4e / GSL What do you consider "everything is core" to mean in your game?

catsclaw227 · 9th July 2009, 07:54 PM

After reading a few recent threads, the "everything is core" topic seems to generate some different opinions about what that means at the game table.

I believe WOTC means "everything is core" to mean that they will try to build against an internal consistency and if a mechanic comes out in Primal Power 2, it will hold the same functional and mechanical weight as one from Open Grave or PHB 3 and the options are simply extensions of the base framework.

What does 4e's "everything is core" mean to your game?

Also, as a side question, what do you think WOTC means with "everything is core"?

ggroy · 9th July 2009, 08:02 PM

Double post.

Crothian · 9th July 2009, 08:04 PM

Other as in: don't care.

I use what I use. They can call books core they can call the books optional, they can call the books elite advanced or special. Heck, call them pink elephantys and it's not going to matter to me.

Frankly, I see it as marketing gimick and I really try to ignore marketing as much as possible.

ggroy · 9th July 2009, 08:04 PM

To me, "everything is core" is anything from the 4E D&D core and splatbooks short of the stuff which I have banned. So far I haven't felt the need to ban anything yet in my 4E games.

TwinBahamut · 9th July 2009, 08:11 PM

"Core" has never meant anything with regards to what I allow into a game or not, and 4E doesn't change that.

On the other hand, "everything is core" seems to mean that I can expect classes from sources outside the PHB I to get support from supplemental materials on a regular basis, and I'm all for that. I hated the fact that many of the best classes from 3E and 3.5E never got any real support simply because they were released in later supplements, while Wizards and Clerics had new spells and feats in every single book simply because they were in the PHB.

malraux · 9th July 2009, 08:29 PM

Core has nothing to do with what is allowed in a game, though in 3e it was a shorthand references to no splat books. Core means that when WotC releases a book with additional powers in it, you can expect that they assumed that you not only own the PH1 but also might own the FRPG. So arcane power has stuff that helps the swordmage. Similarly, the next arcane power book will have stuff that adds to the artificer.

For 3e, if a class was released in a splat, the only place you'd find stuff that helped it would be in that book. New spells/feats/PrCs would often not even be aware that the class existed, but instead only added to the core 3 books. When WotC says that everything is core, they just mean that they continue to bring out additional material for stuff not in the ph1 or dmg1.

What this has to do with the allowed books for a campaign, I have no idea, other than removing the shorthand of what is allowed.

Scribble · 9th July 2009, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinBahamut

"Core" has never meant anything with regards to what I allow into a game or not, and 4E doesn't change that.

On the other hand, "everything is core" seems to mean that I can expect classes from sources outside the PHB I to get support from supplemental materials on a regular basis, and I'm all for that. I hated the fact that many of the best classes from 3E and 3.5E never got any real support simply because they were released in later supplements, while Wizards and Clerics had new spells and feats in every single book simply because they were in the PHB.

I agree.

catsclaw227 · 9th July 2009, 10:39 PM

I never mentioned my answer - All books should work with each other and be interchangeable, but the DM decides what to allow.

I did know several players during the 3.x era, though, that would argue with a DM about what they want to play because it is in a WOTC splat and therefore should be allowed.

Sometimes, they argued just to see how far they could push the DM before they put their foot down, but that's a different thread entirely.

I was just wondering if this mentality will be amplified because of the "everything is core" mantra.

Charwoman Gene · 9th July 2009, 11:06 PM

Honestly, the only reason I could see to ban stuff in 4e is flavor. And that is not that comlex.

Cadfan · 10th July 2009, 12:24 AM

I selected "other."

I permit mostly everything, but that has nothing to do with WotC telling me what is or is not "core." I'm pretty sure that the "everything is core" slogan was just a quippy way of stating that all released classes and races will receive ongoing support and be included, or at least not excluded, in all settings. The statement was of course made in context of 3e's policy, which was to very rarely support classes and races from non core books (although this policy was eased later in 3e's lifetime).

I simply read it as stating something like, "Remember how we made the Hexblade, and then never released a single new thing for it except one article in Dragon, and then a few spells and a few magic items years later? We're not doing that anymore."

Fallen Seraph · 10th July 2009, 12:33 AM

I put, "Other".

Since in my games it isn't as simple as just "everything goes", while all books, DDI articles, etc. are allowed big things from them are added through group discussion. So before we begin the game, we talk about what races we want, types of magic, etc. We refluff them if necessary and go from there. If there are other stuff later from sources it gets refluffed to fit with what had been decided.

