Should there be 3 core books?

[johnsemlak]

One of the basic tenents of the format of D&D rules is the existance of 3 core books: The PHB, DMG, and the MM. It goes back to 1977 and 1e, and even further back if you consider the three books in the originaly box set to be precursors of the current core rulebooks. This format has lasted 25+ years and at least 3 editions, depending on how you count those.

Is publishing the essential rules in three separate books really the best format for D&D? Would it make more sense to pack the essentials into one book (or, perhaps, a boxed set ) and have the rest be optional supplements? Has the 3 core book format ever been challenged?

 

[Agemegos]

Is publishing the essential rules in three separate books really the best format for D&D?

I think it makes sense to publish D&D in at least two books, so that people who intend to play characters but not to GM do not have to shell out for material that only a GM is going to use.

I would think that a Players' Handbook, a GM's Handbook, and a series of optional world books would be about the right format for a big complex game like D&D.

 

[Crothian]

is it needed? no. But they would have to either turn out a pretty big single book or cut a lot of the stuff out.

I'd like to see them do it as one book. They can start by cutting the PHB down. They don't need all 11 core classes, or better yet have a flexible class system. Also, they don't need to goto level 20 in the core book. Level 10 is great, anbd it cuts out many of the high level stuff, especially spells. Equpment can be simplified as can spells.

DMg could be cut down as it would need less magical items (only 10th level and below), no planar stuff, no epic stuff, fewer prestige classes. It would still take up most of the book though.

Monster manual would be more about designing your own monsters then having all those examples.

 

[milotha]

I think having the 3 core books works well for these reasons:

1) The players only have to own the Player's handbook. This saves them money and requires a shorter time investment to read the material to play.

2) The book would either need to be severely trimmed or it would be too big.

3) The division of the books into Player's, Dungeon Master's, and MM allows a single set of books to be used by different people at game time. ie the GM can be looking a magic item up the the DMG while the Players are looking at a rule. Yes, every player could have a copy of the book, but not everyone is going to buy the books.

4) Separating the Monster Manual off, allows you to use variant monsters for different campaigns without having to lug around the core monsters.

5) Allowing the players to access only the Player's handbook keeps them from being tempted to leaf through the MM and the DMG magic items during game time.

6) It allows them to sell more product to get into the game at a lower price point. ie: look each book is only x, so you only need to start with x dollars to buy the PHB. Then you can buy up to the DMG and the MM. If it were all in one single book, the entry price point would be bigger.

 

[dead]

Three books is perfect, I think.

Player's buy the PHB

DM buys the DMG & MM.

Some might say you could concievably combine the DMG & MM but then it would be less user friendly when accessing monsters.

No, I think the format is great.

In fact, when the new edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay comes out, I hope they follow the same format. The WFRP book has always had Player material, GM material, and monsters in the one book; making it very combersome and not very user-friendly.

 

[astralpwka]

I personally would love a trimmed down "Rules Cyclopedia" like they did for the old basic system. I can only read one book at a time anyway (though when writing I have all three spread across the desk). I'd love to have one book with multiple bookmarks strewn throughout. They could drop most of the monster pictures, and all of the filler ones from the other books, and just keep a few necessities, like races.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just bind the SRD, it's so much easier that way!

Seriously, three books is okay, but I'm beginning to suspect that one DMG isn't big enough.......I mean, shouldn't it also have that deity-designing info in it?

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

They don't need all 11 core classes...Also, they don't need to goto level 20 in the core book. Level 10 is great, anbd it cuts out many of the high level stuff, especially spells. Equpment can be simplified as can spells. "

You're joking, right?

If I bought a Player's Handbook that only went up to level ten, I'd ask for my money back.

 

[dead]

If I bought a Player's Handbook that only went up to level ten, I'd ask for my money back.

I agree. I even think the current PHB should have the first 20 pages of the Epic Level Handbook in it to show you how things progress after 20th level.

 

[Telperion]

You're joking, right?

If I bought a Player's Handbook that only went up to level ten, I'd ask for my money back.

Yes, well some people consider it too much of a headache to allow players past level 10. Personally I'm going in that direction, although I'm not in that camp yet. Keeping power levels at a "reasonable" medium makes things a whole lot simpler, and it also puts a stop to all that leveling every 2 - 3 session (okay, this is a DM issue, but the core rules strongly support quick leveling). In other words: more roleplaying and less rollplaying / munchkinism / meta-gaming.

The more experienced I get the more I tone down my campaigns. Not having to worry about Core X / Core Y / PrC Z / PrC N -type of characters is a relief.