The Campaign Builder's Guild

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)
-The Living World of Glasera (Pair o'Dice Lost)
-Na Bantu (Wensleydale)
-Prismatic (Llum)
-Ptolus
-Urbis (Jurgen)

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.


Steerpike

QuoteHmm. 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