New Podcast...

[WhimsyTheFae]

But from WOTC's point of view, that's what it makes the most sense to call it. They don't arbitrarily call a book "not part of D&D". So, from their point of view D&D consists of two parts: "Core" which is all the books they make that aren't made for any campaign settings (and therefore should show up in every D&D game being run whether Eberron, Forgotten Realms, or homebrew), and "Campaign Specific" that are rules that will only show up in games in that specific campaign setting.

I don't see any reason for WOTC to invent a category that basically means "You don't have to buy this book".

Of course, that's already the way it is. The only people I know who make a distinction between something that shows up in the Complete Warrior and something that shows up in the PHB are some DMs on this message board that want to limit the options in their game. In all the games I've played in and run, there is no difference between the two books.

I agree, again. I know that from WotC's point of view, it makes the most sense to call all WotC-published, non-campaign-setting specific material "core". My only purpose is to clarify that WotC has also stated multiple times that you only need the three core books and Dave even said that you could call that "core" (he went on to say that it may be better to think of all the non-campaign-setting specific stuff as "core," too).

I know that many threads already clarify this, but occasionally I see a poster who inadvertantly (or perhaps not so inadvertantly) makes a post that could be construed as saying that DI is required to play 4e.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If they're going to call everything non-campaign specific core, we'd better see all that stuff in the SRD.

 

[Khairn]

No. I think it means 100% official non-campaign specific material. Indeed, in that context, I think the focus is on the fact that core isn't tied to a specific campaign settint.

I agree with your interpretation. Doesn't that also mean since the DDI will be updated monthly (weekly for some articles), that the core rules will be constantly changing?

It shouldn't be a major problem for a GM to use "Rule 0" and exclude content, but if you are trying to play a core game, I see it being a lot more work.

I don't see any reason for WOTC to invent a category that basically means "You don't have to buy this book".

Of course, that's already the way it is. The only people I know who make a distinction between something that shows up in the Complete Warrior and something that shows up in the PHB are some DMs on this message board that want to limit the options in their game. In all the games I've played in and run, there is no difference between the two books.

As one of those GM's who does limit the Supplemental books (Complete's etc) it was more in an effort to reduce complexity and rules bloat. That and the power creep that seemed to escalate with every new book released.

From a WotC standpoint its also a marketing tool to say that "Real" D&D includes the content in the DDI. Sure you can use just a couple of books, but you are then only playing with a fraction of the game. Maybe we should start calling the first 3 books "4E Lite".

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Maybe we should start calling the first 3 books "4E Lite".

Could you define core in 3.5e? As a rhetorical exercise?

I've seen it defined as PH, DMG, MM. Cause WotC put core on the cover.
People who would have called it "Just the 3 main books" in 2e picked up core as convenient shorthand. Easy enough to drop if WotC marketing decides to use THEIR TERM differently. Mike and Dave's larger "Core" is called "Official Non-Setting Specific" now.