TheRPGSite

How much detail should a setting and it's history have? What is your favorite (un)detailed setting and why?

I like detailed settings, but I don't like NPC's taking over the lead roles from the players. Some settings that I like, because they are very detailed, are Fading Suns and Godlike/Wild Talents. I am also interested in Hellfrost and that seems to be detailed, but not as detailed as Forgotten Realms. I am always a bit struggling with the new world of darkness settings, because of their lack of detail.

So that's where I stand. How about you?

It depends on the perceived utility/quality of the setting details to me.  I basically ignored the setting details in Cyperpunk 2020, but borrowed corporation write-ups, gear, npcs, and everything else.  OTOH, I cherished Shadowrun 1e and 2e setting details during the Dowd-era.  

Fading Suns had wonderful setting details -- but I could never bring myself to care about Traveller's various eras.  I loved the OWoD for the most part, but ditched a lot of the NWoD.  I never was able to get a lot of use out of Deadlands' setting stuff, but stole the stuff I did like for my own Weird West.  

I think for me, a lot of what it comes down to is groups, NPCs, gadgets -- things I can put to immediate use are more useful to me than your alternate history or what have you, your geography, unless it's done really well, so well that the details spur me on imaginatively.  If they don't, I'd much rather come up with stuff I like.

Interestingly, I found that since I started using Eclipse Phase for literary and social science-fiction, I've gotten a lot more mileage out of the details of that setting.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;734601How much detail should a setting and it's history have? What is your favorite (un)detailed setting and why?

I like detailed settings, but I don't like NPC's taking over the lead roles from the players. Some settings that I like, because they are very detailed, are Fading Suns and Godlike/Wild Talents. I am also interested in Hellfrost and that seems to be detailed, but not as detailed as Forgotten Realms. I am always a bit struggling with the new world of darkness settings, because of their lack of detail.

So that's where I stand. How about you?

You should avoid my games, not that you weren't already! :D

I believe the player groups should be the ones who make the detail, so I prefer implied settings with flavor in the group's setup, and tools for the group's use to generate whatever detail they like. Yeah - WTF am I doing in a place like this? ;P

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;734606You should avoid my games, not that you weren't already! :D

I believe the player groups should be the ones who make the detail, so I prefer implied settings with flavor in the group's setup, and tools for the group's use to generate whatever detail they like. Yeah - WTF am I doing in a place like this? ;P

-clash

You mean with implied setting something like D&D? And if you use the Forgotten Realms it isn't implied anymore but a stated setting?

Quote from: Future Villain Band;734605It depends on the perceived utility/quality of the setting details to me.  I basically ignored the setting details in Cyperpunk 2020, but borrowed corporation write-ups, gear, npcs, and everything else.  OTOH, I cherished Shadowrun 1e and 2e setting details during the Dowd-era.  

Fading Suns had wonderful setting details -- but I could never bring myself to care about Traveller's various eras.  I loved the OWoD for the most part, but ditched a lot of the NWoD.  I never was able to get a lot of use out of Deadlands' setting stuff, but stole the stuff I did like for my own Weird West.  

I think for me, a lot of what it comes down to is groups, NPCs, gadgets -- things I can put to immediate use are more useful to me than your alternate history or what have you, your geography, unless it's done really well, so well that the details spur me on imaginatively.  If they don't, I'd much rather come up with stuff I like.

Interestingly, I found that since I started using Eclipse Phase for literary and social science-fiction, I've gotten a lot more mileage out of the details of that setting.

Funny you used a lot of the oWoD, which has a lot of setting. And didn't use a lot of the nWoD, which is an 'implied' setting, I think. Just races and factions and the world itself is a little shady with a lot left open or given multiple interpretation. I see nWoD more as an unfinished painting on which you have to add something to make it work. Instead of just picking out something you like, as the oWoD did.

As long as setting detail isn't confused with rules complexity, I'm fine with that; more detail the better.

Certainly the most memorable settings had lots of detail - RIFTS and Star Wars are great examples.

I do not want any historical detail.  Just explain the here and now.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;734621Funny you used a lot of the oWoD, which has a lot of setting. And didn't use a lot of the nWoD, which is an 'implied' setting, I think. Just races and factions and the world itself is a little shady with a lot left open or given multiple interpretation. I see nWoD more as an unfinished painting on which you have to add something to make it work. Instead of just picking out something you like, as the oWoD did.

