The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: SteerpikeWelcome to the boards, nils![blockquote=nils]I detest steampunk.[/blockquote]

QuoteSome favorites: Call of Cthulhu, Torg, Planescape, Traveller (Classic), Space:1889, 2300 AD, Cyberpunk 2020.

Interesting... do you not consider Space:1889 steampunk, or is it simply an exception to your dislike to steampunk?

Or, alternatively, since the whole question was "what settings have you used/do you like?" did you perhaps PLAY Space: 1889 once or twice--that being the SOURCE of your hatred of Steampunk?

Space:1889 is a scientific romance / swords & planets game, not a steampunk game. It's no more steampunk than War of the Worlds or Barsoom or the Lost World or Jules Verne's work. You can, of course, play steampunk with Space:1889, but why ruin a perfectly good setting?

I've often seen Scientific Romance and Steampunk lumped together, and in fact, some steampunk draws very heavily on Jules Verne, and sometimes even War of the Worlds.  Where do you draw the line?  What makes scientific romances alright, but steampunk not?  I'm rather interested.

What we call scientific romances was the science fiction of its day. War of the World is science fiction. Verne wrote sci-fi and travel/adventure stories. Barsoom... well. Barsoom is really pulp fiction, but the idea of a canal-covered Mars was at one point accepted science. (At least accepted popular science, there were always those who argued it was impossible.)

Steampunk is about turning the 19th Century into a weird caricature of the 21st. And it simply doesn't work. Steam engines don't power giant robots, for example. Even Burrough's iron mole didn't go down that road, and Burroughs hardly based his writings in hard science. Bending the laws of physics is fine, but there is a point where it becomes silly.

Steampunk is also hardly "punk". The term obviously mirrors Cyberpunk, but where Cyberpunk had real attitude and dealt with real issues, Steampunk seems to think that tacking on pipe organs makes something cool.

In short, I believe that "steampunk" does not really add or offer anything beyond mere buzzwords and cosmetics.

Fair enough: its a pretty specific definition of what steampunk is (though probably far more accurate a definition than that used by most people).  Would you consider, say, the alternate history novel The Difference Engine - usually considered steampunk - steampunk?  If you aren't familiar with it, it posits an England in which Babbage computers become mass-produceable and considerably more advanced, which leads to a Victorian information age.  No whacky steam-powered robots or the like (for the most part): just steam-powered computers, which are theoretically quite workable and completely within the realm of possibility.  Babbage did actually build a working difference engine; the analytical engine would have been the next step, a computer that he designed but never completed (his funding was cut) and which Ada Lovelace (Lord Byron's daughter) wrote a program for.

The "punk" element you feel is usually lacking in "steampunk" works is the radical/countercultural element introduced in the novel's world after the introduction of steam-powered computers - paralleled (loosely) to hackers anc computer counterculture.

I'm not trying necessarily to "convert" you to steampunk, just asking if you'd consider The Difference Engine steampunk, since it seems to escape most of the reasons you dislike steampunk, especially the implausability sometimes associated with the genre.

Honestly, the "punk" in steampunk shouldn't mirror the punk of 80s scifi at all, but there were massive contemporary populist and labor movements that could be thought of as very punk. I'm reading some Zinn for US History and I'm finding all that stuff fascinating. I'm also a fan of John Sloane's (did I spell that right) illos in The Masses and such.

Steampunk is misapplied in all kinds of ways, but my personal favorite is post-feudalism fantasy.

I have not read Difference Engine, so I can't really comment on it. I always thought it sounded a lot like an embodiment of the term "steampunk", that is, 19th Century cyberpunk.

Beejazz, I didn't mean that "steampunk" has to be "punk", I fully understand that even in Cyberpunk the punk stands for counterculture et al in general. Most literature - and even more games - that could be viewed as "steampunk" seem to forgo any kind of depth and aim for cheap cosmetics.

See, I see cheap cosmetics and glossing over the real world as a problem across the board. Like ostensibly feudal settings that aren't hardly feudal. Or the point at which *every character* on Heroes had some kind of superpower. And was a Petrelli.

It's hard to create a truly detailed world. Usually it's not sold under some big buzzword though.

Quote from: nilsIt's hard to create a truly detailed world. Usually it's not sold under some big buzzword though.

