Rethinking the 3-Book Model

[Raith5]

I'm very much of the opinion that 5e should have a single Core Rulebook of a reasonable size - about 250 - 300 pages feels about right. If the game is so complex it cannot fit in that amount of space, then it's too complex, IMO.

However, if WotC do retain the three-book model, then I'd strongly prefer that they keep the arrangement of the books mostly as-is. There are two changes I would prefer they made:

1) Move the magic items back to the DMG. My thoughts on placement of magic items are probably worthy of a thread of their own, but basically the placement of such things should be almost entirely in the hands of the DM, and so magic items should be in the DMG.

2) Move traps and environmental hazards to the MM, turning it into a more rounded "book of challenges". Basically, this has the effect of putting everything needed for building and running encounters into a single place.

(Of these two, I would say they should definitely make the first change. The second is a personal preference, but is extremely minor - it won't impact my buying decisions one iota.)

I agree with your points but I dont think they can keep all of the various editions happy within 300 pages! (even if you hive of various forms of modularity to later books).

 

[TarionzCousin]

I love books and I will definitely buy the core for 5E.

However, if they would put the rules on a website or an application, that's what I would use in my games. I'm tired of lugging forty pounds of books to and from games.

/return to book talk.

What if they remove magic items altogether and put them in a fourth book, like the Magic Item Compendium for 3.5? I would think that would sell well, as full-time players would buy it in addition to the PHB.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I wonder if a better approach might be to take out the information on traps, hazards, magic items, etc. and put it together with the information on monsters into a separate "Homebrewer's Guide" (there may be a better name). Into that book would also go the advice on encounter design, adventure design (including allocation of treasure and magic items), campaign design and world design.

I find that an odd suggestion. I'm 100% homebrew (never run a published adventure or campaign setting) and I don't use any of that stuff. I didn't use it much even when I was a beginner. I want a DMG with crunch, not fluff. I guess campaign design rules are useful, but those have generally been presented in supplements and not the DMG.

What would be left in the DMG would be generic DM advice on running the game and engaging and interacting with the players, and maybe a sample dungeon which a beginning DM could use to practice his game-running skills. (So there would be a small number of monsters and treasure in the DMG - those in the sample dungeon.)

Advice on running a game okay. Sample stuff I hate. Total waste of space. We're trying to encourage people to play the game, not play it for them. A couple page transcript of a basic game scenario is all right just so beginners can get it, but it's really important that a new DM learn to run the game his/her way.

The real advantage to this approach (from my perspective) is that we slash the size of the DMG so that it doesn't look so intimidating for a beginning DM - it actually looks possible to sit down, read through and absorb the information inside within a reasonable period of time. A second advantage is that we separate the role of the DM as designer from the role of the DM as referee. A DM who plans on just running modules will have all the information he needs in the DMG. Should he decide to come up with his own adventures in the future, he just needs to pick up the third book.

I don't understand the distinction. It's not as if any DM is anything other than the primary creative force in the game and the interpreter of the rules. Some DMs may use published material to help with the creative process, but I don't think it fundamentally changes their role or abrogates their control of the game. And frankly, I don't think there are enough people that do that that I would make a DMG just for them. Moreover, why would you want to?

If I were in charge of this business, I would be pushing to make it easier for everyone to run improv games and leaving the adventure business to some third-party company. It's good for business if the customers take ownership of the product and invest their own time and energy into the game; as a designer you want to facilitate this by cutting out the busywork. I'd be filling the DMG with Fantasy-Craft type campaign style rules, a variety of magic items and other PC things that can be used as DM tools, a brief manual of the planes and some world-building rules, and maybe one chapter of basic advice. The books aren't really in charge of teaching you how to play; you read them and interpret them yourself. I recall as a first-time DM (and inexperienced gamer) skipping about the first four or five chapters of the DMG, going straight to the actual crunch, and wondering why there wasn't more of it. I learned the game from the Monster Manual.

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

I was going to post this over at the "Should magic items be in the PH" thread, but decided it wasn't really on-topic and decided to start a new thread instead.

The "traditional" 3-book model is one Player's Handbook, one Dungeon Master's Guide (which also contains traps, hazards and magic items) and one Monster Manual.

I wonder if a better approach might be to take out the information on traps, hazards, magic items, etc. and put it together with the information on monsters into a separate "Homebrewer's Guide" (there may be a better name). Into that book would also go the advice on encounter design, adventure design (including allocation of treasure and magic items), campaign design and world design.

