The difference between too little/too much campaign setting support?

[dreaded_beast]

While reading a previous thread, I got to thinking about the amount of support campaign settings receive in general.

I usually hear of 2 extremes regarding campaign settings:

1. Too little support
2. Too much support

In regards to 1, I believe that is usually the case when a campaign setting has become established and "mainstream". However, little or no supplements come out beyond that of the core book for the campaign setting. From what I have read, many of the detractors of campaigns that receive "too little" support feel that their chosen campaign setting is not "growing" or "developing" enough for their needs.

On the other hand, in regards to 2, I believe that occurs when an already established campaign setting comes out with a multitude of books that gamers of that setting are relatively hard-pressed to keep up if they wish to stay "current" with their chosen setting. From my understanding, many of the detractors of campaigns that receive "too much" support feel the need to purchase the myriad of supplements in order to keep their games consistent with their chosen campaign as well as staying abreast of any major changes that occur and could affect their game as a whole.

The above is just my opinion and mainly based on what I have read on these boards, so take the above with a grain of salt.

Comments?

What do you think is the happy medium, if there is such a thing?

 

[BlackMoria]

An example of too little support would be Greyhawk and too much would Forgotten Realms.

Now, some 'Hawkers' complain that their setting gets neglected and the Realms gets all the love. These people forget that Greyhawk was designed primarily as a world for the DM to largely do with as he pleases. And some 'Hawkers' like it that way. There is a group of people who hated the whole Greyhawk Wars thing and grumbled about TSR/WOTC trying to make Greyhawk more like the Realms, by detailing stuff.

Now the Realms has fans that moan about how the novels are considered canon and that the Realms got twisted around the finger of the novelists. Another group of Realms fans groan about the level of detail and how every nook and cranny in some areas of the Realms is so detailed that it stifles their creativity design stuff for those areas. Other Realms fans love the level of detail and eat up knowing all the rulers of the Shoon dynasty or the Tethyr royal court, or what citzens of the Silver Marches consider fashionable wear.

The reality is, too little or too much is subjective. What I consider too much content in a given campaign setting, another person may consider just right or too little.

The reason you hear the two extremes is because those who think a setting is 'just right' usually don't say anything and all you hear is the curmudgeons complaining 'too much' or 'too little'.

 

[MonsterMash]

An example of too little support would be Greyhawk and too much would Forgotten Realms.

The reality is, too little or too much is subjective. What I consider too much content in a given campaign setting, another person may consider just right or too little.

The reason you hear the two extremes is because those who think a setting is 'just right' usually don't say anything and all you hear is the curmudgeons complaining 'too much' or 'too little'.

BlackMoria,

You have hit the nail on the head with this one. For example as a DM I like the old Judges Guild Wilderlands setting and it has very lightly detailed information about each location, usually just stat blocks and very sketchy descriptions. I like that as it gives me scope for coming up with my own ideas, and that is explicitly recommended in the setting. The thing that puts me off the FR, for example, is the volume of printed work and the tendency for some of its supporters to regard it as canon.

 

[Arnwyn]

There is no such thing as "too much" support. One has the choice to buy whatever he/she wants.

Those who groan about too much support but buy anyways are simply irrational. A company should probably think twice before catering too much to the irrational.

(Now - something can be said about too much support in one area of a campaign setting while completely ignoring another area... that's a bit of a problem, IMO.)

 

[Desdichado]

There is no such thing as "too much" support. One has the choice to buy whatever he/she wants.

I'd agree generally, but in this case, I don't think that's actually true. I know first hand of quite a few would-be DMs of the Forgotten Realms that get a lot of grief from their players about not getting some minute detail 'right.' If you've got the right players, who either don't know that detail, or are willing to say, "hey, it's your Realms (as the DM) and I can accept some deviation from 'canon' here and there" then your statement is absolutely correct, but if you don't, then there is certainly "too much support" for that setting.

 

[rogueattorney]

I don't know that there can be "too much" support. I do know that there comes a point where each new product has a diminished value of return. It simply gets too hard to incorporate it all into your campaign.

Also, campaign worlds can often "jump the shark" with shifts in design staff creating discontinuity, campaign meta-plot adventures that leave all those who don't want to go along in the lurch, and simply just covering it "all" until everything new is redundant.

In my view, the perfect amount of stuff is the main campaign product and then the first few more detailed supplements that were created under the design or direction of the campaign's creator(s).

Examples would be:
The 1983 Greyhawk box and the more Greyhawk-centric modules - D series, S4, WG4, 5, 6, etc.
The 14 Known World Gazetteers
The 1987 FR grey box and the first 5 or 6 FR modules

R.A.

 

[der_kluge]

Yea, I think the quality of support can be a huge factor.

Look at Al-Qadim, an example I'm fond of. The initial book was just awesome. Great crunchy bits, and just the right balance of flavor and sparse setting information to really inspire the imagination. Then, as more and more of the boxed sets came out, they continued to fill in all the wholes, which totally took away all the mystery.

For me, that ruined the setting, because things that I had defined in my version of Al-Qadim became non-canon in later releases of products. For example, in the canon Al-Qadim, the Grand Caliph only had 2 wives, and no one in the land could have more wives than than. So, anyone in my version of Al-Qadim suddenly became non-canon with the introduction of that new rule. Some of the supplements went overboard on minutia as well, like the entire chapter on legal customs in the City of Fate boxed set - BORING!

Masque of the Red Death, on the other hand, could have really used maybe one or two more supplements to flesh out the setting a bit more, and to give people some more ideas for campaigns. Because, just about more than any other setting, that was an extremely hard system to run a really extended campaign in since the only ideas we could come up were one-shots, and short adventures.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'd agree generally, but in this case, I don't think that's actually true. I know first hand of quite a few would-be DMs of the Forgotten Realms that get a lot of grief from their players about not getting some minute detail 'right.' If you've got the right players, who either don't know that detail, or are willing to say, "hey, it's your Realms (as the DM) and I can accept some deviation from 'canon' here and there" then your statement is absolutely correct, but if you don't, then there is certainly "too much support" for that setting.

I agree that there is no such thing as too much support. If you don't want to buy all the regional books and books about monstars, races, magic, whatever, then don't buy them.

All you have to do (as DM) is to say that you do things like this or like that, and have half-decent players who won't spit into your soup.

I know what I'm talking about: I have all the 3e FR supplements and have read dozens of FR-Novels, so I know pretty much about the Realms. My DM, on the other hand, has the FRCS and a lot of supplements, but not all, and he has read half a novel or so. There are several things he does where I know that they didn't happen like that in canon (though in our campaign, it's already 1375 or later, several years after the current "present", and things that get introduced now should have happened years ago in our Realms, but the info is only released now), but I don't stress it. Canon is but a guideline.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'd agree generally, but in this case, I don't think that's actually true. I know first hand of quite a few would-be DMs of the Forgotten Realms that get a lot of grief from their players about not getting some minute detail 'right.' If you've got the right players, who either don't know that detail, or are willing to say, "hey, it's your Realms (as the DM) and I can accept some deviation from 'canon' here and there" then your statement is absolutely correct, but if you don't, then there is certainly "too much support" for that setting.

Yeah, that could certainly be an issue. But, as they like to say at ENWorld: "That's a player problem", not a setting problem.

 

[drnuncheon]

I'd agree generally, but in this case, I don't think that's actually true. I know first hand of quite a few would-be DMs of the Forgotten Realms that get a lot of grief from their players about not getting some minute detail 'right.'

That's what doors and boots is for.

Although I agree, I prefer not to have to deal with it in the first place.

J