Dungeon Fantasy needs a bare-bones setting

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Rocket Man

(. . .) And while others may differ, I think dungeon fantasy is the easiest sort of world to do that with.

True: others do differ. Maybe your Dungeon Fantasy is a very simple game, but my way of understanding and handling Dungeon Fantasy doesn't match with yours.

Originally Posted by KevinJ

(. . .) No easier than any other. I fact, I find Call of Cthulhu one of the easiest. (. . .)

Agreed with both claims.

Originally Posted by gjc8

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.

One of the harms is here:

Greater specificity inevitably conveys greater limitations.

Even if the GURPS rule system makes sense (in the most part), is very detailed and a GURPS Dungeon Fantasy game runs much better than any past or (I dare to say) future version of D&D/AD&D/etc, another reason why many of us chose GURPS is because the greater lack of limitations. Premade settings? "Boxed set" RPG settings = confining boxes.

The "bare-bones implied default setting-set of assumptions" is more than enough. Heck, I even need to tweak it, or to remove some specifics . . .

These points have been already raised multiple times in this thread. Like the others in favor of a more specific setting. Anyhow, in different senses classic DnD worlds like Forgotten Realms and GURPS settings like Banestorm were fumbles of design -again, in different ways; so, it's wiser to pick the really indispensable bare-bones elements, which are already there and are working fine, instead of writing another whole book of nonsenses.

By acknowledging and placing the default GURPS Dungeon Fantasy assumptions, Sean achieved an excellent exercise of synthesis: conversely, a specific, detailed and full-fleshed setting is going to be an effort of analysis which spoils the former.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by gjc8

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

Because my group's understanding of what is implied is not necessarily compatible with your group's understanding of what is implied.

Making the setting explicit means that only the group whose understanding matches the explicit setting will buy the setting; it agrees with the setting in their heads. This may be too small of a subset to be able to fund the work of making the 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.

Forums are sound and fury with little substance.

They have indicated that vocal demand on the forums has, when they attempted to give us what we were yelling for, resulted in underwhelming sales which discouraged them from doing it again.

Giving us what we want isn't profitable because saying we want it and actually spending the money on it aren't connected ideas. One does not necessarily follow the other. They want the money (as is reasonable). Our volume levels, no matter how high, does not mean we will give them the money.

Thereby ... ignoring us is actually the best policy because what we say and what we do are rather different things. Isn't it fun?

[Kuroshima]

Personally, I use the systemless World of Aldrazaar from KenzerCo, of Knights of the Dinner Table fame. I thing it fits well into the tongue in cheek mood of Dungeon Fantasy. I had to make some compromises to include all the races in DF3, but hell, it wasn't that bad (all the weird races are art of the Other category anyway)

[Greg 1]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

One of the harms is here:

Greater specificity inevitably conveys greater limitations.

As long as the setting is optional and other books in the series are not written around it, it isn't a limit but optional detail.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Greg 1

As long as the setting is optional and other books in the series are not written around it, it isn't a limit but optional detail.

I agree and I think this is the greatest weakness of Demonsbane's argument: He claims that even a barebones setting would act as a limitation. I would counter that those who want a barebones setting want a limitation: They want some things set in stone so that they know.

My personal concern about this endeavor is something completely different: Is it worth it? Some people would want a terribly serious treatment of DF, something more akin to Dragon Age, where you have a rich world of politics and mythology and horror adding context to your dungeon delves. I personally would prefer something more akin to the Order of the Stick, Magicka or Overlord: A slapstick world that both celebrates and pokes fun at DF tropes and sensibilities, and I'm sure there's a wide range in between and on other scales I haven't discussed or considered.

How, then, do you cater to all of these people? Remember, settings are the worst sellers of the GURPS catalog, and while DF is popular, the only people who will buy a setting for DF are the subset of the DF players who want that specific setting (which is a subset of the DF players that want to a setting, which is a subset of the DF players, which is a subset of the GURPS players).

Personally, if I were to make a setting, I'd try to make a generic fantasy setting that could appeal to more than just the DF players, and that's what you tend to see coming out of GURPS, and why people recommend things like Banestorm and Alchemical Baroque.

[Kromm]

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?

If you like! As written, the ninja in DF 12: Ninja aren't Japanese. All the Japanese terms, including the word "ninja" itself and the gear names, are really just code for "the secret language of assassins." It was easier to use Japanese – a language that author Peter Dell'Orto knew – to provide the necessary contrast in an English-language book than it was to make up a whole language! This doesn't imply that you need Japanese society, culture, language, etc. in your game world before ninja will make sense. As written, ninja will never make sense, and the only thing you "need" is a secretive brotherhood of assassins.

Put another way, you don't need a Celtic culture and people running around speaking Goidelic languages to use bards and druids. Your knights don't have to ride around on horses brandishing lances, nor do your martial artists have to look like Bruce Lee. Clerics and shamans aren't in tension, and don't imply "settled temple-builders" vs. "tribal mystics and psychopomps." And wizards don't have to wear pointy hats. DF is kitchen-sink fantasy, so ninja are just there. They can be Middle Eastern-looking guys who write their names in script like this الطائر ابن لا أحد instead of East Asian-looking chaps who write their names in script like this 小杉 正一 if you want!

