3 book models vs. 1 book models.

[Plane Sailing]

Personally I greatly prefer 1-book setups.

 

[Agamon]

I like 1-book games, too. D&D could have easily gone this route.

PHB: simplify classes and races, pare down spells big time, then create Complete 'race' and 'class' books, spell compendiums and a PHBII to expound later.
DMG: pare down a lot of the fluff and options, strip the magic items down big time, then create a Magic Item Compendium and DMGII later with additional info.
MM: Basic, common or iconic monsters only with brief descriptions. Then make Monster Manuals and monster race focus books later.

All of those extra books were created anyway, so it could have been done, the only reason WotC went the route they did was increased profit (note D&D is the only game that requires 3 books to play, there's a reason they're able to do that), not to mention the sacred cow of the holy trinity of D&D manuals.

 

[Andre]

One possible advantage to a one-book model is that it forces the designers to make choices about what actually provides value in the core book. When you have 1,000 pages to work with, it's easy end up with bloated rules. We have numerous examples of spells that differ only in special effect, or items that no one ever uses, or monsters that differ in the most minor ways.

One book half the size of the current three could still have tons of supplements for the material that doesn't make the cut - material that, by definition, is not strictly necessary to play the game. And the core book really should be just what's necessary - not everything and the kitchen sink.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I also prefer the 1-book model over the 3-book model.

After all, the three book model is essentially a falsehood anyways. There is no absolute requirement to having the Monster Manual (substitute it for some other monster book, like the MM3), and the only thing you absolutely need the DMG for is the magic item lists, which are misplaced anyways (why put them in the DMG when players need to reference their abilities and costs just as often as the DM does?).

D20 Modern has a much more effective core book than D&D, and it even has all kinds of alternative game styles suggested in the book, which D&D itself completely lacks.

It would be much better to have a single core book, which includes all the core rules, including the monster type and advancement rules and such, and then expand with DM materials, additional classes, spells, and prestige classes just like has been done all along.

I really agree that forcing the developers to fit everything in one book prevents rule bloat and excessively long-winded advice and flavor text, like Andre suggests.

 

[drothgery]

I think I'd come down in favor of 1 book.

How to get there?
From the PHB
- shrink the core class section; only include cleric, fighter, rogue, noble, and wizard (leave others for expansions)
- shrink the skill list by consolidating it substantially
- cut the spell list without mercy (spells are over 120 pages in the 3.5 PHB)

From the DMG
- cut out most of the 'fluff'
- consolidate adept, aristocrat, commoner, expert, and warrior into a single NPC class
- cut the PrC list to 3-5 PrCs, mostly to demonstrate the concept (because WotC wants to sell expansions)
- cut the magic item section without mercy (magic items are about 70 pages in the DMG); eliminate artifacts, specific weapons/armors or most modifiers, tables for wands and scrolls, consolidate staves into wands, eliminate rods, elminate about 3/4 of wonderous items as stuff PCs never use

From the MM
- only include a small section of common and/or iconic monsters; a few monstrous humanoids, a few giants, a few dragons, some fiends, some celestials, some fey, some undead, and some of the iconic weird stuff (mind flayers, beholders, etc.) and guidelines for scaling them.

 

[JoeGKushner]

You know I've come to realize that I really prefer a single corebook model. I was thinking that if WotC can do it with d20 modern and so many other companies can do it with games such as True20, Scion, Hero, BESM 3e, etc. Even games with a setting such as Exalted, Stormbringer and Earthdawn...then why not for D&D?
Some advantages I see to the single corebook...
1.) Cheaper to get into.
2.) If you buy the book you now have the rules to both play and run the game(might facilitate more people at least considering trying to run a game.)
3.)Portability greatly increases.
4.)Better understanding of both player and DM perspectives and issues concerning gameplay on both sides of the screen.

Are there any advantages to having a three book set, besides profit, that I'm missing?

But interestingly, most companies really aren't one book.

True20 for example, well, where's the advanced weapon list and the expanded info? Isn't in the core book, nor are the monsters.

Scion has two more books coming out for it to be 'complete'.

Rolemaster has always been a multi-book deal.

nWoD may seem like one book, but it's not as you need another core book to 'add' templates to.

BESM is a one book shot? As is Hero? Well, if you have a TON of time to make up all the NPCs and work out how the powers function. Otherwise you buy Enemy books and Until books with powers predesign. Even M&M.

I've rarely seen any core books, including d20 Modern, that give the breadth of the 3 book system that WoTC uses.

Now a two book core system, like GURPS, one for the players, the other for the GM, including monsters, etc..., might work.

Or a slim downed PHB but hey, we saw how well that worked for Everquest II where they made the spells into a seperate book right?