Old WoD, for the most part, had interesting stuff, and where it wasn't interesting, the core setting elements tended to allow me to overwrite what I didn't like.  I found NWoD to be pretty bland until late in life -- Changeling, Hunter, etc.  Even then, some of the later stuff suffered from trying to be everything to everybody, like the Book of the Dead.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;734618You mean with implied setting something like D&D? And if you use the Forgotten Realms it isn't implied anymore but a stated setting?

Exactly, or Classic Traveller before the Third Imperium.

Classic Traveller annoyed me, mapping out the entire galaxy, basically, and what few areas remained got licensed out to third parties.

Something like Star Wars, although there is a huge amount of detail, there's also a lot of room to make stuff up (which a lot of EU authors would do).

Quote from: Future Villain Band;734642Old WoD, for the most part, had interesting stuff, and where it wasn't interesting, the core setting elements tended to allow me to overwrite what I didn't like.  I found NWoD to be pretty bland until late in life -- Changeling, Hunter, etc.  Even then, some of the later stuff suffered from trying to be everything to everybody, like the Book of the Dead.

I agree, the umbrella covenants is another example of that. I believe the fans like that aspect of the setting, but I don't. I rather have them choose the most awesome variant and work it out for me. Does this make the nWoD an implied setting? Or is this just another word for a ruleset only setting?

Quote from: JeremyR;734653Classic Traveller annoyed me, mapping out the entire galaxy ...

Not even close, charted space is a tiny part of one arm; go scroll out on travellermap.

I am a fan of rich detail, but enough play room should one want to delve in to it. Enjoying W40k as much as I do, you can get away with a lot of making things up yourself to fit. There are plenty of locations and a huge history to show off to your players, but the galaxy is huge. One could go as far in the universe to play ship battles and taking worlds all the way down to a Cthulhu-esque romp through a hive or low-tech world.

Setting detail is great metaplot is crap.
great history legends and organisations are great uber NPCs are crap, unless they are antagonistic to the party.

So I don't play rpg settings. I will play settigns from books, movies etc that I can tweak.
I don't find it fun for players to have to read pages of backstory to know how the world works or who these guys are but something like Starwars that the majority of people know already is great.

The setting I have used most is Amber. I always keep its core tropes but in a campaign as opposed to a con one off, I will remove all the standard Amberites apart from Oberon and Dworkin who I will usually absent or modify.  The players understand how the univer works, if I talk about the goldern circle the courts of chaos they understand but I don't want a pantheon of NPCs that can save the party or wreck their plans.
I would use star wars, keep the Emperor and Vader and maybe Yoda and get rid of Solo, Luke, Liea etc etc. I generally want the PC's story to be the story.

There are 3 fantasy settings I would currently like to play in Lamora, Westeros and The Union/Gurkish Empire. These are all from excellent fantasy novels and if I played them the protagonists of those novels wouldn't feature well I might add a couple for colour but NIne Fingers wouldn't turn up leading an army and Jean wouldn't save the party from pirates.
The settings are great, and detailed, but the protagonists would just clutter up the game and get in the way.

So you like big settings, but they have to be movie or book settings everyone is familiar with. I agree I love big settings, but metaplot it crap, because of über NPC's taking the lead role instead of the players. That's why I am so hung up about the new WoD. They axed the metaplot (:cheerleader:), but they also got a rid of a lot the background (:jaw-dropping:) and replaced it with some sort of unfinished painting background. I quit talking about that setting now.

I now seem to get interested in Hellfrost. It's really broad, but it isn't so detailed (one or two pages per factions/region) that is works suffocating. Interesting. I think it's a bit like oldschool D&D before the Forgotten Realms become mega detailed.

Quote from: flyingmice;734648Exactly, or Classic Traveller before the Third Imperium.

Burgess Shale Traveller? (http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/othroads/burgess.html)

Quote from: JeremyR;734653Classic Traveller annoyed me, mapping out the entire galaxy, basically, and what few areas remained got licensed out to third parties.

WTF? Where was the entire galaxy mapped out in Classic Traveller?

