Rethinking the 3-Book Model

[Sunseeker]

I am willing to bet that most people don't by the DMG on the basis of it being big and scary and too much to read.

Taking 4e for example, I think there was FAR too little material in all three books. The first ones should have been the size and contained the material of the first and second book combined.

 

[delericho]

I've always thought the dragonborn controversy was a subset of the "DM-optional vs. player-optional" controversy.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's as simple as that. I think that, for some people at least, Dragonborn are emblematic of D&D 4e taking a direction that they simply hate. Because the Edition Wars became as much a matter of emotion as logic, I don't think that can be resolved through rational discourse or logic.

I guess what I'm saying is, excluding options some people don't like from core causes just as many problems as including them (by angering the people who want dragonborn to be core and available to all players). Pushing controversial options off to later supplements solves the problem not a bit; it would make the player-optional people just as frustrated. From what we've heard, Wizards is strongly erring on the side of including lots of stuff.

I will be extremely surprised if Dragonborn are in the 5e core. I predict that this will make some people very unhappy indeed - but I also strongly suspect that this is the right thing to do.

I think you're drastically overestimating the number of options that could be included in 300 pages. What with a reasonable selection of monsters (including all important iconic monsters), traps and trap-creation rules, all that DM advice necessary to make the books noob-friendly, all of the game rules (including skills, rules for exploration, rules for gridless combat, rules for tabletop combat, other modules), I wouldn't be surprised if 300 pages are needed before you even get to a single player option. Throw in 40 or 50 pages of magic items (including scrolls, wands, and various magic armor and weapons for 20 levels) too. How many classes (along with attendant feats and themes and races, remember) could you fit after that, especially if you need to give classes like the Fighter the optional ability to do more than full attack every round (and so, need a few dozen pages of "powers" or "martial maneuvers")?

I really don't see how it could be done.

The first thing to do is to chop the level range. High-level play has always been much less popular than the lower-levels, and it has never quite worked right - largely because the designers just haven't had the time or space in the books to work out all of the kinks. So, the most sensible thing to do is to cut it from the core, and move it to a supplement for those who want it. That way, those who want it can get it, the designers have space to let it breath, and you save a huge amount of space in the core. So, don't include 30 levels of play in the core, or even 20 - include 10, or perhaps 15.

That single measure massively cuts down on the number of spells, powers, magic items, and monsters required. Now, looking at your list:

For monsters, switch to a concise 4e-style format to cut space, and select an "iconic 100" monsters. You get orcs, zombies, the weaker dragons, carrion crawlers and rust monsters, drow, the weaker giants... but not the most powerful dragons, no demon lords, no beholders... And don't insist on "one monster per page", either - present the full set in 40 pages.

For traps, present a fairly detailed toolkit for creating them, and then a number of examples, again in a very concise format. Do that in 10 pages, maximum.

(You didn't mention it, but do likewise for environmental hazards, for another 10 pages.)

Regarding DM advice, brevity is the soul of wit. Present DMs with hundreds of pages of advice, and you'll get a lot of DMs who don't read it, and then get confused. If you can't present that in 40 pages, you need to rewrite. Seriously. (And, actually, the best place for that stuff is online, in article form - present the whole thing in bite-size form and it's more likely to be digested.)

Next up, all the game rules (skills, rules for exploration, rules for gridless combat, rules for tabletop combat, other modules):

Ever since "d20 Modern", the skills have been presented in a very long, verbose format that gives a whole lot of detail about specific uses, time taken, and a whole bunch of stuff. Drop all of that stuff. Present the skills in a very simple format - give the skill name, and the minimal definition as to what it does, presenting a list (but not details) of things that it can be used for. Again, if you can't do that in 5 pages, you're doing it wrong.

The stuff that's just been cut from the skills chapter gets moved to Exploration, which does indeed require a significant amount of space. We need rules for light levels, for sneaking about, for climbing, jumping, and swimming, and a whole bunch of other stuff. But don't mess about here - present the topics with clear headings, give the relevant rules, and move on. 20 pages.

With the combat rules, pick either gridless or tactical combat, and present it. The other is an optional module, to be presented elsewhere. Again, 20 pages. If you can't do it in that space, rewrite, or drop something.

