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

[ggroy]

It depends on the particular game.

For my shorter games lasting a few months which move at a relatively fast pace, I prefer a setting which has less detail.

For my longer games lasting more than year, I may want some more detail.

 

[hailstop]

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.

I have to wonder if Dark Sun will be a 4-and-out...with a Dark Sun Monster Manual added on. Out of all the settings, this is the one that really needs to have it's own book of monsters.

 

[hailstop]

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...

But with the Compendium and Character Builder, this should be much less of an issue. That said, we have had a few times where the feat description on the Character Builder sheet wasn't detailed enough to use...and we had to go digging for it.

 

[Shemeska]

It depends on what you like in a setting.

I really, -really- enjoy heavily detailed settings, and I look at the setting support from 2e for the various TSR settings like FR, Planescape, Ravenloft, etc as the high mark for setting support and awesome ideas and innovation through D&D's entire history.

The current WotC model misses the mark if you're looking for setting support. Now there's the DDI yes, but that's the only option for continued setting support from WotC. Assuming that you get a regular production of articles for a particular setting that you really like, you still don't have an article by article purchase option -it's all or nothing- so in effect you have to subsidize other settings you might have zero interest in, if you want whatever support the DDI might provide. I'd be interested to compare word count for FR and Eberron support through the DDI a year or two after release versus the count from their 3e book support and see how wide of a gap there is.

 

[deadsmurf]

I'd like to see a little more published support for the D&D settings, say, 2 or three short (128 page or less) softcovers a year, focusing on DM material (with the occasional Monster/race writeup, or feat) It would be very nice to have a Softcover on Returned Abeir, The Eastern Continents of Toril [the oriental adventures places], or Sarlona, or a Detailed book on Khorvaire or Xen'Drik (well relatively detailed)

A couple softcovers a year isn't a huge deal in making a ton of 'useless' to most people books, especially if kept to a inexpensive medium like the Races books and the Locations books they are doing, and will likely pick up a good 60-70% of the people who bought the campaign guides.

 

[Obryn]

I'd be interested to compare word count for FR and Eberron support through the DDI a year or two after release versus the count from their 3e book support and see how wide of a gap there is.

It will be many, many fewer words - and that's by design, not by accident. I don't think it's a useful experiment when the developers, you, and I all know the result ahead of time. DDI articles are not intended to provide equal support to what you'd get in a series of 5-6 hardcovers over the course of 4 years.

I'd like to see a little more published support for the D&D settings, say, 2 or three short (128 page or less) softcovers a year, focusing on DM material (with the occasional Monster/race writeup, or feat) It would be very nice to have a Softcover on Returned Abeir, The Eastern Continents of Toril [the oriental adventures places], or Sarlona, or a Detailed book on Khorvaire or Xen'Drik (well relatively detailed)

128 pages is nearly a full hardcover! (The Power books hover around 160.) 32 or 64 pages, maybe, but 128 is pretty big!

A couple softcovers a year isn't a huge deal in making a ton of 'useless' to most people books, especially if kept to a inexpensive medium like the Races books and the Locations books they are doing, and will likely pick up a good 60-70% of the people who bought the campaign guides.

I think that's pretty optimistic. I'd think it's closer to 20%-30%, and would drop as it got more specific.

It's all a numbers game for WotC right now. Core supplements simply sell more books that setting-specific supplements. If you sell 20% as many setting-specific supplements as you do core supplements, but it takes 50% as much development time and money, it's a losing proposition in comparison. The math is pretty solid, based on the numbers WotC has shared on the topic. Simply put, core supplements are a wiser allocation of development time.

With that said, it would be awesome if someone could work out a licensing deal with WotC to provide more detailed supplements. Shipping this sort of thing out to a smaller press could make it work. It won't happen, unfortunately, but it would be nice.

-O

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

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

This is my position. I don't care very much for FR and Eberron, so the news that WotC will be providing some support to other settings is great.

 

[pawsplay]

[nitpick tangent]

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

Not interchangeable, but often functionally equivalent. Technically, you might say "less of books" (books are something I have, and this amount is less), but the "of" can be understand. The distinction is important in cases like "less memories" versus "fewer memories" where the word memory has a different sense as a general noun versus a regular noun. But as the quantity books is always composed of individual books, "less books" is both accurate and grammatical.

 

[Holy Bovine]

It depends on what you like in a setting.

I really, -really- enjoy heavily detailed settings, and I look at the setting support from 2e for the various TSR settings like FR, Planescape, Ravenloft, etc as the high mark for setting support and awesome ideas and innovation through D&D's entire history.

Isn't that one of the major factors that lead to TSR's collapse? Fragmenting their own market so much that few books made a profit?

I'd be interested to compare word count for FR and Eberron support through the DDI a year or two after release versus the count from their 3e book support and see how wide of a gap there is.

It wil lbe massive. But you knew that already, didn't you?

 

[Obryn]

Isn't that one of the major factors that lead to TSR's collapse? Fragmenting their own market so much that few books made a profit?

Yes, although there's a somewhat crazy revisionist theory going around that says basically the opposite, too.

-O