Travelers planning trips through densely packed destinations wrestle with a common dilemma: spending one night per small town means maximum coverage but constant packing and potential burnout. The debate reveals competing travel philosophies—breadth versus depth—and the FOMO that drives overtourism.
A traveler planning a route through Southern Germany asked Reddit whether the one-night-per-town approach was sustainable. Their itinerary: Stuttgart → Munich → Regensburg → Nuremberg → Bamberg → Weimar → Dresden, moving every single day.
The routine would be: check out of hotel, train to next town, explore that town, overnight, repeat. Every. Single. Day.
They're a self-described slow traveler who normally spends 2-3 nights minimum in cities, but Southern Germany's density of attractive destinations triggered FOMO. "The country is too dense with places to see that if I spend even 2 days per place, the number of towns x2 will be too long."
The response from experienced travelers was near-unanimous: don't do this to yourself.
Rapid town-hopping creates several problems:
Constant packing exhaustion - Living out of a suitcase is manageable when you settle for a few days. Packing and unpacking daily while trying to work, eat, navigate new places, and actually enjoy yourself becomes grinding within days.
Transportation time adds up - Even "close together" towns 1-2 hours apart mean significant time spent in transit. Check-out by 10-11am, travel, find accommodation, check-in after 2-3pm leaves only a few hours for actual sightseeing before evening.
No time for serendipity - The best travel experiences often come from wandering without agenda, striking up conversations, stumbling onto local events. Racing through towns on a rigid schedule eliminates these possibilities.
Everything blends together - When visiting similar towns in rapid succession, they blur into a generic memory rather than distinct experiences. Nuremberg and Bamberg both feature medieval architecture and Franconian culture; visiting both with only one night each risks them becoming indistinguishable in retrospect.
Diminishing returns - The fifth charming German town square offers less novelty than the first. Packing more destinations doesn't proportionally increase enjoyment—often it decreases it through fatigue and saturation.
Experienced travelers recommended ruthlessly cutting the list:
• Pick 3-4 base cities and spend 2-3 nights in each, taking day trips to nearby towns instead of moving accommodation daily
• Accept that you can't see everything, even in a region as concentrated as Southern Germany
• Return trips are possible - choosing not to visit Bamberg this time doesn't mean never visiting it
• Quality over quantity - deeper engagement with fewer places creates better memories and less exhaustion
One commenter noted: "I did the rapid-fire approach once through Italy and while I can say I 'saw' Florence, Venice, Rome, Naples, and Cinque Terre in 10 days, I honestly remember very little except being tired and stressed about trains."
The psychology driving this planning pattern is familiar: FOMO combined with the feeling that opportunities are scarce. "I'm already spending money to be in Germany, so I should maximize it" becomes justification for punishing schedules that undermine the purpose of travel.
Travel psychology research shows that anticipation and memory often matter more than the experience itself. An overpacked itinerary might look impressive on paper, but creates stress during the trip and generic memories afterward.
The better approach: choose base cities strategically, stay long enough to develop routines and make discoveries, and accept that returning someday is always possible. Germany isn't going anywhere.
The best travel isn't about the destination - it's about what you learn along the way. And sometimes the most important lesson is learning to slow down.
