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

[maddman75]

I don't like suppliments in general, and never buy setting books. If anything, I'd buy a setting book that was a collection of settings that I could use in different games, just a short synopsis of each and what makes it different. Long lists of cities with unpronouncable names that are all pretty much 'generic medieval city' and new classes and such don't really hold any interest.

But I'm not really in WotC's target market either.

 

[Azgulor]

Fewer books does not equal better/preferred to me. One of my main decision criteria for selecting a published setting is that the setting receive strong support.

I'm not looking for micro-level detail on every settlement, etc. However, I have to weigh what material is available vs. what I'll have to make up on my own. If I have to develop the macro-view, that takes away from time I could spend on the micro- or local-view.

For me, GM-prep time is a finite quantity and in short supply. Also, I tend to stick with a setting for years. I change settings when I'm facing burnout, something really grabs me, or a campaign ends and the group asks for something different.

I'd already decided 4e wasn't for me when WotC announced their limited-book approach to settings, but if I hadn't and didn't have a setting in mind, this would have been a strike against buying a WotC setting.

YMMV.

 

[maddman75]

For me, GM-prep time is a finite quantity and in short supply. Also, I tend to stick with a setting for years. I change settings when I'm facing burnout, something really grabs me, or a campaign ends and the group asks for something different.

Ah, this is the primary difference. My group goes from game to game frequently. I rarely stick to a given game for more than a dozen sessions or so. That's generally plenty of time for me to do what I wanted with it, and we can move onto something else. So I'm more eager for new games entirely than continuing to stack rules onto the same game.

People complain about things getting bloated - its inevitable. No matter what the system if you keep adding book after book it will eventually feel bloated.

 

[Azgulor]

Ah, this is the primary difference. My group goes from game to game frequently. I rarely stick to a given game for more than a dozen sessions or so. That's generally plenty of time for me to do what I wanted with it, and we can move onto something else. So I'm more eager for new games entirely than continuing to stack rules onto the same game.

People complain about things getting bloated - its inevitable. No matter what the system if you keep adding book after book it will eventually feel bloated.

True. It can be a fine line to walk between well-supported vs. glut. However, I think that has more to do with the quality of the supplements than the volume of the material. If the material is all high-quality, I can pick and choose what I want. Once the quality isn't there, interest in future supplements starts to wane... death spiral may eventually ensue.

 

[maddman75]

True. It can be a fine line to walk between well-supported vs. glut. However, I think that has more to do with the quality of the supplements than the volume of the material. If the material is all high-quality, I can pick and choose what I want. Once the quality isn't there, interest in future supplements starts to wane... death spiral may eventually ensue.

I think focus is a good part of a good suppliment as well. I really liked Open Grave for 4e. Its a good, enjoyable quality book. But it also has a strong focus. Its for people that want a lot of undead in their games. If you aren't using it, the information is easily ignored and doesn't contribute to bloat.

What you don't want is the 3e situation where players show up with a stack of books, because I have a feat from this book, and a PrC from this one, and some spells from these two...

 

[diaglo]

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

tsk tsk tsk...


you need an editior, mang.

um... i prefer a folio and nothing else. although, i am not adverse to modules for the setting cuz i don't have to buy them. so don't have to include them to understand the changes.

 

[Azgulor]

Also, I think many published settings, rather than shifting the focus over time to un-developed areas too frequently opt for the setting-shattering-event/reboot. 4e FR is the obvious example but here are others:

Scarred Lands/Scarn : introduced additional continent (Termana) before even half the nations of the original continent (Ghelspad) were expanded upon. While the shift was the right approach, the timing was premature.

Greyhawk-Greyhawk Wars-Greyhawk Retcon: Advanced the timeline with SSE (& it's retroactive clean-up) rather than exploring what lay beyond the Sea of Dust, south or east of the maps, etc.

You get the idea.

 

[doctorhook]

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

Could you provide a link to the original thread, please?

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

In 4E, the context in which I am familiar with "3-and-Out" settings, the three books are:
- Player's Guide - fluff/crunch mix, but mostly crunch;
- Campaign Guide - mostly fluff, unless you include artifacts and monsters;
- Adventure module - mostly adventure module.

 

[Obryn]

I love the Two-Book approach for the 4e settings. While additional information is can sometimes be a good thing, I don't think finely-tuned details help my DMing.

I like having a foundation to start from, and improvising from there. If there's a massive amount of canon, I tend to shy away from settings.

-O

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

It really depends. Forgotten Realms, for instance, was a great setting because of all the written support. I liked how I could just take one or two books of FR and run a game in a given part of the world without having to think about the name of a village or the god being worshipped in the local church.

On the other hand, Dark Sun is a clear case of less is more. As you read through the sourcebooks after reading the first boxed set, the initial magic irradiating from it fade away.

Vampire (the old one) became a worse game with each new sourcebook, in my opinion, while its cousin, Werewolf, improved. So, I think each setting deserves a different take on the matter.

Cheers,