What would be left in the DMG would be generic DM advice on running the game and engaging and interacting with the players, and maybe a sample dungeon which a beginning DM could use to practice his game-running skills. (So there would be a small number of monsters and treasure in the DMG - those in the sample dungeon.)

The real advantage to this approach (from my perspective) is that we slash the size of the DMG so that it doesn't look so intimidating for a beginning DM - it actually looks possible to sit down, read through and absorb the information inside within a reasonable period of time. A second advantage is that we separate the role of the DM as designer from the role of the DM as referee. A DM who plans on just running modules will have all the information he needs in the DMG. Should he decide to come up with his own adventures in the future, he just needs to pick up the third book.

For everyone else, it doesn't make a difference since you'll still get the same content, just distributed differently. In fact, it might even make adventure preparation easier since you only need one book to do it.

Thoughts?

The only problem I see with having a DM's guide containing only material about how to engage players, and that type of information is that many experienced DM's may feel like they don't need the DM's guide.

They may well feel they know about role-play. They may know the players they will be playing with, and know what kinds of adventures interest their players, and have experience hooking players in, and all of that. As a result, they may not buy the DM's guide at all.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, my first thought is that I wouldn't buy that DMG. Or rather, I would buy it on the assumption that it was something I needed, and I would then be irritated to find out it was an intro book.

I understand the "big books are intimidating" concern, but I believe the way to address that is with a slimmed-down Basic Set, not unlike the red box of yore. The chief lesson of 4E is that appealing to new players must not come at the expense of supporting the existing player base, and part of that is making sure that experienced DMs get what they expect when they buy a book titled "Dungeon Master's Guide."

 

[Transformer]

I find some of the ideas in this thread very strange.

I do not think there are very many DMs who care so little for designing (and modifying) traps and monsters and such that they would be perfectly happy with an advice-only DMG. I think virtually everyone would want the DMG with the crunch in it. If anything, I think the practical effect would be experienced DMs buying only the crunch book because they already know how to DM, and less experienced DMs getting confused or frustrated by the two different books for DMs.

I can understand the impulse to break things up in to as many books as possible--indeed, I agree that it would be very convenient--but every new hardcover book drives up the price. Three core rulebooks would probably cost $35 a piece for $105. Five core rulebooks with the exact same amount of content (for example; maybe a book of rules, a book of players options, a DMG, a magic item book, and a monster manual) would probably still have to cost at least $25 a piece, for $125 total.

What's more, I don't think we want enough magic items in the core to fill an entire book. I know I don't want to have to pay for an entire book's worth of magic items (when 50 pages or so will do) to invest in core.

I really don't think there's any way all of the core material could fit into a single 300 page book. 5e is trying to accommodate all different sorts of players. That means all kinds of races and classes included in the core: gnomes and barbarians, vancian and nonvancian arcane casters, at the very least, right in the core. It also needs reasonably tactical rules for the tabletop for those who like that style. And all of D&D's iconic monsters. And good DM advice. And full rules for designing and modifying monsters and traps. And a good selection of magic items. And themes. And on. And on. There's no way; the days when D&D could fit in 462 pages (let alone 300) are just over.


As for me, I don't really have any ideas for modifying the three-book structure. I would, though, warn against trying to make the core books too noob friendly. D&D needs to be noob friendly. But the core rulebooks should not worry about being too noob friendly. A really good introductory box set should worry about being noob friendly. Now, don't get me wrong; the core rulebooks need to be readable and clear. But they shouldn't be introducing the game to brand new DMs or groups; WotC needs to finally make a good intro set.

Once again: Pathfinder Beginner Box. Pathfinder isn't better than 4e. But its starter set annihilates every intro set Wizards has ever made combined. WotC has never made a good intro set. The 3.0 Adventure Game was terrible. The 3.5 Basic Box was terrible. The 4.0 Starter Set was terrible. The Essentials Red Box was, you guessed it, terrible. They're all terrible. It's no wonder Wizards can't get new players into the game.

The Pathfinder Beginner Box is amazing. It has pregenerated characters and character creation rules (how anyone could possibly think an intro set could be acceptable without both those things is beyond me). It covers five levels. Five. It comes with two absolutely beautiful books packed with content. It comes with stellar standup cardboard pawns. Paizo buried WotC on this particular issue.

