Dungeon Fantasy needs a bare-bones setting

[demonsbane]

Here is what I meant by saying that Sean (Kromm) achieved a great exercise of synthesis. Contrary to analysis, synthesis isn't too focused on the particulars, hence the resulting feeling of "vagueness" (and open-endedness), that to my mind is the best path to follow here:

Originally Posted by Kromm

(. . .) 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.

(. . . ) 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.

You give me a basic DnDish sketch (the bare-bones implied assumptions) which I already like; and then I'll be refining details . . . if I want to do it, and in my own way.

So, by saying . . .

Originally Posted by demonsbane

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 . . .

. . . what I mean is that I can waive some of these assumptions if they aren't useful or interesting for my current DF approach, but by the current state of things, that is far of being an issue . . . so I'm not really defending the "anti-any-setting-element position" that Mailanka seems to believe:

Originally Posted by Mailanka

(Demonsbane) 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.

. . . since I agree with that (some things already set, placed around there), which are the basic assumptions already implied in Dungeon Fantasy; things that at the same time constitute a reason why isn't really needed a "DF setting" book.

And this is another (simply down-to-earth) point that should be also taken in account:

Originally Posted by Kromm

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?

I agree, too, with the latest posts of RyanW, vitruvian, Mysterious Dark Lord v3.2, Novembermike and David Johnston2.