3 book models vs. 1 book models.

[Nifft]

Its really more accurate to say that while you may have the same variety of opponents, in games like Spycraft or HERO you're more likely to face unique individuals as opposed to members of different species.

... and given the critters-with-levels direction that D&D has been moving in, I don't see this being a terrible model for new D&D opponents.

Especially not if someone is putting out unique and correct stat blocks regularly.

Cheers, -- N

 

[danzig138]

I'll kep my 3-book setup thank you. I wish other games wouldn't condense everything into one book. It's really annoying for me. I don't know about you folk, but when i run a game, I frequently have a number of books around me open to various pages for assorted reasons. It is really annoying to have to flip through pages in Magic, or Combat, or Rigging, and then flip back to Critters, and then back, etc, etc. If I'm running a combat in the middle of a desert wasteland with powerful windstorms, I like to be able to have the DMG open to the right section, while having the MM open to the monster stats I'm using.

Heck, I miss the old 3-ring binder format for monsters really. That was great. Just pull out what you need, and lay it right next to the DMG.

I don't see the 3 v. 1 thing as stopping people from running. Everyone I've met who was interested in running was more than willing to buy the necessary books. And even if they can't afford them, it's not like I won't loan them mine (as long as I get to play ).

 

[Ranger REG]

Heck, I miss the old 3-ring binder format for monsters really. That was great. Just pull out what you need, and lay it right next to the DMG.

Don't miss it much. Bought way too many hole reinforcements. :\

 

[greywulf]

I'm much, MUCH rather have a one book solution like the (bestest RPG book ever) classic D&D Rules Cyclopedia. It was possible back then to put generation, combat, spells, monsters, DM guide, mass combat, dominion rules, world maps and more into just over 300 pages.

How come now, with our supposedly "leaner, better, more consistent" d20 rules it isn't? Progress. I love it

Most reasons for preferring three books are straw men in my mind. Your mind, of course, might be different. That's cool. Difference is good.

1) The "I need all the books because I have them open at different pages" logic: So, buy multiple copies of the One Book. It'll cost the same price as buying the PHB/MM/DMG. Or, use post-it notes, whatever.
2) The "My players share the books around the table" logic: As above, buy more books. Let them buy their own and have all the rules on hand. It also means more than one player can look at the same rules section at the same time, unlike the current 3 book solution where if one player wants to check the wording of a Feat while another wants to look up a combat rule, they'll either need to wait, or pull out yet another copy of the PHB.
3) The "the players will see the monster stats!" logic: well duh. They're online in the SRD (mostly), more experienced players are likely to know the more common monsters anyhow and I don't really see if it's a big loss if they do; I've been known to require an INT roll to see if the character remembers the monster's weaknesses before handing over the MM. No biggie. Heck, the players are going to check before or after the game anyhow.
4) The "they'll know all the secrets!" logic: to my mind, the Rulebooks should contain no secrets. They should contain rules. That's why I'm not too fond of rulebooks with adventures or GM-only sections. When it comes to campaign settings, I much prefer a two book solution - one Player's Guide and a DM's Guide. That way, the (world-specific) secrets are safe in the hands of the DM.
5) The "It'll be too big to make" logic: The D&D Rules Cyclopedia is 304 pages. Character generation takes up 26 pages, magic another 30, combat 13, monsters 67 pages. That's 136 pages out of the 304, the rest being take up with DM stuff, mass combat, optional rules, etc. I'd say that is very, very possible to achieve with d20 D&D. Sure, some monsters and spells will need to be cut, but I don't think many people will cry if the Destrachan or Horrid Wilting don't make the grade. A lot of the spells are just power-ups to existing spells anyhow (like the multiple Cure Wounds spells). They could all be rolled into one, surely.
6) The "It won't sell/WOTC will make a loss" logic: I'd buy one. Heck, I'd buy three. One for me, one for the shelf, one for the table. Imagine being able to give the gift of D&D at Christmas with a single book instead of balking at the $90 cost. A single book D&D with ALL the elements needed to play would revive the hobby, methinks.

I'm sure that are advantages to D&D being three books minimum (tradition aside), but for my money, the disadvantages far outweigh.

 

[Bagpuss]

Some advantages I see to the single corebook...
1.) Cheaper to get into.

For the DM, but then more expensive for players to own the book.

Compare D&D to other single book RPG's our group plays.

D&D everyone owns a PHB, every other game, only the DM owns the core book, occasionally a single player might buy the corebook too, if it is really cool, like L5R's.

The expense of the large core book and the fact it has a lot of information players won't need put players off buying it.

So it is actually more expensive for the majority of players and certainly leads to less sales for the company involved.

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.)

Or more likely the increased cost will put players off buying the core book for themselves rather than a smaller players manual, that has just the information they need.

