3 core books vs. 1 core book

Quasqueton · Oct 2, 2005

Of all that I've seen, most RPGs have their rules all in one book -- Player information, Game Master information, monsters, magic, tech, powers, open info and secret info. Granted, there are supplemental books sometimes designed specifically for one side of the game screen or the other. But for the basic game, all the info is in one book.

What games other D&D and its clones have the core rules split up among more than one book? I'm just curious. Is D&D unique in this set up? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Quasqueton

kanithardm · Oct 2, 2005

Quasqueton said:
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

It is good, because a player could read about DMing etc. Bad because of the higher costs.
I guess it is Lawful Neutral...

MerricB · Oct 2, 2005

Three core books allow a lot of advice on how to DM the game, create adventures and the like.

I'd hate to see D&D in one book. You'd lose much of what makes it a great game if that were the case.

Cheers!

Crothian · Oct 2, 2005

White for World of Darkness has more then one book. To play Vampire you need the Wod book and the Vampire book...same for Mage and Werewolf. GURPS has 2 main books for its new edition.

Turjan · Oct 2, 2005

Quasqueton said:
What games other D&D and its clones have the core rules split up among more than one book? I'm just curious. Is D&D unique in this set up?

No, GURPS does that, too. For most games, you're definitely right.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

It's nice to keep DM knowledge and monsters apart from player knowledge. D&D isn't perfect in this regard, and players get to know the monsters after some time, anyway, but I think it's a nice start, nevertheless.

Additionally, I think some of those "game in one book" approaches are not really sincere. Technically, you can play those games with the stuff given in those books, but the options might be severely limited.

Queen_Dopplepopolis · Oct 2, 2005

Personally, I think that monsters deserve their own books. As a player (and as a DM/GM) I don't like the bad guys to be so easily accessible. I like a challenge. I like not knowing a monsters weakness, approximate hit points, etc. Seems that most players I know would be happy to take a peek at the monster that they were fighting if it happened to be in the same book as the character classes and spells.

Particle_Man · Oct 2, 2005

Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
Personally, I think that monsters deserve their own books. As a player (and as a DM/GM) I don't like the bad guys to be so easily accessible. I like a challenge. I like not knowing a monsters weakness, approximate hit points, etc. Seems that most players I know would be happy to take a peek at the monster that they were fighting if it happened to be in the same book as the character classes and spells.

that is why I bought no monster books aside from the core MM. I like surprises, so long as they are reasonably balanced.

ThirdWizard · Oct 2, 2005

I don't mind Players having access to DM stuff. In fact, I think it can enhance gameplay to not have as large a gulf between the two responsibilities. A Player who understands where the DM is coming from, in my experience, helps make the game run better.

Now, I still like the three book system. First of all, there are a lot of rules. Keeping them separate based on who will use said rules makes it easier to learn them, and easier to find them when you need to. If I want to know about tripping, PHB. If I want to know about magic items, DMG. If I want to know about a monsterous feat, MM.

Plus, if they were in one book, there would be a lot less content. Less spells, less monsters, less miscellaneous info in the DMG (and there's lots of it). Either that or you'd have one huge book. I prefer three.

Now for a more rules-medium system like Buffy, then one book works fine. Rules heavy needs more pages.

DragonLancer · Oct 2, 2005

I like rulebooks to be self contained but there is a lot to D&D and so I'm not bothered by it being 3 books.

Overall, companies seem to be going with multiple core books, and I guess its all part of money making.

Glyfair · Oct 2, 2005

It used to be pretty common to have multiple books for a system. It wasn't always player vs. GM, though. Rolemaster, for example, had multiple "core books" but they weren't strictly separated as GM/Player books.

The trend moved more towards one book, though, when box sets went away. It used to be you could have several books, accessories, maps, etc. in a single box. Once you stopped seeing boxed sets you had two choices; have two or more separate purchases or have a single book with everything "core" in it.