Quote from: Old One Eye;734637I do not want any historical detail.  Just explain the here and now.

This. I was jazzed at the premise of Earthdawn. But the setting books are full of historical metaplot bullshit, with very little concrete in-game content.

Quote from: jeff37923;734796Burgess Shale Traveller? (http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/othroads/burgess.html)

Exactly, Jeff! My Traveller universe back in 1977-78 was very different from the Third Imperium indeed! Much of the flavor - and a few places, and more names  - managed to make it into StarCluster 1e and 2e - 3e dispenses with a default setting entirely in favor of setting generators - but it only shared the concepts common to the implied setting of the original boxed set.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;734805Exactly, Jeff! My Traveller universe back in 1977-78 was very different from the Third Imperium indeed! Much of the flavor - and a few places, and more names  - managed to make it into StarCluster 1e and 2e - 3e dispenses with a default setting entirely in favor of setting generators - but it only shared the concepts common to the implied setting of the original boxed set.

-clash

I started playing Traveller in 1982 and it was not until about 1984 or 1985 that I realized that there was an Official Traveller Universe. Everything I did was in my own homebrew setting created through the rules.

Big detail guy.
But I write it for my games and my players, some of whom read a lot of it some don't.  That being said, I also believe the less often it is obvious the GM is making it up as they go, the better the immersion.
It allows for better consistency, which keeps the PCs more 'in the game world'.  But more importantly, is this 'illusion of preparedness'.



"The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion. Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position. The ability to keep the information flow even and consistent to the players, and to keep the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible is a critical GM ability.

I think we are talking about purchased settings here, but what about settings that we have had for decades in which things have organically grown through use in Actual Play? How do the two instances compare?

Quote from: Haffrung;734800This. I was jazzed at the premise of Earthdawn. But the setting books are full of historical metaplot bullshit, with very little concrete in-game content.

Wait, what?

Quote from: LordVreeg;734813Big detail guy.
But I write it for my games and my players, some of whom read a lot of it some don't.  That being said, I also believe the less often it is obvious the GM is making it up as they go, the better the immersion.
It allows for better consistency, which keeps the PCs more 'in the game world'.  But more importantly, is this 'illusion of preparedness'.

Or a GM has to do a lot of work fleshing it out himself.

Btw, I think I like Traveller a lot better with the Third Imperium supplements.

The 3I for Traveller is Marc's homebrew campaign, so it grew as it was played and documented, but like a lot of things Taveller, it was latched onto by grognards and away you go. It wasn't integral to the game though, more of a response to people who wanted it.

As someone who's getting back into Glorantha, I have a big appreciation for detailed settings.  The thing I like about Glorantha though is that it's about cultures and cult organizations and opportunities for connections to the world for the PCs.

I've also noticed that the approach of Runequest is that you start off very young and ignorant of the world, so players literally need no real setting knowledge and the referee needs only slightly more.

Quote from: Old One Eye;734637I do not want any historical detail.  Just explain the here and now.

I like having historical information. I find this helpful. What i do not like is needlessly complex history that is difficult to grasp.

Quote from: mcbobbo;734821Wait, what?

I got the Nations of Barsaive books and they were page after page of dwarven history and the politics of t'skrang trading houses. Almost nothing at the encounter level. No cults for the PCs to do battle with. No lairs of monsters. No maps of kaers. No encounter tables for traveling on the river. Just a few hundred pages of backstory and metaplot that the characters will never come face-to-face with. You'd think with over 500 pages of content I'd have some tangible game material to help me kick of an Earthdawn campaign. Nope. I'd have to make up everything the players actually encountered in the world from scratch. So I said piss on it, and sold the books.

Quote from: jeff37923;734814I think we are talking about purchased settings here, but what about settings that we have had for decades in which things have organically grown through use in Actual Play? How do the two instances compare?

Absolutely utterly in love!

-clash

Quote from: jeff37923;734814I think we are talking about purchased settings here, but what about settings that we have had for decades in which things have organically grown through use in Actual Play? How do the two instances compare?

I did not see anything separating them in the OP, so I apologize.  
And I always took the words in the early books literally about the purpose of the game to be creating worlds.  The idea of a canned setting is sort of in opposition to how I see the game, personally.

