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

[Ruin Explorer]

So D&D should just be a good little sheep and step in line, then, I guess.

I'll amend the question: "Why is there this conception that if 'the staggering majority of RPGs' are doing something it's something the D&D should be/has to do?

I don't think anyone is saying "has to", and the "little sheep" comment is pretty hilariously inappropriate (this isn't a "macho" or "fight the man" issue).

The point is very simple - putting everything in one book, rules-wise, has been a very successful model. That's why people think it should be done. It sells more copies of that book, it means the group can play with just one book (though they usually won't), and it generally makes everyone's life quite a lot easier.

The only reasons I can see not to do it are:

1) If you can convince people to buy three books instead of one, why wouldn't you?

(Of course the issue is that, in practice, the MM and DMG will typically sell only about as third as many copies as the PHB or less - where a more expensive "everything" book will sell a number closer to the PHB).

2) Generally it allows better production values (i.e. more art, more space, more everything).

D&D can get away with not doing it. That doesn't mean D&D shouldn't be doing it. It obviously doesn't mean it "has to", either.

Well, I believe 3e and 4e shoots the question of complexity out of the water. But regardless of that, as the originator of the whole RPG industry, I think I'll just continue to believe that D&D has the right (if not obligation) to remain an "outlier."

It has the "right" to do it. That doesn't mean it's smart to do it.

Oh sure. I'll buy whatever they put out...just to have and be able to peruse, even if I never get a chance to actually play it. But I still believe the idea of a product called D&D with the DMG as an optional tool to play the game is completely foreign and utter madness.

It's like going to eat at a fancy steak house expecting a prime cut of porterhouse, stuffed baked potato, and iceberg wedge salad with chunky blue cheese dressing, but instead receiving a McDonald's burger with fries. What's the problem?! There's way more McDonalds places than fancy steak houses...so we're just doing stuff like they do. It's beef...there's potatoes and lettuce...we're even throwing in a pickle and kethcup for ya! [well, there's some percentage of beef is in there someplace...]

(I have got to stop posting to threads in the morning before I eat something. Excuse me.)

There is no level of which this analogy works, I'm afraid. Rules are rules are rules. In the end, they will out. The rules are not worse for being in one book. Indeed, on the contrary they are almost always better (if only slightly).

Perhaps your "I will buy it even if I never play it" deal is clouding your analysis here. If you are buying things you have little/no intention of playing, you are buying them for rather unusual reasons. There is absolutely nothing "foreign" or "mad" about the DMG being optional to people who play RPGs rather than thinking about playing them, I'd suggest. I've played dozens of RPGs where it was optional - none of them were "McDonalds". On the contrary, they were often far higher quality than the D&D edition contemporary to them (particularly 2E).

 

[steeldragons]

I don't think anyone is saying "has to", and the "little sheep" comment is pretty hilariously inappropriate (this isn't a "macho" or "fight the man" issue).

I'm glad it was hilarious. But the comment was that because many other RPGs do something translates/equates that D&D should as well. That seems to make the "little sheep" comment entirely appropriate.

The point is very simple - putting everything in one book, rules-wise, has been a very successful model.

snippity-snip-snip

D&D can get away with not doing it. That doesn't mean D&D shouldn't be doing it. It obviously doesn't mean it "has to", either.

Those are good reasons. I would simply add that a 40 year legacy is not a reason to be dismissed/overlooked.

There is no level of which this analogy works, I'm afraid.

Really? Works perfectly well for me. Maybe you need to reboot or something?

Rules are rules are rules. In the end, they will out. The rules are not worse for being in one book. Indeed, on the contrary they are almost always better (if only slightly).

Ah. I see the problem. This has nothing to do with the rules or quality of the rules. It has to do with expectations and traditions for the game we call D&D. Not "rpgs", D&D. All D&Ds are RPGs...Not all RPGs are D&D.

Lemme try to explain it out, since i guess it isn't entirely clear.

When I go to a fancy steak house [a.k.a. sit down to play D&D] I want a good 'meat n' potatoes' dinner [a.k.a. the bulk of the meal a.k.a. the DMG: game master/referee stuff & PHB: player-relevant stuff]. I want (likely will get) a salad [a.k.a. the MM]. I probably also want a nice drink, maybe some roasted asparagus, perhaps some shrimp scampi "surf" to go with my "turf" [a.k.a. UA, MM2, MotP, setting materials, all supplementary stuff to be added as desired].

