Implied Setting

I have gotten a few comments on the Alpha copy regarding Implied Setting, so I figure I should address it on the blog to establish where I stand on it.

I believe that there are certain aspect of classic Medieval Fantasy that are simply required from a setting perspective. If you ignore these things, you get bizarre outcomes. For example, if your game system has the "continual flame" spell at 2nd level (like D&D 3e has), then your setting should contain cities with vast permanent lighting systems. There should be light EVERYWHERE, because the spell is permanent. You cannot have a game system with this spell, without having most civilized areas extremely well lit, unless you have some additional bit of information to reshape the logic. So if you don't address this, there is a bit of a  hole in your setting.

Another example of similar logic error within a setting is that you cannot have a medieval metropolis in a temperate-cold climate without a huge infrastructural system to provide them with food (ex. Waterdeep). Or in a desert (Calimshan). I think failure to address these kinds of issues is sloppy.

So when I say that my Dwarves and Elves used to have a high civilization that has since been lain low, that is because otherwise there would be no logical reason why they wouldn't be the default race instead of human. When I say that there is very poor mapping and information infrastructure, that is because otherwise every class would be literate instead of just the Scholar, among other reasons as well such as the presence of large quantities of apex predators.

Also, I fully intend on actually developing Errant as a setting. Albiet on a longer time horizon than my production of the game.

Make sense?