3 book models vs. 1 book models.

[crazy_monkey1956]

You can play one-book games with just the one-book, however. Kinda like you can play D&D with just the core 3.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I am a fan of the three books as well, I might quibble with what is each one, Prestige classes could be moved and perhaps a few of the rules for starting higher than first level would not be out of place there.

 

[Nifft]

Ditch summoned monsters in favor of something like the Astral Construct (i.e., you pick up the stats). Like the shapeshifting druid variant of the PHBII, where the exact form is irrelevant, the stats won't change.

I have no problem with this personally, but then I'd have no problem building my own critters as a DM, too.

-- N

 

[Imaro]

1. Players need only one book with content useful for them. (Which leaves the DM buying all three.)

Is this an advantage? I mean it's just another hampering mechanic that seperates players from DM's. I really think that D&D would benefit from more people willing to play & run...but to DM you're looking at another $60.

2. Three 200-page books offer more material (spells, monsters, dungeon dressings, etc.) than One 300-page book.

Not necessarily, it's dependant on how the informattion is presented. d20 Modern packs alot of info(player and DM) into one book...and even has a system for both magic and psionics.

3. Rules Lawyers will want to nitpick the DM's rule.

IMHO, this either happens or doesn't, nothing stops a player from perusing the DM guide anytime he/she wants to. So you either have players that accept your rulings, have players that actually can help you with your rulings, or have players that will argue about it.

4. Why buck tradition?

Because "tradition" doesn't always equate to "better"...Otherwise we'd still be ruled by kings who happened to be born in the right place at the right time.

 

[JRR_Talking]

. What 50% of material do you want to cut?

joe b.

the rules for grappling should do it!

the red book oD&D where perfectly fine and came in a PHB and DMG

In fact i like that model as D&D in all its editions stops being fun after 9th or so

John

 

[Vocenoctum]

Going to one book would mean trimming the MM to a quarter of it's size, ditching the DMG sections except XP, maybe GP by level, plus half the magic items. This'd give you a book about 100 pages bigger than the current PHB, and more expensive.

Of course then, the other material would be put into a bunch of expansions, probably pushing that same material much over 3 books.


It's not really viable, but I'd like a system where you had One Book, plus the PHB/DMG/MM trinity. I'm sure the One Book would be so stripped down that it'd probably be more like the D&D Basic or somesuch.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

It can and has been done in the past with the Rules Cyclopedia. Character info, DM info, monsters, world info, the whole nine yards. Great book.

 

[Imaro]

Unless your one book is 1000 pages, you're going to lose information from the existing 3.5 rules-set. What 50% of material do you want to cut?

joe b.

We could also loose the Greyhawk specific stuff...I mean it's not like WotC is really supporting it anyway.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Just posting to the other thread, I figured an example of what I meant. Shadowrun. Sure the core book is a single book with everything you really need, but it also lacked a lot of stuff. Initiation for mages, any sort of selection for riggers, etc.

 

[Vocenoctum]

We could also loose the Greyhawk specific stuff...I mean it's not like WotC is really supporting it anyway.

The purpose of the GH material was never to support the setting, but to baseline the rules. GH material is added in nearly every non-Eberron or FR book they make, but the WORLD is not advanced. Baseline deities are needed, giving them identities other than "God of War" or "God of Oceans" is a good idea IMO. Named spells certainly don't hurt anything.

Other than that, what GH material is there to lose?