3.)Portability greatly increases.

Most DM's run at there own house so additional DMG and Monster Manual(s) don't have to travel, compare with players who would have to carry a single book three times as heavy of which they only use a small fraction (less than a 3rd) to the DM's house each week. This is more portable how?

4.)Better understanding of both player and DM perspectives and issues concerning gameplay on both sides of the screen.

Most DM's complain about players that know too much about the monsters already, you now want to ensure every player has easy access to every detail on them?

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

PHB is more portable, cheaper for players to get into the game. Contains only information they need to know so they are more likely to know the rules that are useful to them.

 

[Imaro]

For the DM, but then more expensive for players to own the book.

Compare D&D to other single book RPG's our group plays.

D&D everyone owns a PHB, every other game, only the DM owns the core book, occasionally a single player might buy the corebook too, if it is really cool, like L5R's.

The expense of the large core book and the fact it has a lot of information players won't need put players off buying it.

So it is actually more expensive for the majority of players and certainly leads to less sales for the company involved.

Note: I will say this is the only argument I've seen that actually seems to have any real merit. That said...

I've been thinking about this, and I don't see the difference 5 to 10 dollars really makes. If that's the case isn't it cheaper for the DM to buy a PHB and everyone else just use it. It's like a bulk deal, sorta like minis...it's cheaper to buy them all in one case, even though you may not need everyone you get.

I don't necessarily think that it will lead to a drop in sales, how many books for D&D do you use everything included, as a player or DM? The supplements are based on this model, they have info you will use and some you won't and they still sell well.

Or more likely the increased cost will put players off buying the core book for themselves rather than a smaller players manual, that has just the information they need.

Just can't see this. People who want to play Exalted, d20 Modern, etc. buy the book because they want to play. Right now Star Wars Saga is hot( ranked #122 on Amazon). It's a single book that's about $10 more than one corebook, and all I've heard is praise for it. I mean the extra cost for buying one corebook is probably less than a pack of minis. And less than one corebook if you get it off someplace like Amazon.

Most DM's run at there own house so additional DMG and Monster Manual(s) don't have to travel, compare with players who would have to carry a single book three times as heavy of which they only use a small fraction (less than a 3rd) to the DM's house each week. This is more portable how?

Why is everyone assuming this book would be massive. The Star Wars Saga game is 288 pgs., and(from what I hear) includes rules for starship battles). The Rev. core rulebook was 384. Somehow they got a complete game into 288pgs, that covers just as much, is in full color and a hardback, with 100 less pages and a smaller book size. I think assuming a one book model for D&D is going to be the size of the three cores is wrong.

Most DM's complain about players that know too much about the monsters already, you now want to ensure every player has easy access to every detail on them?

Okay, come on...if they want to know about monsters then they will read about them, whether it's in Borders over a cup of joe or at their home with their own copy, or on a game forum. In the end who cares? If your player can actually memorize every statistic of every monster in the Monster Manual...all I can say is WOW! Most DM's modify monsters anyway, so what the players read isn't always what they get, and all it takes is doing this once or twice and they then know there reliance on reading the stats is useless.

Another question, what about players that are also DM's...are they advantaged over other players when their not running because they've seen the Monster Manual?

PHB is more portable, cheaper for players to get into the game. Contains only information they need to know so they are more likely to know the rules that are useful to them.

And it also draws a very distinct line between players and GM's...something I find very counterproductive to D&D. If the game is going to survive you need DM's first...Players can't play without a DM. I for one, when buying a game, want a complete game. I think this is more of a hindrance than a benefit. I mean yeah it's cheap to be a player...and fun, but it is also a real barrier to chose D&D as my game to run when I can get a complete game for $40 vs. $90

Cost wise...I don't know. I really think WotC could do a single corebook that is only a little more than one of the three current corebooks, just because of it's print run. If they can make Star Wars Saga profitable at $40 (with the royalties, licensing fees, etc.) they could do an affordable corebook for D&D.

If anything we know rpg's aren't where they make their money...card and mini games are. By giving people the option to run games at a cheaper price you facilitate more DM's, those are the one's who buy the majority of minis when it comes to D&D.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Personally, I like the Rules Cyclopedia model of doing things. One book with all the essential rules, but also with plenty of room for expansion. If you had a Rules Cyclopedia, there was still room for more fleshing out of the system. The Gazetteers, boxed sets, Monster & Treasure Assortment, Poor Wizard's Almanacs, and so on had tons of crunch that could be incorporated into a game.

In a 3.5 version of the one-book model, you would have to cut some things out. Feats, spells, monsters, and magical items would have to be pared down for the core book. At the same time, a Monster Manual could include more monsters, and other sourcebooks could include expanded material for people who don't want to be limited to the core book.

