New Core Rulebooks Every Year - A Mistake

[Dire Bare]

Assuming you were replying to the OP (me), then you should note I said if their intent with these new "core" books is simply to replace things like Complete Warrior then this is a good thing. I agree with you there.

While nobody outside Wizards really knows yet, I think this is the idea.

Intead of seeing tightly focused supplements like a "Complete Warlord" and "Complete Eladrin", we'll see the PHBII which will have a more broad scope and maybe include some stuff for the Warlord and the Eladrin, plus maybe some psionics or something else new . . .

And I'm not worried about newbs buying the wrong book. New guy walks into a store and sees "Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook III". Most people will think, "Gee, I'll probably want number one and maybe number two before I buy number three." Plus, I'm almost positive the back of the book will have something saying, "Requires PHBI".

 

[Glyfair]

The new use of "core" is also how they will determine what goes into the SRD and what does not.

It's not a "new use." Go to the WotC products page and click on "D&D Core" products. You'll see a list much, much larger than just the PHB, MM & DMG (and it's been that way for a long time). There are just multiple definitions of the same word (open a dictionary and you'll see that's pretty common).

As for the books, we really won't know what they are until 2009. Maybe these books will be the Dragon/Dungeon compilations in print WotC mentioned. Maybe they will be a mix of new material and the best of the last year. Maybe they will be all new. We won't know until they get closer.

 

[Henry]

One thing that came from the last WotC Podcast...

All deference given to Dave Noonan, but until that podcast, over seven years on ENworld. rpgnet, etc. I have NEVER heard anyone refer to the word "core" as anything other than the basic books needed to play the game - i.e. The PH/DMG/MM for Dungeons and Dragons, or the base book for whatever game system you're running at the time. To refer to any supplement not campaign-specific as "core" is to really add a confusing term to the gamer lexicon. "We're playing D&D, core books only", to have someone show up with a Warlock/Binder/Hellfire Adept with Soulmelds, can really add a bit of confusion to a game table. (Yes, smart money is to ask specifically which books before building your character, but ambiguous terms can make someone think they know what you meant, and not bother to ask in the first place)

 

[Henry]

It's not a "new use." Go to the WotC products page and click on "D&D Core" products. You'll see a list much, much larger than just the PHB, MM & DMG. There are just multiple definitions of the same word (open a dictionary and you'll see that's pretty common).

Maybe at WotC's site, but honestly, I've really never seen gamers anywhere else use it that way.

Besides, if one were using "core" in that sense, what makes Complete Warrior different from Player's Guide to Eberron, anyway? I see no difference, myself. If one can justify a Hexblade, one can justify a Valenar Revenant Blade by giving it history and background appropriate to the world - it's only mechanics, and the balance thereof, that really make the difference between the 3 base books and anything else.

The stuff in the PH/DMG/MM is intently designed to be well-rounded, balanced, and usable for almost all campaigns - which isn't always the case with all other supplements turned out. Considering the core stuff the "conservative" stuff, and everything else the "new, innovative, pushing the envelope" stuff, it's a natural divide that 99% of gamemasters can usually agree on - both the ones wanting a plain vanilla campaign without hundreds of options to keep track of, and the ones who want to add in certain things to a known, stable base. Calling everything "core" means that a HECK of a lot of stuff nowhere near playtested as well gets added to the mix of what is considered "basic" game material.

 

[Glyfair]

Maybe at WotC's site, but honestly, I've really never seen gamers anywhere else use it that way.

I have, but it's pretty uncommon.

I think what we have happening here is a case of internal industry jargon coming out (because the designers are taking a lot of the internal discussion and exposing it to the general public).

As gamers, we rarely need a word for "D&D supplement that's not part of a campaign setting." "Core" is a completely logical word for that. The problem is that it is a term the gamers use in a different fashion (usually to demonstrate a very restricted game environment). But, for all we know that definition of "core" has been around since the TSR days.

 

[Hussar]

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

I'm not sure if you can actually say that. It's not that it was inadequate, it's that issues have arisen over time that weren't recognized when the books were released. The whole Polymorph mess is a good example. As the game goes through the grinder of players playing, issues are going to get squeezed out that weren't anticipated or even considered at the time of writing.

While 3e may have made "Core" the basic three books, that wasn't true in previous editions. So, the meaning of Core has certainly changed over time. The definition of "Core" was specifically spelled out in the 3e PHB and that's the definition that most people have used. Previously, Core didn't have much meaning at all.

Now, Core is going to refer to any non-campaign specific book. Cool. It's not like it's really that hard to remember.

As far as confusing new players, well, I'm fairly certain that if I were a new player, looking at the shelves at my FLGS and I saw three books: Players Handbook I, Player's Handbook II and Player's Handbook III, I could likely figure out which one comes first.

After all, I haven't heard too many stories of players being confused now, despite the existences of two PHB's, two DMG's and five Monster Manuals.

I'm willing to have a little more faith in my fellow man.

Henry - I think, and this is only my opinion, that what you will see is that setting specific material will be much more integrated into the setting than previously. Things like Affiliations and the like are going to directly reference certain campaign specific classes, making it much more difficult (although not impossible) to extricate it from the setting.

 

[MerricB]

I have NEVER heard anyone refer to the word "core" as anything other than the basic books needed to play the game - i.e. The PH/DMG/MM for Dungeons and Dragons, or the base book for whatever game system you're running at the time.

I have. There have been several discussions in the latter days of 3.5e when I saw supplements being referred to as "core".

Cheers!

 

[lkjopajdowma]

I think part of the plan is that if they release new PHB/DMG every year, they don't have to make a 4.5 if 4e has issues, they can just update in the new PHBs and DMGs, and not break their "There will not be a 4.5" promise.

I mean, part of it certainly will be to add new stuff and sell more books, but I see it as an easy way to cover their asses if there turns out to be major flaws with 4e.

 

[Pygon]

Unless I get heavily inspired, it's not likely I'll delve deeply into 4e in the first few months anyway. At this early stage, it doesn't sound like Wizards is focusing a lot on releasing many adventures soon after release (I like purchasing adventures, they give me more inspiration then other sources). The starter adventures for 3e were ok, and RttToEE got a little cumbersome to DM after a while, but it took, what, 5 or 6 years for a gem like Red Hand of Doom to appear.

Who knows how many supplements and core books it will take to build up enough options for a wide, varying adventure to be released. Then again, with all the race and class ability options that supposedly 4e will offer, hopefully we'll see something much sooner. Here's hoping.

 

[Cryndo]

I'd probably make my DC 5 Intelligence check as well, but I think we've all had people at our tables that perhaps had a negative intelligence modifier and it's no gimme for them.

As far as confusing new players, well, I'm fairly certain that if I were a new player, looking at the shelves at my FLGS and I saw three books: Players Handbook I, Player's Handbook II and Player's Handbook III, I could likely figure out which one comes first.