New Core Rulebooks Every Year - A Mistake

[airwalkrr]

This is just a theory, so I may not be correct about the motivations here, but I believe WotC is making a mistake with the plan to release a new core rulebook every year (PH2, DMG2, MM2, etc.). If I had to hazard a guess at the reason for this decision, I would say that Hasbro probably looked at sales for PH2 and DMG2 and told WotC "you need more of these." The flaw in that thinking is the reasons behind PH2's and DMG2's successes, both of which bode ill for 4e.

The PH2 was well received not because it was a great splatbook, but because it provided desperately needed fixes to the system, such as a lack of decent high-level fighter options and improved options for two-weapon fighting and sword-and-board style. The retraining rules also provided welcome relief to those players who were always wanting to play new characters because they had grown tired of the options available to their old characters. The duskblade provided a gish that people finally saw as viable without multiclassing or prestige classes. There really isn't a good reason to play a fighter/wizard anymore.

As for the DMG2, I believe its success rests mainly on its expansion of material that the original DMG sorely missed. Rules and tables for generating quick NPCs was among one of its most notable accomplishments. There were a few others, but overall, it was simply filling in the gaps left in the original product with a bunch of fluff that wasn't necessary, but didn't really hurt sales.

As you can see, the problem here was that the initial product was inadequate. The PH2 really amounts to nothing less than a revision of the current edition, not so stark as the 3.5 changes, but a revision nonetheless. This is a problem for both the consumer and WotC. First of all, I don't think WotC is going to be able to expect the new core books to be selling as well as the 3e PH2 and DMG2 did, unless of course there are built-in deficiencies (planned or accidental, and I do honestly believe 3e's were mainly the latter) in the original product. That brings us to the gamer. Do we really want a drastic change to the rules every year? Or worse, do we really want a system that is already in need of drastic fixes?

I am not trying to predict the apocalypse though. I do see that this could be a positive thing overall. My hope is that WotC plans to design the yearly core books to replace things such as the Complete and Races series (for players) as well as the environmental and monster type series (for Dungeon Masters), things which build upon an existing rules system and make it merely more detailed, not edited. If that is going to be their focus, then I applaud them. I am simply wary that some short-sighted individuals might be using sales data and making the wrong assumption that players WANT their game to change drastically every year.

 

[Imaro]

IMHO it's a marketing gimmick. The same way I look at labelling everything not setting specific as "core" as a marketing gimmick. The funny thing to me is that the way they describe the continuing PHB seems to have much more in common with splat books like Tome of Magic or Magic of Incarnum than it does with the actual 3.x PHB2. Yet labelling it as both core and a player's handbook allows for more purchases through mistakes(especially when we start hitting PHB4 and up) or even a desire to be current with the "core" rules than labelling it optional will.

I find it a little disheartening that after promoting "core" to mean the main rules you need to play the game as contained within the PHB, DMG & MM...WotC now turns around and uses the phrase to designate what is honestly optional material.

 

[The Little Raven]

I find it a little disheartening that after promoting "core" to mean the main rules you need to play the game as contained within the PHB, DMG & MM...WotC now turns around and uses the phrase to designate what is honestly optional material.

The new use of "core" is also how they will determine what goes into the SRD and what does not. This means that things previously unavailable to SRD-using companies, such as Oriental Adventures stuff, will be available if it's presented in a "core" book. This expands the SRD, and is a good thing.

 

[Imaro]

The new use of "core" is also how they will determine what goes into the SRD and what does not. This means that things previously unavailable to SRD-using companies, such as Oriental Adventures stuff, will be available if it's presented in a "core" book. This expands the SRD, and is a good thing.

Link please, because I've seen posters bantering about this but no solid evidence of it.

 

[Umbran]

As you can see, the problem here was that the initial product was inadequate.

I think that the problem is that an "adequate" product really takes tomes with higher page count than can be economically, developed and sold or practical to use. I don't believe all that great information will fit into a book that have a price tag we'd be willing to accept, nor are they likely to be able to afford all the up-front development work that'd be required to produce it.

What you are seeing here is pretty much the same model modern software uses - in development, they must make choices about what goes into the product. More features go into later point releases.

 

[delericho]

What's the difference between them calling it "Player's Handbook II" and "Complete Warrior"? It's all just a question of how the material is presented. If this gives us fewer, bigger and more useful supplements, I'm all for it.

I think it would be a mistake to put out a "Player's Handbook Y" just because they've said they'd do one every year. But there's no real reason to suppose they'd actually do that... if it gets to that stage then they'll probably be looking at 5e anyway.

 

[Imaro]

What's the difference between them calling it "Player's Handbook II" and "Complete Warrior"? It's all just a question of how the material is presented. If this gives us fewer, bigger and more useful supplements, I'm all for it.

So in no way do you think numerous "core" PHB's could be confusing to new players? Someone interested in starting the game? Numerous DMG's for DM's that are just starting? Well if you don't see that, there's no way I can convince you. Like I said earlier though, I could see at least a few purchases through "mistakes" this way.

How will it give us fewer supplements. PHB2 creates three new power sources while we also have sourcebooks coming out for the three original power sources from PHB1 and let's not forget the new classes/power sources for specific campaign settings. Now how is this reducing anything again?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

My thinking, and only time will tell how close to the mark I am, is that we will see fewer supplements dedicated to a class or a race. Some people buy just about everything published, but others think "I never play a dwarf, I don't need a dwarf race book."

If they instead gather these ideas into a single book, they hope that sales of the book will be stronger, because it will contain something for just about everybody. Since the production cost of a single, larger book selling at higher volume is lower than several smaller, lower volume books, they hope the annual rulebooks will generate better profits. They may not have as many releases over the course of the year, but with D&D Insider generating a steady revenue stream, they might be in a better position to not have a book release in some months.

The smaller book releases over the course of the year, I predict will primarily be setting specific books.

 

[JVisgaitis]

What's the difference between them calling it "Player's Handbook II" and "Complete Warrior"? It's all just a question of how the material is presented. If this gives us fewer, bigger and more useful supplements, I'm all for it.

Exactly. I'd rather another Player's Handbook as opposed to a bunch of complete books. Makes a lot more sense IMO. The thread doesn't cover this much, but I also really like the idea of them doing a new Campaign Setting every year. You can expect those products every year and it will generate a lot of discussion about what will be new this year. I think its a great way to go.

 

[Imaro]

I'm really confused by the more PHB's= less supplemental material...

If PHBI covers martial, arcane, divine and skills as power sources then PHBII covers psionics, incarnum, technology and biological power sources...

You're telling me this creates a situation where there are less splats like Complete Arcane, Complete Biological, etc. Why? I just don't see how this reasoning is logical. All it really does is create more power sources that can in fact have more supplemental (oops, I meant "core")material. This doesn't in any way seem like a conclusion based on logic.


Edit: I will say I do like the possibility of new campaign worlds as it creates a situation where more playstyles, from straight sword & sorcery to steampunk, can be experienced by those playing.