Should a TTRPG have a singular Core Rulebook or more?

[Moonmover]

My preference is for a single, all-inclusive volume. I'm much more likely to try a new game if I only have to buy one book. Buying a new game is always an impulse purchase for me, and I am way less likely to buy two books on sheet inpulse. Plus, many GM's don't run their campaigns out of their own homes, but in a FLGS or in the home of one of the players. For such a GM, fewer books means fewer things to lug around with them and less hassle.

Some games are better off in a boxed set, for example if they require (or even just recommend) some odd accessory or special dice.

I can live with a two-book set, one for rules and one for setting information.

 

[Umbran]

"A TTRPG" covers far too wide a gamut of games for the question to make any sense.

Agreed. Some games (like, say, Honey Heist) can be presented as a single page. Some games do well with a pamphlet, or one book. Others work with two. Others work with many.

The choice should be made based on the game's needs.

 

[Alzrius]

When I got into Pathfinder 1e, I really enjoyed being able to buy the Core Rules in one book, for less than the core 3 D&D books cost.

Well, that's not quite an accurate comparison. D&D's three Core Rulebooks also include the Monster Manual. You'd need to buy the Pathfinder 1E Core Rulebook and Bestiary to get the rough equivalent of the PHB, DMG, and MM.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

As others have said, there's no one right choice here. If you're just asking for personal preference, I usually favor one-volume games these days, but that certainly won't stop me from at least considering multiple volumes or zine format (even serialized articles over multiple issues) or an OPR set if it catches my fancy. Boxed sets honestly feel nostalgic at this point - largely from good memories of 80s Chaosium stuff - and can be really attractive if they're stuffed with cool extras like (say) Star Frontiers or old GDW games often were.

Although you could certainly debate if Star Frontiers was actually a complete core box. Knight Hawks had all the starship rules, and I don't regard those as optional to the game at all. Two boxes is probably being a pig about things when you could fit everything in one if you tried.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, that's not quite an accurate comparison. D&D's three Core Rulebooks also include the Monster Manual. You'd need to buy the Pathfinder 1E Core Rulebook and Bestiary to get the rough equivalent of the PHB, DMG, and MM.

Ok that's a fair point. Fortunately, the existence of d20pfsrd.com meant that I never needed to buy a monster book unless I wanted the purdy art.

 

[Crusadius]

I like boxed sets containing both Player and GM books. And dice. And doohickeys. And best not forget the ding dongs too.

I guess this means I also support the option of two books.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One book, and a box set that splits it into two and adds game aids and such.

But if it can only be one, I vote 1 book.

 

[The Sigil]

For a game approximately the "Size" of D&D the answer for me is "at least two books" - having a book specific to the players hopefully cuts down on some of the meta-gaming (why yes, I do ban the Monster Manual at my table for anyone except me when I'm the DM even though I know a lot of players immediately pull up the MM when they get home after a session, and no, I try NOT to use MM-standard monsters when I can help it).

 

[Scott Christian]

I am a big fan of trying to be clear and concise. One book, and I also think it should include the world. It is okay if it is 300 pages. But it should be housed in one package.

 

[MNblockhead]

When I bought the Warhammer Fantasy Rolepay 4e core book, I really liked having everything in one book...until I really started playing. The bestiary is pretty anemic. Also, reading various discussions and blog posts that included comments from the designers, the bestiary was originally meant to be more of a tool-kit, but because of word count they didn't do a good job explaining that. As published the monster section feels uninspired and confusing and underpowered in many places. But when I read a blog post from one of the developers, it was a real a-ha! moment and it was very cool what they were trying to do--to bad they didn't explain it in the core book. I think the game would have been better served by splitting out the bestiary and fleshing out the mechanics and advice for building and customizing monsters and NPCs and also putting in more art and fluff.