I disagree totally with this statement. I can always opt not to buy a book that's available and save money, but I can't buy a book I actually want or even need if it's not published. Less books are bad, period. Less information is bad. If I want to make up background info I can do that perfectly fine, but I shouldn't have to do that for just about every region in a setting because there is no usable info available at all.
While I understand your stance on this, I think that part of the limits imposed on setting material releases is a market strategy for WotC's benefit. Let's face it, people are a bit cautious with their spending money these days. Given that 'region' books are largely picked up by DMs and not players, and that most DMs can't even agree on which regions they prefer to focus on, area splatbooks become a gamble. I know in my area the local stores lost money on Eberron splatbooks; they just sat on the shelves because even the Eberron fans complained about the quality from book to book. I'm guessing in a lot of places, the FR books suffered similarly (after all, not everyone cares about Thay and Rashemen or the empires of the Yuan-ti or whatever was in Other Book X; I know I didn't feel the need for a whole book on Waterdeep).
Anyway, my meandering point is that with the statement that there will be a player's book, a DM's book, and an adventure it is my belief that WotC is trying to insulate themselves against having stockrooms full of releases that didn't fly. After all, they did mention in one of the commentaries I had read that more than three books may be produced
if there is a demand for it. To me, that implies that they're willing to add more detail to a setting if it looks like they won't be wasting their money in doing so. Honestly, given what happened to TSR toward the end of 2E, I can understand their reasons for playing closer to the chest this time.
Oh, and to weigh in on the original topic; I find the new books much easier to read. I agree that the 3E campaign setting had a much greater amount of detail, even given what people are saying the Player's Guide adds to it. The textbook format, however, made it impossible for me to ever read the book cover to cover. Frankly, I'd get bored. Some of the material I couldn't care less about, a lighter hand was needed on prestige classes and new spells, and the sample characters and scholarly prose were space-wasters. So I guess it's a trade-off; do you want tightly packed information, or loose guidelines set up in a reference format? I'd say there's no wrong answer here.
Personally, for my money, the absolute best campaign setting material to come out of 3.X was the Arthaus Ravenloft setting. The format was easy to read, the setting information (
especially in the area splatbooks) was informative
and easy to digest, and the idea of presenting the detailed setting info in the Gazetteers in a manner condusive to use in roleplay was brilliant. If WotC wants tips on how to make a setting feel less like a case study and more like a living, breathing animal, they should really pay attention to the work of those writers.
As always, just my interpretations and opinions in this post. Agree or ignore as needed.