Again, you didn't mention it, but add a chapter on Interactions, this being the third of the "three pillars" (and because we now need somewhere for the dropped material from the Diplomacy skill!). Because this is largely role-played, and pretty intuitive to most players, this is a shorter section than the previous two, say 10 pages.

You don't say what you think should be "other modules", but in truth it doesn't matter. Space is a premium - cut them.

Character creation rules can be presented quickly (2 pages), and ability scores are likewise short unless you waffle on at length (3 pages).

Present 4 core races, with a page each (5 pages - one for the introduction of races, and one each for Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling).

Likewise, present 8 core classes, giving a decent mix of "power sources" and "roles" (but never refer to these two things in the text!): Fighter, Rogue, Druid, Barbarian, Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Paladin. You should be able to present everything except the "power options" in four pages per class, so say 40 pages for the lot.

Now, since we're only presenting 10 levels of play, I'm going to say 20 pages for magic items, plus a further 5 for mundane equipment - keep it light and breezy.

And allow 20 pages for "dead space" - examples of play, the inevitable "what is D&D", introducing the dice, presenting the core mechanic, the foreword, and the adverts.

That leaves 50 pages out of my 300 for the "power options" - spells, martial maneuvers, and the like. Now, it is fair to say that that is extremely tight. But if the Fighter, Rogue, Paladin and Barbarian share a lot of combat options, while the Paladin, Druid, Bard, Cleric and Wizard share a lot of spells, and you add a number of iconic abilities for each class...

I do, honestly, think it's doable.

(Plus, of course, D&D has always been quite unusual in having multiple books. Given that most games manage with just one, and given also the existence of the Rules Cyclopedia, in which D&D is presented in a single book, they really should be able to manage it.)

As for the core rulebooks vs. starter set, Wizards should position this new (and much improved) starter set as the right place for noobs to start, even going as far as to put a note in the PH saying "If you and your group are totally new, you want the starter set over there." But I suppose you're right; the more noob-friendly the core itself is, the better; there is no question some people will just not happen upon the starter set, or reject it out of hand.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong - a really good Starter Set is absolutely essential. But a lot of people are likely to get started by playing an intro session and then borrowing a book from a friend. And others will assume a "Starter Set" is somehow a kiddy version and ignore it on principle. So the core rulebook(s) do need to be at least viable as an entry mechanism, even if they're not ideal.

Now, I don't think it's feasible to include the whole core rulebook in the starter set. If there were only one core rulebook then it wouldn't be a starter set at all, it would be an expanded core set!

It's only viable if there is a single Core Rulebook, and you're willing to put the Starter Set at a very high price point. Is $100 too much, if it includes the book, character sheets, dice, miniatures (or cardboard pawns as in the Pathfinder set), dungeon tiles, spell-effect markers, two pre-gen adventures, and a CD of extras?

(I think that would be a very interesting experiment... but would also be a hell of a risk!)

I don't think it being "an expanded core set" is actually a bad thing, though. One of the big criticisms I've levelled against Starter Sets (including the Pathfinder box) is that they are "pay-for previews" - the expectation is that the customer will play them for a while and then upgrade, whereupon the consign the Starter Set, or at least the rule-booklets, to the bin.

(And so, if they hate the game, they've wasted their money. If they like the game, they've wasted their money... Such a calculation makes it more likely they'll just jump straight to the core rulebooks, and then fail to wade through the 1,000 pages of bloated rules text, becoming yet another 'failed gamer'.)

And if there were multiple core rulebooks and this starter set included only the PH, then it would basically be a "PH with a watered down DMG and MM" set, which would be the opposite of helpful.

Agreed. If there's one Core Rulebook, you can consider putting it in the Starter Set. If you stick with the 3-book model, then it's a bad idea.

 

[GM Dave]

You brought up several good points and ideas Delericho.

The issue of the Dragonborn is a 'hot spot' for edition wars because it is something that was on the cover of the books and 'represents' the image of change that 4e occurred.

I don't agree with you that WotC can just 'drop' Dragonborn with 5e.

While Dragonborn may 'upset' some people, it isn't because of the race (we've had far weirder playable races in earlier editions and even full dragons in Council of Wyrms).

