3 book models vs. 1 book models.

You know I've come to realize that I really prefer a single corebook model. I was thinking that if WotC can do it with d20 modern and so many other companies can do it with games such as True20, Scion, Hero, BESM 3e, etc. Even games with a setting such as Exalted, Stormbringer and Earthdawn...then why not for D&D?
Some advantages I see to the single corebook...
1.) Cheaper to get into.
2.) If you buy the book you now have the rules to both play and run the game(might facilitate more people at least considering trying to run a game.)
3.)Portability greatly increases.
4.)Better understanding of both player and DM perspectives and issues concerning gameplay on both sides of the screen.

Are there any advantages to having a three book set, besides profit, that I'm missing?

I, too, STRONGLY prefer the 1-book model.

However, there are a couple of potential benefits to the three-book model:

1. Separate reference materials. One player can look in the DMG, another in the PHB, a third in the MM, and trade them around the table as needed. Obviously, this is only an issue if the system requires players (rather than just the GM) to reference multiple books - which D&D, with its purchasable magic items and summoned monsters, pretty much does.

2. Monster stats are not in the players' faces. This is not a concern to me, but in some groups, 'metagaming' by reading monsters' strengths and weaknesses is considered by common enough to be a problem and inappropriate enough to avoid.

3. Smaller individual books. This is a minor concern, to be sure, but at times you don't need all three D&D core books, and just the PHB is certainly a lot lighter-weight than, say, the Exalted core book, or HERO 5e.

Back in the dark ages, when the D&D Rules Cyclopedia came out, there was much rejoicing in my young little roleplayer's heart. One book to rule them all, so to speak. No need to lug around a bunch of stuff, just the book, the dice, and the characters. Kapow.

The advantage, in my estimation, to more than one book, lies in the "player-knowledge" syndrome. When I was first reading through Vampire: The Masquerade, getting ready to play, not run, I found myself reading through the intro scenario and all the other kinda ST only stuff. It didn't ruin the playing experience per se, but it did give me insider info that I didn't necessarily want.

With a one-book scenario, the person who just plays, is paying for half-a-book they're not ever going to use. Dead weight. With more than one book, the player-only individual can be happy with his PHB and never have to worry about those other books.

Another example: Rifts. I bought the core book with the intent to run it. Found another player who wanted to play. He bought the book so he could get a better feel for the character options. Complained about half the book being stuff he didn't really care about.

I'd like to see a two book model: a Players Guide with all the PHB stuff, plus magic items and prestiege classes, and a DM book with monsters and the rest of the DMG stuff.

Summoner PCs need some monster stats. So having those stats in the core book wouldn't be too terrible.

-- N

MoogleEmpMog said:

1. Separate reference materials. One player can look in the DMG, another in the PHB, a third in the MM, and trade them around the table as needed. Obviously, this is only an issue if the system requires players (rather than just the GM) to reference multiple books - which D&D, with its purchasable magic items and summoned monsters, pretty much does.

Click to expand...

Yeah but if the corebook is as cheap or a little more than those three books combined, everyone can have their own for the same or a little more. I also see the problem of what about when players need the same book for different things.

MoogleEmpMog said:

2. Monster stats are not in the players' faces. This is not a concern to me, but in some groups, 'metagaming' by reading monsters' strengths and weaknesses is considered by common enough to be a problem and inappropriate enough to avoid.

Click to expand...

I've heard this argument before, but after playing D&D for any significant amount of time, players begin to "know" the generic monster stats. So you end up modifying them anyway. So I don't see this as that big of a deal.

MoogleEmpMog said:

3. Smaller individual books. This is a minor concern, to be sure, but at times you don't need all three D&D core books, and just the PHB is certainly a lot lighter-weight than, say, the Exalted core book, or HERO 5e.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the DM has way less to carry, though I do see your point.

Imaro said:

You know I've come to realize that I really prefer a single corebook model. I was thinking that if WotC can do it with d20 modern and so many other companies can do it with games such as True20, Scion, Hero, BESM 3e, etc. Even games with a setting such as Exalted, Stormbringer and Earthdawn...then why not for D&D?
Some advantages I see to the single corebook...
1.) Cheaper to get into.
2.) If you buy the book you now have the rules to both play and run the game(might facilitate more people at least considering trying to run a game.)
3.)Portability greatly increases.
4.)Better understanding of both player and DM perspectives and issues concerning gameplay on both sides of the screen.

Are there any advantages to having a three book set, besides profit, that I'm missing?

Click to expand...

1. Players need only one book with content useful for them. (Which leaves the DM buying all three.)

2. Three 200-page books offer more material (spells, monsters, dungeon dressings, etc.) than One 300-page book.

3. Rules Lawyers will want to nitpick the DM's rule.

4. Why buck tradition?

Imaro said:

Are there any advantages to having a three book set, besides profit, that I'm missing?

Click to expand...

Unless your one book is 1000 pages, you're going to lose information from the existing 3.5 rules-set. What 50% of material do you want to cut?

joe b.

I see potential for a 1-book model, though I think a nice, good book with everything needed for D&D may be big, heavy, and expensive, with the way the system currently works.

Now, if things were genericized a bit (generic classes, generic spells, etc.) with plug-and-play options, then maybe I could see this work. However, it'd be a lot of crunch with very little fluff, IMHO. And sometimes that fluff can help someone get into the game itself.

Nifft said:

Summoner PCs need some monster stats. So having those stats in the core book wouldn't be too terrible.

-- N

Click to expand...

Ditch summoned monsters in favor of something like the Astral Construct (i.e., you pick up the stats). Like the shapeshifting druid variant of the PHBII, where the exact form is irrelevant, the stats won't change.

I vastly prefer the 3-book format of D&D to the 1-book format of other games. You simply can't cram 3 books into one without leaving lots of information out (in D&D this would mean only 1/3 of the monsters, spells, magic items, etc). Even moreso if you factor in the PHBII and DMGII.

Plus, the 1-book format won't likely stay 1 book for long. V:tM had all those clanbooks and "city by night" books. Shadowrun had the Grimoire, the Street Samurai Catalogue, Beyond the Shadows, the books to expand the rigger, decker, etc, plus the setting books.