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

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Well, 4e is supporting a lot more classes and races and stuff going forward than 3e did. Bloat may be in the eye of the beholder, but there are a lot of concepts that I need at least be passingly familiar with, as a DM, if I want to fullfill my players' expectations of playing anything that's "core." More so than in 3e, where I could add them on a case-by-case basis, here, they're assumed.

I don't think 4e really does have any kind of crunch saturation, but certainly more stuff in the core adds to that perception.

 

[howandwhy99]

Other: in that almost every rule in RPGs are guidelines anyways (found in a DM's Guide). But I will take suggestions from players on what books they would like to include. Unfortunately, as they cannot have read these books before or during play it sort of defeats the purpose. (People who suggest riddle books for them to be asked suffer the same challenge) So I homebrew "house rules" for the published "game rules" as necessary.

 

[arscott]

I selected "all books expected to be permissable" over "GM chooses", but I honestly come down somewhere between the two.

I guess, what core means to me is that If a GM is going to prohibit the Invoker or the Genasi or the Rutheless Ruffian rogue build, then it's as serious a decision as if he was prohibiting the Cleric or the Halfling or two-weapon rangers.

 

[Dice4Hire]

To me core means the basics needed to run the game. So, for 4E, the DMG, PHB and MM.

Of course I would not usually want to play a core-only game, as I like other options. But, I must admit there are still a few PHB only classes I would be willing to play in a core-only game. Not true for me in 3.5, I have played all the core classes to death there.

 

[fissionessence]

I chose the first option, but your poll doesn't include DDI.

I would add the DDI content as stuff that is core and should be expected to be permissible in all games.

I know [some] DMs like to be picky, so I don't begrudge a DM who says "only X books are allowed, and anything else needs my specific permission" . . . but I would be reluctant to play in a game with such a DM.

However, DMs who go through the books and ban specific options and whatnot ahead of time, essentially creating a major document of what material is and isn't allowed . . . that's just too much to handle. Especially when they take a list of feats and pick out half of them, and you have to refer to the DM's document and the book at the same time when building your character.

~

 

[catsclaw227]

I chose the first option, but your poll doesn't include DDI.

I would add the DDI content as stuff that is core and should be expected to be permissible in all games.

This is a good point.

I made the incorrect assumption that if it's in a book, it's in DDI, but then I forgot about DDI exclusives and all the Dragon/Dungeon content.

There is more in DDI for the DM to mine (monsters, etc) but there's a lot of player options as well. New feats, powers, etc.

Good Catch.

 

[Arnwyn]

Other.

When such a term is used, I assume it means that future books assume you own all previous books designated as "core".

(Someone might have decided to change this and make the word "core" more meaningless, and I just haven't yet seen a clear definition.)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Core= the Character Builder

If its in the Character Builder its Core

If its not in the Character Builder, it doesn't exist.

 

[ki11erDM]

My ‘core’ rule is: PHB1+ is ‘core’ and anything in any of them can be used by players with no conferring with the DM. All other books require RPing reasons for taking.
I use this as a cudgel to get my players to do some RPing and to at least think about a story reason for a feat or power or class or item. And it seems to be working…
My answer in the poll was that everything should be interchangeable; meaning nothing in D&D should not be written in such a way that it cannot be used outside of its published setting, which to me is obvious because it would be darn hard (impossible) to make it any other way and still call it D&D.

 

[Wombat]

I tried a little experiment yesterday. I approached a dozen non-gaming friends of mine yesterday, showed them this thread and the WotC/D&D site. Then I asked them what they thought "Everything Is Core" meant, in more or less their own words.

Their overwhelming (8 answers) reaction was that you needed to know everything in every rulebook to play the game.

Of the remaining four, 2 thought nothing could be disallowed in a game by any GM, since all of it was official. 1 took "everything is integrated, so you don't need to worry about compatibility." The last one stayed confused, both over the concept and the reactions in this thread.

Like I said, utterly unscientific and utterly random, but amusing food for thought.