Stross's Law Revisited
So I named my little theory from my last post after Charlie Stross, and how else should come by and comment but the man himself? Not only that, but he disagrees with me. The temerity!

As I mentioned earlier, I owe everyone a more detailed examination of the concept. The general reaction seems to be, "Yes, this is obvious Mearls. Don't overwrite." Charlie points out that two paragraphs is a needless constraint - why limit the complexity that an RPG game element can achieve?

I'm going to try to answer these questions and thoughts in this post. I'm also somewhat sunburned (both arms, face, and... left knee?) from sitting outside all day. I also had a Slush Puppy for the first time in about 24 years. Forgive me if this rambles!

I originally wanted to draw charts to help explain what follows, but I'm not really sure how to do that with this Windows machine I'm stuck with. I tried using Excel, but I didn't see an export function.

The basic premise behind my thinking is that D&D (and many other, but not all, RPGs) remains a viable hobby because it offers DMs a creative outlet. Most DMs use their own campaign settings, write their own adventures, and even write their own game rules. In many ways, publishers are irrelevent to the play experience after a gamer buys a core rulebook. I think this is why RPGs are still a viable hobby despite other, emerging forms of entertainment. The best crafted computer game or MMORPG can't compete with us when it comes to keeping our *DMs* happy. As long as there are DMs who want to run campaigns, D&D will live on.

(As an aside, this line of thinking is why I think the low price of playing D&D is a strength, not a weakness. Many in the industry lament that you can play RPGs for free - you don't have to buy a rulebook if the DM has one. That's a feature, not a bug - those freeloaders are filling seats around gaming tables across the world. Without them, our DMs don't have players to entertain.)

With this in mind, my theory rests on a simple supposition. There is a tipping point beyond which information about a game setting element (monster, prestige class, etc.) causes that setting element to lose value in the eyes of the typical DM.

Picture in your mind a graph that rises sharply at the left end, then drops suddenly at some point. The X axis is the amount of information presented on something. The Y axis is the DM's interest. At that tipping point, the density of information is such that the DM's creativity is trampled or written over by the game element. In order to use it in his campaign setting, he has to change something in it. As we present more and more information, chances are good that he has to replace even more of it. The utility this element offers decreases once we pass the tipping point.

Thus, Stross's Law. If this is true, we're shooting ourselves in the foot once we venture beyond broad strokes and general ideas. Again, go back and look at many classic D&D game elements in their original forms. There's little detail, but a lot of flavor, and one or more strong, vivid concepts that brings the monster to life.

I don't think that this idea applies to all RPGs, but I think it's in play for any game that encourages its DMs/GMs to create their own settings. I wonder, though, how it might interact with settings and adventures.

I also believe that there is a segment of the audience that wants of details. I think that the less someone plays an RPG and the more they collect/read books in the game line, the more likely they are to want details. I don't think this group is more than a small part of the RPG fanbase. However, I think they do tend to participate in online fora (and debate setting/game minutia) far more often than other types of gamers.

EDIT: There are some pseudo-exceptions to this rule. You might use two paragraphs to describe Waterdeep's fundamental character, but it's obviously crazy to think that you could cover all the important locations within Waterdeep in those two paragraphs. But I think the spirit of the thing remains intact - you can quickly reach a point in mapping and describing a D&D city where your work runs counter to what the DM needs. If the DM needs to change something, your work is getting in his way. At that point, you have to wonder if he's better off just making up everything himself.

EDIT 2: Game mechanics are an obvious exception. The two paragraph limit I propose is related to story material. It wouldn't include a monster's stats, or rules for its breath weapon.