4E "Core"

[Ariosto]

Does DDI -- especially the Character Builder -- work with anything but recent versions of Microsoft Windows? Does it work, for instance, with old (10.3.9) Mac OS X?

If not, then the difference for some folks is hundreds of dollars up front.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Does DDI -- especially the Character Builder -- work with anything but recent versions of Microsoft Windows? Does it work, for instance, with old (10.3.9) Mac OS X?

If not, then the difference for some folks is hundreds of dollars up front.

It works starting with Windows XP. (I think there are no earlier Windows versions that are supported by .NET 3.5) Obviously not with Mac OS.

It also doesn't work if you don't have a computer! Or don't have internet access!

The books are useless if you're blind or an analphabet, too.

 

[BryonD]

As for a term for this game, why does that need a term? Should there be a term for a game that has the PHB I, DMG I, MM I and the AV I? Does each permutation of the combinations of books get its own word? Why not just say that for this game, we are only using the PHB I for characters?

Because the first three is a common baseline and is very simple reference point. I would think this is pretty obvious.

I guess the difference is that in 3E there were more supplements than there can ever possibly be for 4E, simply because of the OGL. The term "core" was just a shorthand way of comparing a given game to that reference.

I suppose we don't need the name "ENWorld" either. We could just call it "the internet message board where we talk about Dungeons and Dragons".

Perhaps I simply find it difficult to relate to the question. I can't seem to grasp why having this reference point of understanding amongst a gaming community would not be a good thing, much less such on offensive notion that warrants complaining threads and silly replies about every permutation.

I'll just chalk this up to a 4E hang up and move on.

 

[Kafen]

Because the first three is a common baseline and is very simple reference point. I would think this is pretty obvious.

I guess the difference is that in 3E there were more supplements than there can ever possibly be for 4E, simply because of the OGL. The term "core" was just a shorthand way of comparing a given game to that reference.

I suppose we don't need the name "ENWorld" either. We could just call it "the internet message board where we talk about Dungeons and Dragons".

Perhaps I simply find it difficult to relate to the question. I can't seem to grasp why having this reference point of understanding amongst a gaming community would not be a good thing, much less such on offensive notion that warrants complaining threads and silly replies about every permutation.

I'll just chalk this up to a 4E hang up and move on.

Core Books was Product Identity in the STL - more than a shorthand term. One might muse on the nature of Forums, but the actual term in question is strictly license in nature if you are talking to the legit angle.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I guess the difference is that in 3E there were more supplements than there can ever possibly be for 4E, simply because of the OGL. The term "core" was just a shorthand way of comparing a given game to that reference.

Most people used "core" in the 3e era to mean PHB/DMG/MM. I never had any particular need to ever use the word "core" myself. I only ever referred to D&D books and 3rd party books. If something was published by WOTC, there was never any need for us to disallow it simply because it wasn't in the first book to come out.

Perhaps I simply find it difficult to relate to the question. I can't seem to grasp why having this reference point of understanding amongst a gaming community would not be a good thing, much less such on offensive notion that warrants complaining threads and silly replies about every permutation.

Because if you want to say "Just classes in the PHB", you can say that. There's already a point of reference for that sort of thing. It seems the entire desire to have "core" as a term is to be able to refer to anything that isn't core as somehow "not part of the game" and to win arguments.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Perhaps I simply find it difficult to relate to the question. I can't seem to grasp why having this reference point of understanding amongst a gaming community would not be a good thing, much less such on offensive notion that warrants complaining threads and silly replies about every permutation.

I'll just chalk this up to a 4E hang up and move on.

Why chalk it up to 4E? It seems to me to be a problem with every game system with even a single supplement. The problem I had with core in 3.x was the elitest attitude that some people had that the only way to play 3.x was core only, and if you id not you were obviously a munchkin powergamer that should not be allowed in any gaming store in the multiverse, much less an actual game.

To me, we do not need the term, nor to argue about it. It is easy enough for a DM to define which books are allowed for a given game, and to run with those. I do not think we need to have such a term, especially, as posted above, there will be endless arguments about what exactly 'core' is.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why chalk it up to 4E? It seems to me to be a problem with every game system with even a single supplement. The problem I had with core in 3.x was the elitest attitude that some people had that the only way to play 3.x was core only, and if you id not you were obviously a munchkin powergamer that should not be allowed in any gaming store in the multiverse, much less an actual game.

To me, we do not need the term, nor to argue about it. It is easy enough for a DM to define which books are allowed for a given game, and to run with those. I do not think we need to have such a term, especially, as posted above, there will be endless arguments about what exactly 'core' is.

The only true way to play 3E was to use 25 point buy. Everyone else is probably cheating on his dice rolls or simply using inflated ability scores.

[/15, 14, 13, 12, 10 8, how often did I use that damn spread?]

 

[Umbran]

But core and OGL are not the same thing.

Yes. That's the point - making it very clear that they aren't the same thing.

Do recall, you and I know the difference between Core and OGL, but most of the buying public back in the beginning of 3e did not. If WotC had not claimed the word, then anyone publishing under the OGL could have claimed their book was "Core". As I recall (perhaps incorrectly), one publisher did try to do just that, to get a marketing advantage.

 

[amethal]

If WotC had not claimed the word, then anyone publishing under the OGL could have claimed their book was "Core". As I recall (perhaps incorrectly), one publisher did try to do just that, to get a marketing advantage.

I have Sword & Sorcery stuff and Mongoose stuff with "Core" on the cover.

 

[delericho]

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

Yes. Well done to WotC for a successful bit of marketing.

'Core' is not a term I would use when discussing 4e, whereas I would still refer to a "Core-rules only" campaign for virtually any other game.

There can be many reasons for this, one being the DDI making the management of a pile of books easier, supplemental material being more integrated into the game due to its design, ect.

I suspect this is a large part of it. Another is the perception that the game is much better balanced, meaning that the supplemental materials don't need vetted by the DM to the same extent as in 3e. And the third part is that there is an expectation amongst players that anything they bring to the table will be accepted. There's nothing in the 4e DMG about not allowing additional materials, for example, and indeed the "say yes" mantra would appear to strongly advocate against it.

I'm not sure I care for this development, to be honest. But then, I don't play 4e, so am not currently affected.