D&D General Should D&D Rethink The "3-Core" Model?

[EzekielRaiden]

PHB, DMG, MM. That's been the corest of core books for every edition, part-edition, variant-edition, alternate-entry-point, and even most D&D spinoff games (e.g. Pathfinder) for most of D&D's history. Is it still a good idea? I can't argue definitively "no it is bad, stop right away". But more and more, I'm beginning to detect some serious daylight between what classic fans want, how contemporary fans behave, and what is realistic and feasible with modern publishing.

As always with my polls: you cannot view the results without voting; you cannot change your vote; your vote will be visible to others; and the poll will close, in this case after 9 weeks. If you really really really want, you can select as many options as you like...but some combinations won't make sense.

I'm beginning to think D&D should move to a "5-Core" model instead. Two player-facing books: Player's Handbook for levels 1-10, and a year later, Veteran's Handbook for 11-20. Two GM-facing books: Dungeon Master's Guide, three months after the PHB, and Dungeon Master's Codex, nine months after the DMG. Then the singular Monster Manual, which offers threats from level 1 to 20, is published right in the middle. Assuming we don't do simultaneous release; if so, then PHB/DMG/MM would be published immediately, DMC published six months later, and VHB six months after that. These releases are timed the way they are so that people playing at a reasonable pace would probably expect to need those books around when they're first published, at least for stable groups.

But that's just my idea. What's yours? Is D&D confined by only having three tomes to start itself? Are there other, better approaches, or has D&D already hit paydirt and changes would be downgrades? There are no right answers here. I'm just curious if others around here share my opinion that a hard limit of only 3 core books is not serving the game well anymore.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't know if there is really need for a traditional Dungeon Master's Guide. It is simultaneously too much (with optional material that few people use) and not enough (to answer practical questions of how to be a good DM).

Assuming to want to keep printed books (otherwise it's another matter), a PHB can contain the rules of the game and the players options, and another book could have stuff not immediately in the players' hands i.e. monsters, environment and treasure.

All the parts about running the game in a satisfying way, worldbuilding, and optional/variant rules might be handled better by the community, or interactively between designers and community in the form of online articles, blogs and such.

 

[aco175]

For Core books, I find the 3 books are good enough. Granted, my campaigns do not reach the 15-20 level range, but I like to see and think about some of the spells and powers I could take from there to add to a NPC or something the PCs might fight. There is always more splat books that come out and some people like to have more classes and monsters and spells and, and, and.... I do not have a problem with just three.

Besides, they have to have enough to justify the cost and printing. I'm guessing it all part of a formula to get the best bang for buck in return depending on size and print run. Would the level 11-20 book sell like the old epic level books? Would that justify a print run? I'm not sure.

I wanted to throw an old Alan Iverson reference talking about core books, core books, we're not even talking about all the books..

 

[VashVet]

One core book that has some classes and spells, some DM rules and some monsters. Rinse/repeat in a Xanathar’s guide type fashion.

 

[delericho]

They should ditch the "3-core" model in favour of a "3 book" model - no supplements, ever.

They should replace the "3-core" model with a 1-core model - if you need more than a single 250-page rulebook to adequately capture your game, it's hideously bloated.

They should forget about "books" entirely. The nature of D&D's rules means that an online portal of some sort is massively preferable.

I've thought all of those in the 10 minutes I spent composing this post, and I think they're all true. Which means "3-core" is probably about right.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know if there is really need for a traditional Dungeon Master's Guide. It is simultaneously too much (with optional material that few people use) and not enough (to answer practical questions of how to be a good DM).

Assuming to want to keep printed books (otherwise it's another matter), a PHB can contain the rules of the game and the players options, and another book could have stuff not immediately in the players' hands i.e. monsters, environment and treasure.

All the parts about running the game in a satisfying way, worldbuilding, and optional/variant rules might be handled better by the community, or interactively between designers and community in the form of online articles, blogs and such.

Computers are useful, they haven't killed print yet, so physical books are a foregone conclusion, at least for now. Even if they aren't, there can still be separate PDFs. Having a thousand-page MEGATOME of D&D does not sound conducive to ease-of-use.