OTOH, Dragonborn missing from 5e will be a big body blow to the 4e crowd. It will be worse than Gnomes not being in the 4e launch of races. There are far more fans of Dragonborn and have played them as a race then Gnomes.

So, how do you satisfy the people that will reject immediately any 5e book that has Dragonborn and people that will reject immediately any 5e book that doesn't have Dragonborn?

I think they are going to have to produce at least 2 maybe 3 player handbooks from the start.

They need to divide some material into modules anyways at release because the 'no grid combat' group is as vocal as the 'theatre of the mind' group. There are some preferences that are strong enough that they are already going to generally be modules dedicated to one group or another.

The real 4 class 4 race lovers will likely want a specific player's handbook.

The players of 2e to 3e will likely except a wider range of classes and races.

The players of 4e will have additional races that they want 'core' along with some classes that the others would not accept (Warlord and Warlock for examples).

Essentials did this sort of division.

It also helps at the game table as you don't have five players fighting over 1 rule book for character creation but can have the people looking at different books for different things.

A GM will have some control over modules from the start by saying 'I'm using the classes and races of Player's Handbook X and Y but not Z'.

I agree that a focus on lower level material at launch is more important as a goal for WotC as it will focus their selection of monsters, magic items, and spells/powers/feats they need to provide.

It also saves prestige classes or paragon paths for another book at a different time when they have more time to focus on these choices.

 

[Transformer]

I suppose you've proven your point, delericho; if they cut it down to 10 levels, and paired the monsters down far enough that even beholders didn't make the cut, and had only a few dozen pages for all spells and martial maneuvers, and removed grid combat, it could be 300 pages.

But like you said earlier, that may not be desirable, and indeed, I think it would be disastrous. With pairing down the levels, I've seen 4e fans who got angry at the suggestion that epic would no longer be core, let alone removing levels 11-20. I imagine a huge chunk of 3.5 and 4e fans, maybe the majority, would be perturbed not to have those levels in the core.

Removing gridded or gridless combat is another sticking point. Fail to support either reasonably well right in the core and you'll have a riot on your hands.

Lots of people have favourite monsters; usually they get over it when their monsters fail to make it into the MM1, since they understand that their personal favourites are not necessarily iconic. But with only 100 monsters, and none more powerful than a level 10 party, a whole lot more people are going to be shocked and disappointed that their reasonably standard favourite monster isn't in the books.

And, of course, cutting the races and classes down so dramatically is diametrically opposed to Wizards' mission to be as inclusive as possible. Dragonborn are one thing (though I think, as GM Dave said, they have a ton of fans and will be in the core even if they're de-emphasized), but no gnomes? No half-orcs? No warlock? No non-vancian arcane caster? These things have become staples; they are darlings of many 4e players. I doubt there's any hope of converting both 4e players and 3.5/Pathfinderers to the cause without them.

Sure, the Rules Cyclopedia did it, and other games do it. But D&D has so much stuff that's expected of it in the year 2012, it just can't reasonably manage it anymore. Call that bloat if you like; I suppose you wouldn't be wrong. But it's the truth; people expect most of this stuff from their D&D, in the core.


As for Starter Sets, I think there needs to be a box at a low price point, and it needs to be, if not on Walmart's shelves, at least on Target's or Barnes and Noble's. A $100 box is not going to attract anyone who isn't already committed to the game.

With a box as good as the Pathfinder Beginner Box, I do not think the pay-to-preview problem is a problem. If you try anything (a board game or a video game) and hate it then you've wasted your money. But if you buy that Beginner Box and like it, you could play for a year easily without upgrading. Heck, with a decent amount of imagination and a decent grasp of the system math allowing for homebrew, you could play for 10 years with nothing but that little box. Now, if you're that hooked, you'll undoubtedly want to upgrade, but even once you do you still have a very nice dry erase flipmap, a full set of dice, and a hundred or so excellent standup pawns to use as miniatures. A year of games plus all that? Easily worth the price of the box.

If there's a chance a guy might hate the game, I think he's a heck of a lot more likely to risk $30 on it than $100!

 

[Steely_Dan]

I really am attached (illogically, as tradition is the illusion of permanence, as Woody Allen would say) to my PHB, DMG and MM, though I could deal with a slick, D&D Cyclopedia (consolidated BECMI).

