Core Rules Only

[MoogleEmpMog]

You are missing the point. You are bringing up these examples that are so far removed from D&D they are no longer D&D. Might as well ask how a skillful DM would make a sci fi epic out of just D&D core rules. I never said it could do everything under the sun, I just said that many of the things you claim it can't it actually can.

But the only thing in any of the three settings I presented not in my list of things you said D&D core rules could do was the airplane in the first one.

The much less flexible 2e (with a single supplement) was able to do something almost entirely like the first example: Spelljammer.

The second, basic Howardian sword and sorcery, hardly seems a far cry from what D&D is.

The third is basic oriental fantasy, quite doable with a single supplement (OA), albeit only at higher levels.

 

[Crothian]

I think that if you include non-core stuff and have a good GM, you can play a totally awesome game just like any of those describe by MEM with the D&D ruleset, though.

Gee, you think? You mean if I have more options things get easier? :\

That was sarcasm. This discusion isn't about the core rules doing things better then a thousand suppliments. It is about the core rules being not as limited as is being thought. But that's enough of this discussion that is going no where.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Gee, you think? You mean if I have more options things get easier? :\

That was sarcasm. This discusion isn't about the core rules doing things better then a thousand suppliments. It is about the core rules being not as limited as is being thought. But that's enough of this discussion that is going no where.

I do agree with you that the core rules are not as restricted as MEM made them out to be in his initial post (what with the 'pseudo-Tolkien' and all that). I think I mistakenly thought you were arguing iwatt's point that the core rules can do any concept, but it seems I was mistaken. I apologise for that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted "Maybe." To explain:

Core + Completes - Psionics has been the standard game in our group since 3.0 came out, and there's no sign that there is going to be a change. Even the contents of the Completes are on a case-by-case approval basis.

Before that, it was 2Ed Core only.

Paladins are usually either axed completely, or eliminated due to party makeup.

While there is something to be said for that kind of game, there is an aspect of it that gets boring after a while. Its like a diet of nothing but roast beef and mashed potatoes...for 10 years.

We've got a guy whose played nothing but Rangers for all those years (even in the short-lived RIFTS campaign), another plays only mages, and so forth. That means that players who don't want to "step on the shoes" of other players, there are fewer options.

Currently, my 3.0 Ftr/Rgr/Diviner/Spellsword (optimized for 2wf combat, if at all) is being forced into using a magical 2handed sword- the other 3 warriors in the party either have a significant magical weapon or have taken vows that prevent them from using certain weapons. My guy is SO going to die. If he were a Diviner/Warmage, he'd be MUCH more flexible...but that's not an option.

Why do I still play when I'd prefer a bit more lattitude? Because I like the people I'm gaming with.

 

[Mouseferatu]

While options are always fun, and there are some rules in the supplements I prefer to use, I'd be happy to play in a core-only game.

However, I strongly disagree with the notion that the DM must also restrict himself to core-only material. Just as the stuff in the MM is meant (for most campaigns) to be DM-exclusive, I have no problem with the DM pulling in other sources if he's doing so to create an interesting story or challenge.

Now, if he's doing it just to "beat" the players, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but thankfully, I don't play with anyone like that.

 

[Glyfair]

I wavered between yes & maybe. I decided that it leaned towards yes. However, I would be wary of a DM that wants "Core Only" rules. There are a lot of good reasons to restrict things to only core, but I've found in practice most of the time a DM wants to do that it's because they are very controlling and use that to keep the players in line. That game rarely turns out to be very enjoyable, and usually only in spite of the DM, rather than because of him.

What moved me towards yes was the comment "assuming the DM was of acceptable skill" which means that sort of DM is very unlikely. Still, I wouldn't be going in without reservations unless I knew the DM's style very well.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Assuming the DM was of acceptable skill, would you play in a game that restricted Players to the core rules only?

Core Rules = PHB, DMG, MM

Of course, yes. It's all in the assuming though. It would *need* to be a very competent DM, I think.

 

[Xyanthon]

I like having options, but a core rules only game is perfectly fine by me. When I was younger and played 1e, we only used the PHB, DMG, and MM and did so for years (because that was all we had access to and knew about at the time). If the DM and group are good then it really shouldn't matter.

 

[Mercule]

So by Suave you rellay meant the most suave a character can be? Suave in my mind does not automatically mean max ranks in the class skill of diplomacy.

To describe someone as "Suave" would imply that Diplomacy is one of their strengths. If you're only spending half-points in it, then it isn't a strength. It's just something you're okay at.

Really, it's like saying the Bard is "good at combat". He doesn't suck at it, and is certainly better at it than some other characters. But, when pressed, he's not the guy you want as your second in a duel.

The problem with the Swashbuckler in a core only game is that you really can't have one character who is both a primary fighter and the party face -- and who only does those two things well. There's no game-breaking reason not to. It just isn't possible.

Now, that said, I'd have no problem in playing in a "core only" game. I'd want the DM to stay core only, too, though. If we're doing simplicity, let's do it.

 

[iwatt]

Although the argument of 'you can do it, theoretically, so it is possible with the core' is cute, since you agree with me about some combinations being unplayably bad, you must know it is a bit of a strawman.

It's just as cute as your example of everybthing but the kitchen sink 1 example I was responding too. So I'll spell it out. Playing ADD-man will probably lead to a subpar choice. But exactly what charcter concept do you want to explore with ranger1/sorc1/wiz1/druid1/monk1/barb1/rogue1?

Anyway, although my main language is english, my formal school and college years took place in spanish speaking countries. What does a "strawman argument" mean?

Build me a level 5 D'Artagne that won't be a mockery and a laughingstock when fighting toe-to-toe on the front lines against the Duke's guards. You can only use the core rules.

Depends what you call a laughinstock. I find the Ftr2/Rog3 with combat expertise, Imp feint, Weap Finesse completely playable. Take Skill focus (Bluff) and you will be quite competent at level 5. Pump your AC via Combat expertise, and use feint to lower their defenses. Stagger class levels for optimal skill use. Not abad character, and I'd know since I played one. Of course some people will whine about the lost armor feats. Personally, I'd probably give something else in exchange, but as a player I wouldn't mind.


Alternatively, you could go with Brb2/Rogue3, and explain the rage as an aggresive combat stance, in which improved offensive ability is paid for by a reduced defense. Since hps are an abstraction, the added hps and inability to use skills requiring concentration can be explained as the extreme mental focus required by the stance. You're even able to withstand blows that would cripple normal people, but if you leave this stance all your injuries come to the fore. You know, kind of like the Void in Robert Jordan's the WoT. The extra mobility doesn't hurt this character. and one more level of rogue and you have UD II in the quickest way possible.