D&D 5E The Size of Books

[Stormonu]

This has always confused me, I don't really think there should be "player books" and "DM books" for game systems. I prefer game systems with a little more transparency about how the game is run (i.e. Burning Wheel). I don't like having sections of the rules "for the DM only" because it seems like the game designers don't trust the players.

I like one rulebook core books as well, but for D&D, its more than trust issues that causes book bloat. If we want a sizeable collection of spells, magic items and monsters like the books of yore, we're either facing big books and/or many books. That's why I'd really like to see a begginer's box (an all-in-one game) and then the standard book collection (PHB, DMG, MM for cluttering the game as much as anyone wants).

For me, personally, I don't think we need to be cluttering the player's section with long lists of magic items (they're generally not a starting resource) and monsters - it's not so much a case of hiding it from players but leaving room for other content or slimming down the size of the book. Spells are somewhat debatable - you need the 1st level spells for sure, but everything beyond that is up for negotiation.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This has always confused me, I don't really think there should be "player books" and "DM books" for game systems. I prefer game systems with a little more transparency about how the game is run (i.e. Burning Wheel). I don't like having sections of the rules "for the DM only" because it seems like the game designers don't trust the players.

As a DM... *I* don't trust my players.

If a GM book or campaign setting have NPCs or plots that involve a bit of secrecy to them... I'd rather they be kept separate. Yes, I am relying on trust that my players won't go thumbing through them to find out the information... but that trust is a lot easier to give when they have to go to Barnes & Noble and flip through the GM or campaign book while they're standing there, rather than stay at home and read the big book of "all information" at their leisure.

Splitting player and GM books make sense to me and I see absolutely no gain in putting them together except for cost. And like I said... why we'd want to publish the books in such a way that WotC doesn't make as much money as they can is a self-defeating purpose. Great for my wallet in the short-term... a potential disaster in the long.

 

[DM Howard]

I understand this, small affordable books for specifics, it would be great. But this would almost definitely become a splat-book nightmare. The Big Book of Bards I, II, III- repeat for each class. This is my problem with D&D 3.5 and 4e's book explosions and power creep .

And I see where you are coming from as well, but then wouldn't we just have bigger splat books? In terms of information and power creep it would still be there. Pathfinder does bigger supplement books but still suffers (at least in my infrequent group) of power creep. I think it is going to happen a little regardless of how you package the information.

Basically, in a perfect Dungeoneer world, I'd like to prepare to go to a game as a player and be able to pick all my smaller specifically Barbarian books that I might need instead of: I need to bring three or four hard cover books with me because I need the barbarian relevant stuff out of each of them.

I like to have the information I might need during a session even if I don't crack open the book. That might not apply to everyone else that's certainly true but I think smaller (page count wise) subject specific books (specific classes, spells, etc) would be more beneficial.

 

[Obryn]

Honestly, if DDN goes back to the digest-size softcovers of the Essentials line, it'll be a huge plus in my book.

I was skeptical of them at first, but they're remarkably convenient.

-O

 

[Razjah]

I like one rulebook core books as well, but for D&D, its more than trust issues that causes book bloat. If we want a sizeable collection of spells, magic items and monsters like the books of yore, we're either facing big books and/or many books.

I disagree. Okay, that isn't the right word. I understand where you are coming from, but what I would rather see is a tight list of generic spells (like in Savage Worlds) and clear, easy to use rules for creating spells. This way clerics of different gods would actually have different spells and wizards could invent their own spells, like Bigbsy, Evard, Melf, and other famous wizards. This would cut down on the splat books with crazy spells lists. Magic items- D&D Next is supposed to be removing these from the game's math. If this is done properly, it would give DMs a much better incentive to create unique, campaign and world specific, magic items. Monsters should similarly follow the creation rules. I want a list of monsters for varying levels, and rules to help me create monsters easily. I don't just want numbers for the PCs to fight and I don't want the rules hidden away in an appendix.

Better creation rules, for spells and monsters. That would let more of the fantasy part of game happen. How many D&D games are similar, when you can say "generic fantasy world" we've messed up somewhere along the way.

 

[Razjah]

Splitting player and GM books make sense to me and I see absolutely no gain in putting them together except for cost. And like I said... why we'd want to publish the books in such a way that WotC doesn't make as much money as they can is a self-defeating purpose. Great for my wallet in the short-term... a potential disaster in the long.

I think WotC's profit margins would be fine if they made the hobby more financially available. Lot of other companies do well releasing more affordable books. Plus right now I costs $100 to get the first three core 4e books, that is to just get into a game. I would never want to drop that without playing the game, which you need this to play, this causes a problem. For non-gamers this cost in truly outrageous to pay for something that they may never use.

And I see where you are coming from as well, but then wouldn't we just have bigger splat books? In terms of information and power creep it would still be there. Pathfinder does bigger supplement books but still suffers (at least in my infrequent group) of power creep. I think it is going to happen a little regardless of how you package the information.

I want to get rid of splatbooks entirely. One book for the game, then WotC can release settings and adventures, and different modules. The modules would be different ways to use the rules, not something more powerful for the players, just different. As for the settings, I want to see some older, out of print settings to be supported. Prior to the Darksun release for 4e, there was a whole generation of gamers who didn't even see that book in stores. The setting should also be more more focused on the theme, with multiple settings people can find what they like. This way it prevents the Forgotten Realms and Eberron from becoming a giant kitchen sink for everything in the game.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I would definitely prefer a single core book that had all of the basics.

After that, I want a small set of core expansions--each book being the definitive book on a subject. One tomb on equipment and magic items. One on races. One on classes (including spells and maneuvers). One on backgrounds and specialties. And I want each of these to include and expand upon what's in the core rulebook.

Next, I want books containing modules to support different campaigns. Heroes of Horror and Heroes of Battle being prime examples.

The important part is that these books be complete. I don't want to see a 2 after any book, Monster Manuals excepted. Though I would prefer themed monster books.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Honestly, if DDN goes back to the digest-size softcovers of the Essentials line, it'll be a huge plus in my book.

I was skeptical of them at first, but they're remarkably convenient.

-O

Definitely! I love the size, feel and readability of the 4e books. Here's hoping!

 

[Stormonu]

Definitely! I love the size, feel and readability of the 4e books. Here's hoping!

Eh, I've never really liked the digest size - they don't fit well with the other books on my shelves. Likewise, the 4E books seem 'sparse'. I hate books that are nothing but walls of text, but I feel like the eesential line had too much space wasted in overly large fonts and margins.

However, I wouldn't mind at all a D&D game that fit into 160 pages - or 96 pages as well. There's a lot of cruft that's settled into the D&D game and it could use some pruning here and there.

Though I would still want the option to buy a slew of monster books.

 

[delericho]

The future of the game is probably not books at all. If they're building for the future, 5e will have a very small core set of rules, and then a whole bunch of 'stuff' - powers, spells, magic items, monsters, etc, etc, etc. Each of these 'stuff' should, ideally, be sized to fit nicely (and readably) on an iPhone screen. And the primary delivery mechanism will be via a Compendium-like app within the DDI.

A few years down the line, if they even still produce physical books at all, the splatbooks will most likely resemble "Martial Power" and the like from 4e days - essentially, just a massive listing off all the new powers (spells, magic items, monsters, etc) that the book includes.

Perhaps ironically, with DDI WotC hit on almost the perfect vehicle for D&D for the future. But they jumped the gun by about 5 years, before the technology was really there to support it. And in doing so, they may well have poisoned the well for the next edition doing the same.

(Necessary boilerplate: all strictly IMO, of course. )