And less Complete Gnome Cobbler's Handbooks in the next edition (not saying I don't dig gnomes or cobblers).

 

[delericho]

The issue of the Dragonborn is a 'hot spot' for edition wars because it is something that was on the cover of the books and 'represents' the image of change that 4e occurred.

Exactly.

I don't agree with you that WotC can just 'drop' Dragonborn with 5e.

While Dragonborn may 'upset' some people, it isn't because of the race (we've had far weirder playable races in earlier editions and even full dragons in Council of Wyrms).

OTOH, Dragonborn missing from 5e will be a big body blow to the 4e crowd. It will be worse than Gnomes not being in the 4e launch of races. There are far more fans of Dragonborn and have played them as a race then Gnomes.

So, how do you satisfy the people that will reject immediately any 5e book that has Dragonborn and people that will reject immediately any 5e book that doesn't have Dragonborn?

If I were in charge, I would omit them from the Core Rulebook, but have them immediately available via a Web Enhancement. Then make sure they got into print at the earliest opportunity.

I think they are going to have to produce at least 2 maybe 3 player handbooks from the start.

I wish that were practical! If they could get some sort of "create your own"/"print on demand" system going, that would be the ideal solution. As it is...

I suppose you've proven your point, delericho; if they cut it down to 10 levels, and paired the monsters down far enough that even beholders didn't make the cut, and had only a few dozen pages for all spells and martial maneuvers, and removed grid combat, it could be 300 pages.

Aye. I didn't say it would be easy. Cutting down to that point would definitely hurt - and they'd have to put out the first round of supplements pretty quickly.

But like you said earlier, that may not be desirable, and indeed, I think it would be disastrous. With pairing down the levels, I've seen 4e fans who got angry at the suggestion that epic would no longer be core, let alone removing levels 11-20. I imagine a huge chunk of 3.5 and 4e fans, maybe the majority, would be perturbed not to have those levels in the core.

There's a calculation to be done: How many people will be angry to the point of not buying versus how many people will be put off by a 1,000 page set of core rules?

My take on the current situation is that many of the lapsed players are now just gone - that the new Red Box was always doomed to fail at recapturing people in large numbers, and that their current efforts to "unify the editions" are likewise going to fail. If this is correct (which is a huge 'if'), then they're better placed constructing a game that has the maximum chance of drawing in new players - and that advocates an easy-to-learn ruleset, and a slimmed down core.

Conversely, if their calculation is correct, and there are huge numbers of ex-D&D customers just yearning to "come home", then their best approach is to try to build the game to be as inclusive as possible. And that means producing a 1,000 page ruleset, including as much as is humanly possible.

... snipped...

There's a whole lot of stuff here that I don't disagree with - I'm just making the calculation differently.

As for Starter Sets, I think there needs to be a box at a low price point, and it needs to be, if not on Walmart's shelves, at least on Target's or Barnes and Noble's. A $100 box is not going to attract anyone who isn't already committed to the game.

The Warhammer Fantasy Battles starter box appears to have an RRP of $99, and it appears to do okay. That was, essentially, the model that I was going for.

WotC have a bad habit of doing their Starter Sets "on the cheap" - they throw a bunch of cheap components together in a box, slap a low low price on it, and call it done.

The resulting Starter Sets have been extremely poor. But, what's worse, they've looked like cheap rubbish - the exact sorts of products that I would studiously avoid when buying gifts for nephews because of the low quality.

Now, that said, I'm certainly aware that price sensitivity is an issue. So I'm certainly not blind to your argument!

With a box as good as the Pathfinder Beginner Box...

There's no douobt, the Pathfinder box is excellent. Unless WotC are sure they have a better idea, they should just take that apart, replace the PF mechanics with D&D ones, and put out a clone.

Pretty much the only weakness I can see with it is that "pay for preview" problem, which is a pretty minor one, for the reasons you give. And the only way I can see to avoid that is to include the full Core Rulebook in the box, inevitably inflating the price significantly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am willing to bet that most people don't by the DMG on the basis of it being big and scary and too much to read.

Taking 4e for example, I think there was FAR too little material in all three books. The first ones should have been the size and contained the material of the first and second book combined.

