D&D: How Many Core Books

[JoeGKushner]

On another thread...

It's a pet peeve of mine that D&D still comes in the three book format, actually. d20 Modern, d20 Call of Cthulhu, d20 Wheel of Time and d20 Star Wars, all from Wizards of the Coast (and all of which I own, and in many cases prefer to D&D), show that the system can certainly be done in a single book.

Now note, that even this look isn't 100% accurate as d20 Modern has the Menace Manual. d20 Wheel of Time certainly doesn't have the wealth of spells, monsters, magic items, and character generation options of the PHB, DMG, and MM.

It's not a unique thing either. Rolemaster has to have about three core books and most other d20 versions rely on the user, even Arcana Evolved, having the DMG and MM.

So what would be an ideal solution? One book with a limited number of spells, magic items, and PrCs or ?

 

[Desdichado]

Now note, that even this look isn't 100% accurate as d20 Modern has the Menace Manual. d20 Wheel of Time certainly doesn't have the wealth of spells, monsters, magic items, and character generation options of the PHB, DMG, and MM.

d20 Modern doesn't require the Menace Manual either, anymore than D&D requires the Monster Manual III to be a complete game. d20 Modern is a good example, because it features a lot of core D&D monsters, spells and magic items. It's very D&D-like, while still fitting in a single book.

 

[Bleys]

It's not a unique thing either. Rolemaster has to have about three core books and most other d20 versions rely on the user, even Arcana Evolved, having the DMG and MM.

And not entirely true about Rolemaster, either

Right toward the end (when ICE went on "hiatus", for lack of a better word) they had distilled Rolemaster to a single FRPG book, which was all you needed to run the game, if you didn't want to expand into levels above about 10, or into classes and options beyond the most basic.

But yes, even Rolemaster had 3+ "core" books that were required, and for the most part I'm guessing it's a marketing strategy more than a limitation on a set of rules.

 

[Psion]

I don't think one book would do D&D justice. Unless it was freakin' HUGE.

I do think that much of the DMG isn't strictly necessary.

 

[JoeGKushner]

And not entirely true about Rolemaster, either

Right toward the end (when ICE went on "hiatus", for lack of a better word) they had distilled Rolemaster to a single FRPG book, which was all you needed to run the game, if you didn't want to expand into levels above about 10, or into classes and options beyond the most basic.

But yes, even Rolemaster had 3+ "core" books that were required, and for the most part I'm guessing it's a marketing strategy more than a limitation on a set of rules.

I had that if you're talking about the boxed set and it still, afaik, didn't have a lot of stuff in it. I don't remember off the top of my head, but did it have monsters? I do remember using the three books for spellcasters in my standard game though.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't think one book would do D&D justice. Unless it was freakin' HUGE.

I do think that much of the DMG isn't strictly necessary.

Why not? Do all of the core spells truly need to be core, for instance? Same with magic items and monsters. That's what bulks it up to 3 books. d20 Modern really isn't too much different than "D&D in the modern world" in many ways, although it does include options for playing other styles. It fits just fine in one book.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, if you cut out nonessential classes, people would hunt down the designers and hang them. After all, the base assumpetion is cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard. In the 'new' world, I think the wizard would get the axe for the sorcerer. The spell list wouldn't get particularly reduced due to the exclusion of the druid and ranger, but some material would indeed be reduced.

What else would you get rid of? Reduce the weapon and armor selection? Reduce the # of feats, skills & spells?

 

[Psion]

Why not? Do all of the core spells truly need to be core, for instance?

I would say a great many of them.

D&D is not just a game system. It also contains a lot of metasetting that is a central part of it's appeal and legacy, that you couldn't just dispense and still have it be D&D. It might still be a playable game, but it wouldn't be the game I want to play.

d20 Modern really isn't too much different than "D&D in the modern world" in many ways, although it does include options for playing other styles. It fits just fine in one book.

D20 modern is also intended to be a much more generic book. In some ways, I think that hurts it. I think more people would play D20 modern if they had a more concrete idea what to do with it.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Why not? Do all of the core spells truly need to be core, for instance?

I know this is just an example, but imho a poor one. I would personally be more than a little miffed if I were forced to purchase another book just for a decent complement of spells for my campaign. I say the core three books are fine as is. Even the DMG (though its possible to trim it down a bit) is a nice bit to have for those wishing to sit in the Dungeon Master's seat.

 

[Gez]

Sourcebooks like the Complete Arcane, Complete Divine, Magic of Faerûn, etc., and the success of third party sourcebooks like the various Relics & Rituals; show that the amount of spells in the Players' Handbook couldn't be trimmed. If anything, it needs to be increased.