Dungeon Fantasy needs a bare-bones setting

[tg_ambro]

Originally Posted by Rob Crawford

A question about the DF 12 Ninja (I don't have that book, because I don't care for the whole "ninja mystique") -- would the assassins from the "Assassins's Creed" qualify as "ninja" according to the book's criteria?

Seems like an interesting take on the "class", if so.

I'd say that it's doable, but there is also an Assassin template in there as well.

[Novembermike]

You only need 3 languages for a basic setting. Local, other and ancient. You speak local, your enemies speak other and if you want to decode that riddle you need ancient. Anything more than that is just politics.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Rob Crawford

A question about the DF 12 Ninja (I don't have that book, because I don't care for the whole "ninja mystique") -- would the assassins from the "Assassins's Creed" qualify as "ninja" according to the book's criteria? (. . .)

Perhaps you can find more about this subject in the threads labeled with the following tags: assassin, assassin's creed, crusades, templars, ninja

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Tyneras

I would go for worked dungeons and encounters, but I don't think that a specific setting designed for DF would be a good idea. That would just constrain the creativity of both the setting and future DF books. If you have a setting, just make notes for how this or that would work if you play DF using that setting, or retrofit it with a supplement like DF: Banestorm or DF: Madlands.

I disagree as D&D had Greyhawk as its defacto setting but that didn't stop settings like Forgotten Realms and SpellJammer from coming into being.

SpellJammer is a very good example because it is basically a TL (3+2)^ to TL (3+3)^ setting where you are flying ships between planets (though interstellar travel is not possible). If D&D could come up with THAT even though Greyhawk existed then why would DF be constrained by a default setting?

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

GURPS Fantasy will provide all of that. So why do we need a different product?

Because not everyone wants 240 pages when 10 will do. Beginning GMs who want a liitle help don't want Fantasy. They need a checklist of world building concepts that they can follow (or not) to make their world a little less flat.

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by maximara

I disagree as D&D had Greyhawk as its defacto setting but that didn't stop settings like Forgotten Realms and SpellJammer from coming into being.

SpellJammer is a very good example because it is basically a TL (3+2)^ to TL (3+3)^ setting where you are flying ships between planets (though interstellar travel is not possible). If D&D could come up with THAT even though Greyhawk existed then why would DF be constrained by a default setting?

Because Greyhawk blew goats. No one is saying that DF should have THE OFFICIAL SETTING, only that there could be a default setting for people that just want to buy products and play the damn game. Not every GURPS player wants to build a world from the ground up or take 5467809687 hours to port an existing world.

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by KevinJ

. Not every GURPS player wants to build a world from the ground up or take 5467809687 hours to port an existing world.

Honestly, I've never had to take that long to port a world -- I just keep the setting and names the same, slap on a few stats that feel right and call it good. And while others may differ, I think dungeon fantasy is the easiest sort of world to do that with.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by KevinJ

No one is saying that DF should have THE OFFICIAL SETTING, only that there could be a default setting for people that just want to buy products and play the damn game. Not every GURPS player wants to build a world from the ground up or take 5467809687 hours to port an existing world.

The DF books come with an implied default setting. If that setting isn't enough for you, then you are going outside the scope of a DF game and into the scope of a Fantasy game. We already have a book on fleshing out Fantasy worlds.

I'm certain SJG would be very happy to reprint selections from Fantasy, liberally sprinkling "Dungeon Fantasy" throughout the book and sell it to you for $10.

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by Rocket Man

Honestly, I've never had to take that long to port a world -- I just keep the setting and names the same, slap on a few stats that feel right and call it good. And while others may differ, I think dungeon fantasy is the easiest sort of world to do that with.

Hyperbole fail! Forced to... to... What are you forced to do when you don't learn from hyperbole?

No easier than any other. I fact, I find Call of Cthulhu one of the easiest. Firearms still don't hurt the really scary and dangerous monsters.

[gjc8]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

The DF books come with an implied default setting.

So given that there's an implied default setting, where's the harm in making that setting explicit?

Of course, the other question is whether there's sufficient demand for that. On that, I'm inclined to defer to SJGames' experience in the industry.