So basically everything goes as decided by the group and made to fit the setting/game.

Mercutio01 · 10th July 2009, 12:46 AM

I picked - "All books should work with each other and be interchangeable, but the DM decides what to allow." But then, that shouldn't even need to be expressed, really. DM is ultimate arbiter of everything that happens at his or her table.

FireLance · 10th July 2009, 12:58 AM

I'd say that "everything is core" should be something that guides the design philosophy of WotC more than it should impact the campaigns of individual DMs. It's partly what TwinBahamut, malraux and Cadfan mentioned: that all released races and classes will get ongoing support.

In addition, and more importantly in my view, it's the idea that all released material should be usable (although not necessarily used - see quote in sig) in any campaign. If spellscars and swordmages are okay in the Forgotten Realms, they should be okay in Eberron. If dragonmarks and artificers are okay in Eberron, they should be okay in Dragonlance. The players and the DM may have to come up with some story reason why the game element is now present in the setting, but it should be mechanically sound.

I contrast this idea to some of the setting-specific crunch in 2e which could not be easily exported to other campaigns because of balance issues (we knew they were present even though we were less sophisticated in our thinking about balance issues in those days): Dark Sun races and Birthright bloodlines are some of the things that come to mind.

Khairn · 10th July 2009, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crothian

Frankly, I see it as marketing gimick and I really try to ignore marketing as much as possible.

Agreed.

I don't allow the players to decide what classes, books and feats to use in my game and I certainly wouldn't allow WotC to do the same simply because they say that "everything is core". That type of thinking works great when your motivation is trying to sell more books. Its not a rationale to use when deciding what works best for your game.

Kamikaze Midget · 10th July 2009, 01:24 AM

I'm with TB. "Core" doesn't mean bupkiss with regards to what is in my games, but it does mean a lot with regards to what WotC is going to keep putting out new stuff for. And in that respect, everything is core.

I'd think the ideal scenario for WotC is for players to assume anything they pick from any book will be allowed by most any DM.

Perhaps this will be true.

fanboy2000 · 10th July 2009, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadfan

I selected "other."

I permit mostly everything, but that has nothing to do with WotC telling me what is or is not "core." I'm pretty sure that the "everything is core" slogan was just a quippy way of stating that all released classes and races will receive ongoing support and be included, or at least not excluded, in all settings. The statement was of course made in context of 3e's policy, which was to very rarely support classes and races from non core books (although this policy was eased later in 3e's lifetime).

I simply read it as stating something like, "Remember how we made the Hexblade, and then never released a single new thing for it except one article in Dragon, and then a few spells and a few magic items years later? We're not doing that anymore."

What he said. Specifically, core has no meaning for me anymore in 4e. In 3.x I considered only the 3 books core because of what I considered the huge variance in quality and flavor of the different PrCs, Magic Items, and spells in later supplements. In 4e, "everything is cores" seems to be as much a design goal as a slogan.

Bumbles · 10th July 2009, 01:31 AM

I believe it means nothing for me as the person running the game. I'll go with the "It means something for WoTC" which may or may not mean anything for me.

Fifth Element · 10th July 2009, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadfan

I selected "other."

I permit mostly everything, but that has nothing to do with WotC telling me what is or is not "core." I'm pretty sure that the "everything is core" slogan was just a quippy way of stating that all released classes and races will receive ongoing support and be included, or at least not excluded, in all settings. The statement was of course made in context of 3e's policy, which was to very rarely support classes and races from non core books (although this policy was eased later in 3e's lifetime).

I simply read it as stating something like, "Remember how we made the Hexblade, and then never released a single new thing for it except one article in Dragon, and then a few spells and a few magic items years later? We're not doing that anymore."

This, exactly. No more one-shot classes that receive no support.

darjr · 10th July 2009, 02:52 AM

I picked other.

As others have said, and I agree, 'Core' is about future support.

catsclaw227 · 10th July 2009, 03:00 AM

This is interesting then. I am of the opinion that it is more a WOTC design philosophy as well.

I wonder then... Why does the topic of "everything is core" come up in threads that discuss 4e book bloat or crunch saturation. It's not that everyone has to buy everything to enjoy the game.

Maybe the definition of "core" has changed from editions and no one told us.

Core may not be the "base, required ruleset" anymore, it means that "all designs should follow a core design methodogy so that it works in balance with the rest of the game mechanics."