3 book models vs. 1 book models.

[Vocenoctum]

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.

The arguement isn't so much an arguement as pointing out that things are not cut & dry.

The idea is simply that you don't need everyoen to shell out for the Core Three, but only for the PHB, only the DM needs 3 books.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

I prefer a 2-3 book model for RPGs which require a GM.

This isn't because I don't want the players to see the information in the GM section. It's because my players are much more likely to buy a cheaper, thinner book.

For example, if my group decides to play Aces & Eights, I'll probably be the only person in the group (the GM) who owns the book. That's because it's a one-book model priced at around $50.

On the other hand, if Kenzer put out a book (or booklet) that just had the information about how to make a character and play the game, I'd ask all the players to pick it up (depending on price point).

 

[Imaro]

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

Isn't that the assumption with the PHB? I mean you can share and borrow...but you could do the same thing with a one book model.

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.

And this also applys to a PHB. Why is everyone assuming it would be some 800pg tome. Lot's of companies, including WotC & quite a few OGL companies have made complete games in one book that aren't as big as HERO. People have given plenty of suggestions on how to make the books more focused and less extraneous. The Star Wars rpg is a great example, and the core had an, arguably, better explanation of AoO.

(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.)

So one book(with a table of contents and index) isn't just as convenient?? One place to go to for all your answers, instead of trying to remember which book contains exactly what.

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.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. Or you could say I stated my prefrence for one book with my first post and am debating for it's merits. I think the one core book would be better, am I somehow wrong for this prefrence? I respond to those who don't...isn't that what a discussion is? I don't think I've been rude or disrespectful towards anyone.

 

[Psion]

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?

I'm not sure why you think this instance is particularly telling. Yep, there's every chance that two participants will need the same book at the same time. It's just less of a chance than if there is only one book to pass around, in which case it doesn't really matter what section of the book you need... if you need any of it to proceed, you are hosed.

There is a particular game that we tried to start a game a few times. Due to the fact that we only had one copy to pass around the table, we never finished making characters to get the game rolling.

I consider this a very real issue.

 

[Psion]

Isn't that the assumption with the PHB?

I'm proceeding from the assumption that the situation will be very much like I have seen it actually proceed in the past.

And this also applys to a PHB.

Yes it does. But it does not necessarily pertain to all possible configurations of a two or three book set. I address that in the very next paragraph, which of course you apply a different answer to. Which suggests to me that you are just being contrary.

So one book(with a table of contents and index) isn't just as convenient?? One place to go to for all your answers, instead of trying to remember which book contains exactly what.

I'm not too sure why it's hard to remember that equipment is in a book about... equipment.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. Or you could say I stated my prefrence for one book with my first post and am debating for it's merits.

If so, accept my apologies. The post by post rebuttal to ever last point merely made it seem to me that you were disregarding out of hand rather than considering the other side of the debate.

 

[Imaro]

Yes it does. But it does not necessarily pertain to all possible configurations of a two or three book set. I address that in the very next paragraph, which of course you apply a different answer to. Which suggests to me that you are just being contrary.

But certain info is stil in one particular book at one given time, ie if you do not have a PHB...you cannot create a character.

I'm not too sure why it's hard to remember that equipment is in a book about... equipment.

So which book is that? Yeah, cause mundane equipment is in the PHB, oh yeah and magical is in the DM's guide...oh yeah and poison, that's DMG again right?(why is this again). Or abilities that's PHB right? I mean unless the DM is using one of the alternate methods...cause now you got to go to the DMG, etc.

If so, accept my apologies. The post by post rebuttal to ever last point merely made it seem to me that you were disregarding out of hand rather than considering the other side of the debate.

Most, though I will not say all we're replys to those who in turn had replied to me. As I said I stated my position in the beginning.

 

[Psion]

So which book is that? Yeah, cause mundane equipment is in the PHB, oh yeah and magical is in the DM's guide...oh yeah and poison, that's DMG again right?(why is this again). Or abilities that's PHB right? I mean unless the DM is using one of the alternate methods...cause now you got to go to the DMG, etc.

To repeat my salient point here: But it does not necessarily pertain to all possible configurations of a two or three book set. Some games, like an SF game, might easily have an equipment book, and have less need for a monster book.

If you are constraining your argument to the configuration of the 3e books, I consider it quite likely that many of the positions I present don't really apply (I consider it highly likely the whole group will have a PHB, for example) and tradition will override most other considerations.

But I am coming at this as a more general take on 1 versus multi core book format in RPGs.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

That's assuming 1 book costs 1/3 the cost of the 3 books, which doesn't fly. One book that has all the content should be about as expensive as 3. It will be a little cheaper, if you don't have the covers for 3 books, but it will still be a lot cheaper to replace 1 of a 3 book series than the one book that covers everything.

 

[JoeGKushner]

That's assuming 1 book costs 1/3 the cost of the 3 books, which doesn't fly. One book that has all the content should be about as expensive as 3. It will be a little cheaper, if you don't have the covers for 3 books, but it will still be a lot cheaper to replace 1 of a 3 book series than the one book that covers everything.

Looking at Spycraft and Hero 5th ed, each costs somewhere around $50 bones I believe. And Hero moreso than Spycraft is an awesome toolkit, but terrible for those who NEED a monster manual style book.

 

[MerricB]

It should be noted that one of the really strong features of D&D is that it provides so much already prepared for you. The three core books are really all you need to play for years... although we tend to get more books because we like them.

Splitting the books into more sections may get people playing more quickly, but it also reduces their options and makes the game more expensive in the long run. What also goes is the DMing advice... one of the features that raises D&D above most other games. Many other games presume experience already - D&D makes it much easier to run games.

For people who want to learn the game, there's the Basic Game that has everything you need in it to play. After that, you can get the full game.

Cheers!