Does Having 3 Core Books Hurt The Game?

[Scribble]

Only one book, the PHB, is required to play.

3 books are required for DMing.

I am in favor of this layout, it means that it takes someone a little more motivated to pick up the DM role As for "new/fresh blood" (horrible expression, by the way), every single person I've played with was introduced to the game by someone else who already played, either an older brother/relative or a friend. That's IMHO always the best way to carry on the hobby...

Well, now you know someone who wasn't... well sort of.

I introduced myself to gaming through a boxed set. It had everything I needed. I would have been mighty tee'd of if I got home after begging for that set (which my sister bought for me) and I couldn't even use it...

But that's beside the point. The point being; imagine how many MORE people might be playing now, if they didn't need others to show them the ropes? If it didn't seem like a member's only club? (Which happens to have the stigma of a DORK member's only club...)

Seeing how successful 3E and v3.5 have been, I'd have to say that having three core books has not hurt the game at all. There are more people that pay 3E/v3.5 than I've seen roleplaying in a long time. There may be some who say three books is bad, but it can't be that bad, considering how widely played that D&D is. Come to think of it, the three core book model has been around since at least 1st Edition, so this game becoming the world's most popular RPG has wrestled with this model since Day One, essentially, and "a three book core" has been quite successful.

Sucessful compaired to what? RPGs in general? Sure... But I think if you made entry a grab and go sort of thing (and then the ability to expand as seperate books) it would appeal to a larger market outside of the gammers market.

It would become something someone buys and "trys out" instead of something someone looks at, and wonder's how someone "trys that out."

 

[Voadam]

Only one book, the PHB, is required to play.

3 books are required for DMing.

I am in favor of this layout, it means that it takes someone a little more motivated to pick up the DM role As for "new/fresh blood" (horrible expression, by the way), every single person I've played with was introduced to the game by someone else who already played, either an older brother/relative or a friend. That's IMHO always the best way to carry on the hobby...

That's like saying you don't need to have a volleyball and court to play volleyball, just access to someone else who does.

To play D&D you need a group and the three books. The fact that you can be a player in a D&D game without owning any books at all does not seem relevant.

I got given the basic red set as a gift by my parents. That is how I learned the game. I later got the three books for AD&D. Some of my friends never got any gaming books but played regularly for years. They were dependent on those of us with the books and the games never would have happened if none of us had a complete rule set. Having a complete rule set is necessary to play the game. I could have got by without the MM but both the PH and DMG were needed to play AD&D.

 

[Arkhandus]

I agree that a small boxed set for a D&D Basic Game would be best for drawing in newbies, but still think that the 3 core books and word-of-mouth are effective too.

 

[Li Shenron]

To play D&D you need a group and the three books. The fact that you can be a player in a D&D game without owning any books at all does not seem relevant.

It's a lot relevant! It's going to be even more relevant if you start making it possible to play online. The group needs 3 books (we actually started playing 3.0 with just the PHB, that had some monsters and DM's guidelines in the back, but those didn't last long of course), but the single player needs 1. In my gaming groups NO ONE that is a player but not a DM in another game owns the DMG and the MM.