D&D: How Many Core Books

[MoogleEmpMog]

I strongly prefer a one-book core system.

First, it's a huge cost-saver for new players. True, you only "need" a Player's Handbook if you play a character without summoning spells who begins play at first level and doesn't have any input into the magic items he acquires and doesn't take a Prestige Class. I can count on no hands the number of 3.x campaigns I've played, run or seen in which that was true for everyone in the party.

Second, it's a space saver. I use enough non-core books as a GM already; lugging three books to every game just to cover the basics doesn't help. It also makes indexing simpler, although I can see that being a point of contention: more books vs. more pages in a single book. If the whole group knows what book to find info in (such as the out-of-place Leadership feat and MM feats), having smaller books may actually speed referencing. In general, though, I think a single index, single book makes this gigantic time-waster go faster.

Third, it would likely cut down on extraneous monsters, spells and magic items. The yrthak and ethereal filcher get plenty of hate. A single core book would likely see this pair excised, along with some of the monsters that probably shouldn't be "core" even if they have a clear place in the game, for example the chaos beast. Some of the essentially duplicate attack spells and extraneous wierd spells could certainly be cut, but my unmitigated loathing of D&D magic colors that. Certainly the magic items could be cut down considerably, and doing so might have the pleasant side effect of reducing equipment dependency. For instance, Brilliant Energy doesn't need to be a core ability. Neither does Fortification. The elemental and alignment attributes could easily be consolodated into a single entry.

All of the cut content could be moved to other books: excess spells in Complete Arcane and Divine, excess monsters to Monster Manual II, which would become Monster Manual I in this case. Excess magic items would require either a much-expanded Arms & Equipment guide or a new book. Surprisingly, considering the importance magic items play in core 3.x, they've been underrepresented compared to spells and feats in the splatbooks.

As for players having access to the monsters... how many players, aside from complete new players who've yet to either imagine DMing or play a summoner, don't end up with a Monster Manual at least? How many GROUPS don't have at least one player who has a Monster Manual and as such can share his with the group if they want to metagame the monsters?

Now, obviously it doesn't make sense for Wizards of the Coast to rerelease 3.5 as a single core book, and 4.0 is presumably several years away. Even then, D&D will probably come in three books as long as WotC can sell three books. Unlike a lot of players, I don't begrudge WotC the effects of supply and demand, but I do think a single core book improves the game: that's why I suggest new players pick up d20 Modern or a single-book OGL system, like Conan.

 

[mmadsen]

This raises another interesting question: How else might you divide up the current three core books?

A huge portion of the Player's Handbook is spells, and a huge portion of the Dungeon Master's Guide is magic items. Perhaps we should have a Magic Manual for the in-depth magic rules.

Then the Player's Handbook could include most of the rules from the Dungeon Master's Guide.

 

[Gez]

The old WoD was also always 3 books + supplements, also. Base book, Player's Guide, and Storyteller's Companion.

The latest edition of Nephilim has been divided into a player's book and a GM's book as well.

Fact is, when your setting is full of stuff, and you need 1000+ pages to start to describe it accurately, selling it in several 300 pagers is easier and more sound than selling friggin' huge 1000 pagers. Even if a 1000-page book has a certain geeky appeal...

 

[diaglo]

i prefer the OD&D Boxed set way of handling things

3 booklets for the referee.

none for the players.

 

[Desdichado]

The old WoD was also always 3 books + supplements, also. Base book, Player's Guide, and Storyteller's Companion.

That's not a very fair comparison; the old WoD games were complete with one book, and the additional books were supplemental and optional. I never owned a Storyteller's Companion to any of the games, for instance.

 

[Estlor]

There's a problem with using D20 Modern as an example of how the "One Core Book" would work. D20 Modern works in one book because, as written, it's not a fantasy system. You don't need a chapter on races because there's only one you can play. You don't need an elaborate class chapter because they're all generic at the core with access to different feat/ability chains. You don't need a magic chapter (or magic items) because it's a no magic (or low at most if you use an optional set of rules) setting. You don't need a book of monsters because most of the people you face are humans or animals (and you can build humans with the class chapter). There's no need to go into the same amount of detail on worlds and such because, well, you live in it.

So you say, okay, but we can make a slightly longer book that has all of it included. Do you think a hardcover, full color book as long as D20 Modern and Urban Arcana is affordable?

But what about the 1E DMG and Rules Cyclopedia?

Fine. We'll axe the bard, barbarian, monk, sorcerer, and ranger. Then we'll take out feats. Oh, and skills too. And while we're at it, let's take out about 50-60% of the possible combat options and make the DM cook those up on his own. Never mind all that extra space used in telling people how to make a magic item and how much it costs. And who needs to know how much wealth someone of a higher level should have? Cut those stat blocks down, monsters don't need hit points and ability scores. And they don't need skills and feats since they're out of the game.

My argument here is a bit extreme on purpose. If you made D&D a one book game, it would be a very different game. The options we've come to expect (and have made 3e so popular) would be sacrificed in whole or in part to save space. And if you cut 300 pages of material, then release three 100 page supplements with the cut material, it defeats the purpose.

 

[Davelozzi]

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.

Why do you need the DMG to advance beyond 1st level? Only one of my eight players have a copy fo the DMG, and that's only because he's hoping to run a game for his nephews soon. Most of them have only the PHB, or nothing at all. As for familiars, I don't find it a big problem to hand over the MM for a minute and have them jot down the stats for that one creature. Granted, things get a bit trickier with summoning creatures and wildshaping, and I've had to resort to making an animal guide for one player by cutting and pasting from the SRD.

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

In all of my long term groups, no one but me has ever run a game.

All in all, I prefer the multibook approach, and wouldn't even mind a four book approach. The idea here would be to take spells out of the PHB and put them in a separate book of just magic (with a possible appendix of animals and summoned creatures as mentioned above). This would allow for a full variety of spells in the game at the git go and hopefully make it easier to avoid a magic arms race. That said, I don't expect this approach to be popular or to happen, and I think for the world at large, the three book plan is the right one.

 

[mmadsen]

Double Post.

 

[Fenes]

I would say the first printing 3.0 PHB (with the "2000 Survival Kit" in the back detailing a few monsters and magic items and some rules) I have is the "all you need to run MY game" book. It certainly was sufficient when it came out for my group, and it is the only book I regularily use from my library, and that's as the DM. I rarely if ever use the DMG, and don't particularly like monsters.

 

[jmucchiello]

There's a problem with using D20 Modern as an example of how the "One Core Book" would work. D20 Modern works in one book because, as written, it's not a fantasy system. You don't need a chapter on races because there's only one you can play. You don't need an elaborate class chapter because they're all generic at the core with access to different feat/ability chains. You don't need a magic chapter (or magic items) because it's a no magic (or low at most if you use an optional set of rules) setting. You don't need a book of monsters because most of the people you face are humans or animals (and you can build humans with the class chapter).

You haven't really looked at d20 modern, have you? The book contains over 18 classes (6 core, 12 advanced and a few others), a set of spells from 1-5 level many of which are similar to 3.5's spell lists, and a decent complement of monsters straight out of the MM.