The Campaign Builder's Guild

1. I think others covered this well, especially on the subject of needing to distribute food/communication.

2. I think an idea becomes a cliche because it works and gets reused a lot. But it doesn't FEEL cliche if done well or sufficiently divorced from similar material. Steampunk is an entire genre, so I don't think most people would say it's overdone, though not everyone will love steampunk. As fas as cyberpunk, I've only seen that mixed with magic for Shadowrun (which is awesome, but really weird)

As far as realistic, I think if accept the conceit of real magic and people throwing lightning bolts and so forth, we can accept most things that do not seem self-contradictory. Both magic and steampunk are, theoretically, unrealistic, but if we take them for granted, I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

3. Can be very hard to design a setting that will truly accommodate multiple systems for reasons LV mentions. Even when writing system neutral stuff (which I do more for fiction than gaming), I could look and say this setting would never work with D&D. I'd be skeptical about using Exalted with anything but the Exalted setting, though I'm no expert on that. I'd figure out which system best suits your tone, and focus on that. A change in system can lead to a different feel in setting or campaign. If you really want to use Exalted use that for a different setting; if you want D&D, use a D&D setting. If neither fits, consider GURPS, WFRP, TRoS or something else.

4. Don't worry on this too much. It's not a rigid thing. Some people want to define real-world as low fantasy, and separate world as high fantasy. Though I'd call something like Game of Thrones or even Conan fairly low fantasy, personally, and those are not quite Earth as we know it. Around here, people usually use the terms to refer to the commonness of fantastic elements in general in the setting. I think the classifications are most useful only toward that end, and only in reference to traditional fantasy. I think something like steampunk or urban fantasy (including Shadowrun) is almost its own thing.

And moral ambiguity is more common in low fantasy, but I think that's a correlation based on the setting people feel best suits that type of story, not a definitional thing. Something becomes High Fantasy when the author or audience feels like the fantastic elements have become the focus or at least extremely prevalent/common, I suppose.

5. I think there's something in the FAQ on this, too.

Most of the stuff here has gotten some excellent feedback, there's really just one thing I want to chime in. That being science vs magic. I think the issue here is that magic is looked at in alot of settings in a way that makes it science. Magic is by definition a mysterious or unexplainable phenomenon that violates the rules of physics. If you take magic and break it down into an understandable form that can be studied and taught and used reliably then it's no longer really magic but science. That's not to say that magic as science is bad and indeed it's the staple of most modern fantasy (the DnD spell system for example). However if you want to separate the two out you might consider making magic truly magical. As an example the world I'm working on has magical items in it. Items do specific things but they do them in a way that defies logic so that someone can't say "well this does that because of such". The most you can say is "point this end at that guy and press the button to set him on fire". And even then items don't always do quite the same thing. Something that launches a massive fireball one time might create a searing ray of light the next time. It's all very impossible to understand and VERY arcane. That's what magic by definition is.

Quote from: NomadicIf you take magic and break it down into an understandable form that can be studied and taught and used reliably then it's no longer really magic but science.

To which I will add the qualifier, "unless it continues to violate the rules of physics". :)

I've found it's easy to sidestep issues of science/magic/psionics/miracles/cosmology by just saying what happens when you do certain things a certain way in the setting under discussion and then giving the players a blank look when they ask you if that means there are wizards in the setting.

I'll say: "These guys over here can speak with an animal's voice for a night if they eat its raw tongue. They also hunt humongous birds with bodies as big as elephants using railguns underslung from antigrav platforms."

They'll say: "So are they absorbing the genetic knowledge of the animals, or is it a spirit communion?"

I'll say: "You guys want to tell a story tonight or are we just gonna sit here for the next four hours talking and wasting time?"

They usually prefer the former  ;)

Quote from: Salacious Angel

Quote from: NomadicIf you take magic and break it down into an understandable form that can be studied and taught and used reliably then it's no longer really magic but science.

Keep in mind though that if your magic does something understandable and predictable every time (something that can be written out as a scientific law) then it isn't violating your worlds physics (it's a part of it) and thus isn't true magic but the aforementioned magic as science.

Reproducibility is not synonymous with a reconciliation with physical law. You can have an internally consistent theory of Pyroclastic Thaumatology, describing the protocols and mystic forms of sacred fire, and that theory can constantly spit in the face of thermodynamics. What then? (Genuine question)

[blockquote=Salacious Angel]Reproducibility is not synonymous with a reconciliation with physical law. You can have an internally consistent theory of Pyroclastic Thaumatology, describing the protocols and mystic forms of sacred fire, and that theory can constantly spit in the face of thermodynamics. What then? (Genuine question) [/blockquote] Physicists/mages scratch their heads over creating a Unified Field Theory that reconciles the apparently incompatible systems of Physics and Sorcery.

Pretty much what I was thinking, Steerpike. :D

When scientists meet something that doesn't segue with preexisting theory, they make a new theory (Superstring)... or they invent a new constant (gravity, avogadro's number(?), etc.)