Maybe we should stop using the word "Core"

[DEFCON 1]

Come on people... how 'bout we let this term fall by the wayside, huh? It has too much freaking baggage right now where every time it gets used to describe some part of D&D... the first thought always seems to be "This is the game itself and which everyone will have to use... as everything else that comes after it are 'expansions' which the DM will probably nix."

And that seems to be the furthest from the truth of what WotC is saying.

Why don't we think of the basic options for character choice/design to be just that? "Basic modules." Not "Core modules"... "Basic". That way, if WotC start off the character creation chapter with the Fighter, Mage, Elf and Dwarf as Basic character selections (with everything about them pre-selected as the most baseline character you can choose) and then follows the chapter up with the "Race & Class Selection" module so you can pick and choose more advanced creation choices... we avoid the whole argument about how Fighter, Mage, Elf and Dwarf are the "Core" of the game, and thus WotC is telling us how our game should be.

Because that's not what they mean at all. We just can never seem to get past what something being "Core" seems to be. Let's junk it. The term is not helpful.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

On the contrary, I think the term "core" becomes more important than ever, since it will describe those things which are common to all D&D games regardless of what "optional modules" are put into use. You might have "Basic" and "advanced" rule modules, but if they are modular then they are added to something, and that something is the core.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My candidate is "base". Might be too close to "basic" for comfort, but for me it is the word that comes the closest to describing what they seem to be doing. (Assuming that they are doing what I think they are, of course.)

That said, from: Core Synonyms, Core Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Main Entry: core  [kawr, kohr] Show IPA/kɔr, koʊr/ Show Spelled
Part of Speech: noun Definition: center, gist Synonyms: amount, base, basis, body, bottom line, bulk, burden, consequence, corpus, crux, essence, focus, foundation, heart, import, importance, kernel, main idea, mass, meat and potatoes, meat*, middle, midpoint, midst, nitty gritty, nub, nucleus, origin, pith, pivot, purport, quick, root, significance, staple, substance, thrust, upshot Antonyms: covering, exterior, exteriority, outside, perimeter, surface
* = informal/non-formal usage


Main Entry: base Part of Speech: noun Definition: fundamental part Synonyms: authority, backbone, basis, chief constituent, core , essence, essential, evidence, foundation, fundamental, groundwork, heart, important part, infrastructure, key, origin, primary element, principal, principle, root, source, underpinning

Main Entry: basis


Part of Speech: noun Definition: foundation for belief, action Synonyms: antecedent, assumption, authority, axiom, backbone, background, backing, base, bedrock, cause, center, chief ingredient, core , crux, data, dictum, essence, essential, evidence, explanation, footing, fundamental, hard fact, heart, infrastructure, justification, keynote, keystone, law, nexus, nucleus, postulate, premise, presumption, presupposition, principal element, principle, proof, reason, root, rudiment, sanction, security, source, substratum, support, theorem, theory, underpinning, warrant

 

[Minigiant]

Well if we ar getting picky on names, both "core" and "basic" are probably bad names. By what WotC is suggesting, the starting races and classes wont be the fundamental building blocks of all classes. It seems like we will get two seperate systems with goals to create characters that work together.

People might get upset if we called their preferred types "simple" classes or "generic" characters. And "essentials" has been done.

 

[Li Shenron]

All I know is that I usually have a significant different opinion on a game if I consider its official core only or everything published.

 

[SKyOdin]

The problem with the way people try to define "core" in D&D (particularly on these boards over the last few days), is that it is all about excluding options in favor of some lowest common denominator. However, that seems to be the exact opposite design approach from what WotC is headed in its new edition. The new edition seems to be all about options and letting people play with the kinds of characters and rule mechanics that suit them.

If the game is about myriad options, then driving a wedge between those options such as "core" vs "supplemental", seems to be counterproductive.

 

[mkill]

It's all the power of marketing.

Call something "D&D Basic Set" and gamers are like "nah, it must be for noobs".

Call it "D&D Core" and they'll go "whoa, this must be the D&D Vin Diesel plays".

 

[LurkAway]

Ya, "core" means different things for newbies vs current players. "Base" or "baseline" would seem to be the most accurate. More flowery is "essentials" but that's been taken. Other synonyms are "foundations" or "origins".

I don't care either way but playtests might reveal a preference. For argument's sake, let's say that "base" doesn't market well for newcomers, and "core" sounds better but the definition is confusing for 3.x/4E players. I don't see why WoTC couldn't reboot the meaning of "core" during all the playtest and previews. So then the current players are "re-educated" and the newbies get a word that inuitively works for marketing purposes.

 

[delericho]

IMO, one of the absolute worst things that WotC tried to do with 4e was their "everything is core" mantra. The Core is the minimum set of books you have to purchase to get the 'complete' game. In 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, 3e, 3.5e and 4e, that has meant the PHB/DMG/MM set.

I'm hopeful that, with 5e, there will be a single Core Rulebook. Even if not, there will still be that 'minimum set' in some form - and that is the Core.

Rightly or wrongly, ever since the 3.0e Core Rulebooks, the term in use is "Core". I fail to see any great benefit in trying to change it - most likely, you'll just end up muddying the waters (as, indeed, 4e did).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The problem with the way people try to define "core" in D&D (particularly on these boards over the last few days), is that it is all about excluding options in favor of some lowest common denominator. However, that seems to be the exact opposite design approach from what WotC is headed in its new edition. The new edition seems to be all about options and letting people play with the kinds of characters and rule mechanics that suit them.

If the game is about myriad options, then driving a wedge between those options such as "core" vs "supplemental", seems to be counterproductive.

What do you call such options then, if some of them are mutually exclusive? If you don't want to label them descriptively based on purpose, the next best thing would presumably be to try to brand them as separate lines with more of a marketing approach. But however you do it, they are in fact going to be supplements.