D&D “Essentials” as a product line = making it less daunting to get into the game?

[deinol]

Now is this a different use of the word "Core" that we now (two years later) think it should have been used as? Sure. I'll buy that. But we can't put a definition onto the word that it wasn't meant to have.

Except Core had a definition well known to their customers before this. In 3rd Edition days "Core" were the three books every DM was expected to have: Player's Guide, DM's Guide, and Monster Manual. People felt it was a mistake two years ago to call everything "Core", that doesn't make it hindsight now.

I understand the reasons they wanted to call everything core, but the fact that people have been calling them out on it since day 1 is fairly good evidence that it was a mistake to do so.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Core is a crazy concept in 4E. It made sense in 3.5, and a lot fo people did, indeed run a core-only game. I saw ads for them all the time.

But 4E cores is a huge amount of books, and add in minis, dungeon tiles and perhaps DDI, and it is a huge investment.

As far as I can see in 4E, people are still banning books and certain parts of the rules, the Dragon-less games are still strong from what I can see. Not everyone uses DDI and not everyone who uses DDI allows everything there.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

"Core" has never worked.

The idea behind Core is twofold.

1) These are all the books you need!

2) Whenever you buy more books, they'll all work so long as you have core!

Nether of these fall through, at least since 2e. 2e had a lot of mishmash optional rules that didn't quite work that right, so number 1 was a bit spotty, but number 2 was thrown right out, and hard, with splats referencing multiple other splats. 3e had the same problem - the most unbalanced book in 3e and 3.5 was the Player's Handbook, with a lot of supplemental text trying to make up for those initial imbalances, and trying to adhere to the second one just caused more problems, with the explinations for how swift actions and interrupt actions work in every damn book.

So 4e said "Screw it, everything's Core."

 

[S'mon]

I'd like to hear some WoTC person explain *why* they don't sell Dungeons & Dragons as a complete playable game (5 levels, 10 levels, whatever) in a single fat box, like other games, with expansions. Do they think the AD&D multiple-book-to-play model makes them more money?

 

[Hussar]

S'mon - could I take a stab at that?

If you go, say, levels 1-5 with a full game, you might as well go 1-30. What do you actually add to the game after 5th level? I suppose you get paragon and epic paths, but, that's about it. All of the rules are front end loaded. Going with a "complete" game from 1-5 means that you only reduce complexity a very small amount. There's really very little at 15th level that you can't see at 3rd.

Prof C - I would point out that the idea of Core did not exist in 2e. Core was a 3e thing. Everything AD&D was core. The various "Complete" guides, for example, would be referenced by other books quite frequently. The various setting elements would bleed into other settings all the time (thanks a lot Spelljammer). The walls between things were very thin.

 

[billd91]

Prof C - I would point out that the idea of Core did not exist in 2e. Core was a 3e thing. Everything AD&D was core. The various "Complete" guides, for example, would be referenced by other books quite frequently. The various setting elements would bleed into other settings all the time (thanks a lot Spelljammer). The walls between things were very thin.

I'm OK with referencing other books. That's a sign of coordinated design and, I think, healthy. But did they require other supplements for the main thrust of what they were doing? If not, then those other Complete Handbooks weren't really required nor what I would call 2e core.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Except Core had a definition well known to their customers before this. In 3rd Edition days "Core" were the three books every DM was expected to have: Player's Guide, DM's Guide, and Monster Manual. People felt it was a mistake two years ago to call everything "Core", that doesn't make it hindsight now.

And this was their point: They wanted to CHANGE everyone's definition. Because everyone's definition of "Core" did not sell as many books!

Just because they used the word "Core" differently in 3.5 does not mean they were beholden to using it the same way in 4E. Terms change. The Saving Throw in 4E isn't even close to what it was in 3.5... but it served WotC's purposes in the game they were making. Was it a "mistake" to change that definition?

Now were some people upset that they made this definition change of what "Core" meant? Yes, absolutely. But just because some people were (and are) upset that the term changed, doesn't ipso facto mean WotC made a MISTAKE by doing so. You may believe it was a mistake... but again, it's a matter of personal opinion. We cannot be definitive, because we have no idea if WotC's change of definition was successful in accomplishing what they wanted to have happen.

And S'Mon... I think you answered your own question.

 

[Hussar]

I'm OK with referencing other books. That's a sign of coordinated design and, I think, healthy. But did they require other supplements for the main thrust of what they were doing? If not, then those other Complete Handbooks weren't really required nor what I would call 2e core.

But, billd91, there is no definition of core in 2e. In 3e, it was specifically called out. Relics and Rituals and Creature Catalog 1 were both core. (I kid, I kid.)

Heh, the core three were clearly marked Core and, with the original SRD, they were the core books. Now, the SRD was expanded considerably later down the road. Did that change people's views of "core"? I would argue that it did. Many players took the SRD, particularly the Hypertext D20 SRD, to be de facto core, except for the Unearthed Arcana (3e) stuff that was clearly marked as optional.

But in 1e and 2e there was no reference of core at all. All books were fair game. Isle of the Ape (1e module by Gary Gygax) uses the Barbarian class for its NPC's, just as an example.

There was no actual delineation of "Core" in 1e and 2e. That was a 3e invention. To me, the Complete books were so commonly in use that they may as well have been core. I don't think I ever saw a 2e table that didn't use them.

Here's a question. What do the TSR character sheets look like for 2e? Anyone know? What information is included on the official character sheets?

 

[Umbran]

Heh, the core three were clearly marked Core and, with the original SRD, they were the core books. Now, the SRD was expanded considerably later down the road. Did that change people's views of "core"? I would argue that it did. Many players took the SRD, particularly the Hypertext D20 SRD, to be de facto core, except for the Unearthed Arcana (3e) stuff that was clearly marked as optional.

Perhaps, but let us remember - most players don't haunt internet messageboards about D&D. I'd question whether most players know what the SRD is, much less would take it to be the definition of "core".

So, that's "many players" relative to places like our community, but not the overall market.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure if the using the Hypertext SRD was all that uncommon either. Internet access is pretty ubiquitous and I'd say that a lot of gamers probably do a bit of searching on the Net for D&D stuff from time to time.