Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A Taxonomy of D&D and other FRPG Settings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="squibbles" data-source="post: 7999979" data-attributes="member: 6937590"><p>Ya, that's a distinction that I've not seen made before. I think there is a meaningful difference between crunch elements that exist to serve novel fluff, i.e. rules to make wizard magic cause environmental collapse, and fluff elements that exist to serve novel crunch, i.e. in-setting backstory to justify the centrality of domain rules. But there probably aren't that many settings that truly belong to the second category--it's a lot easier for a prospective setting designer to reason forward from theme to representative mechanics than to reason backward from mechanics to a verisimilitudinous theme.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ideal types are difficult to fit into broader typologies because they are definitionally a melange of many essential but unrelated characteristics. Like, for example, I think of high magic, kitchen sink-ness, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_feudalism" target="_blank">bastard feudalist</a> power structures surviving a civilizationally superior predecessor polity, and gonzo levels of divine intervention as being primary traits of the D&Dism ideal type. None of those traits necessarily has anything to do with the others but, if you remove one of them from a setting, it ceases to fit the ideal type.</p><p></p><p>I think a taxonomy with less amorphous distinctions would be more insightful.</p><p></p><p>What do you think of this 3x3 with the dimensions 'faux-medieval-Europe-ness' and 'prevalence of the weird and magical'?</p><p></p><table style='width: 100%'><tr><td></td><td>limited magic and weirdness</td><td>traditional magic and weirdness</td><td>voluminous or extreme magic and weirdness</td></tr><tr><td>faux medieval Europe</td><td>1a: Harnworld, Pendragon, Westeros</td><td>1b: Ars Magica (I assume), Birthright</td><td>1c: ???</td></tr><tr><td>faux medieval Europe with exceptions</td><td>2a: Lord of the Rings, Ravenloft</td><td>2b: Forgotten Realms and its many kitchen-sinky brethren</td><td>2c: Lamentations of the Flame Princess and its OSR ilk, Ptolus</td></tr><tr><td>not faux medieval Europe</td><td>3a: Hyborian Age</td><td>3b: Darksun, Talislanta, Tekumel, some Magic the Gathering worlds</td><td>3c: Eberron, Planescape, Spelljammer, other Magic the Gathering worlds</td></tr></table><p></p><p>It didn't occur to me prior to creating the table, but it seems like there's a lot of clustering around 2b, 3b, and 3c... taxonomies are hard D:></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="squibbles, post: 7999979, member: 6937590"] Ya, that's a distinction that I've not seen made before. I think there is a meaningful difference between crunch elements that exist to serve novel fluff, i.e. rules to make wizard magic cause environmental collapse, and fluff elements that exist to serve novel crunch, i.e. in-setting backstory to justify the centrality of domain rules. But there probably aren't that many settings that truly belong to the second category--it's a lot easier for a prospective setting designer to reason forward from theme to representative mechanics than to reason backward from mechanics to a verisimilitudinous theme. Ideal types are difficult to fit into broader typologies because they are definitionally a melange of many essential but unrelated characteristics. Like, for example, I think of high magic, kitchen sink-ness, [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_feudalism']bastard feudalist[/URL] power structures surviving a civilizationally superior predecessor polity, and gonzo levels of divine intervention as being primary traits of the D&Dism ideal type. None of those traits necessarily has anything to do with the others but, if you remove one of them from a setting, it ceases to fit the ideal type. I think a taxonomy with less amorphous distinctions would be more insightful. What do you think of this 3x3 with the dimensions 'faux-medieval-Europe-ness' and 'prevalence of the weird and magical'? [TABLE] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD]limited magic and weirdness[/TD] [TD]traditional magic and weirdness[/TD] [TD]voluminous or extreme magic and weirdness[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]faux medieval Europe[/TD] [TD]1a: Harnworld, Pendragon, Westeros[/TD] [TD]1b: Ars Magica (I assume), Birthright[/TD] [TD]1c: ???[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]faux medieval Europe with exceptions[/TD] [TD]2a: Lord of the Rings, Ravenloft[/TD] [TD]2b: Forgotten Realms and its many kitchen-sinky brethren[/TD] [TD]2c: Lamentations of the Flame Princess and its OSR ilk, Ptolus[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]not faux medieval Europe[/TD] [TD]3a: Hyborian Age[/TD] [TD]3b: Darksun, Talislanta, Tekumel, some Magic the Gathering worlds[/TD] [TD]3c: Eberron, Planescape, Spelljammer, other Magic the Gathering worlds[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] It didn't occur to me prior to creating the table, but it seems like there's a lot of clustering around 2b, 3b, and 3c... taxonomies are hard D:> [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A Taxonomy of D&D and other FRPG Settings
Top