New Core Rulebooks Every Year - A Mistake

[Maggan]

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.

I'm not so sure that numbering the books PH, PH2, PH3 is so confusing for people new to the game. You start with the first, and buy the second if you like it, and so on.

/M

 

[Doug McCrae]

You just made my list.

Gish.

 

[Sun Knight]

I'm not so sure that numbering the books PH, PH2, PH3 is so confusing for people new to the game. You start with the first, and buy the second if you like it, and so on.

/M

Unless you are trying to run a RPGA sanctioned game, either on or offline, then you have to buy every single book because each and every single book is considered "core."

 

[BryonD]

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.

But cramming it down your throat gives them a chance to kick your dog, since they will be at your house anyway.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Just call it Core I and then Core II and hen Core III.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

...

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. ...

Mmm... it's a good idea in the eyes of someone who plan to follow the evolution of the game.

But what about those who will enter the game 2-3 years from now, will look at the books and think "D&D... sounds like a nice game, maybe I should check it out", and then discover that they need to buy 9 books to play with everyone else?

In previous editions the game didn't change every year (although there were some updates in splatbooks and articles), it was instead very modular. You bought the core books and you played the game. If you liked it, you had tons of additional books you could choose to buy to expand your game.

Maybe it's going to be the same way as before... but maybe not, if instead of add-ons it starts working with patches.

For someone who is going to buy all the books anyway, it's an improvement. But what about all the "we so much want new gamers in the hobby", if the entry barrier becomes higher every year?

 

[Maggan]

Unless you are trying to run a RPGA sanctioned game, either on or offline, then you have to buy every single book because each and every single book is considered "core."

Doesn't seem confusing to me. Actually, it seems very straightforward.

Good for your wallet? Nope. You hate it? Obviously.

But not particularily confusing. And I doubt the someone new to D&D would try running an RPGA sanctioned game right off the the bat. So the "people new to the game will be confused" argument doesn't really hold up, IMO.

/M

 

[Imaro]

You know I was looking over my post and realized I stated part of what I was trying to say in an unclear way.

I don't think having multiple books labeled as "core" and as PHB I, PHB 2, etc. will be confusing in the sense that a player won't know which is the first one...I meant more in the way of what exactly is necessary to run a game. Many say the structure of D&D 3.5 is daunting with all the splat books, environment books, supplemental extensions, etc. I see a structure where there are numerous PHB's on top of splat books for the different power types for each, as well as campaign sourcebooks, etc. as becoming quickly daunting to someone who tries to get into the game after the first or second year. This seems especially problematic if they don't go to gaming sites on the internet to understand the structure yet everything is labelled core.

I see alot of people espousing the sentiment that the multiple PHB's will cut down on splat-books, but I don't see this happening in anyway. If WotC is using the PHB's to premiere new power sources it seems logical that they won't have room to supplement previous power sources in the same book.

The inverse would be problematic in that if I only want to play with the power sources in the first PHB then putting the supplemental material for them in a second handbook with four new power sources means I'm paying for at least half a book I won't use.

Finally if they choose to go the supplemental material on the DI route, I will be very dissapointed(yes I know this is a personal thing.). I own a Mac and I just can't see paying the full price of a subscription with only limited use of the applications and content I'm paying for. I know nothing is finalized, so hopefully WotC will find a way to address this issue. Though I still would rather buy my supplements as books, that I can browse and make an informed decision about, rather than a subscription sight unseen. YMMV of course.

 

[Imaro]

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.)

One thing I hope they choose to do with this type of model is make sure actual rules additions are not grouped with what I would consider "optional" material. An example of this would be swift actions. I honestly can't tell you what supplement introduced swift actions to the game, but they have nonetheless become almost a standard. Rules that affect the actual core mechanics of the game shouldn't be interspersed throughout various "optional" material. This has the effect of creating slightly different games between the haves(as in have every book) and the have nots(as in do not have every book). I'm not talking new feats or spells, just actual changes to the core system of the game. I think this is especially important if WotC through their DI is trying to foster a standard area of play, otherwise everyone comes to the table with certain expectations that may or may not sync up together...especially since everything is core.

Now I'm not saying WotC should just give awway their "updates" to the rules, though I'd have no problem whatsoever if they did. But I could see publishing a rules compendium type supplement every year or two that has the changes, clarifictions and additions to the base rules of the game. This keeps everyone on the same page, especially if it's produced as a relatively cheap product and PDF.

 

[Sun Knight]

Doesn't seem confusing to me. Actually, it seems very straightforward.

Good for your wallet? Nope. You hate it? Obviously.

But not particularily confusing. And I doubt the someone new to D&D would try running an RPGA sanctioned game right off the the bat. So the "people new to the game will be confused" argument doesn't really hold up, IMO.

/M

Where did I say it will "confuse" people?