More books = more interest?

[Bullgrit]

I often see people around here mention how many books they own of a particular D&D edition. Although I don’t see anyone really getting into a “my collection is bigger than your collection” battle, mentioning one’s collection size does seem to be used as evidence of one’s interest in the edition.

That is, owning 50 books means you are more hardcore into the game than someone who just owns the core three. Also, owning many third party books means you support the industry.

I’m wondering, is my perception the actual case – owning more books is supposed to show one’s hardcoreness in the game – or am I reading more into the library-size claim than is meant?

See, I consider myself a hardcore D&D gamer. I LOVE D&D in general. D&D3 is my preferred edition of the game, but I own only five hardcover D&D3 books* (which I only regularly use the core three) and maybe ten D&D3 adventure modules (which I have used none as a DM).

I own far, far more AD&D1 material (most of which I have used in games), even though I haven’t played it in almost 15 years. But even my collection of AD&D1 is not nearly complete.

A funny thing is that I often find myself reading discussions around here that I can’t follow because I don’t own all the books being mentioned. For instance, all the Pun-Pun stuff is gibberish, and meaningless, to me (Is there anything about Pun-Pun that comes from the core books?).

So, do you see the size of someone’s library as evidence or a reflection of their interest or hardcoreness in the game? Does owning more books give one’s opinion on an edition more weight? Should it?

Also, if you have a large collection of books, do you buy books to use or do you buy the books as a collector?


*Not counting duplicates of the core three for updating from 3.0 to 3.5.

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

 

[DaveMage]

I’m wondering, is my perception the actual case – owning more books is supposed to show one’s hardcoreness in the game – or am I reading more into the library-size claim than is meant?

So, do you see the size of someone’s library as evidence or a reflection of their interest or hardcoreness in the game? Does owning more books give one’s opinion on an edition more weight? Should it?

Also, if you have a large collection of books, do you buy books to use or do you buy the books as a collector?

Owning more books doesn't translate in to one's "harcoreness", nor give anyone's opinion more weight. I think that term should be reserved for those who PLAY the most.

I own a large collection. I use very few in game, but I also:

1) Enjoy reading them
2) Mine them for ideas or inspiration
3) Like to play librarian and look up things for people who don't have all the books.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

From what I understand, when people talk about the size of their library on any given edition, they're not talking about how hardcore they are about gaming with it, they're talking about how hardocre they are about supporting it through the whole "vote with your money" thing.

Cheers,

 

[Voadam]

I
A funny thing is that I often find myself reading discussions around here that I can’t follow because I don’t own all the books being mentioned. For instance, all the Pun-Pun stuff is gibberish, and meaningless, to me (Is there anything about Pun-Pun that comes from the core books?).

My understanding is that Pun-Pun is racially a kobold straight out of the MM.

 

[Voadam]

So, do you see the size of someone’s library as evidence or a reflection of their interest or hardcoreness in the game? Does owning more books give one’s opinion on an edition more weight? Should it?

Also, if you have a large collection of books, do you buy books to use or do you buy the books as a collector?

1 I see a library of books as evidence of interest in the books/game though not the converse inference. I expect someone who got a bunch of books has an interest them. However you do not need books to have an interest in D&D or to be hardcore into the game. I was very into Shadowrun and Warhammer FRP long before I ever owned a single book for either. I'm not even sure that all the guys in my group, who have been playing D&D together for over 25 years, have a PH later than 2e even though we've been playing 3e since a little after it came out.

2 Owning books does not give your opinions more weight. An opinion that makes sense and expresses its point well has increased weight.

3 Obviously not.

4 I have a large collection. I don't expect to use them all in a game, but I want to read them and have them for reference in case I want to use them.

 

[Crothian]

Owning more books doesn't translate in to one's "harcoreness", nor give anyone's opinion more weight. I think that term should be reserved for those who PLAY the most.

I own a large collection. I use very few in game, but I also:

1) Enjoy reading them
2) Mine them for ideas or inspiration
3) Like to play librarian and look up things for people who don't have all the books.

This might also apply, it applies to me.

4) Have a job to afford buying lots of books especially the ones I couldn't afford 10-20 years ago. There was lots of great D&D books when I was a kid that I just wasn't able to buy. Now I can and I do.

 

[Desdichado]

I never owned 1e or B/X; I played with my friends copies. I never even read---much less owned---2e. I have well over 100 3e books, if you count pdfs. Which are probably about half the books I have.

I don't have any 4e books.

The number of books certainly is a good indication of interest, at least on my account.

 

[Umbran]

There's lots and lots of "completionists" out there - the folks who simply have to have everything in a run, be it comic books, DVDs of a TV series, figurines in a set, or game books. The presence of these folks prevents the measure you suggest.

 

[Glyfair]

Although I don’t see anyone really getting into a “my collection is bigger than your collection” battle, mentioning one’s collection size does seem to be used as evidence of one’s interest in the edition.

I don't think this is necessarily a direct connection. I believe that most of the comments recently about "I have X books of this edition" tend to be used to show a reason not to switch editions.

I look at my 3.5 material and it takes up a large amount of space. That is a strong reason to do abandon much of its use to switch to a new system. There are certainly other factors, with many being more important. However, looking at the amount of material that wouldn't be used if you make a complete switchover is a strong incentive not to switch.

3.5 is probably the edition that has the strongest example of this factor. Large amounts of 3.5 material was hardback. That takes up quiet a bit of extra space. About the only thing that takes up more are the old box sets, that many people don't have intact.

 

[Rechan]

That is, owning 50 books means you are more hardcore into the game than someone who just owns the core three. Also, owning many third party books means you support the industry.

Depends on what you mean by "hardcore".

For instance, you could be a DM who only allows the Core books, for fear of bloat, power creep, broken-ness, etc etc. Also, you could have all those books but play less frequently than the guy with the core books.

Honestly? I'm going to say that part of owning a big D&D collection is due to compulsion. OCD. Either "I must have the new book because it's a new book", or maybe seeing it and goign "Hm I could use that!" and buying it, but never reading it.

This doesn't necessarily designate hardcore-ness. I know a guy who buys the new comic of certain comic line, not because he likes it any more, but simply because of continuity/collection issues. If he's going to own them, then by golly, he's going to own them all, for the sake of principle.