If I go to a fancy steak house and receive an all-in-one burger with everything on it in paper wrapper/bag and told, "It's still meat n' potatoes. We're just doing it this way now cuz evvvveryone else does it this way." Then I am not getting the fancy steak house meal I wanted, am I?

"But it's easier." Yeah, it is. Eating a burger with my hands is easier than using a knife and fork. All that cutting and chewing? Who needs that!

"But it's more convenient." Yeah, it is. Hitting the drive-thru is much more convenient than making a reservation, going out, ordering, waiting to be served...Who wants that kinda hassle!

"But it's cheaper." Yeah, it is. Fast food is infinitely better on the wallet than a good steak restaurant.

None of these "but's" mean/equate/justify saying, "You're still in a fancy steak house [a.k.a. playing D&D]."

Perhaps your "I will buy it even if I never play it" deal is clouding your analysis here. If you are buying things you have little/no intention of playing, you are buying them for rather unusual reasons.

My not playing it would be a simple matter of opportunity, not lack of interest. But, since you bring it up, I would consider people buying 5e for collecting purposes or to play at some later time when they get the chance [after the current campaign is finished, cuz the group wants to try some other game/system first, etc...] are hardly "unusual reasons."

There is absolutely nothing "foreign" or "mad" about the DMG being optional to people who play RPGs rather than thinking about playing them, I'd suggest.

I will disagree. I mean, I suppose there's not...for a DMG being optional to people who play rpgs, but we're not talking about people "playing RPGs"...I'm talking about people playing D&D. The conflation of the two seems to be an ever-widening assumption/issue. To play what we call D&D with the DMG as an optional volume is foreign and mad, to my view.

I've played dozens of RPGs where it was optional - none of them were "McDonalds". On the contrary, they were often far higher quality than the D&D edition contemporary to them (particularly 2E).

That's great! I'm assuming from context that none of those "dozens of [other] RPGs" were D&D...so I don't quite see the relevance.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's great! I'm assuming from context that none of those "dozens of [other] RPGs" were D&D...so I don't quite see the relevance.

D&D is an RPG. You're treating it as a collector's item or even a religion, not an RPG. You're valuing "tradition" and a specific presentation far more than utility to consumer, value to consumer, or sales to WotC. Specifically, you appear to regard "three books" as a Holy Cow.

Your analogy continues to make no sense. There is nothing about presenting D&D as one book with two optional books rather than three books which makes it less of a "steak dinner" and more of a "burger". If you want an analogy that works, and you want D&D to be a "steak dinner" (which is a bit crass/bourgeois, but whatever), then you could use the following:

1) You want D&D to be three neat, separate plates - one with the green vegetables, one with the potato-dish, one with the steak. Each with a lot of extra space and everything presented perfectly in a gourmet-restaurant-style (rather than a steak-restaurant-style). With perhaps optional sauces and so on.

Most people who go the restaurant will only order the steak by itself without those dishes, though, even though you like all three.

vs.

2) Others are suggesting D&D should be one larger plate, with the steak, green vegetables and potatoes all presented fairly neatly on it, but together, but perhaps with fewer vegetables and potatoes than the three-plate version, and an option to get extra ones.

Everyone who wants the steak has to get the vegetables and potatoes with it.

Either way, you're getting a steak dinner. It's just the you have a strong preference for the three-plate layout.

 

[steeldragons]

D&D is an RPG. You're treating it as a collector's item or even a religion, not an RPG. You're valuing "tradition" and a specific presentation far more than utility to consumer, value to consumer, or sales to WotC. Specifically, you appear to regard "three books" as a Holy Cow.

D&D is an RPG...that is not in dispute. See above re: RPG not equaling D&D.

Annd, I don't know about "far more", but yes, I value maintaining the D&D model [which nowadays translates/contributes to "brand"] as more important than buying one book. The 3-book model is a sacred cow. Yes.

Your analogy continues to make no sense. There is nothing about presenting D&D as one book with two optional books rather than three books which makes it less of a "steak dinner" and more of a "burger".

I guess all I can say is "it does to me."

