What do you consider "everything is core" to mean in your game?

[Fallen Seraph]

I put, "Other".

Since in my games it isn't as simple as just "everything goes", while all books, DDI articles, etc. are allowed big things from them are added through group discussion. So before we begin the game, we talk about what races we want, types of magic, etc. We refluff them if necessary and go from there. If there are other stuff later from sources it gets refluffed to fit with what had been decided.

So basically everything goes as decided by the group and made to fit the setting/game.

 

[Mercutio01]

I picked - "All books should work with each other and be interchangeable, but the DM decides what to allow." But then, that shouldn't even need to be expressed, really. DM is ultimate arbiter of everything that happens at his or her table.

 

[FireLance]

I'd say that "everything is core" should be something that guides the design philosophy of WotC more than it should impact the campaigns of individual DMs. It's partly what TwinBahamut, malraux and Cadfan mentioned: that all released races and classes will get ongoing support.

In addition, and more importantly in my view, it's the idea that all released material should be usable (although not necessarily used - see quote in sig) in any campaign. If spellscars and swordmages are okay in the Forgotten Realms, they should be okay in Eberron. If dragonmarks and artificers are okay in Eberron, they should be okay in Dragonlance. The players and the DM may have to come up with some story reason why the game element is now present in the setting, but it should be mechanically sound.

I contrast this idea to some of the setting-specific crunch in 2e which could not be easily exported to other campaigns because of balance issues (we knew they were present even though we were less sophisticated in our thinking about balance issues in those days): Dark Sun races and Birthright bloodlines are some of the things that come to mind.

 

[Khairn]

Frankly, I see it as marketing gimick and I really try to ignore marketing as much as possible.

Agreed.

I don't allow the players to decide what classes, books and feats to use in my game and I certainly wouldn't allow WotC to do the same simply because they say that "everything is core". That type of thinking works great when your motivation is trying to sell more books. Its not a rationale to use when deciding what works best for your game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm with TB. "Core" doesn't mean bupkiss with regards to what is in my games, but it does mean a lot with regards to what WotC is going to keep putting out new stuff for. And in that respect, everything is core.

I'd think the ideal scenario for WotC is for players to assume anything they pick from any book will be allowed by most any DM.

Perhaps this will be true.

 

[fanboy2000]

I selected "other."

I permit mostly everything, but that has nothing to do with WotC telling me what is or is not "core." I'm pretty sure that the "everything is core" slogan was just a quippy way of stating that all released classes and races will receive ongoing support and be included, or at least not excluded, in all settings. The statement was of course made in context of 3e's policy, which was to very rarely support classes and races from non core books (although this policy was eased later in 3e's lifetime).

I simply read it as stating something like, "Remember how we made the Hexblade, and then never released a single new thing for it except one article in Dragon, and then a few spells and a few magic items years later? We're not doing that anymore."

What he said. Specifically, core has no meaning for me anymore in 4e. In 3.x I considered only the 3 books core because of what I considered the huge variance in quality and flavor of the different PrCs, Magic Items, and spells in later supplements. In 4e, "everything is cores" seems to be as much a design goal as a slogan.

 

[Bumbles]

I believe it means nothing for me as the person running the game. I'll go with the "It means something for WoTC" which may or may not mean anything for me.

 

[Fifth Element]

I selected "other."

I permit mostly everything, but that has nothing to do with WotC telling me what is or is not "core." I'm pretty sure that the "everything is core" slogan was just a quippy way of stating that all released classes and races will receive ongoing support and be included, or at least not excluded, in all settings. The statement was of course made in context of 3e's policy, which was to very rarely support classes and races from non core books (although this policy was eased later in 3e's lifetime).

I simply read it as stating something like, "Remember how we made the Hexblade, and then never released a single new thing for it except one article in Dragon, and then a few spells and a few magic items years later? We're not doing that anymore."

This, exactly. No more one-shot classes that receive no support.

 

[darjr]

I picked other.

As others have said, and I agree, 'Core' is about future support.

 

[catsclaw227]

This is interesting then. I am of the opinion that it is more a WOTC design philosophy as well.

I wonder then... Why does the topic of "everything is core" come up in threads that discuss 4e book bloat or crunch saturation. It's not that everyone has to buy everything to enjoy the game.

Maybe the definition of "core" has changed from editions and no one told us. Core may not be the "base, required ruleset" anymore, it means that "all designs should follow a core design methodogy so that it works in balance with the rest of the game mechanics."