Is it?  Maybe.  But it shan't stop us from trying.  I find the more one plays and creates, the more the details power the big picture and build the veracity.
[blockquote=Beejazz]I'm reading some Zinn for US History and I'm finding all that stuff fascinating. I'm also a fan of John Sloane's (did I spell that right) illos in The Masses and such.[/blockquote]  Zinn's a client and lives a few miles from my Newton Store.  I love his stuff, but especially the 'A People's History of the United States' shows off best as a counterpoint of traditional history, not as a stand alone.  However, as a worldbuilder, I appreciate that.  As a reader, I like the play, "Emma" more.

Quote from: Lord Vreeg[blockquote=Beejazz]I'm reading some Zinn for US History and I'm finding all that stuff fascinating. I'm also a fan of John Sloane's (did I spell that right) illos in The Masses and such.[/blockquote]  Zinn's a client and lives a few miles from my Newton Store.  I love his stuff, but especially the 'A People's History of the United States' shows off best as a counterpoint of traditional history, not as a stand alone.  However, as a worldbuilder, I appreciate that.  As a reader, I like the play, "Emma" more.

You know the guy? I'm a huge fan of People's History. We're reading it alongside Paul Johnson's a History of the American People.

I realize it's a view of American history focused on some very specific issues, but I find those issues interesting. Especially labor and populist movements and such. Although both books gloss over some things. Like prohibition and Al Capone. And I'm surprised not to be hearing much about machine politics from Zinn (the most I get from either is Johnson's breakdown of Truman's early political career... so far anyway.)

Greetings,
I came here based on a suggestion from Arcana over at Cartographer's Guild.
Gaming Systems In Use:
3.5
Pathfinder
Classic Battletech
Gaming History:
Just lots of home games, in various versions of DND and Battletech. I did participate in one official Battletech Game in Dallas. (Monte Diablo)

Quote from: NotsonobleGreetings,
I came here based on a suggestion from Arcana over at Cartographer's Guild.
Gaming Systems In Use:
3.5
Pathfinder
Classic Battletech
Gaming History:
Just lots of home games, in various versions of DND and Battletech. I did participate in one official Battletech Game in Dallas. (Monte Diablo)

Well, welcome to the thinking man's game design babblebox.  Or the drinking man's.  Depending on the day.

I am new to CBG, I think is an amazing idea!

Personal Bio:
25 years old. Proud to be from the South. I am almost done with law school.

Game systems/History:
I started 2nd ADnD after 3rd had been out for a while. In the last year I have picked up 3.5, I know it seems like every time I start up again or find people to play I am one step behind wizards' current edition.  
I have played a variety of modern or sci-fi rpgs but never long enough to remember their names now. I am currently writing a campaign that will begin in the fall using 3.5, but my heart will always be with 2nd edition.
I have GMed in 2nd, this fall will be my first foray into 3.5.  I enjoy playing a warrior and swinging away.

Personal Likes:
I like reading, I either want to read non-fiction or pure fantasy. Not alot of middle ground. In reading fantasy, I enjoy books that are character driven and not an exploration of some cool world or universe some one has created. For example, I enjoy Lord of the Rings character development compared the exploration in the Chronicles of Narnia. (This is just a basic example, I know both series are more complex)
On a different note I like women, action and comedy movies, I am a sucker for good reality TV, law and politics, and fine bourbon whiskey.

Dislikes: Judgmental and uppity people, civil procedure, and sprained ankles.

Strengths:  I am really strong at integrating political nature of the world into a campaign. I take my knowledge of history and bring  the nature of what I know to a campaign. I am great about creating and beginning campaigns.
Weaknesses:
I have a hard time ending a campaign or story arc. Creating a world, I don't really care for world building or creating one that is interesting to others.  I will spend a great deal of time creating complex political systems for countries, cities, or a world in general and not get to the meat of the world that needs developing for my campaign or maybe never use.

Published settings: Not really anything, I do have some old 2nd ed. Forgotten realms and Dragonlance stuff I will pull ideas or inspiration from.

Major Influence on World building: Allen Eckert's Winning of America Series especially the Frontiersman and WIlderness empire.  The Civil War, especially the battle of Shiloh or Pittsburgh Landing. I guess American History in general.  Though I don't run sci fi  the star wars books, The New Jedi Order, Legacy of the Force, and so on.  Hobbes and Aquinas. I tend to create political campaings and ones of exploration.

You dislike sprained ankles, huh? Don't think I've seen that one listed before.

Welcome to the guild!