Canned settings can have a lot of detail, but so do the older, well played ones.  and they are often different detail.  My well-played areas (like Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955656/Igbar%2C%20Capital%20of%20Trabler)) and her environs get totally built up and worked with, while other areas are more sparsely built and framed.  
I think that may be one difference, that the amount of detail that evolves in a well played area (like, for decades) is really hard to replicate.

Quote from: LordVreeg;734838I did not see anything separating them in the OP, so I apologize.  
And I always took the words in the early books literally about the purpose of the game to be creating worlds.  The idea of a canned setting is sort of in opposition to how I see the game, personally.

Canned settings can have a lot of detail, but so do the older, well played ones.  and they are often different detail.  My well-played areas (like Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955656/Igbar%2C%20Capital%20of%20Trabler)) and her environs get totally built up and worked with, while other areas are more sparsely built and framed.  
I think that may be one difference, that the amount of detail that evolves in a well played area (like, for decades) is really hard to replicate.

I was thinking of your game when I posted last, actually. :D

Quote from: flyingmice;734843I was thinking of your game when I posted last, actually. :D

I have a very low save vs flattery.

Who is the market for the setting?

A skeletal setting may be fun for the DIY crowd, but that represents a much smaller segment of the hobby market than the RPG Collector Crowd who want to read detailed settings like others read novels.

Personally, I am most impressed with settings whose detail is all about inspiring adventures and giving me usable game content that shows itself at the table. I want minimal backstory and only backstory that gives me context to create better adventures and help deepen immersion for the players.

I don't want setting books to be novels, but I loved novels about RPG settings, even if they are cheesey dime novels.

Quote from: LordVreeg;734838I did not see anything separating them in the OP, so I apologize.  
And I always took the words in the early books literally about the purpose of the game to be creating worlds.  The idea of a canned setting is sort of in opposition to how I see the game, personally.

Canned settings can have a lot of detail, but so do the older, well played ones.  and they are often different detail.

I presume you mean a well detailed setting with "canned setting"? What is a well played setting? Literally you just played it a lot and it grew? Is this a homemade setting?

Quote from: Spinachcat;734850Who is the market for the setting?

A skeletal setting may be fun for the DIY crowd, but that represents a much smaller segment of the hobby market than the RPG Collector Crowd who want to read detailed settings like others read novels.

This skeletal setting is exactly what the new WoD is. For example there is a book about the Underworld, where it's up to the GM to decide which kind of underworld it is. Based on Egyptian, Japanse or Greek culture? That's up to the GM. I actually don't like this at all.

I like it either fleshed out or I prefer a really broad setting. Or both. That's the best. I find kitchen sink settings to be more flexible. I mean with Fading Suns you can easily go Han Solo, do some plotting and scheming with nobles, infiltrate with a spie, fight as a mercenary or go ancient relic hunting. The flexibilty of skeletal settings are usually a bit limited. The car is already there, you can only give it a paintjob.

Quote from: Spinachcat;734850Personally, I am most impressed with settings whose detail is all about inspiring adventures and giving me usable game content that shows itself at the table. I want minimal backstory and only backstory that gives me context to create better adventures and help deepen immersion for the players.

I don't want setting books to be novels, but I loved novels about RPG settings, even if they are cheesey dime novels.

I get what you mean. The backstory must give some focus to a game. It must tell you what you can do with the game. Non relevant backstory is worthless.

My problem with official settings is they tend to be shit. The designers are that designers and they are trying to find a way to squeeze in all the elven races or make sense of the how can we run dwarves in this mesomerican aztec setting.
Basically too much compromise.

Authored settigns for novels and films tend to be far better constructed and far more interesting. Despite there being a lot of common ground between say forgotten realms and Westeros I would much rather play Westeros because it has character.

I don't need settings resources in actual play. I want the feel and texture of a setting more than the detail. On the other hand I really dislike the generic D&D default setting becuase when A DM uses it they are basically saying "I have given no thought at all to my game world"

So my ideal setting is one where the backdrop is a well known literary one but the detail is constructed by the DM but it s non invasive way... hmm... its actually pretty difficult to explain now I think about it :)

So I want the DM to have thought through how everything works. I want the barkeep to ask for 2 silver florins I want the troop of lancers that ride past to be wearing the sigil of the Legion of Dread. I am totally comfortable with the DM mixing literary settings,dropping things in whole cloth. I myself have lifted the gods of Westeros, specifically The Seven, and dropped them into fantasy games. They are well understood by the players easy to grokk and add a load of colour whilst allowing me to run a truely polytheist religion (ie you pray to different gods for different things) and it takes 3 minutes to do.
Little stuff makes the world seem real.

