4E "Core"

[Umbran]

Every time someone dredges up a topic that was flame warred to death eight or more months ago, that person should have their genitals struck with a cat o' nine tails.

Nobody's making you read it, bucko. You lose your right to gripe when you subject yourself to it when you could just as easily have avoided it. If you have so much problem with a topic, maybe you should exert a bit of self-control and not read the thread.

If you can't do that, you can at least exert enough self-control to speak civilly. Saying that others should be subjected to physical abuse is not civil.

 

[Thasmodious]

But I expect no changes, but it really hurts my liking of 4E and desire to support it. IMHO

Have to agree with GM. When you choose not to buy something, by nature, you will lose out on the benefits it offers.

That said, why not subscribe? It's cheap and has a great return on a few dollars.

 

[gribble]

Not something I've observed. I played with 2 types of DMs under 3e - those who allowed everything (or at least everything WotC) with a few restrictions on very broken combos, and those who only allowed a subset of WotC books.

Those 2 categories haven't changed under 4e for me. The DMs who allowed everything under 3e still allow everything under 4e, and the DMs who restricted stuff under 3e still restrict things under 4e.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Have to agree with GM. When you choose not to buy something, by nature, you will lose out on the benefits it offers.

That said, why not subscribe? It's cheap and has a great return on a few dollars.

If I thought so, I would subscribe. That seems rathr obvious.

 

[BryonD]

Are you allowed to play using only the first three books, and if so, what is the term for this type of game? If not, why not?

 

[Firos]

Viva la revolution?

I think that it easy to get the impression from the online 4E audience that core really denotes all resources authorized enough to be part of DDI, at least the character builder. The ease of use of this resource makes it much easier to accept new material, balanced or no, as a "core" part of the 4E experience.

Other choices by WOTC cement this notion: releasing classic races and classes in books other than the first Player's Handbook, adding classic monsters in the same way, and making the DDI resources the most up to date, errata'd versions make it both more appealing and sensible to make use of what is available.

It would be possible to exclude certain resources using DDI tools, but it is easier not to.

Earlier editions of D&D lacked these tools. After a while, "core" becomes an exclusive definition rather than an encompassing one for reasons of ease of use and DM resources rather than anything to do with the balance of the rules themselves. Though I've noticed that 4E has not yet created a new subsystem to replace something that is already there, or as an alternative to it; as an example, the character builder allows both hybrid characters and its traditional feat-based multi-classing, rather than making players choose. In 3E, a DM would really have to decide, with care, whether to use the traditional fighter or its "replacements" in Bo9S, for example.

Without the DDI, though, I think it unlikely that gamers would consider everything core - simply calling the rules "core" or giving books names like "Player's Handbook 2" doesn't make them so, in 4E or 3E. What would be good to know is just what percentage of 4E groups make use of DDI.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think casualoblivion's suggestion that everything produced by WotC in 4E is considered "core" is true in two facets:

- The original 3 books in 4E do not feel complete enough compared to the same 3 books in 3E and so more material was required so that it would feel "core".
- 4E is so mathematically "safe" that it is difficult to conceive of things that work within this framework that are not safely compatible enough that they should not be considered "core".

As such, the definition of core for me is firstly one of completeness and secondly one of safety of introduction or "unbroken-ness".

By the way, surely we're all polite enough here to be able to discuss such things without getting riled up, or feeling the need to defend one edition over another.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[applenerd]

I think having some of the classic classes and races like barbarian, bard, monk, half-orc, etc not show up until later books did a lot to give those books player mindshare. While it was a risky gambit in the short term, since it risked adoption by players who enjoyed those classes / races, I think in the long run it has really added to that feeling that these later books are part of the "core" set, so to speak.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is it me, or has 4E rather successfully created the acceptance of almost every bit of material released for it as "Core". <snip good points>

Does it really matter what the definition of core is? Why is core such an important word?

Well...yes and no.

Some DMs- like myself- favor an expansive game full of options. Some don't, and keep their game confined to a tight set of books. Some even redact "Core" material.

"Core" is just a name for one such delineation...which obviously varies from edition to edition.

 

[Thasmodious]

If I thought so, I would subscribe. That seems rathr obvious.

Well, one would think so. But then this one was not the one complaining that DDI offers value only to the people who choose to pay for it.

I'd have to say its an objectively indefensible position that DDI is a poor product with little value for the few dollars it costs. Sure, you can lament about what could have been with the visualizer or the game table, but that is divorced from a consideration of value on the dollar for what is there.