Anybody Use just the Core Rulebooks? Why? Why not?

[Shade]

Why limit yourself to vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry, when you can have rocky road, cookie dough, raspberry cheesecake, etc.?

I couldn't limit myself to the core books if for no reason other than the lack of classic monsters that aren't in the Monster Manual.

But I also like more variety for just about every other aspect of the game.

 

[Jdvn1]

Why limit yourself to vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry, when you can have rocky road, cookie dough, raspberry cheesecake, etc.?

Because chocolate is the best anyway.

 

[Methos]

Is there a reason why you don't consider the Fiend Folio "core", but MM2 and MM3 "core"?

So my suggestion is to go for it and even consider limiting yourself to just the basic MM. There is plenty there to run an interesting game.

QUOTE]

I could consider the Fiend Folio core as well. I do like the ability to toss lots of different monsters at the PC's for flavor, assuming that they fit in the campaign. I might even consider EPH assuming the PC's get there............................(cackles maniacally). I have to admit that in the campaign I'm planning out, there will be some slices taken out of the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness since they will fit with the campaign I'm planning, but these will be minimal. Like I said, probably 95% of what goes into this campaign will be core.

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

I am starting a new campaign in a few weeks, and decided to restrict it to "Core Rules Only." I did this for two main reasons.

First, most of the players are new players, and three of them are children. I want to keep it simple so we're not bogged down looking up rules every minute.

Second, I'm running conversions of old 1e mods. I want to keep the converted opponents on the same playing field as the players. Restricting everyone to Core Rules just makes it easier on my prep time. I don't have time to hunt through all the books and pick what works best for all the NPCs and the PCs. Everyone is working from the same, fairly limited selections.

Third, I'm currently playing in WLD. In that campaign, the DM lets us use anything by WotC. We are now nearly unstoppable, because we compliment each other well and work very well together as a team. I think it will be a little more challenging if the players have to stick to the Core books only, and a lot less lethal if my NPCs have to stick to Core Rules. My son wants to play an archer. Great, but he'll never have "Order of the Bow Initiate" available. And since he's playing a human, he can't be an "Arcane Archer" either. With Core Rules Only, players can't cherry pick Prestige Classes.

Wow--I'll be able to run a game with only three books. Yippee!

 

[SWBaxter]

It got me thinking? Why wouldn't I just have a campaign (for a change) using just the "core rulebooks", meaning only PH, DM Guide, and MMI, II, III (I consider all 3 MM to be core).

Does anyone do this anymore?

I have an almost only "core rules" campaign written up, waiting for the day when I need to teach the game to a completely new group. It's PHB and DMG for all the player character stuff. For monsters, I'd be using critters from the MM, Necromancer's Tome of Horrors, and various homebrew critters, so that's the only non-core part.

However, I haven't had a need for that campaign, and probably won't for the forseeable future. When I'm DMing for a more experienced group, I use a combination of core, third-party, and homebrew stuff that fits the campaign setting and theme. Total pagecount of stuff used is no bigger than just going core (actually, it's often smaller), but I do draw bits and pieces from a lot of different sources.

 

[Tonguez]

Why limit yourself to vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry, when you can have rocky road, cookie dough, raspberry cheesecake, etc.?

I couldn't limit myself to the core books if for no reason other than the lack of classic monsters that aren't in the Monster Manual.

But I also like more variety for just about every other aspect of the game.

Not really a good analogy though since its ALL icecream and the DMs job to provide the flavour

ergo the SRD provides sufficient rules for me to run a very non-standard homebrew setting with me able to create fluff and colour as I choose.

So yes I use SRD (and a few homebrew modifications eg Paladin as a PrC, modified Sea Ranger, Druidic-Shaman and a homebrew PrC Whalerider)

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

No, certainly not "Core only"-- when I'm worldcrafting, I like having everything I own at my disposal, and usually a little something out of everything ends up there. Been awhile since I've done it, but if I were to put together a homebrew setting now, I'd probably end up using Core + XPH + Complete, at the very least, with Manual of the Planes and the Planar Handbook (in small doses) for cosmological detailing.

Also, I cannot stress enough the value and importance of Unearthed Arcana, whether you're designing a setting, tweaking the rules systems, or just looking to expand the options for your players.

One other thing-- d20 Future. It takes a great deal of restraint to keep me from using Fraal in settings they do not belong in, and when I am designing a setting, that is a level of restraint I care not to impose. Other Star*Drive species tend to work their way into my games, as well; I'm considering picking up Races of the Wild in order to rip Raptoran crunch for Sesheyans.

And my Planescape/Star*Drive crossover campaign will rise again, so I need to keep it fresh. The Urban Planescape project over at Planewalker is giving me lots of ideas...

 

[Eremite]

I use a lot of non-core stuff but, with the exception of setting-specific monsters, I use very few monsters outside of those in MMI. However, I do use templates fairly frequently and am not picky about the sources.

 

[Wombat]

Currently the only "Core" book I use (and that in a rather limited mode) is the Monster Manual. The main rulebook for our campaign is Monte's AU, supplemented by Green Ronin's Skull & Bones, Monte's Complete Book of Eldritch Might, and AEG's Swashbuckling Adventures, fleshed out to a lesser extent by Nyambe, house rules/GM-created creatures, and Creature Collection I. We have no intelligent monsters, other than undead and NPCs (the latter only marginally counting in that category).

Why do this? Because the central notions of the campaign work best with these books. The setting is roughly the late 16th century in a riff on Central America and the early attempts at colonies, with a fair piratical feel to it. We wanted to use AU for a while and this seemed the perfect opportunity. Since we are using that book, the PHB and DMG are less useful than before and most of the critters out of the MM are utterly out of place. The game has been running since September and we are having a blast with it. In fact, none of the players now want to go back to the core magic rules, far preferring the AU magic system.

 

[Crothian]

Personally, I use more then the core books beacuse I have more then the core books. And I know there are cool and interesting ideas out there so why limit the players when I don't have to. I do have people though that use only the core books while other use many books. I find it works best to let the palyers choose what they will and will not use.