I have been testing out the hypothesis that you can write a whole fantasy setting and make it evocative and interesting with enough setting detail to be playable, on one sheet of paper say 400 words and a list of race and classes. I might have a stab at it later maybe we can start up a design thread and give it a go as a group.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;734861I presume you mean a well detailed setting with "canned setting"? What is a well played setting? Literally you just played it a lot and it grew? Is this a homemade setting?

when I say 'canned', I mean a bought setting.  Something someone may or may not have played themselves, then fleshed out, edited, and sold on the open market to other people who need /want a whole setting or just pieces of it.  

This is in contrast to a homebrewed or homemade setting, something created specifically by that GM or group.  

I made the point that the well-played homebrew often suffers from an plethora of data in areas that have been played a lot, whereas other areas are much more barebones.  But then, when you keep players and campaigns going for yers and years, they can gt very deeply immersed and entangled in the intracasies of every little thing, and can take it quite seriously when things change.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;734829I like having historical information. I find this helpful. What i do not like is needlessly complex history that is difficult to grasp.

Perhaps paradoxically, real history is far and away my favorite subject matter.  Joke with my wife about how I wish a person could get laid by talking up a girl at the bra how, for example, the introduction of the mouldboard plow was crucial in shifting the balance of European power away from the Mediterranean.  But alas, never once got laid that way.

Gaming is like trying to get laid, waxing historical takes one further from the goal at hand.

Quote from: Old One Eye;734893Perhaps paradoxically, real history is far and away my favorite subject matter.  Joke with my wife about how I wish a person could get laid by talking up a girl at the bra how, for example, the introduction of the mouldboard plow was crucial in shifting the balance of European power away from the Mediterranean.  But alas, never once got laid that way.

Gaming is like trying to get laid, waxing historical takes one further from the goal at hand.

I just find having the historical background helps me GM a setting. I also find it gets me more interested in the setting as well. I do think playability is important but there are going to be some elements that are like roots: players might not see them directly or always be aware of them, but they are still supporting a lot of things they do see. At least for me, a good chapter on the setting history is a plus.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;734601How much detail should a setting and it's history have? What is your favorite (un)detailed setting and why?

I like detailed settings, but I don't like NPC's taking over the lead roles from the players. Some settings that I like, because they are very detailed, are Fading Suns and Godlike/Wild Talents. I am also interested in Hellfrost and that seems to be detailed, but not as detailed as Forgotten Realms. I am always a bit struggling with the new world of darkness settings, because of their lack of detail.

So that's where I stand. How about you?

I tend to like a good idea of the areas history. What has gone before, what has lead up to the current state of things.

Greyhawk boxed set was my first introduction to a campaign world.

Before that it was revised ed Gamma World which was virtually blank. And Star Frontiers which just had very minor guidelines on the systems overall.

Greyhawk presented the idea of a setting with lots of info you could call upon if you so desired.

Dragonlance for me oddly was a very blank setting. The RPG book gave you very little details overall. I assume alot of this was fleshed out in the modules.

As for NPCs and NPC intrusion. That is a DM problem. Not a setting problem. DMs can have personal NPCs totally unconnected to the settings.

On the reverse, a setting can have tons of fleshed out NPCs and the players might never see them if the DM never uses them.

Quote from: Old One Eye;734893Perhaps paradoxically, real history is far and away my favorite subject matter.  Joke with my wife about how I wish a person could get laid by talking up a girl at the bra how, for example, the introduction of the mouldboard plow was crucial in shifting the balance of European power away from the Mediterranean.  But alas, never once got laid that way.

Gaming is like trying to get laid, waxing historical takes one further from the goal at hand.

All depends on the specifics of the campaign within the setting.  almost all my games are rooted in historical data that all ties together, and the players who bother to pay attention and keep track can solve stuff others don't.

