DI and other Supplements are not "core" Core

[GVDammerung]

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.

Precisely! Now, add the "core" designation to less of the available material and, conversely, add the "core" designation to more of the material, and compare.

Where "core" is limited to only a few books - a narrow definition of "core" - the disparity is lessened. Where "core" is applied broadly or expansively to more books - more like what is now "official" - the disparity grows.

So, is this disparity a bad thing? You seem to think it will have no effect on conversations among gamers. You call the idea "silly." I could trade epithets with you and characterize your position but I'm not going to do that. Rather, I will say that, IMO, when "core" is limited to only a few books, more people can have full access to the "core" and that this level knowledge base better encourages conversation. Conversely, an unequal knowledge level will tend to make conversations more one sided in favor of the party who has the unequal advantage.

For example, lets just take a hypothetical 4.0 PH and PH 2 to keep things simple. I own the PH. You own both the PH and PH2. Lets say we are discussing a rule that is presented in the PH and further discussed and tweaked in PH2. If just the PH is "core," I can discuss the matter with you with full confidence I know what I'm talking about in so far as the core rules go. However, if both the PH and PH2 are "core" however, I don't know what might be in the PH2 and in any discussion it would be a simpler matter for you to cite to the PH2 and, having surpassed my knowledge level, leave me with nothing further to really say because my knowledge is limited to just the PH.

If you honestly have never seen one party to a conversation leverage their superior knowledge of a ruleset to shut down someone with whom they are arguing or discussing something, all I can say is that you are very fortunate. Again, one need go no further than ENWorld to see the tactic when conversations grow testy. Most commonly it manifests around setting discussons where setting "canon" equates to "core." Someone who has more of the Planescape, FR, etc. "core" will shut down someone with whom they are arguing by quoting some obscure passage from a book they own but the other does not. Game. Set. Match.

If in 4.0 "core" becomes expansive, much like "official" now, it is my opinion that we will see the sort of setting discussions described above become far more common but on the nature of the rules themselves. This will fragment folks into the "core" haves - who buy everything "core" - and the "core" have nots - who can't or won't buy everything. You may not see this as a problem in the social dynamic of RPGs. I hope you're right.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Precisely! Now, add the "core" designation to less of the available material and, conversely, add the "core" designation to more of the material, and compare.

Where "core" is limited to only a few books - a narrow definition of "core" - the disparity is lessened. Where "core" is applied broadly or expansively to more books - more like what is now "official" - the disparity grows.

Um...

My comment, that you replied to, had to do with including non-core material in other non-core books. (I.e. including Complete Mage feats in a sample monster in MM5). I said nothing about whether I liked the expansion of the definition of "core" or not.

I think you and I may be arguing two unrelated points around each other...