D&D: How Many Core Books

[Desdichado]

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.

I've never been part of a group in which all the players weren't also GMs, at least from time to time.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'd like to have either three or four core books: two for the DM, and one or two for the players. Of course, three is probably better for marketing.

 

[Staffan]

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

GURPS did start out as a 2-book system, or at least it was in its 2nd edition (don't know about the 1st). Though back then you got both books, two reference sheets, an intro adventure, and some cardboard heroes in the "GURPS Basic Set" box.

 

[Buttercup]

I don't think one book would do D&D justice. Unless it was freakin' HUGE.

I do think that much of the DMG isn't strictly necessary.

I taught myself to play by reading the three core books. Now that I know what I'm doing, you're correct that much of the DMG isn't necessary. However, if WotC is trying to pull new people into the hobby, then they're right to publish it with all the detail and advice that more expreineced players don't need.

At this point the only things I use from there are the NPC classes and some of the information on magic items.

 

[Buttercup]

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?

Exactly. I don't *want* the players to see the monster stats. Nor do I want them knowing about the plethora of magic items that could be available, but never will be in my campgains.

 

[A'koss]

Personally, while I can see the merit in having it all in one book, I for one would not want players to have access to monster stats.

Here's how I would do it:

I would keep the core game in 3 books but I would prune them down considerably, make them more attractive and functional. They would be much less verbose / more concise in the language across the board. I certainly wouldn't be afraid to prune down spell lists if needbe. I would be very happy if I could get the PHB down to 175 pages or less, 150 or less for the DMG. I would also have tabs in every chapter for easier reference.

The Monster Manual I would pay special attention to - it would be a physically smaller book (~7"x10") with laminated pages and plastic 3 ring "snap on" edges that you could pull out and snap back into a 3 ring binder without actually having to open the binder to get the pages out. You see these in some types of sample books and they work like those snap in rulers you get in daytimers. One side has an illo of the monster to show the players, the other side, it's stats. Pull out the monsters you need for running your adventure and the laminate pages let them stand up to some abuse. Dragons could have nice accordian-fold stat sheets to accomodate their extra data.

Cheers!

 

[shady]

In my experience, most people who have been gaming for a while have the three books (at least). Sometimes because they occasionally GM, sometimes because they're just into it as a hobby and having the core books, and reading them, is part of that.

I'm perfectly happy with the three book system, at least in part because any move away from that is probably going to imply a significant rules revision, and that in turn implies invalidation of many of the other books I own.

If I had to start from scratch, totally hypothetically, well ... probably I'd do D20 as something generic like GURPS (using the D20 Modern system) and then add on a fantasy book (or set of fantasy books). Probably the number of books gets big quickly. While on D20 Modern, it may be pertinent that D20 Future is a one book add-on to D20 Modern, isn't self contained and still doesn't work. It may be that D20 Modern works because a large part of the settings it has to support are so familiar they can be developed relatively quickly.

 

[IronWolf]

I am totally happen with the core three book design for D&D. As others have said, I don't really want to the monster stats to come bundled with a single core book. Sure, there will be lots of players who also DM and have the book, but I like the illusion, however fleeting, that the stats are separate.

It is also nice because a new player can get into a game with *just* a Players Handbook. No need to buy all of the other books, they can get involved with the game at a relatively low price point (especially if they shop around a little). Then if they really take interest the option to spend more money and get the other rulebooks exists.

For me, the three core rulebooks pose no issues...

 

[Nessin]

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.

But you missed the point I made in my post. I agree with you, I like the three-book system, but the problem is a player needs all three books to play a character effectively. The examples I highlighted, creating characters beyond level 1, you need the Dungeon Master's Guide. Want to summon something or use a familiar, need the Monster Manual. There are other examples, those are just easy to use.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't prefer either way, personally. A couple of my faves- HERO, Mutants & Masterminds, Godlike, Call of Cthulhu (and so many others) - are 1 core book systems, while others like 3Ed or the original Traveller. They aren't inherently superior to any other game for that, and in fact, require a little more work by the GM because they only include a couple of NPC/Monster examples. Not a problem, really, but somewhat of a hassle to generate your first campaign.

Of course, the designers eventually release setting, opponent, gizmo, spell, etc sourcebooks to support the games, so if you buy any of them, it amounts to the same thing as a multiple core book system...financially.