3 book models vs. 1 book models.

[Imaro]

For the players in the group, yeah. The DM, not so much.

d20 Modern is not the level of fantasy game as D&D. The magic and psionic are just FX plugins, that most modern-genre roleplayers can do without.

Only I don't let my players bring their own copy of the DMG to the table. Only the DM. And it's for the DM's eyes only.

Who says about "better"? Tradition is a comfort.

1.) Why does there have to be this disconnect between players and DM's. What in the DM guide is so sacrosanct that it would destroy a game if a player had access. In the end the DM(whoever's game or campaign it is at that moment) runs the game. If more players ran, I honestly believe there would be less conflict...since I doubt they would want the same thing done to them when they run. Also why does it have to be an us vs. them mentality, can't a player who knows the rules actually help a DM run, or is this just impossible?

2.) Already addressed some of the d20 Modern "issues" take out the 40+ pages of campaign settings & the exsplosives and modern weapons section...& the vehicle rules and a few other things that are unnecessary to D&D and you can easily add in the spells from the PHB and some extra monsters.

3.) Just rule no refrences to the Gamemastering secion of the rulebook during your game...Why is this so hard, and again what exactly is it that would ruin a game if seen in the DMG?

4.) Tradition is also stagnation when it's done just for the sake of tradition.

 

[Imaro]

I consider the 3 book model better in a lot of ways.

1) Ability to hand out info. Sometimes in my games a player needs to a see a spell, and another needs to see a magic item. Having different books makes that easier.

This argument is kind of weak, because the situation of players needing info in the same book also arises(arguably as often or moreso) and a 3 book model doesn't help this at all. In fact it hinders it if they both need the DMG and there's only one for the whole table. If each rulebook had all the rules however, you escape this probem totally if everyone buys their own corebook.

2) Portability. I find 3 books easier than 1 because I don't always need all 3 books. If I'm playing a fighter and not dming, I don't need my dmg or monster manual. I can leave those at home and just take my phb....instead of having to load around the whole book.

And it works in reverse as well(when you do need three books it's a hassle). I don't see the "big" difference in weight vs. accessible information when it comes to books like d20 modern, Unknown Armies, Rules Cyclopedia, etc. They're at most slightly heavier than a PHB and there's no chance you'll forget anything that you don't realize you need at the moment.

3) Wear and tear. This is a big one for me. Rulebooks get a lot of love...aka abuse. Bigger books tend to wear out quicker. Its just the stain from all of those pages and so forth. Dividing the books into 3 reduces wear. Further, if 1 of the 3 wear out, it can be replaced piecemeal. In a 1 book system, the whole book has to be replaced.

But if the one book costs $30 then you can buy it three times before you reach the cost of the three books for the core...even if it costs $40 you can buy two copies for less. Add in the cost for 1 PHB wearing out ($90+another $30) and you can buy it three times.

This is also an issue if the book is:

1) Damaged or destroyed
2) Drink is spilled on it.
3) Teh book is stolen.

Etc Etc.

These are issues with any book. With the 3 book model you've got 3 to worry about, while with the one book you've only got that one to worry about.

So I'll keep my 3 books thank you very much.

To each his own, but it's funny how many people wante the Rules Cyclopedia from WotC to be exacly what I'm describing here.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

One thing that would go a ways into allowing a one book core system;

Have specific rules for creature creations, just like character creations, include that in the core book, and maybe 10 or 15 monster for examples. Then you would never actually have to buy a monster book, you could make your own. Then the monster books are just lists of monsters that were built using that system.
Same thing for magic items - have the basic construction system in the core book with some examples and the later books are just items using that system.

Publish the first item book and first monster book fairly quickly after the core book for all those people who don't want to build the monsters themselves, but you have everything you need in the core book.

Yeah, I'm primarily a HERO player, does it show?

 

[Vocenoctum]

One thing that would go a ways into allowing a one book core system;

Have specific rules for creature creations, just like character creations, include that in the core book, and maybe 10 or 15 monster for examples. Then you would never actually have to buy a monster book, you could make your own. Then the monster books are just lists of monsters that were built using that system.
Same thing for magic items - have the basic construction system in the core book with some examples and the later books are just items using that system.

Could work, if the systems were short enough. I think the spells would need more cutting than anything though, and I can see losing a lot of flavor when the spell section is cut from 100 pages to 20 pages.

Monsters, you could just have 30-40 pages of basic monsters, losing all the formating and pictures as they are now. I don't like that way, since having to page flip is already a hassle, let alone when it's all in the same book.

But really, a lot of the suggestions about how to fit D&D into 1 book either change D&D in lots of ways (Sure, C&C fits, but if you have to trim so much from D&D to make it fit, why not just have C&C?) or basically amount to ditching higher level material in favor of later books.

"Do we want Beholders and Mind Flayers in the Core book?"
"Nyah, players won't encounter them for a bit, so we'll just put them in a later book."

Basically, a lot of it sounds more like the "introduction" book I mentioned earlier, and I'd rather see that as a different book rather than replacing the Big 3.

(Technically, you dont even need the MM anyway, if you run a world that's all humans, you just make all your opponents with the PHB!)

Publish the first item book and first monster book fairly quickly after the core book for all those people who don't want to build the monsters themselves, but you have everything you need in the core book.

