D&D: How Many Core Books

[Psion]

Odd that we are hearing people complaining about the multi-book approach in the same breath as other games that have historically been one-basic-book have moved to a multi-book approach.

The grass is always greener, eh?

 

[Breakdaddy]

It's not a poor one at all, and your position is frankly rather ridiculous.

But we arent discussing 1e, Joshua. And while my post may be ridiculous in the literal sense (as you are ridiculing it), I fail to see how your apples to oranges comparison between two essentially different systems invalidates my opinion. I am discussing the 3.(5?)e rules set which is a lot more beefy than previous iterations of the game. Now, if you want to talk about 1e, then I will agree with your opinion that we can consolidate the ruleset into one moderately voluminous tome. But on topic here, I would say leave the three books as-is.

 

[Nessin]

My biggest problem with having three core rule books is you need them all to just be a player. It wouldn't be so bad if there was ONE core rulebook which was effectively what the PHB is supposed to be. Defines the system, the rules, and how to create a character to play with. Then you could have a book for assisting somebody in GM'ing a game, and then one to fill in the monster roles. Kinda like we have now. However, what is it really?

Players Handbook - Fits the need for defining a good part the rules that a player needs to know, and lets them build a level 1 character. Want to go beyond level 1? Sorry, got to go buy the DMG for that. Plus a lot of stuff clarified in the DMG affects players (in playing their characters). Or how about summoning a monster? I'm going to summon such and such, or call my familiar, let me grab it's stats for the action I want to do. Oh crap, I don't have the Monster Manual, guess I'm not going to do that action then.

Dungeon Master Guide - I actually like this book, sans the problems it has with information that should be in other books (like creating characters beyond level 1).

Monster's Handbook - Same as the DMG, fits perfectly with what I want it to be, and in a seperate rulebook, but it's just got information in it that should be elsewhere (as part of a single book).

 

[Desdichado]

But we arent discussing 1e, Joshua. And while my post may be ridiculous in the literal sense (as you are ridiculing it), I fail to see how your apples to oranges comparison between two essentially different systems invalidates my opinion. I am discussing the 3.(5?)e rules set which is a lot more beefy than previous iterations of the game. Now, if you want to talk about 1e, then I will agree with your opinion that we can consolidate the ruleset into one moderately voluminous tome. But on topic here, I would say leave the three books as-is.

That's fine, since my wish that D&D was a single book entity is extremely unlikely to occur for any edition of the game, of course it will be left as is.

But you seem to be saying that all the material from all three books is essential to running a d20 version of D&D, which is what I fundamentally disagree with. 1e is an important example, as is d20 Modern, because they show that there is no need for D&D to have a three book core ruleset. If there's no need to have a three volume core ruleset, there could be a one volume core ruleset. If there could be a one volume core ruleset, I would prefer that to what we have today.

That's what I'm saying, and either you've missed the point, or have gone off on a tangent, as it appears you're not really addressing any of my points except the last one after all, and that by saying, "well I prefer the three volume ruleset." If that indeed is the entirety of your argument, then naturally I don't have any response to that other than to say that it must be great to be you and get what you want out of the game. Congratulations!

If on the other hand, you're trying to say that I'm wrong, that d20 D&D can't be reduced to a single rulebook, then you'd do better to not blow off my examples, as I think they tell a compelling story about what is necessary from a D&D perspective as well as a d20 perspective. Just because D&D 3e and even moreso 3.5 has undergone significant core rule bloat is no indication that it has to.

 

[Breakdaddy]

That's what I'm saying, and either you've missed the point, or have gone off on a tangent, as it appears you're not really addressing any of my points except the last one after all, and that by saying, "well I prefer the three volume ruleset." If that indeed is the entirety of your argument, then naturally I don't have any response to that other than to say that it must be great to be you and get what you want out of the game. Congratulations!

Allow me to start by saying that I didnt miss the point. I fully concede that the rules CAN be distilled down to one book, and for the record, it does kind of rock to be me. However, I personally prefer the system in its three book incarnation (IMHO, YMMV, and all of that!) as I feel it wouldnt be as "complete" as a single book. This, again, is simply opinion and so I must again concede that you arent WRONG, per se (something I never said to begin with and apologize for if it was implied). My "it wouldnt be complete as a single book" argument is based off of simple familiarity. Familiarity with previous iterations of the game which have been expanded through each subsequent edition. For me, if you then took all of this and then "dialed it back" to one book, it would change the flavor of the game because of the parts that would necessarily have to be distilled out in the process of whittling the game down to one book. It would still be a viable and playable game, but not as enjoyable imho.

 

[Desdichado]

Odd that we are hearing people complaining about the multi-book approach in the same breath as other games that have historically been one-basic-book have moved to a multi-book approach.

The grass is always greener, eh?

With the marked exception of the World of Darkness, which is using a pretty unique approach anyway, I don't see how this is true. Which games are moving to a multibook approach? Seems most of the multibook approach games faded away in the 90s.

 

[Psion]

With the marked exception of the World of Darkness, which is using a pretty unique approach anyway, I don't see how this is true. Which games are moving to a multibook approach?

World of Darkness was one now-multi-book game that came to mind. GURPS 4e is another.

 

[Desdichado]

Is it? I thought GURPS 4e was a single book.

Of course, GURPS also had an unusual publishing strategy, which WoD are actually parroting to a certain extent. A single book of generic rules, and then a bazillion books of settings and specific rules. It's certainly not impossible, but it's difficult to imagine playing GURPS with just the core rules.

 

[The_Universe]

I like the three books. In fact, I prefer it to one-book systems. I like knowing that the players don't need/have to buy all of the information that I do to run the game in order to participate - and it also helps separate information - do they really need monster stats?

Even when distilling a system into a single book, you still end up with more material (and thus paper and ink, and thus money) in every book you turn out. This increases the barrier for entry into the hobby by what - 10 bucks? Something similar to that, if the PHB vs. D20 Modern example is any indicator.

What seems to have been glossed over here is that players don't need the whole system - they just need the *player's* part of the system. The rest is just a way to keep the company going.

 

[Psion]

Is it? I thought GURPS 4e was a single book.

4e has a characters book and a campaigns book.