or is it more consistent to try to work out ways to accommodate numerous different systems. For example, when I started writing my setting, it was when I was most into DnD, and much of how the setting works reflects that. However, since then, I have played many other systems-- and liked them! As a result, my impression of what I want from my setting has changed, making me wonder if it is a mistake to try and adapt too many potential systems to use with my setting. So, simply put, the question I put forth is whether or not it is better to design a setting for one system, or to allow for numerous systems to be accommodated.

Personally, I always try and design my settings as system neutral because in the long run that means you can utilize your setting in more situations. I know a lot of people who tied their system completely to 3.x, and when 4E came along they felt like they had to ditch their entire setting because the mechanics of 4E did not mesh well with their world. Heck, even WotC did this with FR. So, yes, my opinion is always - keep your setting as system neutral as you can.

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage4. High Fantasy versus Low Fantasy. This was one of those distinctions that I always had issues with. By definition, I am under the impression that having something like an 'elf' or a 'fireball' in your setting is pretty much High Fantasy, no matter what. However, Low fantasy seems to mostly be focused on vague morality-- that there is no clear-cut good and evil. In this sense, what does something like Steampunk call itself? Is it High Fantasy, or can it be considered Low Fantasy as long as it meets the moral ambiguity that comes with the name? If it does match Low Fantasy, at what point does something really become High Fantasy? This may seem like an irrelevant question, but it is a distinction that has always bothered me, for I feel that it leads to an unjustified bias towards what is expected from a setting.

The difference between Low Fantasy and High Fantasy is this - Low Fantasy is where irrational things (like magic) occur in a rational/real world, where as High Fantasy is a the opposite. There's a lot of overlap between the two, so in all honesty, I wouldn't fret about it (mainly because the vast majority of Fantasy settings are High Fantasy - from LotR to D&D to Harry Potter to A Song of Fire and Ice to Narnia - you'd really have to go out of your way to design a Low Fantasy Setting).

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage5. I was going to ask about the cabbage here... but then I thought it was probably better not to ask. >.>

It's just for fun.

2. Magic vs. Science
Having this be an actual dichotomy does not seem to fit with the tone I think you are going for. If one land is "magic" and one land is "technological" then it all just becomes a bit weird and too game-like, if you catch my drift.
On the other hand, I'm all for mixing tech and magic, although it doesn't have to be all too overt. Many settings have tried a magic world undergoing an industrial revolution, so for the sake of variation you could always try a magical revolution for example (haven't seen many medieval worlds do that).

3. Systems
While writing make it non-system specific. When you want to play it, try to adapt something. When you have some spare time you can go as far as to actually make a system.

4. genre
You can invent your own genre :D
That being said, low/high fantasy are questions of more than elves and low morality. But as said before they are also quite vague concepts... High fantasy really depends on how Tolkien-ish it is, while low fantasy is mainly a question of being a fantasy world with less magic and dragons. But that's just my version.

5. Cabbage
the other took all the witty answers, so I'll make a grab for "Helpful" instead. One hint: look at our name.  

 

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage2. The eternal question of Magic versus Science. Is it bad? Is it overdone? Can it be done well? I am curious as to what you guys think about this general principle. I enjoy Steampunk or Cyberpunk as much as the next person, but can either one also survive when paired with the more common 'lightning and thunderbolts' kind of magic? I have ideas about how to handle this for my setting, so you can read about it when I get that far, but I am interested to hear about the idea in general. Do you think it is a realistic idea, or is it merely something kitschy and pulpy, rather than something that can be spun into a creative and exciting dichotomy? Really, this boils down to the 'You got your fantasy in my science fiction!' 'No, you got your science fiction in my fantasy!' issue. At what point, if at all, can these genres meaningfully coexist? Aside from the same section in a bookstore, of course.

This one in particular caught my eye. One thing to remember about magic in fantasy settings is that it is scientific to some degree (Arcane and formulaic magic that is). When a practitioner performs X, Y happens. That is science. If mixing baking soda and vinegar produces foaming water every time, and mixing bat guano and a little mana produces explosions every time, then it is science. So, I don't think it is difficult to blend the two, especially in less modern societies.

The only time magic doesn't fit in, in my opinion, is when it goes against existing laws of reality, or it is unexplained. This can work in a modern society where magic shows up, or in a system where magic is unreliable. But in a world where magic has always existed, magic will shape the laws of physics. There will be some omnipotent or "semipotent" field of energy that magicians can tap into.

If you're thinking about blending magic and technology in the confines of making sure that magic continues to grow in power alongside technology (magic becomes less useful if average practitioners aren't higher level but low level regular people can pick up assault rifles), I think you need to focus your attention on the setting creating devices for storing or amplifying magical energy. Warriors get better and better weapons and armor as the eras progress, why wouldn't magicians get the same?

