D&D 5E Merits of including too much or too little in the PHB

[Hussar]

Every single edition has had a different definition of "core". Heck, "core" wasn't officially defined as PHB+DMG+MM until 3e. I remember that being one of the points of 3e, that you could point to the base game. That any rules that conflicted with the base game should default to the base game.

In earlier editions, there were all sorts of questions about "core". The variation from table to table over what was being used was huge.

I'm not sure why 5e should be any different in this regard.

From a personal POV, I was far more inclined to say yes in 3e and 4e simply because the rules were often far better written. While power creep was a thing, I don't deny that, it had nothing on things like 2e's Psionic Handbook, or Faiths and Avatars or the 1e Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Ruzak]

For me inclusion in the PHB or "core" issues are less about what is "allowed" and more about the tone of the world. We never had an issue with what we wanted in our game, but we did have to deal with tieflings & dragonborn showing up in adventures and splat book examples. We can of course ignore them, but they become part of the D&D world, just as elves & clerics have.
The Basic game model may be the perfect solution. All types of options can be in the PHB & DMG for those who want them, but they may not show up in every publication for those who aren't crazy about them.
None of this is a huge deal, but my personal preference is to have less of the new stuff around everywhere. I also certainly want it there for those who do.

 

[Wangalade]

like others have noted, I think the player angst can arise more from the setting than from the rules. In the past when I DMed BECMI sometimes a player would try to be a monk and I wouldn't allow it, or there would be cases made for races other than elf, halfling, dwarf. At one point my group made rules for dwarf clerics and elven clerics. the players were more prone to demand something, and I was more likely to accept it because we were in a generic fantasy world where cases could be made for the above examples. In my current game, after I explain the setting to a new player and say you can be a hobgoblin, orc, human, kobold, goblin, dwarf or elf(except they are extremely rare, both in the setting and as pcs); I don't have anyone complaining that they can't be a halfling or a drow or something else I didn't even mention. I feel that the more nuanced and specific the setting, and if the players understand the setting; the issue of playing something "core" won't be as likely to arise.

 

[Li Shenron]

Every single edition has had a different definition of "core". Heck, "core" wasn't officially defined as PHB+DMG+MM until 3e. I remember that being one of the points of 3e, that you could point to the base game.

Definitely! To me "core" is not a meaningless word. My XP is mostly confined within 3ed, but there it was immediately clear whenever someone said "we play a core-only game", that they meant PHB+DMG+MM.

To be more specific, it didn't necessarily mean everything from those books was going to exist in the campaign, and instead nothing outside was ever going to exist, but still the idea was soundly understood, that character material outside those 3 books was going be at least scrutinized before being allowed, but even that was not guaranteed (i.e. the DM may not even look at it, and if you agreed on a "core-only" game then you had to accept that possibility). Saying "core-only" at least settled everybody expectations fairly clear within certain limits, even if each DM often said some 'no' to something, maybe a Haste spell here or a pearl of power there...

The news in 5ed is that "core" probably now means Basic. That is going to be quite different, and as a DM it actually feels very relaxing to me, exactly because of what [MENTION=64497]Ruzak[/MENTION] says: with the "core" being really small, less stress is put on the DM to include stuff into the fantasy setting. Almost every classing setting has humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, fighters, clerics, rogues and wizards. But already if you think half-elves, gnomes, half-orcs, warlocks, sorcerers, bards... well there's already a few more people that aren't comfortable with them (not necessarily against the idea, but maybe against a specific take on the idea). Only really the few most common characters are guaranteed.