[poll] What type of rpg books do you prefer in general?

[cybernetic]

I've just been pondering lately about what type of books i am trully interested in...and I've come to the conclusion that I prefer crunchy sourcebooks that aren't tied to a specific setting...and I began to wonder how the rest of the d20 community felt on the subject.... (not sure if there has been a poll about this in the past...if so..i'm sorry)

some clarifications....

- New Settings and Setting Specific sourcebooks
This would include main campaign setting books and any splat books or such related to the setting. (i.e. FRCS, Magic of Faerun, Lords of Darkness, etc.)

- Non-Setting Specific Sourcebooks
This would include stuff like Traps & Treachery by FFG, The Quintessential Books by mongoose (Q.Fighter, Q.Wizard,etc.) and even books about specific cities that can be dropped into any campaign...basically a book that focused on a specific topic or list of topics and expand them in a "generic" (read non-setting specific) way.. ( I would considered the WotC splatbooks to be part of this too...they expand on the classes and and not a setting)

- Adventure Modules
Umm..well...i hope you know what I mean by this...

- Collection Books
This would contain any book that is just a collection of a particular topic or "thing" without much rule information..books like Rings of Power, any Monster Compendium, the recently released Swords to Plowshares pdf, and even SSS's Relics and Rituals even though it is Setting specific it doesn't really detail the setting (its primarily a collection of spells w/ a few prestige classes) .

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I guess I would say I'm just the opposite; I prefer books with very little focus on rules (because I feel there are plenty of crunchy bits out there already). I'm much more interested in flavor, plot ideas, interesting NPC's and their organizations, and other creative concepts.

 

[cybernetic]

I guess I would say I'm just the opposite; I prefer books with very little focus on rules (because I feel there are plenty of crunchy bits out there already). I'm much more interested in flavor, plot ideas, interesting NPC's and their organizations, and other creative concepts.

Would you prefer books that had all of that information and were "generic" and could be used for any setting or that was tied to a specific setting?

I guess what I meant was generic material as opposed to setting based material....prolly shouldn't have used the word crunchy...but its such a fun word..

 

[barsoomcore]

I voted for Non-Setting Specific Sourcebooks, but I don't really understand how that differs from Collections -- which is Relics and Rituals? I use that book constantly, even though I don't run a Scarred Lands campaign.

If I could have any set of books I wanted, I would take the Citybooks from Flying Buffalo. The best RPG money I ever spent. Now are those Sourcebooks or Collections? I dunno...

 

[Wicht]

Theres no "All of the above" choice?

I just like rpg books period.

 

[Crothian]

I liked themed books. Give me a book that takes a topic and explores it. It can have new rules, or stories as long as it all centers around this one topic.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Would you prefer books that had all of that information and were "generic" and could be used for any setting or that was tied to a specific setting?

I don't think I would necessarily prefer that, but if the material were good, I would definitely be indifferent about it being more generic (than crunchy). I'm a pretty die-hard Scarred Lands fan though, so I like all their setting information; but that doesn't prevent me from liking all the other great books out there like Traps & Treachery, Mystic Races (both from Fantasy Flight Games), Dungeon (from AEG) among others, which are basically all non-crunchy; I mean, yes T&T has rules for traps but you can easily change the damage and/or CR without changing the descirptive concept of the trap (which is what is really interesting anyway, IMHO).

Certain products that I bought, though, (like the Freeport City book) were supposed to be generic, but frankly I couldn't (or maybe just wouldn't ) find a way to fit it into the Scarred Lands, so that one sits on my shelf, probably never to be used.

I thought about buying the FRCS early on, but opted against it because $40 is too much $ for a setting I know I'll never use. Call me stubborn, but I just really don't want to buy that book.

More on-topic, I think non-crunchy books are great, but how generic can non-crunch be?

 

[Tharkun]

I'd say "other" I like my RPG books to be as few speeled errorz as possible Though I also really like it when different companies use the same rules (d20 for instance). and if we could please have a single set of rules for sea fighting or whatever else we have multiple rules on that would be very nice thanx

 

[cybernetic]

maybe a lil clarification is in order...and a lil bump...I have edited my original post to include some clarifications and examples...(its the first post on here)

 

[BButler]

I prefer non-setting specific books, because its often very difficult for me to make setting specific stuff work right in whatever world I'm using.

However, as career considerations begin to strip time away from my hobbies, I can foresee adventure modules becoming some of my best friends.