New Core Rulebooks Every Year - A Mistake

[Maggan]

Where did I say it will "confuse" people?

Since you replied to my statement that it would not confuse people, by saying "unless you have to buy the whole shebang" (paraphrased) ... I understood your post to say "it is confusing if you have to buy every book".

It seems that I misunderstood your meaning of the word "unless". Looking over it, I see now that you were replying to my tangent at the tail end of my post, and not the idea that I was proposing, which was the gist of my post.

/M

 

[Jer]

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.

The thing is - the "swift action" is kind of a bad example of this because it's not just randomly interspersed throughout different books. It's republished in every single freaking book they've made that has an ability requiring a "swift action" - that entire block of text repeated every single time a designer wants to include a swift action ability in a book. Taking up space for those of us who already know what it is, but erring on the side of "not everyone will have every book".

I'm all for creating a framework that will allow updates to the game rules - if everyone knows that there's a rules upgrade that came out with the PHB II and you can either get that book or get the erratta online that's great. But I also think that tables need to re-assess their definition of "optional". At our table, every rule is potentially optional. We're not afraid to say yes to things, but we're also not afraid to say "not at our table". And that goes for rules in the PHB I itself - if we find a rule, a spell, a feat or whatever that interferes with our game we throw it away. "Core" should not be a synonym for "required" - just about everything in any of the rule books is a "suggestion" at best. No table should feel like it's being forced to implement something they don't like just because WotC put it in a book.

 

[Mercule]

I prefer a single PHBx, DMGx, and MMx each year that groups things a bit more broadly to the current glut of "complete X", environment, etc. books.

As far as the term "core" goes, I agree that I've always consider that to mean the baseline entry products. I don't have a better term for non-setting stuff, though.

Since everything will now have numbers on it, I'd suggest the term "generation" for each increment of "core" books. If you want what would currently be "core-only", it's "first generation only". "Eberron + core" is "Eberron + first generation".

 

[Woas]

Like I said before... so long as the new "Core" books have illustrated spines, so that when I line them up on my bookshelf, all $800+ worth of them make a pretty artscape then I would be glad to buy them.
But please, hire a good artist for the spines. No Lockwood, Reynolds or Spencer please!

 

[reanjr]

IMHO it's a marketing gimmick. The same way I look at labelling everything not setting specific as "core" as a marketing gimmick.

So download them all off the internet for free. They're all going to be part of the SRD.

 

[Imaro]

The thing is - the "swift action" is kind of a bad example of this because it's not just randomly interspersed throughout different books. It's republished in every single freaking book they've made that has an ability requiring a "swift action" - that entire block of text repeated every single time a designer wants to include a swift action ability in a book. Taking up space for those of us who already know what it is, but erring on the side of "not everyone will have every book".

Now I know why I have no idea where I first saw swift actions at.

I'm all for creating a framework that will allow updates to the game rules - if everyone knows that there's a rules upgrade that came out with the PHB II and you can either get that book or get the erratta online that's great. But I also think that tables need to re-assess their definition of "optional". At our table, every rule is potentially optional. We're not afraid to say yes to things, but we're also not afraid to say "not at our table". And that goes for rules in the PHB I itself - if we find a rule, a spell, a feat or whatever that interferes with our game we throw it away. "Core" should not be a synonym for "required" - just about everything in any of the rule books is a "suggestion" at best. No table should feel like it's being forced to implement something they don't like just because WotC put it in a book.

See I would have a problem, depending on how much space it takes, if the eratta and updates are put in a PHB2 I'm buying for other things and are also offered for free. I'm essentially paying for free material, and missing out on more material for the new stuff that's introduced...which leads to me buying another book for that other material.

I don't think the problem is that people feel somehow shackled by what is established as core, I know I don't. The thing is if I'm only using the PHB, DMG and MM as my basis for the game(regardless of what I change within those books) saying a core book only game means everyone knows I'm only using the rules presented in those three books with any modifications I choose to make. Why? because the covers of the 3.5 PHB, DMG and MM all have core rulebook across their cover. Contrary to what's been stated, no other books(including PHB2 or DMG2) have this designation upon their cover in 3.5

I prefer a single PHBx, DMGx, and MMx each year that groups things a bit more broadly to the current glut of "complete X", environment, etc. books.

As far as the term "core" goes, I agree that I've always consider that to mean the baseline entry products. I don't have a better term for non-setting stuff, though.

Since everything will now have numbers on it, I'd suggest the term "generation" for each increment of "core" books. If you want what would currently be "core-only", it's "first generation only". "Eberron + core" is "Eberron + first generation".

I don't know if I agree with the broad groupings, since it suggest one of two things...

1. Minimal space so you're back to splat-books or to be continued in PHBX type model to fill out each class or maybe power group anyway. ( this is why I feel the number of splat books will not decrease. With this model you're continuously introducing new character types that will need support, and I don't see a yearly PHB being able to do this for every character type, the number of which are being steadily increased, previously presented while also introducing new ones that need their own support.)

2. You can no longer buy what you specifically want for your character or game. Instead you end up paying for alot of things that you don't want or won't use.

I would be fine with a "core rulebooks" and "official expansion" designation. But then again this probably won't sell as well as making everything core so consumers feel like it must be purchased for a complete "core" game.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.

Yes, purchase and use of additional books will now be mandatory. Failure to comply will be grounds for summary execution.

You can run but you cannot hide from Gleemax.

 

[Imaro]

So download them all off the internet for free. They're all going to be part of the SRD.

Where has this been officially stated (that all the rules in every PHB, DMG and MM will be open content). Earlier I asked for this and still haven't seen anyone produce a link where anyone from WotC has stated this as fact. Link please...

 

[hexgrid]

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.

There might be confusion very early on, but I have a hard time imagining a potential D&D player who isn't capable of figuring it out pretty quickly. In the case of 3e, it's stated right on the back of the books, and I don't see why it would be different in 4e.

 

[Imaro]

There might be confusion very early on, but I have a hard time imagining a potential D&D player who isn't capable of figuring it out pretty quickly. In the case of 3e, it's stated right on the back of the books, and I don't see why it would be different in 4e.

See, my biggest problem with this type of philosophy is that instead of selling to the consumer, you're expecting the consumer to want to sell himself. I feel like to attract the new gamer, especially in a casually may have heard of the game sense, things should be branded and packaged to make it easy and simple to determine how to get in on it. You don't want to walk into a game store(2 to 3 yrs from now), see the section with D&D and have to spend time searching through numerous similarly labeled books to find what you actually need to get started, it gives an impression of unnecessary complexness to the game, and most people when presented with bewilderment or confusion about something tend to either just let it go or make a judgement call(which may or mat not be correct). Sure helpful salespeople can help, but that's a hit or miss proposition in most LGS's.

Board games, with expansion packs handle this quite effectively by clearly labelling the base set, and also by putting it in a bigger box so that it stands out. They then label the expansions as exactly what they are and usually put them in smaller boxes.