D&D 5E What belongs in a $50 PHB?

[Derren]

But I think you know it is impossible to deliver

Strange. Many RPGs manage to do exactly that. And isn't 5E supposed to be the simple edition?

 

[gweinel]

For $50 PH I would want a full game that the players and dms could use minus monsters/traps/treasures. All the information regarding players and dm's option and advices i would consider it in. Yes, I know it would be quite big (like Pathfinder core) but this is the reason it costs $50.

A second tome i would love to have all the adversaries and rewards for the players. That means monsters, traps, dangers and treasures.

$100 for a full game.

 

[Mistwell]

Strange. Many RPGs manage to do exactly that. And isn't 5E supposed to be the simple edition?

He was specific to D&D, but you cut the context of his response to you. I don't think he could have made that any more clear, in the part you cut. We're not talking about "other RPGs". He mentioned the expectations of that particular consumer audience, and not the general RPG market.

 

[Imaro]

Again, if you don't need monsters to run Pathfinder, then you don't need monsters to run 5e. And you don't need magic items from the DMG to run 5e. And you don't need all those optional rules from the DMG that were mentioned to run 5e. So, but your logic, all you need to run 5e is the PHB.

But you wouldn't be arguing this all along if you actually believed you only needed that to run 5e. The idea that you don't need a bestiary to run Pathfinder is ridiculous. It's not "appeal to majority" to say "how to people RATIONALLY view this issue", that's appeal to just about everyone, which is definitely relevant to how words and phrases are defined. Just about everyone (and I think including you - I think you're arguing "NPC-only game to try and win a point" rather than because you actually play the game that way) agrees you need a monsters to play Pathfinder.

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]... let's just drop it, I outlined a campaign style that would need nothing but NPC's but apparently that's not good enough for you... technically you are wrong about Pathfinder but that's not good enough either. I asked why you brought up Numenera and you never answered it... you continue to harp on a minor, nit-picky point when the wider point still stands and everyone in the thread (except you) seems to have gotten it... so really I'm not seeing much positive that can come about from this back and forth... and we've done this dance before, so I'm done.

 

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]... let's just drop it, I outlined a campaign style that would need nothing but NPC's but apparently that's not good enough for you

I don't get this Imaro. I replied twice with something, both times you ignored it and pretended I didn't say it and strawmanned me on it. Let's try this one last time before "let's drop it but I am going to get a last word in":

1) Let's assume you are correct and you can play Pathfinder with just using NPCs
2) Why wouldn't that apply equally to 5e, meaning you only need one PHB to play 5e?

Third time I've asked this. It goes to the heart of your argument, and anything which goes to the heart of an argument isn't nit picky.

As for Numenera, I brought it up because I did know something about it and I figured it was a fair counter-example, but if you don't like that counter-example that's fine, I dropped it to focus on one thing you did mentioned which I know something about (Pathfinder).

As for you saying "others agree with me" I am not sure how you can make an "appeal to majority" argument one minute and then appeal to the majority the next, but I am going to stay consistent and use your standards to apply to both of us. I am positing OK, if you say you can play Pathfinder with just NPCs, let's run with that and apply it to 5e too. What's your reply?

 

[Derren]

He was specific to D&D, but you cut the context of his response to you. I don't think he could have made that any more clear, in the part you cut. We're not talking about "other RPGs". He mentioned the expectations of that particular consumer audience, and not the general RPG market.

Again, you are justifying charging too much because its D&D. Too bad, that doesn't work any more. The expectation is formed by what other companies charge for their products and that is much less, or they offer more content.
Either way, WotC is at the disadvantage with its price model and will certainly not attract players which are on the fence or are not so fixated on playing D&D no matter what like you with their price model.

 

[Mistwell]

Again, you are justifying charging too much because its D&D.

No, you're calling it too-much.

He's answering your question as to why it has to be multiple books.

Too bad, that doesn't work any more.

It doesn't work to print D&D with more than one book? I disagree. Again, Pathfinder is doing it with two books just fine. So, we know you can do it with more than one book, still.

The expectation is formed by what other companies charge for their products and that is much less, or they offer more content.

Is it? We don't have the prices for the DMG and MM, so that's just a guess. For the core book that the majority of players buy, $50 is right in line with other prices in the industry.

Either way, WotC is at the disadvantage with its price model and will certainly not attract players which are on the fence or are not so fixated on playing D&D no matter what like you with their price model.

Well, I think you're "certainly" is going to be proven to be incorrect. And, I think an awful lot of people buy it online at $30-$36 even if they are on the fence, regardless of the retail price. Indeed, in this very thread and in other threads you've participated in, you have many people saying that even though they are on the fence they will buy at least the core books, because it's D&D.

 

[keterys]

Hiding things worked for OD&D, AD&D 1e, and AD&D 2e. It even worked for much of 3.0e. You should try it, it can work really well.

My experience is different from yours.

So it goes, though.

As for the groups you know - do you agree with me than many, MANY people out there are players but not DMs, contrary to your three groups? I mean, you must have seen this concept expressed outside those three groups enough at this point to know your groups might not be typical?

It's largely been true in every group I've played with since high school. We might have different expectations.

It's certainly true that I DM more than a "fair share" and some people trend more towards players than DMs, but that hasn't changed everyone being willing to chip in. Separating the data discourages it, rather than encourages it, in my experience. Yours may vary. It's also generally my experience that some people (players or DMs) remember things like magic item stats and some people (players or DMs) don't. Wherever they are.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Strange. Many RPGs manage to do exactly that. And isn't 5E supposed to be the simple edition?

D&D has followed the three core rulebook model for 40 years. Nobody whined they weren't getting a 'complete game' for OD&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E or 4E.

This latest fake outrage I think is just the current sneer-du-jour for anti-D&D Next people to complain about. Since you can't really whine that much about the $50 price tag, because that's what all RPG core rulebooks cost these days, you manufacture something else to complain about: "Well yeah, other books may cost $50, but THEY have DMG content in them."

 

[Imaro]

I don't get this Imaro. I replied twice with something, both times you ignored it and pretended I didn't say it and strawmanned me on it. Let's try this one last time before "let's drop it but I am going to get a last word in":

1) Let's assume you are correct and you can play Pathfinder with just using NPCs
2) Why wouldn't that apply equally to 5e, meaning you only need one PHB to play 5e?

Third time I've asked this. It goes to the heart of your argument, and anything which goes to the heart of an argument isn't nit picky.

Assuming NPC's are made the same as PC's in 5e you could use them as antagonists... the question then becomes does it have everything else you need... rules for traps, magic items, treasure placement, encounter building, etc. Pathfinder's core book has all the things a DM needs on top of having PC's and NPC's constructed the same way. My total argument isn't it's complete because it has NPC rules for antagonists... it's that it has everything a DM needs from disease rules to trap rules to weather rules on top of having NPC creation for antagonists that you need to run the game... The stuff a PHB doesn't usually contain. It is nit-picky because you are zeroing in on this paricular issue when there is so much more that the corebook contains beyond what a PHB normally does that is part of running the game.


EDIT: 13th Age certainly fits your definition of all inclusive, having all the rules to run the game and a bestiary in one book... for the same price as the PHB.