New Core Rulebooks Every Year - A Mistake

[Maggan]

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

Cheers!

While not common, I've seen several instances of books being referred to as core if they are not explicity tied to a campaign setting.

/M

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the "real" PHB2 was published about 1 year after the 3.0 PHB, and was split into 5 smaller books: Sword & Fist, Tome & Blood, Defenders of the Faith, Song & Silence, and Masters of the Wild.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Do we know yet whether the sequential rulebooks in each series will be complete? That is, will a player have all the rules a player needs when he buys the PHB III in 2011 (though with somewhat different class building options than the preceding PHBs)?

 

[Baumi]

I don't think that splatbooks will go away, I think there will even more of them. Since each PHP give us new power sources and classes, we can have new Splatbooks for the new classes/sources each year.

But thats not necessarily a bad thing because each class and powersource could finally get the same amount of support. Where at the moment the new classes received only limited support because they were not "core".

 

[delericho]

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?

Possibly, but I'm inclined to think not. Traditionally, the various supplements have been clearly marked "requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook" or similar, which should probably be sufficient.

I'm definately inclined to think that the existence of almost 1,000 pages of true core rules (PHB, DMG, MM) represents a much greater barrier to entry than the existence of a PHB2, DMG2 and MM2.

(In any event, if I'm being honest then I'll say I'm not hugely concerned about new players - they'll come to the game or they won't, and they're Wizards' problem to deal with. Call me self-centred, but I'm concerned about how the packaging of the 4e core rules/supplements impacts on me, and my group.)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

I think that WOTC sees books in the same way my group of friends do and want everyone else to as well.

Whenever anyone starts a game here, it's implied that ALL WOTC books will be allowed with the exception of campaign setting books. In the way of thinking of the people I know, it's OBVIOUS that if something is in The Player's Guide to Eberron, then it is designed to be used ONLY in Eberron. If it is in Complete Warrior, then everything in it can be used in any D&D game.

The implied setting of D&D(at least the implication I get when reading pretty much all the 3.5e books) is "All D&D worlds are fantasy worlds where nearly anything you can think of might be out there somewhere and no one knows absolutely everything. There might be a country on the other side of the world where Shugenja and Samurai live. No one knows, since no one has explored all parts of the world. There is enough wiggle room to have everything in all these books somewhere in the world. So, it is assumed they all exist somewhere."

Whereas setting books say "This is the PrC who elves who live in this country have due to the political nature of the region".

It's easy to say "There are a group of arcane magic users who call themselves Warlocks in this town who have made pacts with demons." vs "There is a country called Valenar, where elves live and some of them are specialized in riding horses and using double bladed scimitars and the ones that are sometimes take this Prc."

It's a difference in perception. My group of friends perceive all the books to be useful and "part of D&D", so they buy them. Others perceive only the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and DMG to be D&D and the rest to be optional add ons. WOTC wants to(rather wisely) shift the perception of others so they view ALL books as D&D, since they're more likely to buy a book if they feel that it will be useful in ALL games they join. I'm guessing that a LARGE number of people bought the PHBII and the DMGII and the Monster Manual II. So, they realize that if people think a book is a "continuation" of the "core" of D&D, they'll buy it. If they redefine core as all of their books instead of only a couple, more people will buy them.

I'm sure there is a lot of people here who won't fall for it. However, in general, it will work. Plus, more people will buy a book that has new classes, new equipment, new feats, new spells all in the same book. Complete Warrior has all that, but a lot of people won't buy it because they like playing wizards. Call that same book "Player's Handbook 2" and spread out the theme of the classes a bit more to ALL the archetypes and suddenly you have double the sales.

 

[Nikosandros]

While not common, I've seen several instances of books being referred to as core if they are not explicity tied to a campaign setting.

That's exactly how WotC refers to them in the online product catalog.

 

[CharlesRyan]

The PH2 was well received not because it was a great splatbook, but because it provided desperately needed fixes to the system [. . .] As for the DMG2, I believe its success rests mainly on its expansion of material that the original DMG sorely missed.

I think you've answered your own post here. D&D is constantly evolving, and for 34 years TSR and WotC have struggled with how to support and reflect that evolution in a manner palatable to all stakeholders.

By scheduling a regular title that creates an overt expectation of expansions/updates/improvements to the core rules, WotC has created a platform that supports the game's evolution within the expectations of players, licensees, and the supply chain. It gives them a way to make small, incremental course corrections to the game, avoid disruptive X.5 editions, and maybe even curb rules bloat.

I reject the notion that no revision would be needed (or no evolution would occur) if the core books were only done right the first time. Perfect design is a moving target; what's ideal today won't be tomorrow. The game will evolve, so some sort of system will occur to match that evolution. Better one planned from the get-go than an ad-hoc addition later.

So I think it's a brilliant idea. I don't for a minute think it's a cheesy marketing ploy, and I certainly don't think "Hasbro made them do it" (because that ain't how it works, and, frankly, the WotC team managing D&D is much more in tune to successful ideas for growing the game than the people who are busy running the entire Hasbro operation.)

 

[Rokes]

FWIW, I don't tell people I game with that I own every core book. I tell them that I own every non-setting specific WotC book.

Why not change the name of the PHBII and DMGII to something less confusing for new players? I know this name has a bit of baggage, but it makes more sense to call the PHBII, Player's Options I, followed by Player's Options II, etc. Same thing with calling the DMGII the Dungeon Master's Options I.

 

[Sun Knight]

I have no interest in buying new "core" books every year. I just want 3 core books. PHB, DMG, and MM. Everything else should be optional instead being crammed down our throats.