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

The DF books come with an implied default setting.

Yes, they do. The implied setting has at least one feudal polity headed up by the King; is dotted with quasi-medieval towns that feature inns, temples, Merchants' Guilds, Thieves' Guilds, halfling gangsters, and Town Watch; includes a Frozen North for barbarians to come from, a Mysterious East for martial artists, mountains for mountain elves, forests for wood elves, deserts and swamps for lizard men, etc.; is home to dragon-blooded descended from dragons, elder-spawn descended from Elder Things, and so on; holds ruins associated with Elder Things, Evil Runes, and Squid Cults; and supports a cosmology that includes an Ethereal Plane, an Astral Plane, a Spirit Realm, Dream Worlds, Elemental Planes, a Heaven, several Hells, and an Outer Void. Among other things. More detail than that is likely not wise, as it's kitchen-sink fantasy, which always works best when left vague.

Originally Posted by gjc8

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.

Our experience selling settings has been terrible. The critics like to say, "Wah! That's because we don't like your settings!", but of course we have no guarantee that they would like our DF setting, either. As for harm, see my response to Greg 1 at the end of this post.

Originally Posted by demonsbane

Greater specificity inevitably conveys greater limitations.

There is much truth to that, although it's possible to be specific in the window dressing (see my big list above that mentions the King, dragon-blooded, etc.) but vague in depth.

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Forums are sound and fury with little substance.

This is quite true. I cannot and will not name products, but several things published in recent times were tests to see whether we could use forums feedback to justify publications. Let's just say that there were far more failures than successes. The 5-10 people who can get excited about any arbitrary topic you could name here do not seem to be very interested in/good at selling the game to 20-40 gamers apiece. If we have to do the selling, then we'll aim at the market we know we have, which is chiefly people who buy crunch (systems, stats, etc.) rather than specific settings and adventures.

Originally Posted by Greg 1

As long as the setting is optional and other books in the series are not written around it, it isn't a limit but optional detail.

Things aren't that simple, unfortunately. If we don't write future material around a setting, then we face accusations of "not supporting the setting"; in fact, the standard criticism of most of our settings is not that they're bad but that they're unsupported. If we do write future material around a setting, then the detail is no longer optional, and we get the limitations that demonsbane mentioned and may well do the DF series real harm. And if we try to be all things to all people, we have to greatly increase series output so that we can publish generally useful content alongside setting-specific content . . . and frankly, we lack the resources to do so. Having no setting does the least harm here, as our sales records clearly show GURPS players rarely putting their money where their collective mouth is when it comes to settings. And that isn't surprising: Why would any real percentage of customers who've chosen a generic system get behind one specific setting?

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

How, then, do you cater to all of these people? Remember, settings are the worst sellers of the GURPS catalog, and while DF is popular, the only people who will buy a setting for DF are the subset of the DF players who want that specific setting (which is a subset of the DF players that want to a setting, which is a subset of the DF players, which is a subset of the GURPS players).

And if people are thinking of buying into DF, and see a review for "the DF setting"* that is all goofiness and lampshade hanging when they are looking for a complex and rich setting (or vice versa), that's a sale lost for not just the setting book but probably for several of the DF books and possibly Basic and Magic.

* Which we will all know is only one take on the possibilities of the game, but might not be obvious to a potential customer reading a review.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by CousinX

That's a really good point, the early D&D settings were all grown organically, so to speak, through the course of various published adventures that shared writers, and therefor, basic setting assumptions. I think it'd be good to provide "generic" adventures as well, or at least enough deliberate leeway to adapt an adventure to another setting, or play it without paying attention to a larger setting.

Yes, this. A series of adventure modules, with specific maps, NPCs, etc. would be fine. Just provide a few notes on how they can fit into different sorts of campaigns (or with each other, for the later ones) at the beginning, no more than a paragraph or two. And that's all the setting besides what's implied by the core DF books that is really needed in order to play 'out of the box', and it's hardly limiting at all. If a given adventure doesn't violate some idiosyncratic house rules or assumptions, such that you can use at all without major tweaking, then that particular dungeon and nearby town can be the center of the individual GM's campaign, or out on the periphery, or whatever suits best.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kromm

This is quite true. I cannot and will not name products, but several things published in recent times were tests to see whether we could use forums feedback to justify publications.

I do hope Low-Tech wasn't one of them. AFAICT that book's sales suffered from problems with availability, not demand.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I do hope Low-Tech wasn't one of them. AFAICT that book's sales suffered from problems with availability, not demand.

Low-Tech was planned since before the forums existed. I'm referring mainly to more-specialized PDFs. People often say things like, "Given the convenience of PDFs, GURPS should return to focusing on historical worldbooks," or, "Given the convenience of PDFs, GURPS should try publishing more settings and adventures." Not those specific things, necessarily (those thinking of quoting me take note), but you get the idea. However, sales don't bear it out. Then we release some crunchy, low-profile item like Power-Ups 1 and it hits the Top 20.