Yes. Want a good sized gm book

 

[Transformer]

My take on the current situation is that many of the lapsed players are now just gone - that the new Red Box was always doomed to fail at recapturing people in large numbers, and that their current efforts to "unify the editions" are likewise going to fail. If this is correct (which is a huge 'if'), then they're better placed constructing a game that has the maximum chance of drawing in new players - and that advocates an easy-to-learn ruleset, and a slimmed down core.

I think I may be more pessimistic than you are, delericho. I'm not at all sure 5e can succeed, not because I don't think they can make a great game, but because I think the fanbase may simply be fractured beyond repair. But I'm at least as pessimistic about the possibility of bringing in a large number of new players. WotC tried to do that with 4e, what with making it a bit hipper, a bit more reminiscent of a video game (I am not claiming that 4e was not a proper RPG or that the direction they took it was bad, mind; I like 4e). It seems to have failed. I don't know what factors allowed D&D to draw in new players with OD&D, or during its heydays in the 80s and the early 2000s, but I'm not sure they're around anymore.

It sounds, from Wizards' talk so far, that they're focusing on getting all sorts of former players back rather than bringing new players in. Like you say, there's a good chance that's impossible (Pathfinderers in particular not only like their system, they like their company and are proud to support it), but Wizards still seems to regard it as a better attempt than trying to court a whole new wave of newbies.

 

[steeldragons]

I, after much consideration, see no problem with a two book model...with the understanding/explanation, that at least one other would be needed.

So, for the "Advanced" hardback books:
Player Handbook.
Dungeonmaster's Guide.

THEN...an assortment of other "manuals" that the group/DM can opt to include/base their games off of:
A "traditional style" Monster Manual -for those who know how or want to put in the effort to use it/build adventures from scratch.
A "Lairs Conpendium" with KamikazeMidget's style "pre-combined, complete habitats/environments/adventures in which to encounter an assortment of grouped monsters who might all be found in a common locale or working/living together...things like a "Kobold Mine", "Vault of the Drow", "Frost Giant Castle", "[Red] Dragon's Lair", etc. that they can just pick and mix-n-match and play out of the book.

Add to that:
A "World Builder's Guide" -for DMs who want to go whole hog homebrewed setting from day 1.
A "Legendary Adventures Handbook" - for Players AND DMs who want to jump right into "epic" [small "e", nee "Epic"]/high level play.
A "Survival Guide" -for Players and DMs who want to use all sortsa optional rules for incorporating (more thoroughly than presented in the DMG) types of terrain, environmental hazards, possibly expanded listings for traps goes here(?), perhaps special Themes, Backgrounds and/or added "feats" and "skills" to potentially use or "swap out" from the PHB/DMG, etc.
possibly a "Manual of the Planes" -for Players and DMs who want to jump right into extra-planar/off-world play.

And, of course, individual published adventure modules that can be grabbed and played, start to finish, with no muss, fuss, alterations, thinking, reconfiguring or combining necessary.

So, basically, other than the PHB and DMG, you get to choose what your "Core" books are.

Other than THAT...I am still advocating a BOXED SET..at least a "Beginners/Basics/Adventurers" (soft-bound, short books) boxed set for levels 1-5:
Player Manual.
DM's Guide.
Separate digest-sized (I'm thinking 50 creatures is a good start) traditional-style "Monster Manual" for the DMs.
Separate digest-sized "Complete Grimoire" listing all Arcane, Divine, and Nature spells (for player mages, clerics and druids, respectively -sorcerers, warlocks, bards, and whatever else is included in the Basic Player's book) available for casters' levels (NOT spell levels!) 1-5.
Maybe a few preset/pre-made dungeon maps that just need monsters plugged into the available spaces.
Set of Dice.

Pick it up and play an hour later.

But, yes, it seems "thinking outside the core 3" books/encouraging people to "choose-your-own" is going to be the way to go...to make the widest possible audience of people happy.
--SD

 

[Sunseeker]

If D&D were trimmed down to 3-4 races 4-5 classes and two core books, I'd expect a drastic price cut. I'm taking 50% or more. Quite frankly I'm not interested in a game that only goes to level 10 with that little content. I can write my own RPG with more content than that.