3 core books vs. 1 core book

[smootrk]

I would prefer even more separation when it comes to a game as expansive as D&D.

Core rules could be stripped down further by removing Spells to their own Tome. Official Prestige Classes to a separate Tome. Races, Paragons, and Substitution levels to a separate tome... etc.

As long as the quality is there, they could revamp and create a D&D 3.75... with about 6 full volumes using the new 'additional' books (Races of, Complete, Environmental). I would buy a set of re-vamped, fully edited, playtested, and otherwise quality tested materials. It would be smart for WOTC as well, allowing them to re-market already existing IP without necessarily alienating existing consumer base by actually changing rules.... more of a re-compiling and re-organizing endeavor.

 

[smootrk]

I know. Here comes the NEW EDITION BLASPHEMER!! responses.

 

[scourger]

I guess it's been around for D&D so long that I never really thought about the 3 core rule books in terms of good & bad. I did (& do) like Star Wars for the fact that it's all in 1 book--I just never read the GM stuff because I've never run it. The most recent game I've picked up is Savage Worlds, and I love the fact that it's all in 1 core book plus a setting book (and they're hardcover; and they have lots of great downloads like player's guides). I suppose that if I had a preference, I would prefer to get it all in one book, but I don't see how it could be done for d20 D&D--it would be over 1100 pages. Things would have to be cut or simplified. That would be okay with me. Most times, less is more.

One of the reasons I like Savage Worlds is that it is 1/10 the number of pages. Imagine D&D as 1 book with everything needed to play (including DMing, which really is playing, too, after all) with a series of hardcover setting books presenting all the crunch (new races, classes, skills, feats, equipment, spells, monsters, foes, etc.), fluff (maps, background, etc.) and a plot-point campaign series of adventures: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Omega World (I can dream, right?), and so on. But, what I've just described is the Savage Worlds development & marketing strategy applied to d20. There's already some of it in the d20 market (games that use the PH plus the main setting book--i.e., Judge Dredd), but there are also a bunch of OGL (d20) standalone games (like M&M & Conan). I don't think it will happen for d20 D&D. Maybe next time, but I doubt it.

 

[IronWolf]

I see no issues with the three book approach for many of the reasons already listed. I think the current breakout makes sense. The players of the game only need to pick up one book, the PHB instead of a much larger and presumably more expensive rule book that is sure to be even more intimidating to a new gamer than the current three core books are. I think monsters getting their own book is a good thing also.

 

[Remathilis]

I recall the D&D cyclopedia had alot of material (9 classes up to 36th level with full spells, combat, campaign setting, monsters, and magical items, not to mention all the combat rules, rules for dominions, and mass combat to boot) all crammed into one book. Course, Basic D&D is pretty simple (no feats, 1/3 as many spells, maybe 30 monsters tops) but it WAS done.

The only way D&D could return to one book is to strip it down considerably in both content and complexity. Without discussing if that would be good or bad, I can't see 3.X or anything nearly as complex (or even 1e/2e) being put into a useable one-book format. It would spawn so many supplemental tomes (magic, monsters, etc) that the allure of "1 book" would be lost quickly in the mound of supplements.

I kinda like the fact that I could theoretically run a "3 tome" game from 1-20 without EVER feeling limited in my options. A "1 tome" would require alot more legwork to use, for good or ill.

 

[sword-dancer]

DSA had 4 Boxes and 1 Book as Core Rules
the Basic Box rather useless and not Compatible with Magic and no Clerics, but 3 rules or so are only there
Swords and Heroes, Advanced Characterbuild, not compatible to the BB, and advanced fighting rules, skills feats etc

Magic and Sorcery
Advanced Characterbuild for magic users, magic rules etc

GodsAnd Demons
Rules to made Clerics, Demonpacters Churchgmen Demons and their Powers

The Bestiary.

Midgard had also 5 Books

The Rules and Characters

Arkana with all the speels and so onhow the magics of all kindsworks and so on

The Companion a thin Book and really optional, the GM Book and special Classes, Variants of the Core Classes.

The Bestiary.

And sometime the Book of planes

 

[Aust Diamondew]

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

Teh! I wish my players would read about DMing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The only ones I could find in my VAST collection of RPGs were other TSR products, like Alternity.

 

[JediSoth]

In my experience, having three books does not keep players from learning about stuff that would enhance the playing experience by not knowing. In other words, everyone I know buys and reads the books for DM even if they never DM. At least in Paranoia, if they quote a rule to me from the GM's section I can frag them for it. If I did that in D&D they'd call me a RBDM.

It's usually not too much of a problem. But I do find it annoying when my players start questioning monster abilities during a game. Sometimes it's like DMing the Knights of the Dinner Table.

JediSoth

 

[JoeGKushner]

Rolemaster has always been more than one book.

GURPS is now two books.

While some may feel that say Warhammer is one book, it's really about two, maybe three (monster book and sigmar book are very useful.)

Harp isn't quite so bad as there are quite a few beasties, but the monster guide does help out.

I guess it depends on how much info you as the GM feel you need. For example, while the Hero system is in and of itself a complete book, it doesn't have any settings detailed and has a host of sourcebooks for specific genres.