You have everything you need to play on a basic level, just like the Shadowrun 3rd edition rules I mentioned. Sure if you want to advance beyond a certain point you'll need different books, but you can play the basic stuff off the bat.

Yeah, I'm primarily a HERO player, does it show?

I've played quite a few Single Book games, and that's all well and fine in and of itself, but I always bought extra anyway, so it's meaningless for me. I think the idea that any of them truely are "single book" is a bit off. Except, maybe Hero, isn't that book like 900 pages and stops bullets?

 

[Psion]

This argument is kind of weak, because the situation of players needing info in the same book also arises(arguably as often or moreso) and a 3 book model doesn't help this at all. In fact it hinders it if they both need the DMG and there's only one for the whole table. If each rulebook had all the rules however, you escape this probem totally if everyone buys their own corebook.

You are proceeding from the assumption all players have a copy of the book.

As much as I did big one-book D20 game books like Traveller D20 or Spycraft, I have to say this is a bona fide problem and I think you wave it off way too easily. I find that unless the game is a mainstay for the group (or if it's new to the group), only one or two people are going to have a copy of the book (or core book set). You get situations like one player working on gear and another polishing off their character, you can't split up that monolithic book.

(Depending on how the book is split up, multiple books won't necessarily solve the problem, but I recall in the old MegaTraveller boxed set, all the chargen stuff was in the Player's Guide and all the equipment was in the Imperial Encyclopedia. It was very convenient.)

At any rate, you seem to be answering every post with "yeah but..." and pooh-poohing all respondents, as if one core book is the "one true way". There may be preferences, but when it comes down to it, there are real advantages and disadvantages to both.

 

[SavageRobby]

I like the Savage Worlds model that most of their products fit into. Two books: one rulebook and one setting book. The setting books usually have a player section and GM section, and they typically sell Player's Guide versions of the setting books as PDFs for cheap ($5), with a specific license included to print as many as you want for play at your game table.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well Blue Rose has a monster section. What exactly is the purpose of bringing up the companion?

My bad. I thought we were talking about True 20, not Blue Rose.

OK, once again...what? There's feats, and new spells and etc. in the completes that would be of vast utility, the question is do I need them all to have a complete playable game? There are weapons in the nWoD core...but there's a book called armory that goes into more depth and gives more options(kinda like the arms and equipment guide for 3.5)...how does this make the game unplayable without it? Is D&D unplayable without the arms and equipment guide?

The equipment section in the core D&D book is fairly generous. Many other systems, like the aftermentioned True 20, not quite so. Even Hero, with it's expanded section, adds more in other books. There's always more.

It's not complete, because it's a point-buy...generic system and you have to set the power level? Yet it gives all the tools you need to do this? This makes no sense, you're arguing it's not complete because it's a different type of game than D&D. This has nothing to do with having a one book core for D&D. It seems like some type of commentary on universal point-buy systems...maybe?

More of the ease of use of point buy systems. While I love Hero, BESM and GURPS, the very reasons that the latter (and in past editions the former), have support material, is that due to the general complexities of a point buy system, it's often quicker to go with pre-generated books. For example, Hero has not only a Champions setting book, but also a book for the Super Genre for Champions.

And D&D is not a point-buy system, it's a hybrid class-based and point-based...It also isn't universal. In other words their apples and oranges.

So apples and oranges but pointing out several other books that AREN'T like D&D makes your point? :\

I think it's better to say some books have seperate equipment books and seperate monster books.

Sure, I can agree with that. Some systems have multiple equipment books. D20 for example has Stone to Steel, and Bastion Press Arms & Armor book plus official books. It's like setting books. Some systems have setting books.

No your point seems to be...one book games can't be complete because they make supplements for them and they try to sell them to you...yet D&D does the same thing and has 3 books for a core...so no I don't get your point.

Well, one of My points is that it would be difficult to get everything everyone has grown accustomed to for the D&D rules int one book that pleased people MORE than having three seperate books.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There may be preferences, but when it comes down to it, there are real advantages and disadvantages to both.

QFT.

 

[The Human Target]

You are proceeding from the assumption all players have a copy of the book.

As much as I did big one-book D20 game books like Traveller D20 or Spycraft, I have to say this is a bona fide problem and I think you wave it off way too easily. I find that unless the game is a mainstay for the group (or if it's new to the group), only one or two people are going to have a copy of the book (or core book set). You get situations like one player working on gear and another polishing off their character, you can't split up that monolithic book.

(Depending on how the book is split up, multiple books won't necessarily solve the problem, but I recall in the old MegaTraveller boxed set, all the chargen stuff was in the Player's Guide and all the equipment was in the Imperial Encyclopedia. It was very convenient.)

At any rate, you seem to be answering every post with "yeah but..." and pooh-poohing all respondents, as if one core book is the "one true way". There may be preferences, but when it comes down to it, there are real advantages and disadvantages to both.

Actually, he's being very reasonable.

But let me see if I understand you.

Having one core book is bad, because everyone might not own that core book.

But what happens when only two people in a five person group shell out the cash for three core books?

What happens when two players and the DM need to look at the Monster Manual?

That isn't a very strong argument.

 

[Nifft]

Ehlonna to 'Forest Goddess.'

You misspelled 'Skank'.

HTH, -- N