5th edition's beginner box must, absolutely must, be orders of magnitude better than any of the dreck WotC has foisted on new players before. Wizards, if you're listening, look, look at the Beginner Box. Do that. Exactly that. Your starter sets are an embarrassment. No matter how well-designed your new edition is, it will fail without a good starter set. You need to make a starter set that covers four or five levels, with pregens as well as full character creation rules, that's absolutely packed with content. If you do not do this, you will keep failing to attract new players.

And it needs to come out on day 1. Right alongside the core rulebooks. Do it, WotC. You'd better, for your own sakes.

 

[delericho]

I can understand the impulse to break things up in to as many books as possible--indeed, I agree that it would be very convenient--but every new hardcover book drives up the price. Three core rulebooks would probably cost $35 a piece for $105. Five core rulebooks with the exact same amount of content (for example; maybe a book of rules, a book of players options, a DMG, a magic item book, and a monster manual) would probably still have to cost at least $25 a piece, for $125 total.

What's more, I don't think we want enough magic items in the core to fill an entire book. I know I don't want to have to pay for an entire book's worth of magic items (when 50 pages or so will do) to invest in core.

I would really like to see an "Encyclopedia Version" of the game, where they produce a handful of books, split out into useful topics. Under that model, I would certainly expect to see an entire book dedicated to magic items.

However, the draw of such a version would that it would be complete in and of itself - such a version can never have supplements published, or else it loses its appeal entirely (for me, at least). As such, I don't see it being something WotC would ever consider.

5e is trying to accommodate all different sorts of players. That means all kinds of races and classes included in the core: gnomes and barbarians, vancian and nonvancian arcane casters, at the very least, right in the core.

If they expect to support everyone in the core, they will inevitably fail. Because of the "Dragonborn question" - some people will absolutely want Dragonborn in the core, while others absolutely will not. They obviously cannot satisfy both.

That being the case, they're better off going for a broad cross-section, and accepting that a lot of stuff has to be deferred to supplements, where it's much less controversial. And, of course, once you accept that then 300 pages absolutely becomes do-able - it's just a matter of where you make the cut. (Of course, whether 300 pages is desirable is another matter entirely.)

As for me, I don't really have any ideas for modifying the three-book structure. I would, though, warn against trying to make the core books too noob friendly. D&D needs to be noob friendly. But the core rulebooks should not worry about being too noob friendly. A really good introductory box set should worry about being noob friendly. Now, don't get me wrong; the core rulebooks need to be readable and clear. But they shouldn't be introducing the game to brand new DMs or groups;

Large numbers of people will simply skip any Starter Set and jump into the Core Rulebooks. It must be possible (indeed, as easy as it can be made) to pick up those books and learn the game. Otherwise, your Core Rules represent a massive barrier to entry - and that can't be a good thing!

(In fact, I'd go one further - even having both a Starter Set and a Core Rulebook represents a bad move, since it adds confusion for new players and acts as a barrier to entry. In an ideal world, the Starter Set would be a huge, deluxe boxed set that includes a copy of the same Core Rulebook that everyone else uses. Sort of like the old Games Workshop boxed sets of yore.)

5th edition's beginner box must, absolutely must, be orders of magnitude better than any of the dreck WotC has foisted on new players before...

And it needs to come out on day 1. Right alongside the core rulebooks. Do it, WotC. You'd better, for your own sakes.

I absolutely agree about the need for a really good Starter Set - it's probably the single most important in-print product in the line. And I also agree that it needs to come out on Day One.

 

[howandwhy99]

I like the idea. It reminds me of the small, but separate Players & DM books in the BECMI box sets. It would also move adventure modules back into a starring role.

And this is going to be heresy, but a Monster Manual really was more of a collection of the monsters in recent modules and for those DMs writing their own modules. I'm not quite sure of its utility, if adventures are written with [fresh, secret] monster stats inside.

I do like the idea of a DM's Design Kit for settings, adventures, creature collections, monsters & treasure, player logs, DM's campaign logs, even dungeon geomorphs (or sample dungeons). However, some of this stuff is so ubiquitous and easily found for free on the internet separate products make less sense.

 

[GM Dave]

I actually suggested this sort of change a couple of months ago (look back for the thread and the people that supported and opposed the idea).

I suggested that the monster manual be changed to be an encounter book.

