Less is More? Less books per setting equal more enjoyment?

[TheYeti1775]

Forked from the 3 and out statement being bantered about on another thread.

Does having less books per setting make for a more enjoyable setting?

I know I've throughly enjoyed a few quite a few settings that were only one or two books for the whole thing as well as some that had numerous (10+) for them.

What is everyone else's take on it?

For 3 and out arguement figure on:
Players Guide - 50/50 mix Fluff/Crunch
Campaign Setting - Heavy Fluff
DM's Guide - Heavy Crunch

 

[weem]

I love having options - anything that allows me to make my fighter much different than the next one to be made is a good thing - BUT - there also needs to be balance. So, in general (for me) the more books, the better if balance is not (entirely) sacrificed.

With that said, I could definitely have fun with less - I just prefer more

 

[amysrevenge]

So basically what you're saying then, is that less is more, unless it is less, in which case it's more?

(On topic - I like the "three and out" strategy, especially when combined with non-printed support through DDI.)

 

[Siberys]

I rather like the setup - easier on my wallet, being a completist. It allows me a passing familiarity without overdoing it.

Of course, my favorite setting is Eberron, and I've kept my complete library of 3.x Eberron info for the fluff, so this may not really apply to me.

I'm looking forward to the DS three-and-out release. Then I can go through the list of 2e materials and choose what books to get from there, again for fluff.

 

[Crothian]

It works for some setting and not for others. A micromanaged setting does have some good points and can have lots of creativity in there. Of course it makes it so the some books are better then others and plenty of opportunity for conflicting information.

 

[Asmor]

I think they've got a happy medium going by publishing fewer books per setting.

I mean, sure, I'd personally like to see more Eberron, but I'd also be annoyed if they published more FR stuff that I've got no interest in. I'm sure there are others who feel the opposite way.

And it definitely beats the 3e paradigm of supporting two settings out the wazoo and leaving everyone out in the cold.

I like that we're going to get to see a new setting every year, to keep things fresh. After FR, Eberron and Dark Sun, though, I would really like to see an all new setting. Not that there aren't still other settings I'd like to see re-released (al-qadim, spelljammer and planescape come to mind), but I'd really like to see something all fresh and new.

 

[malraux]

I would prefer a bit more than what the current 2 and out gives (I don't really consider the 3rd book to really be part of the set give it is just an adventure). For me, I think the 3e eberron set gives about the right amount. There is probably a general source book to give a DM enough info about a particular topic but not so much that it becomes overwhelming. I can read about Xendrix if I want, but there's enough open detail there that I can easily add a city or site there without screwing the canon. There's also not so much information that I can't get up to speed on a topic in a night. Information is significantly more contained so that I don't have to read several different sourcebooks and, even worse, modules to learn about a topic.

All that said, I'd rather there be a bit too little information than a bit too much.

 

[Scribble]

The new shift works well with my purchasing/play style.

I never bought setting books because I needed them to complete the setting. I bought them because they had neat info in them. In 3e for instance I used the scarred lands main book, bought some of the expansions, also bought a lot of generic setting info, or books from other settings and reskinned them into the scarred lands.

So give me the main books for an overview to spark my imaginatioin then give me generic material I can easily reskin and I'm happy.

 

[fba827]

i prefer fewer books on a particular setting (rather than more).
1) I don't have to worry that something i'm going to do/derive isn't going to be countermanded by a later book (i.e. more creative freedom, and for my open/player driven style, i need that freedom without worrying about 'what might come')
2) I don't have to worry about players knowing "more than me" about some aspect simply because they read some book that i didn't (i.e. not that i feel "bad" but it just deminishes my authority on the setting)

 

[Mouseferatu]

[nitpick tangent]

There's no such thing as "less books." It's fewer books. The two words are not interchangeable.

If you can count it, it's "fewer." If you can't, it's "less." You have less water, but fewer cups of water, because cups can be counted numerically but water cannot. If you have fewer friends, you experience less friendship. And so on.

This message has been brought to you by your Friendly Neighborhood Creative Writing Major. We now return you to you regularly scheduled thread.

[/nitpick tangent]