D&D 5E What would be your preferred format for the core rules of 5E?

[Stormonu]

I've come to expect the Holy Trinity, but a single-book Lite version (ala BECMI Encylopedia) would be a nice supplement that'd sit right next to those books.

 

[Argyle King]

The main issue I have with one single book (the method Pathfinder uses) is that it's difficult for a new group to pass the book around the table. In my group, there were times when a player needed to look up a spell or ability, and doing so was a little disruptive because doing that required taking the book out of the DM's hands.

I think, what I'd like to see is the "holy trinity," but in a slightly different form:
1 DM book
1 Player Book
1 boxed set which is a combination of starter adventure, small soft cover monster booklet, a few basic tokens, and a basic set of black/white dice.


Later on, I'd like to see a monster manual, but I think a boxed set with a starter adventure and a booklet detailing the creatures in that adventure (as well as a few other creatures which are common to the area the adventure is set in) would be the best thing to suit both the needs of new groups and the needs of experienced groups. The new groups will have the training wheels they need to get started. More experience groups can look at how the creatures in the beginner booklet work and likely extrapolate enough info to work with it until the MM gets released. The boxed approach to start out also has the benefit of allowing WoTC to test the waters of making minis again by releasing a few sets which correspond to the creatures found in the box.

I also think it would be perfectly fine for some of DMG1 and PHB1 to overlap and contain some of the same information. Obviously, since they are two different books, I think they should have different focuses and different material. However, I think it would be beneficial for groups learning the new system to have some of the basic information which is at the foundation of the game to be readily available to both the players and the dm.

 

[Plaguescarred]

PHB/DMG/MM is my choice of format. They're also registered trademarks of WoTC. I'd be surprise to see it go.

 

[Hussar]

PHB/DMG/MM is my choice of format. They're also registered trademarks of WoTC. I'd be surprise to see it go.

Really? They're trademarks? I didn't know that. Yeah, if that's the case, then expect the holy trinity.

One hopes that the new DMG will actually follow along the 4e model and be a guide for how to DM. Put in lots and LOTS of discussion on different approaches to the game, and you've got a winning book.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Yup, see credits of 4th edition Monster Manual:

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, d20, d20 System, WIZARDS OF THE COAST, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, Monster Manual, D&D Insider, all other Wizards of theCoast product names, and their respective logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast in the U.S.A. and other countries....

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Yup, see credits of 4th edition Monster Manual:

I don't think that means the combo is a registered trademark. You can't trademark the selling of three books.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Each names seperatly are. If you keep names trademarked for use of core books, chances are when when new edition rolls those same names will be used again. 4 editions of D&D have followed that pattern, i'd be surprised if the fifth one doesn't use their trademark.

 

[Iosue]

Each names seperatly are. If you keep names trademarked for use of core books, chances are when when new edition rolls those same names will be used again. 4 editions of D&D have followed that pattern, i'd be surprised if the fifth one doesn't use their trademark.

Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to go with the same 3-hardcover format. Conceivably, they could do a basic game box set with a "Players Manual" and "Dungeon Masters Guide" booklets (the DMG which would include a bestiary not unlike that of Expert D&D), and then come out with a separate hardcover Monster Manual filled to the gills with background and ecology info.

I'm not saying they will do that, but that they could, if they wanted to maintain the use of their trademarks. Although, personally I don't think that would be a bad idea.

 

[Jester David]

The Doctor Who game was expressly designed as being a beginner-friendly RPG, and the box set aspect came with that.

There's also no hardcover option. Even experienced RPGers pick up the box.
The Doctor Who box also serves another purpose: keeping the softcover books protected and all the loose leaf sheets together.
The box is not so much a "beginner box" as "a game in a box". The newbie friendly design is irrelevant; every RPG *could* be someone's first so you have to write the core books with that in mind.

The "Pathfinder Beginner Box" was not named by chance….your own perceptions are somewhat skewed.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Yes, as, you can release a newbie friendly box. It is an option. It's not impossible.
My point was that I did not think it was necessary any longer or the best use of design time. Everyone seems to think a beginner set is a must have product. That it's something that is as essential as the PHB.
I also don't think it's the best way to get people into the RPG.

Box sets are visible, accessible and identifiable as games by general public and that's all there is to it.

So are small plastic cases, why not put D&D to one of those?
The thing is, we don't want people buying D&D thinking it's a traditional board game. That confuses people.

Boxed sets put up a barrier between new people and the game: the price of the box.
Starter boxes increase the cost to begin playing: the box then the regular books.
Boxed sets have a lower amount of content for their price.

They're not really worth the effort of creating.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I just received The One Ring core product for Christmas. It has two softcover books, one for players and one for the GM, and it even included a set of dice and two maps. All fit inside a nice hard book-sleeve. The price is $50.

It's rather impressive, and not at all a bad model to emulate.