1> Less monsters (there will always be more books of monsters and WotC has already run some polls to figure out which monsters are popular enough to make the initial cut).

2> Include examples of traps and hazards. Show how these should be used and included to reduce the amount of 'gottcha traps' for real puzzle/challenge traps.

3> Include some standard items like Innkeepers, Bar Patrons, Priests, Mentors, Nobility, and so forth that a GM often needs as the regular NPCs in a campaign. It would be good if these had a brief and interesting description and a possible story hook that could be used to spawn a story. Chris Perkin's dwarf that has had 37 wives is a perfect example of this thing.

4> Some descriptions of common locations with some sample ways to personalize the locations (temples, store shops, bars, ships, castles). I don't need blue prints but I need the thing that will make this inn or bar different from the one the next town over.

-------------

The DMG should have more comprehensive handling rules and rules on how to improv certain situations. There should also be some random generation tables for quickly coming up with things like quirks for NPCs or monsters. Guidelines on how to make encounters interesting and personal.

These kind of quick generation guideline tables and story hook tables are great for the rushed GM to put things together. Another good topic would be creating hooks to get the party together (rather than you meet at an inn and decide these well traveled and unsavory sorts are people that you'd like to risk your life with).

 

[Transformer]

If they expect to support everyone in the core, they will inevitably fail. Because of the "Dragonborn question" - some people will absolutely want Dragonborn in the core, while others absolutely will not. They obviously cannot satisfy both.

I've always thought the dragonborn controversy was a subset of the "DM-optional vs. player-optional" controversy. What I mean is, most of the "I do not tolerate dragonborn" people are DMs who do not like dragonborn in their games/worlds, and who would be reasonably satisfied if the PH included them as long as it explicitly said "these races are DM-optional; check with your DM to see if they exist in his world." On the other hand, the "I want my dragonborn dammit" people are largely players who want the PH to say "these are the options available to you as a player; tell your DM you're playing a dragonborn."

I guess what I'm saying is, excluding options some people don't like from core causes just as many problems as including them (by angering the people who want dragonborn to be core and available to all players). Pushing controversial options off to later supplements solves the problem not a bit; it would make the player-optional people just as frustrated. From what we've heard, Wizards is strongly erring on the side of including lots of stuff.

That being the case, they're better off going for a broad cross-section, and accepting that a lot of stuff has to be deferred to supplements, where it's much less controversial. And, of course, once you accept that then 300 pages absolutely becomes do-able - it's just a matter of where you make the cut. (Of course, whether 300 pages is desirable is another matter entirely.)

I think you're drastically overestimating the number of options that could be included in 300 pages. What with a reasonable selection of monsters (including all important iconic monsters), traps and trap-creation rules, all that DM advice necessary to make the books noob-friendly, all of the game rules (including skills, rules for exploration, rules for gridless combat, rules for tabletop combat, other modules), I wouldn't be surprised if 300 pages are needed before you even get to a single player option. Throw in 40 or 50 pages of magic items (including scrolls, wands, and various magic armor and weapons for 20 levels) too. How many classes (along with attendant feats and themes and races, remember) could you fit after that, especially if you need to give classes like the Fighter the optional ability to do more than full attack every round (and so, need a few dozen pages of "powers" or "martial maneuvers")?

I really don't see how it could be done. Even if there were only four races and classes and a handful of themes, I can't imagine how it could be compressed into 300 pages. 400, maybe, if you were willing to gut everything that is not absolutely positively indispensable.



As for the core rulebooks vs. starter set, Wizards should position this new (and much improved) starter set as the right place for noobs to start, even going as far as to put a note in the PH saying "If you and your group are totally new, you want the starter set over there." But I suppose you're right; the more noob-friendly the core itself is, the better; there is no question some people will just not happen upon the starter set, or reject it out of hand.

Now, I don't think it's feasible to include the whole core rulebook in the starter set. If there were only one core rulebook then it wouldn't be a starter set at all, it would be an expanded core set! And if there were multiple core rulebooks and this starter set included only the PH, then it would basically be a "PH with a watered down DMG and MM" set, which would be the opposite of helpful. It would combine the difficulty of learning the game from the full core without the benefit of a full DMG to explain how to DM well! No, I'd still say we need a starter set with introductory versions of the books. Let people buy their own PH separately later; the cost would be nearly the same anyway.