Of course, this is all really just an exercise in imagination. I don't think we'll ever see a future edition of D&D that doesn't use the PHB-DMG-MM model.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Most reasons for preferring three books are straw men in my mind. Your mind, of course, might be different. That's cool. Difference is good.

No, they're not strawmen, they're opinions, both sides of this issue are giving their opinions on something that we can't quantify, simply because there is no 1 Book 3.5D&D to compare to.

1) 2)

This assumes that the One Book is the same price as one of the Three Books.

3) The "the players will see the monster stats!" logic: well duh.

I've never had a big problem with players having access to monster stats overall, but such metagaming at the table would bug me immensely. That is not a problem with 1B vs 3B though, but a Player issue.

4) The "they'll know all the secrets!" logic: to my mind, the Rulebooks should contain no secrets. They should contain rules. That's why I'm not too fond of rulebooks with adventures or GM-only sections. When it comes to campaign settings, I much prefer a two book solution - one Player's Guide and a DM's Guide. That way, the (world-specific) secrets are safe in the hands of the DM.

This assumes something that is simply not true with D&D, whether 1B or 3B. There are no campaign secrets in the cores. So, sure, this is a strawman, since it's got nothing whatsoever to do with the actual discussion.

5) The "It'll be too big to make" logic: The D&D Rules Cyclopedia is 304 pages. Character generation takes up 26 pages, magic another 30, combat 13, monsters 67 pages. That's 136 pages out of the 304, the rest being take up with DM stuff, mass combat, optional rules, etc. I'd say that is very, very possible to achieve with d20 D&D. Sure, some monsters and spells will need to be cut, but I don't think many people will cry if the Destrachan or Horrid Wilting don't make the grade. A lot of the spells are just power-ups to existing spells anyhow (like the multiple Cure Wounds spells). They could all be rolled into one, surely.

The thing is, the cut material would still be produced at some point, so you'd still end up with the same (if not more) number of books for the same material. What you'd lose more of is the formating that makes some things more convenient. The MM's habit of starting a new page with a new monster for instance, and artwork as well. A barebones D&D is fine in many ways, but a lot of folks here don't want to stop at just trimming extra monsters. They want to rewrite D&D into C&C and then the simplistic system would take up less space.

6) The "It won't sell/WOTC will make a loss" logic: I'd buy one. Heck, I'd buy three. One for me, one for the shelf, one for the table. Imagine being able to give the gift of D&D at Christmas with a single book instead of balking at the $90 cost. A single book D&D with ALL the elements needed to play would revive the hobby, methinks.

In business, it's not about "will it sell", but "will it make us more money than the other model".Do they make more money selling the 1B model vs the 3B model? I don't know how well the introductory boxed sets are doing myself, but those would be your "one product" things (in a different format, of course).

Besides which "revive the hobby"? According to WotC, D&D is doing better than ever, they have no need to try to pump the industry under the theory that buying 1/3 of what you already have, all in one book would somehow create lots more players.

The main model from what I recall, is current players getting new players, which means the PHB is fine.

(As for d20, it was in a slight slump before 3.5, and I think the followup after 3.5 has more to do with the horrible way the d20 guys handled 3.5, rather than 3.5's existence.)

I'm sure that are advantages to D&D being three books minimum (tradition aside), but for my money, the disadvantages far outweigh.

If there really is a market, then someone should come out with a Core Book, a single book drawn from the SRD with all everyone needs to play the game. SInce it would be competing with the Big Three, it would surely fail, but then folks like you could have it.

 

[T. Foster]

I wish there were a one-book version of D&D, along the lines of the original boxed set (3 digest-sized booklets, total 112pp) or the 1981 Basic/Expert edition (2 books, total 128pp with some redundancy). A complete, fully playable game could easily be done in 128pp, probably 96pp. A cheap/free 24 or 32pp Player's Guide could also be offered for those who don't want/need the full rules (monsters, magic items, dungeon & wilderness design rules & advice, sample adventures, etc.).

 

[jmucchiello]

I wish there were a one-book version of D&D, along the lines of the original boxed set (3 digest-sized booklets, total 112pp) or the 1981 Basic/Expert edition (2 books, total 128pp with some redundancy). A complete, fully playable game could easily be done in 128pp, probably 96pp. A cheap/free 24 or 32pp Player's Guide could also be offered for those who don't want/need the full rules (monsters, magic items, dungeon & wilderness design rules & advice, sample adventures, etc.).

The current 11 base classes plus feats barely fit into a cheap/free 32pp Player's Guide and that includes 0 spells.

A 128 page book would barely hold the current list of spells in the PHB. How much paring down can you do and still call it a complete D&D game? It would take a lot of rules massaging to get the game down to that size.

(or print it using 4pt fonts.)