And, frankly? Outsourcing your teaching to the community sounds like the single worst idea I've heard in a LONG time when it comes to community onboarding. Because that means every errant meme, every stereotype that ceased to be true three editions ago, every loud-and-proud idiot, is actively ruining the introduction to your game. Further, there are a LOT of people who will hear, "You have to go looking for guidance, we aren't going to bother telling you" and respond, "Okay, I wasn't that interested anyway." Given the eternal shortage of GMs, I don't really think "throw them to the wolves, they'll figure it out" is a productive strategy. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing much evidence that this approach actually...works, for any of the hobbies out there. It decreases, rather than increases, interest and growth.

Perhaps I'm just a dreamer, but I genuinely believe that if you cut out all that crufty "optional rules" crap, and focus on writing a true guide for new (in general, or to this edition) GMs on how to GM this game, that that would be both extremely useful, and deeply beloved by the community for years to come. I think old hands vastly underestimate how helpful and constructive a really well-written guide book can be for orienting people on their self-learning journey.

For Core books, I find the 3 books are good enough. Granted, my campaigns do not reach the 15-20 level range, but I like to see and think about some of the spells and powers I could take from there to add to a NPC or something the PCs might fight. There is always more splat books that come out and some people like to have more classes and monsters and spells and, and, and.... I do not have a problem with just three.

Besides, they have to have enough to justify the cost and printing. I'm guessing it all part of a formula to get the best bang for buck in return depending on size and print run. Would the level 11-20 book sell like the old epic level books? Would that justify a print run? I'm not sure.

Given my proposed second player book would come out only one year after the first, would it really be that damaging, when you're playing literally your first campaign or two, to not have perfect knowledge of everything yet to come? I totally understand the daydreaming, I do it myself all the time. But for the very first campaign, is that daydreaming truly so important, you'd reject a level 1-10 book that gave you (say) ~twice as many classes to play with?

As for justifying the costs, I'm not saying we make two half-size books. I'm saying two full-size books where we fill the missing parts with new stuff. This would allow the "PHB" (levels 1-10) to cover more classes, more races, more actually-distinct options. Rather than adding on a pile of crap that most players, especially those playing their very first campaigns, would never even approach, let alone need. A pile of crap that is often badly balanced, untested, and just not very good. Look at some of the capstone features in 5e, for example; some are amazing, some are dogwater.

I wanted to throw an old Alan Iverson reference talking about core books, core books, we're not even talking about all the books..

I do not understand.

 

[Tigris]

Well there should no longer be the "book model" at all.


Sell games as games. Sell minimal packages needed to play (either print and play or real material) and then sell expansions.


In many games you can buy singular characters. Having to buy additional characters as packages (except the main game which comes as a bundle) is just strange.

Ideally you get all the rules for free, like in boardgames, and you pay for the gamedesign/game material.


Selling the rules and having players get their material themselves is just a stupid model coming from the past.


We should not wait until print is ginally dead, that takes roo long with the many old timers in the hobby, the hobby should be proactive and kill it by themselves.


So ideal 0 core books. But a starter box and expansions.

If there is a core than only for level 10. High level play as an expansion. Same with most classes so that people dont have to pay for stuff they dont care for like high level play

 

[Retros_x]

They should restructure the rules so its more easy to reference and comprehend. My wish would be not see similar discussions like we have now all the time about 2026 stealth rules. I also want to have exploration rules in one place and clear advice in how to run a dungeon and how to run a hexcrawl or pointcrawl in the DMG.

And than decide the book structure based on that. Not vice-versa. I really dont care how many books and in what order, they just need better structuring. In general 2026 was an improvement in that regard over old 5e, but there is still a lot more room for improvement.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I would prefer one thicker book that contains everything 'needed' to play to level 10. Followed by a second book that contains everything 'needed' for level 11 to 20 play that adds on to the first 'core' book.

But that's just me and I am definitely an outlier.

 

[Milieu]

I voted "maybe" because I agree about splitting it by level, but I wonder if maybe putting the DM stuff in a separate book makes people are less likely to DM than if it's in a book they already own. So maybe you end up back at 3 books, just split up differently.