The Campaign Builder's Guild

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: SilvercatMoonpaw

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.

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!