Can WotC really set "Core" to what they want?

[Li Shenron]

WotC says that "Core" from now on will mean all the PHBx, DMGx and MMx.

But does it really make sense in practice?

I don't know how you define "Core", but to me it means basically "what is included by default in the game".

1) Campaign Settings overwrite core with specific exceptions, but if the Setting doesn't say specifically that something from the Core books is removed, it usually means it's there. Or not...?

2) Also, Core material is going to be supported by supplements: ALL core classes and races will get additional material in every supplement (or group of supplement).

However, I don't see how in practice these 2 points can be different than before. It's not possible that a Campaign Setting published for example in 2008, has to accomodate new races and classes from a PHB2 coming out in 2009. What if PHB2 includes Raptorans and Samurai, will they suddenly appear in Forgotten Realms and Eberron as well?

And of course, most gamers are going to buy the first 3 books but not the second set and the next ones after that. If they buy let's say an Al-Qadim or Dark Sun setting published in 2010, will they find out that they need to buy also all the PHB, DMG and MM published before that year?

I highly doubt... I don't see any significant effect at all in redefining what is "Core". What am I missing?

 

[Andor]

WotC says that "Core" from now on will mean all the PHBx, DMGx and MMx.

And of course, most gamers are going to buy the first 3 books but not the second set and the next ones after that. If they buy let's say an Al-Qadim or Dark Sun setting published in 2010, will they find out that they need to buy also all the PHB, DMG and MM published before that year?

That last bit is the key. They're warning us ahead of time so there is no room to gripe if a later product includes material from the 'new core' books. Also it gives them room to pop a PHB II classed NPC into a module without having to reprint the classes abilities. Which is good because it leaves more room for other stuff, and bad because you're expected to have ponyed up for the PHB II.

How many pages in 3.X materials were spent on "Orc Doe uses this widget from the Book of Spam. If you do not have the Book of Spam here is how to fake it."?

Probably not all that many really, but expect it to go away in 4e.

 

[Dice4Hire]

In my game I set core to what I want. If they will set core to a certain level, and then publish adventures and supplement under that level, that is cool with me. One of he weaknesses of 3.5 to me was how every supplement (except maybe world-specific ones) ignored the existence of all the others. And modules wer so hit and miss with what they included. And I never saw most books represtented in Dungeon Magazine adventures at all. Ever.

I would like to see modules and such with a higher expected book level.

Of course I know soem people will not keep up, but a lot will, and i want more support for them.

 

[Henry]

...Which is good because it leaves more room for other stuff, and bad because you're expected to have ponyed up for the PHB II.

If this is the way it works, then IMO it's a bad, bad decision - one that TSR used to do, and frustrated many customers, if previous WotC staff are to be believed. It's also why I was surprised that anyone used "core" to mean anything other than the books that had "core" printed on them. To have a "core" game that is conceptually as big as a set of encyclopedias would be a bad move to me, so hopefully that won't be the case.

How many pages in 3.X materials were spent on "Orc Doe uses this widget from the Book of Spam. If you do not have the Book of Spam here is how to fake it."?

Probably not all that many really, but expect it to go away in 4e.

Yeah, I kinda liked those. It meant i didn't have to find a book in question and haul it out to figure out what said widget did.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

WotC says that "Core" from now on will mean all the PHBx, DMGx and MMx.

But does it really make sense in practice?

From my experience, this is basically how we use the game already.
Books that are not from WotC are only used if the DM specifically allows it. Books from WotC are generally usable, unless the group or the DM specifically objects.

This definition was probably not the definition of D&D 3.x, but I think it is exactly how it is used in most groups.

From a business perspective, it certainly makes a lot sense for WotC:
Players probably wouldn't buy a Sword & Fist or Complete Scoundrel if they can't count on it being useable in their regular campaign(s).

In our group, we have multiple copies of most WotC books (especially the Completes in 3.5). The only material exclusively bought by one player are adventures (for the times when the player will take the role of the DM, which everybody in my group eventually has to do)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

If "core" meant "what is included unless specifically ruled out," it would be every d20 book ever published.

The distinction is completely meaningless to me because I don't kid myself that the PHB, DMG and MM1 were the best-designed books of the d20 era.

 

[Henry]

If "core" meant "what is included unless specifically ruled out," it would be every d20 book ever published.

The distinction is completely meaningless to me because I don't kid myself that the PHB, DMG and MM1 were the best-designed books of the d20 era.

However, I do believe them the best-balanced for any long-running campaign. I've never seen any class, feat, or monster that has blown up a campaign come from them; they've been very good bases for any D&D campaign I've seen run in the past six years.

 

[an_idol_mind]

One of he weaknesses of 3.5 to me was how every supplement (except maybe world-specific ones) ignored the existence of all the others.

I don't see that as a weakness; I see it as a strength. Admittedly, the constant reprinting of stuff like the swift and immediate action rules is tedious (and a sign that a new edition was needed), but the inclusion of rules from other supplements made it so that the wealth of material being produced for the game was getting used, but that people didn't need more than the three core books to play. One of the things TSR did wrong with their 2nd edition products was that they either failed to take into account any of the other material published (thus ignoring a lot of potentially game-changing stuff like the Complete Handbooks and the Player's Option series), or they simply assumed everyone had all the books. A lot of TSR supplements assumed the use of the Tome of Magic, Book of Artifacts, Monster Mythology, Complete Psionics Handbook, and so on and so forth. For someone who wanted to keep the game simple and not have to haul dozens of books to the table, it became a real chore.

Whatever the new designation of "Core Rules" is, I'm hoping WotC keeps the baseline assumption that the average player is only using the three essential rulebooks. Doing otherwise is making future products inaccessible to a large portion of the audience.

 

[Echohawk]

What if PHB2 includes Raptorans and Samurai, will they suddenly appear in Forgotten Realms and Eberron as well?

No, or at least, not suddenly. Champions of Valor already contains suggestions for placing raptorians in the Realms, and Kara-Tur has always had samurai. As for Eberron, the maxim of "if it's in D&D, it's in Eberron" applies.

 

[Cadfan]

"Core" has never been a solidly defined term before.

But I'd guess its definition should be something like, "The material that we will assume you own when we write later books and adventures."

Personally, I think that should be only the SRD. But they can certainly define core as they please by simply including materials without including stats. If adventures after the release of MM2 4e include monsters from MM2 4e without including the statistics of those monsters, then... guess its core.

It will make things more rich for those who have the additional books, but it will suck for those of us who don't intend to buy them.