If you want an analogy that works, and you want D&D to be a "steak dinner" (which is a bit crass/bourgeois, but whatever),

Make it beef wellington and foie gras if that suits you better (love both, myself). Just went with steak house dinner because I thought it would be more accessible to the reading populace. Sorry to offend your palate/seem "crass/bourgeois."

then you could use the following:
-snip options-
Either way, you're getting a steak dinner. It's just the you have a strong preference for the three-plate layout.

I suppose so. Yes. My preference and 40 years of the way the game called D&D is presented (which is not just "my preference" but how the game was formed/created/organized). I'm just making the "all-in-one-plate" equivalent to a burger, instead of a one-plate-steak-dinner. And, like everyone else in these forums/on D&D topics, I would like to see my preferences be upheld/come to fruition. Which is in no way objectively "wrong/incorrect/worse" than anyone else's preferences no matter how one words an analogy.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

So D&D should just be a good little sheep and step in line, then, I guess.

I'll amend the question: "Why is there this conception that if 'the staggering majority of RPGs' are doing something it's something the D&D should be/has to do?



That's a gaming rule?



Well, I believe 3e and 4e shoots the question of complexity out of the water. But regardless of that, as the originator of the whole RPG industry, I think I'll just continue to believe that D&D has the right (if not obligation) to remain an "outlier."



Oh sure. I'll buy whatever they put out...just to have and be able to peruse, even if I never get a chance to actually play it. But I still believe the idea of a product called D&D with the DMG as an optional tool to play the game is completely foreign and utter madness.

It's like going to eat at a fancy steak house expecting a prime cut of porterhouse, stuffed baked potato, and iceberg wedge salad with chunky blue cheese dressing, but instead receiving a McDonald's burger with fries. What's the problem?! There's way more McDonalds places than fancy steak houses...so we're just doing stuff like they do. It's beef...there's potatoes and lettuce...we're even throwing in a pickle and kethcup for ya! [well, there's some percentage of beef is in there someplace...]

(I have got to stop posting to threads in the morning before I eat something. Excuse me.)

You're attitude is disrespectful, and I don't appreciate it.

My argument boils down to there being good reasons why the vast majority of games have a single core product, and that those reasons apply to D&D even more than most, because it is the flagship brand.

I understand tradition. I like the DMG. I just don't think those are good enough reasons to require three products to play the game. Personally, I think the OD&D model is the way to go. The core product should be a boxed set that contains three softcover booklets called the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual.

But, that's water under the bridge now.

 

[steeldragons]

You're attitude is disrespectful, and I don't appreciate it.

Well, I apologize for your perception of disrespect. How taking what you said and incorporating into my question was disrespectful I don't quite get. It did not strike me as, nor was intended as any sort of "attitude."

My argument boils down to there being good reasons why the vast majority of games have a single core product, and that those reasons apply to D&D even more than most, because it is the flagship brand.

I understand tradition. I like the DMG. I just don't think those are good enough reasons to require three products to play the game. Personally, I think the OD&D model is the way to go. The core product should be a boxed set that contains three softcover booklets called the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual.

But, that's water under the bridge now.

That would be awesome/my preferred start up product: one core product that gives you the whole game...but there's still separate books. Great! Everyone wins.

But you're right, that bridge has the water under it.

 

[Iosue]

You know, it occurs to me that when people discuss Pathfinder passing up D&D on the ICv2 surveys, or on Amazon rankings, not enough attention is paid to the fact that for people who just aren't invested in editions, buying one core rulebook and a bestiary is simply more appealing than buying three books.

 

[Gamgee]

Now that it's confirmed to be three books all I can say is screw that. I got too much on my plate. It also doesn't look all that great for the kind of games I want to run. I feel Burning Wheel or Blade of the Iron Throne will meet my needs much more.

Edit
If I want DnD I always have 3.5 and Pathfinder books.

 

[delericho]

You know, it occurs to me that when people discuss Pathfinder passing up D&D on the ICv2 surveys, or on Amazon rankings, not enough attention is paid to the fact that for people who just aren't invested in editions, buying one core rulebook and a bestiary is simply more appealing than buying three books.

(The emphasis is mine.)

I have to dispute that point - IMO enough attention is paid, because I genuinely don't think it's a huge factor. Not least because Pathfinder requires two books - I think it might be significant if it was one vs three, but at two vs three I just don't see an enormous difference.

 

[frogimus]

Even after the GAMA reveal, it looks like it is playable without the DMG.