Some more than others.  My current online game is rooted very, very deeply in a historical net, the ancient affecting the old affecting the recent influencing the now.  Since it is online, all of it is archived, and the game itself is very non-trad, the players are first year students in the largest and oldest campus of the Collegium Arcana.  SO it is more about learning magic, making friends and connections, dealing with the inner workings of a storied place the outside world can only dimly imagine, as well as tying together the disparate and strange pieces of mysteries that they find.  So, in this particular case, right, wrong, or neither, traditional exploration is rare and combat has yet to happen in 13 full sessions and almost 30 'intermezzo' sessions.

so, the depth and feel created by history can be vital, though it is not needed in all cases.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;734898I just find having the historical background helps me GM a setting. I also find it gets me more interested in the setting as well. I do think playability is important but there are going to be some elements that are like roots: players might not see them directly or always be aware of them, but they are still supporting a lot of things they do see. At least for me, a good chapter on the setting history is a plus.

I like that too. Causality. Why are the things the way they are? The Blizzard War gives an explanation why the Hellfrost is there and makes the setting more interesting for example.

Quote from: jibbajibba;734877Entire post.

Isn't it possible you like book and film settings better, because you don't like generic settings? It seems to me you never read a good RPG setting, only generic ones. And yes, I am looking at you D&D settings. ;)

Quote from: Future Villain Band;734605I loved the OWoD for the most part, but ditched a lot of the NWoD.

To be fair to nWoD.  The setting was made to be a toolbox so that the GM can decide on.

Back to topic.  It depends on what you want out the setting.  I mean if your going for a setting in which its history is lost to the ages you can only give out so much information.

I think nWoD is supposed to be added on, not ditched. I mean you can hardly play vampire with only one of the covenants without feeling guilty or only use one of the mage orders or one of the changeling courts. In this city there is only summer court. That would be weird, right?

What did you ditch Future Villain Band? To me nWoD is at it's best with a party of gumshoes (possibly with the support of a compact or conspiracy out of hunter) investigating weird stuff.

Anyway, I am talking about canned settings btw, LordVreeg. No homebrew settings. I can't judge about those settings, because I don't know them. I like them detailed and even more important: breadth. Breadth is important, because that allows you to different things with it. So I guess I like kitchen sink settings and not toolkit settings.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;735061I think nWoD is supposed to be added on, not ditched. I mean you can hardly play vampire with only one of the covenants without feeling guilty or only use one of the mage orders or one of the changeling courts. In this city there is only summer court. That would be weird, right?

What did you ditch Future Villain Band? To me nWoD is at it's best with a party of gumshoes (possibly with the support of a compact or conspiracy out of hunter) investigating weird stuff.

Anyway, I am talking about canned settings btw, LordVreeg. No homebrew settings. I can't judge about those settings, because I don't know them. I like them detailed and even more important: breadth. Breadth is important, because that allows you to different things with it. So I guess I like kitchen sink settings and not toolkit settings.

Good enough.
I don't use them, so I will abstain from here.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;734981Isn't it possible you like book and film settings better, because you don't like generic settings? It seems to me you never read a good RPG setting, only generic ones. And yes, I am looking at you D&D settings. ;)

Mystara was good but got too big and needed to squeeze in all of the D&D stuff so the whole game was playable. Each of the gazetteers was a great book on its own.
The ICE books for Middle earth were great setting material.
Likewise Elric has great setting material.

I feel most settings try to be too inclusive. A great idea about Viking raiders now how do we squeeze in dragonborn and hobbits? etc

My personal tastes are for bare bones settings with an impetus.  Enough of a nugget of good idea to inspire me as a DM to build off of but simple enough that the players can quickly buy in so play can start.  A setting that has a rigid skeleton but can grow organically through play from that.  I think that early D&D products did this masterfully with their implied setting provided through the rules.  

I enjoy reading detailed settings but find them very cumbersome to DM or play in.  It's really too much information and information that rarely comes up in play.  I think that setting information should be limited to that which is used in play or is enough to inspire the GM for play.

I think I mostly like setting detail, when it is providing me with built-in conflicts. A mage hunting group automatically conflicts with a group of mages for example. Give me some info on their previous encounters (aka backstory) and I get enough ideas about both a mage hunting campaign and a mage campaign.