One book systems can work but in my experience, they're still designed to sell you a lot more splat books and often come up empty either in the setting or in the adversary field.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

Starting at higher level, alternative character creation rules, things for different hit point totals, etc... Almost anything that effects a player's character should be in the PHB.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I like 1-book games, too. D&D could have easily gone this route.

PHB: simplify classes and races, pare down spells big time, then create Complete 'race' and 'class' books, spell compendiums and a PHBII to expound later.
DMG: pare down a lot of the fluff and options, strip the magic items down big time, then create a Magic Item Compendium and DMGII later with additional info.
MM: Basic, common or iconic monsters only with brief descriptions. Then make Monster Manuals and monster race focus books later.

All of those extra books were created anyway, so it could have been done, the only reason WotC went the route they did was increased profit (note D&D is the only game that requires 3 books to play, there's a reason they're able to do that), not to mention the sacred cow of the holy trinity of D&D manuals.

To some, GURPS 3rd required GUPRS, Compendium I and 2. But it wasn't originally designed that way. Second ed goes straight with two books.

Rolemaster on the other hand.... Arms Law, Spell Law, Campaign Law (and that doesn't count monsters which get a seperate book.)

 

[Klaus]

I find it amusing that lots of people are suggesting that stuff be cut out from the core books and included in supplements... which by itself defeats the idea of a 1-book system.

The only way I can see D&D fitting into one book is if the books become separated by level range (1-7, 8-14, 15-20), with appropriate contents within each (outer planes? cram them into the 15-20 book). But this breakdown has the disadvantage of the player not knowing what he's building his character for.

d20 Modern fits in one book? Well, it doesn't have setting material (after all, it's set on modern Earth). It's only 6 10-level base classes, as opposed to 12 20-level core classes. Magic and Psionics have only 5 levels, with a handful (10 or less) powers for each, as opposed to D&D's 200+ spells. Monsters get nearly no artwork, and several creatures are missing (even real world ones that might be needed for a game). Instead of 7 core races, you get 1. No planar descriptions, no rules for terrain features and dungeon building, etc...

 

[Imaro]

But interestingly, most companies really aren't one book.

True20 for example, well, where's the advanced weapon list and the expanded info? Isn't in the core book, nor are the monsters.

I'll put it like this, don't have alot of experience with True20...but eliminating the(was it 5?) settings, would have given enough room for that and more. As an example Blue Rose, actually has more "archaic weapons" than True20...and it also contains alot of setting info.

Scion has two more books coming out for it to be 'complete'.

Two more books for different levels of play. If all you want to do is play the "heroic" offspring of gods, it's got all the rules. Only if you want to play a demigod or god are the others necessary(and I'm guessing it's mostly powers on this level)...Sort of like the Epic handbook & Psionics book.

Rolemaster has always been a multi-book deal.

Never played it, so I can't comment.

nWoD may seem like one book, but it's not as you need another core book to 'add' templates to.

Actually you only need one of those books, and that's only if you want to play as a supernatural in it's society. If you want to play a mortal hunter, investigator, etc. you don't. The fact remains that all the basic storyteller rules are contained in one book.

BESM is a one book shot? As is Hero? Well, if you have a TON of time to make up all the NPCs and work out how the powers function. Otherwise you buy Enemy books and Until books with powers predesign. Even M&M.

Haven't played hero...but BESM 3e has templates for fast NPC or PC construction and examples.

I've rarely seen any core books, including d20 Modern, that give the breadth of the 3 book system that WoTC uses.

Now a two book core system, like GURPS, one for the players, the other for the GM, including monsters, etc..., might work.

Or a slim downed PHB but hey, we saw how well that worked for Everquest II where they made the spells into a seperate book right?

That's just not true...maybe no one core book has the same amount of superfluous information as the 3 core books of D&D would be a more precise statement.

I mean tons of "sample"magic items(you could really go with a basic selection, maybe three or four, that illustrates the different groups and that's it.)...spells that could easily be pared down.

Codifying the section on skills,ability generation, etc. instead of a section in each book that repeats alot of info,(like the examples for different DC's)...there's actually alot of repetition or things that could be combined and condensed between the PHB & DMG, especially when it comes to skills, combat, etc.

Get rid of Prestige classes and give them their own
"optional" book that actually gives real concrete info on designing them, instead of an endless list.

One book systems can work but in my experience, they're still designed to sell you a lot more splat books and often come up empty either in the setting or in the adversary field.

Yeah...if you want to buy them, but there are plenty of one book systems where that really is all you need for a satisfactory game. I mean D&D is a 3 book system that's designed to sell you more splat books and has no setting. So maybe I'm missing your point here.