Does Having 3 Core Books Hurt The Game?

[Scribble]

So I was wondering...

Do you think that having three core books hurts the game (sales wise.)

I mean, to your average gamer, that's not a big issue... Games are supposed to have multiple books and extra rules and all sortsa stuff...

But does it hurt the game as far as "new blood" is concerned?

To me, it sort of feels like the normals might think they're being sold on something.. "You DO want the undercarriage monkey protectant right?"

To play D&D you need 4 things... PHB, DMG, MM, and Dice. All sold separately...

Do you think this bothers the newbs in anyway? (Especially the parents buying it for their kids and realizing they have to buy 3 more things for it to "work...")

Should it be all packaged together as one book? Maybe with a free set of dice?

 

[useridunavailable]

New players don't need all 3 books. I sure as hell don't want a new player running a game I'm playing... Only one person in a group necessarily needs any books, and even those that do decide they want their own PHBs only need that single resource. In most cases, new players are introduced by veteran players and the group simply pools the majority of resources. I've even played in sessions where we pooled pencils and dice. Now paper, on the other hand... that's where the problem comes in. I can't see how they can expect each player to be able to afford his or her own sheet of paper... =/

 

[Salad Shooter]

The only way I really see having three core books hurt is if a new group, with all new players and a new DM starts up...but even then you can share a PHB and perhaps the cost of the other two books.

The other problem I see is on the edition changes...because then we have to buy those three books AGAIN...but since they already have their teeth into us, well, it really won't do that much damage.

 

[Scribble]

New players don't need all 3 books. I sure as hell don't want a new player running a game I'm playing... Only one person in a group necessarily needs any books, and even those that do decide they want their own PHBs only need that single resource. In most cases, new players are introduced by veteran players and the group simply pools the majority of resources. I've even played in sessions where we pooled pencils and dice. Now paper, on the other hand... that's where the problem comes in. I can't see how they can expect each player to be able to afford his or her own sheet of paper... =/

It's not really a cost thing that I'm talking about.

It's more of a "What are you trying to pull???" sort of thing.

Would the game ultimately be better served if everything (for the core game) came in one package.

That way, people just interested in "that D&D game they heard of" might not be off put by the amount of things they need to buy to try it out...

 

[Voadam]

I originaly got the red book basic set. All in one to play the game though it only went to level 3.

Having to have 3 books to DM is a bit of a barrier to entry.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I think it's a huge, possibly crippling, barrier to entry.

There's a reason D&D's largest cultural footprint and playerbase coincided with the availability of the Red Box basic set, which included everything needed to play in a single, reasonably priced package. The basic game was sold like essentially all non-RPG games: with everything a player needed to play clearly marked and available in a single package. And it was sold in a box - like Monopoly, Life, World of Warcraft, Warhammer 40k, Final Fantasy XII, Magic the Gathering (basic set) and pretty much every other game a typical non-RPGer will buy in his life.

Relying on existing players to recruit new ones essentially kills the chances of bringing youth into the hobby in significant numbers. In other words, it's a complete dead-end from an industry health perspective.

The current basic set does not achieve anything like what the original one did. It's at once too cumbersome (using almost the full rules of D&D 3.5) and too limited - it's little, if anything, more than an add for the core books, which ends up making the total purchases MORE expensive. The closest thing to a decent basic game the current edition has is the D&D Miniatures game.

With that said, I don't think there's any reason not to HAVE three core books - there should simply be a viable, boxed alternative that looks like a GAME rather than a TEXTBOOK.

 

[mmadsen]

Do you think that having three core books hurts the game (sales wise.)

Yes, and it further hurts sales that you can't "open the box" and immediately know what to do.

Now, once someone's hooked, having a whole book full of monsters and another whole book full of DM-only secrets can help sales...

 

[Salad Shooter]

Would the game ultimately be better served if everything (for the core game) came in one package.

One package would be nice...make the PHB all you need to play (in other words, stick the advancement and XP tables in there...) and actually make the DMG supplemental and more useful for DMs.

I like the way White Wolf (yeah yeah...) used to do it, one book with all the rules to play, then seperate, supplemental books with additional info for players and storytellers.

 

[darthkilmor]

Would the game ultimately be better served if everything (for the core game) came in one package.

You mean something like this?

 

[Scribble]

You mean something like this?

Well, yes I do realize that exists.

That's part of what fueled my interest. I wonder if sales of that product does better with the newbs then the normal three different books does?