Sorry if I went on a tangent. Good topic btw.

Many valid points all around, though I feel that I can certainly address some of them with a bit more information.

Quote from: E_EPersonally, I always try and design my settings as system neutral because in the long run that means you can utilize your setting in more situations. I know a lot of people who tied their system completely to 3.x, and when 4E came along they felt like they had to ditch their entire setting because the mechanics of 4E did not mesh well with their world. Heck, even WotC did this with FR. So, yes, my opinion is always - keep your setting as system neutral as you can.

5. Cabbage
the other took all the witty answers, so I'll make a grab for "Helpful" instead. One hint: look at our name.[/quote]

Ah, and suddenly it all makes sense.

...Well, alright, not completely. But now at least it's a little less murky. ^^

Disclaimer: Time did not allow me to read beyond the OP.

1. Do I understand that government controlled guilds serve as the social tool to create promotion between castes? That seems like a reasonable and profitable way to run a tyranny. Guilds are very much based on relationships between individuals, so it would be essential the the masters of guilds be very loyal to the Evil Emperor or else they'd have their own personal armies prepared to resist. This becomes less true as one goes down the guild chain, but trust in the system is essential at all but the lowest levels to achieve functionality.

Do some research on the geopolitics of the former USSR, and you will learn that an empire that size in the place it occupies in the world is the opposite of sustainable for a multiplicity of reasons. Tweaking size or location or 'solving' some of these issues will create a more believable setting. I suggest Stratfor as a jumping off place for such research.

 2. I think Science vs. Magic makes an excellent dichotomy. Costrasts I enjoy when executing this elemental conflict: the laws that govern magic are more flexible and harder to learn, while science is equally arcane ti's laws are certain. magic has a primal potency that science struggles to match, yet science is reliable. science in the role of Man vs magic in the role of Nature (or if you're feeling omgwtfbbq -reverse that). Can it come across as awful - yes, but I believe that comes down to execution. For examples if magic and science never overlap, that's an iciness brought on by the authors choice.

3. Part of the joy of CAMPAIGN building as opposed to SETTING design is being able to crunch the numbers. Campaign building almost always designs for one system (even it's one of the authors design, meant to capture the tone of his setting). Sometimes, even on a publishing level, campaigns are designed in parallel segments to work with several systems (See: Echoes of Heaven).

But emphasizing setting design is perfectly valid and lets you either eschew choosing a system and it's buddy-tone or to write for many system at once. Several auteurs of the CBG choose this option, especially during the brainstorming stages.

4. I'll leave this one to more cogent minds for the now.

5. I'm not sure if Nomadic still punishes such questions as Ishamel did. Better to be safe that sorry. <.<

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage2. The eternal question of Magic versus Science. Is it bad? Is it overdone? Can it be done well? I am curious as to what you guys think about this general principle. I enjoy Steampunk or Cyberpunk as much as the next person, but can either one also survive when paired with the more common 'lightning and thunderbolts' kind of magic? I have ideas about how to handle this for my setting, so you can read about it when I get that far, but I am interested to hear about the idea in general. Do you think it is a realistic idea, or is it merely something kitschy and pulpy, rather than something that can be spun into a creative and exciting dichotomy? Really, this boils down to the 'You got your fantasy in my science fiction!' 'No, you got your science fiction in my fantasy!' issue. At what point, if at all, can these genres meaningfully coexist? Aside from the same section in a bookstore, of course.

4. High Fantasy versus Low Fantasy. This was one of those distinctions that I always had issues with. By definition, I am under the impression that having something like an 'elf' or a 'fireball' in your setting is pretty much High Fantasy, no matter what. However, Low fantasy seems to mostly be focused on vague morality-- that there is no clear-cut good and evil. In this sense, what does something like Steampunk call itself? Is it High Fantasy, or can it be considered Low Fantasy as long as it meets the moral ambiguity that comes with the name? If it does match Low Fantasy, at what point does something really become High Fantasy? This may seem like an irrelevant question, but it is a distinction that has always bothered me, for I feel that it leads to an unjustified bias towards what is expected from a setting.[/quote]

Elemental_Elf basically covers it. High fantasy is a different world, low fantasy is like Earth + stuff. (Urban Fantasy tends to fall into low fantasy). Also, like he said, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: CoyoteCamouflage1. A sustainable economy for the 'Evil Empire'. While I prefer to keep morality in the gray regions of a setting, I like the potential for a big-bad country to decide to mobilize for a grand ol' war-- but also for it to have a believable enough infrastructure to survive shifting over to a war-time economy. Obviously, this is hard to address in detail without the specifics of the setting. However, I recall reading an essay many years ago concerning the best-bet economy for such a nation: Much of it boiled to a government regulated guild system, with some minor support from a caste system (I forget the term used, but the caste system allows for some upward or downward progress within its confines. More Roman than Indian, if I have my history correct). Does this indeed sound like something that would work to sustain a large (U.S.S.R. sized) country in the view of a generic fantasy setting? Is it completely infeasible? I would be pleased to hear some thoughts on reasons why either this works or does not work-- at least in a more broad ideal.

