DI and other Supplements are not "core" Core

[Mouseferatu]

Actually blue roses have long been seen as impossible. The one in your picture is a rather recent devolopment the product of much genetic engenieering and cloning.

Bah. Green Ronin created one years ago.

 

[GVDammerung]

It sounds like their definition of "core" is closer to what I (and many others) would call "official." I'm a little bothered by this.

-Will

QFT. If everything official is also core, "Renton; we have a problem." That problem is my ability and willingness to purchase the expanded "core" to play the game at a fully competent level. Of course, this problem is my problem. It becomes Wotc's problem when, if I can't or won't pay for this expanded "core" and thus cannot be fully competent to play the game, I choose instead to play some other game where I can possess the "core" sufficient to play the game with full competency.

So, for example, if Book of Nine Swords, Incarnum, Tome of Magic etc. were "core" to the 3X ruleset, I don't know that I'd want to play 3x where I had to purchase so many books just to have the "core" and play at full competency. Put another way, when "core" means "buy everything we produce that is not an adventure or mini," I'm out.

Every new rule option or tweak should not be "core." Each years 4.0 PH, MM and DMG should not be core.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You got that right, I'm none-too happy about entries in MMIV and MMV having creatures with class levels in optional material from Complete Adventurer, PHBII and (IIRC) The Book of 9 Swords.

So long as the book contains all the necessary info to run the sample creature--which, IIRC, they all do--what does it matter where the original material comes from?

 

[GVDammerung]

So long as the book contains all the necessary info to run the sample creature--which, IIRC, they all do--what does it matter where the original material comes from?

It matters because you don't know the full extent of the matter, which becomes important when you speak to other gamers, which is at the heart of the tabletop RPG experience, whether in local groups or on EnWorld etc. If you have only the exemplar and not the full treatment, you are disadvantaged in any conversation on the topic.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It matters because you don't know the full extent of the matter, which becomes important when you speak to other gamers, which is at the heart of the tabletop RPG experience, whether in local groups or on EnWorld etc. If you have only the exemplar and not the full treatment, you are disadvantaged in any conversation on the topic.

Um... Not to make light, but so what? My conversation with fellow gamers often includes books one or the other of us don't possess. It then proceeds as one of us tells the other, if he's interested, about the book he doesn't have.

If MM5 includes info from Source X, you're no less able to talk about Source X than if it didn't--and you have a monster with interesting abilities that you wouldn't otherwise have.

It's not even that this complaint is a non-starter for me; I truly can't even grasp the logic behind it. It's like saying that Windows shouldn't come with Solitaire, because then you can only talk about Solitaire in a conversation about card games in general, unless you buy the rules elsewhere.

 

[GVDammerung]

Um... Not to make light, but so what? My conversation with fellow gamers often includes books one or the other of us don't possess. It then proceeds as one of us tells the other, if he's interested, about the book he doesn't have.

If MM5 includes info from Source X, you're no less able to talk about Source X than if it didn't--and you have a monster with interesting abilities that you wouldn't otherwise have.

It's not even that this complaint is a non-starter for me; I truly can't even grasp the logic behind it. It's like saying that Windows shouldn't come with Solitaire, because then you can only talk about Solitaire in a conversation about card games in general, unless you buy the rules elsewhere.

I will imagine that you will agree that social interaction is one of the more important elements of table top RPGs. I will imagine as well that you will agree that conversation is among the most important parts of this social interaction. If you are with me on these two points, the question becomes how does unequal knowledge of the game effect the conversation and thus the social interaction.

I'm not trying to talk down to you here but you've said you can't grasp the logic. Moving on.

Your example is what I will characterize as a casual conversation, perhaps even among friends. This is certainly one sort of conversation. There is another.

Conversations about the rules or mechanics, particularly when not among friends (even if not adversaries either), can run to more than casual conversation, running instead to point and counterpoint, with specific detail and examples being requested, even demanded. When the conversation is at a further remove, such as on ENWorld, this more specifics dominated type of conversation is frequently encountered. In either situation, the person with the most information is at an advantage as they can provide the requested/demanded specifics. The person with only the partially reproduced example is at a disadvantage and may well have to "concede" or bow out of the conversation.

I have seen this dynamic at work in game stores, at cons and particularly on ENWorld, where it is treated as almost a virtue. ENWorld is particularly prone to "put up or shut up" sorts of conversations. Whomever has greater access to information on the topic is more able to "put up" and those with lesser access are more likely to be put in a position where they are moved to "shut up." Only those participants fully able to equally cite to the rules or whatever can effectively hang in with the conversation. If you have not witnessed this dynamic, I can only count you a lucky fellow to have so easily moved through the gaming world.

To summarize, a disparity in access to rules information impedes conversation where such rules information is germane to the conversation. Two classes are observed - the fully informed and the partially informed. It takes no leap of the imagination to imagine who has the better of any ensuing conversation, again excepting purely friendly or casual conversations.

 

[GVDammerung]

Say the conversation is Warforged. One participant has access to only the Warforged entry in the MM (I forget which one). The other has the MM in question, Races of Ebberon, and the Eberron CS. I submit the conversation will tend to be one sided.

 

[Pygon]

I guess we won't know until next year if they are going to forcibly ding us with needing a DnDI sub to get access to everything we need.

If the enhancements added to DnDI also appear in the SRD, I'm fine with that. That's no different than downloading an errata document. No biggie there.

"Core" should be everything we can access without a sub.

 

[Mouseferatu]

To summarize, a disparity in access to rules information impedes conversation where such rules information is germane to the conversation. Two classes are observed - the fully informed and the partially informed. It takes no leap of the imagination to imagine who has the better of any ensuing conversation, again excepting purely friendly or casual conversations.

First off, I find the notion of "competitive conversation," except on a friendly level, to be silly, and not worth engaging in. But that's not the point.

The point is that the disparity of which you speak is going to exist between any two gamers who do not possess the exact same books. If I have Complete Mage and you do not, I am going to know more about the contents of CM than you are. This is true whether or not MM5 has one or two minor elements of CM in it.

The disparity you talk about isn't caused by the inclusion of outside material in MM4 or MM5. It's caused by the very existence of multiple books that some parties have and some parties don't. No more, no less.

Say the conversation is Warforged. One participant has access to only the Warforged entry in the MM (I forget which one). The other has the MM in question, Races of Ebberon, and the Eberron CS. I submit the conversation will tend to be one sided.

And this is true whether or not MM4 has any info on warforged. Because it does, though, it means that people without the Eberron CR at least have the option of using them, which they otherwise would not.

 

[Pale]

So long as the book contains all the necessary info to run the sample creature--which, IIRC, they all do--what does it matter where the original material comes from?

Well, I recently picked up Bo9S and I can say that there is no possible way that they could give me all the information needed to fully portray a character with one of those three classes as well as I can owning and using the book it's derived from.

Basically, I don't just deal with crunch, I deal with fluff. If I don't have the fluff available to me, the crunch is just numbers and not worth using. I freely admit that this is a "me-thing", but hey, there you go.

It also comes off, to me, as a deliberate lure to get me to buy the other books referenced. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but I'd rather feel that they're using it because they think it's really cool. But I'm too cynical anymore to think that right off the bat.