Maybe we should stop using the word "Core"

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Because it holds too much baggage and people are resistant to change. That, and some people like to remain willfully ignorant.

The word "core" is too far gone to be of any use anymore. Retire it. Like Crazy Jerome did... just go to thesaurus.com and choose ANYTHING else to replace it. It'll be much easier and much more palatable than trying to rehabilitate "Core"'s image.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I like the term "Baseline D&D" for the rules that represent the common foundation of the D&D game.

Edit: If the "core" or "baseline" rules are all kept in one book, why not just call it "The Dungeons & Dragons Rulebook"? Even if there are some optional rules contained in the rulebook alongside the baseline, the name still works and it should be clear to new players that "The Dungeons & Dragons Rulebook" is the place to start.

 

[Tallifer]

My mantra since 2008 has been "Everything is core."

I am hoping that that can still remain true for Fifth Edition, even though people should be freer to opt in and out of stuff. I do not want contradictory options. Essentials and regular Fourth were quite different but did not contradict.

 

[SKyOdin]

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.

Actually, I fully expect that there will be two or three completely different, mutually exclusive versions of the fighter alongside each other in the basic 5E PHB. If all these different versions exist alongside each other in the same book, with all of their options described the same without priority or preference, then we can have all of them without drawing silly lines like "core".

The big problem with the "core" vs. "supplemental" discussion going on here is that people are trying to divide things like playstyle and preferred edition into these categories. However, if entire playstyles are dumped into being "non-core", then entire sections of the D&D fanbase will be dumped into second-class fan status. Breaking D&D into separate product lines would also just fragment the fan-base, or again reduce fans of certain editions or playstyles to second-class status.If 5E wants to appeal to all fans of D&D, it needs to do so with the first book, not with later supplements.

Modular doesn't mean that the various different modules are hidden away in different books.

 

[DMZ2112]

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.

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.

Modular doesn't mean that the various different modules are hidden away in different books.

This. Or these. Or, I suppose, the cynical recombination thereof.

I was cautiously optimistic about Monte Cook's announcement that the D&D5 rules would be modular until I realized that there is no way that vision will translate into a consumer-friendly book-publishing schedule.

In reality, of course, there are going to be as many ways to play D&D as there are D&D players, but assume for simplicity's sake that there are two kinds of D&D player -- a 'complex' gamer and a 'simple' gamer.

Why would Wizards publish twice as many books that will each only sell half as well when they can publish two sets of options in a single book (or single set of books, more likely) and milk the same monetary investment out of each and every player, regardless of their intended usage?

Everybody pays twice as much as they need to for content they won't use half of, and only Wizards wins. The best case scenario is that only the simple gamers are truly disenfranchised by having to buy all this extra material they'll never use; in the worst and more likely case, everyone pays through the nose and gets less for it.

Either way, the experiment fails.