 I think de-centralized control/federalism would still have to be used to maintain control. Having said that, China maintained a very large empire for thousands of years with out modern tech or magic, so if your heart is set on a big empire, I'd look to China for inspiration.

 I would go with Chinese inspiration. The Han dynasty is an excellent example. Estimates for Han armies are at about 1 million men. Not bad for c.200 BC. The Qin Dynasty is also another good example of power consolidation. (although it only lasted about 20 years)
  Another good example would be Alexander the Greats or Ghengis Khans empires. The only thing that kept these empires going was constant war and absorption of local rulers who paid hell in taxes. A flexible caste system might not be the most realistic way to go with a military Empire. But, as EE mentioned, you can always bend the rules a little (or a lot) in fantasy settings via magic or natural phenomena...Good Luck and Welcome to the CBG.  

LLum Knows me well.

1)  Depends very heavily on #2 and #4, and #3 as well.  You don't mention many details except for a 'Generic Fantasy Setting'.  You also have to understand and deal with the role of slavery in ancient empires, as well as resource management. My larger empires have used scrying , food/resource management magic, and the 'Bardic Broadcasting Network' to enable their existance ina a fantasy world where things are more threatening than in our own real world.  It is only infeasible if you create what we'd call a 'physics engine disconnect', where the physics engine (the ruleset) does not enable the empire to exist logically.  And this includes trade VERY MUCH.

2)  The issue here is not what you can do, but what would happen logically.  As a few have alluded to, would x have been created if y was easier?  This goes back to the physics engine congruency issue.  You can write the setting anyway you want to, just think long and hard if it would have ever happenned the way you describe it, based on this.  I look at settings all day long and see major issue in this, both in games and in literature.

3)  "Ahem".
 Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."

My opinion is that if you want to make sure you have a boring, vanilla setting, try to make it system-agnostic.  I call rulesets 'Physics Engines' because I believe that rules can either be congruent with a setting and build the internal consistency, increasing Immersion and literally allowing the players to build an internal logica framework  in regards to the setting, or the opposite.  There is no middle ground.
Priestly magic creates a religeous hierarchy, nature magic begets druids, class systems beget a social hierarchy built on personal power, etc.  The rules cause certain things and progressions to happen.  

4)  High Fantasy vs Low Fantasy....
"High fantasy is defined as fantasy fiction set in an alternative, entirely fictional ("Secondary") world, rather than the real ("Primary") world. The secondary world will normally be internally consistent but its rules are in some way different from those of the primary world. By contrast, low fantasy is characterized by being set in the primary world (earth), or a rational and familiar fictional world, with the inclusion of magical elements"
This is the literary breakdown for you.
Your comments about morality are actually bringing in a totally separate continuum.  You main find one end of this continuum is more often found with one end of the otehr delineator, but melding them is a mistake, or at least I see it as such.
To me, the frequency distribution created by graphing the pwoer of magic on one axis and the commonality of casters on the other creates the RPG 'High/Low Magic Derivitave'.  Then again, we all know I'm a bit nutsy on the subject.

Everyone else took my points, except for this one:

Re what you term the "you got your scifi in my fantasy/you got your fantasy in my scifi" debate... I tend to look at the situation as them both being "speculative fiction" and much soft scifi is just as fantastical as sword and sorcery or whatever. Now putting magic with hard scifi might be problematic, but when you have two sources for power, one being, to borrow a phrase from Robert Rankin, the transperambulation of pseudo-cosmic antimatter, and the other being speaking the language of the spirits to ask them to perform various supernatural feats on your behalf (or whatever your magic system might be), which one is really the more magical?

PS. Also, Clarke's much-loved Third Law comes into play in this context.

What Kindling said.

Science fiction and fantasy only conflict if you want them to. Don't let their supposed dichotomy limit you. Don't let us limit you. My signature says everything my medication prevents me from adding further.

Come to think of it, so does Kindling's signature. We like the word "Illimitable."

EDIT: this post probably doesn't help at all. Well, here it is anyway. Sorry god.

Don't worry, SA, I liked it :)

Yay!