What doesn't belong in the "core"

On Puget Sound

First Post
I want everything in, so I can decide what to take out. If a GM dislikes an element but lacks the spine to ban it, that is a problem with the GM, not the rules. Give us as full a toolbox as possible, with the expectation that few campaigns will use every tool.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nivenus

First Post
Tolkein and classes

You know, people love bringing up Tolkein as an example of iconic D&D classes, but he really isn't the best example. Gandalf's a celestial, not a D&D wizard. Aragorn's a rural fighter who happens to belong to a group called the "rangers." There's no clerics. There's no druids.

Tolkein was obviously an influence on D&D, but the classes aren't really one of the biggest examples of that. Races, on the other hand, are.
 

FireLance

Legend
You know, people love bringing up Tolkein as an example of iconic D&D classes, but he really isn't the best example. Gandalf's a celestial, not a D&D wizard. Aragorn's a rural fighter who happens to belong to a group called the "rangers." There's no clerics. There's no druids.
And Bilbo Baggins snuck around using racial, not class, abilities - unless the fact that he trained with a master burglar or a thieves' guild in the Shire was left out of the text. :p
 

WheresMyD20

First Post
I want everything in, so I can decide what to take out. If a GM dislikes an element but lacks the spine to ban it, that is a problem with the GM, not the rules. Give us as full a toolbox as possible, with the expectation that few campaigns will use every tool.

Terrible idea. It takes a lot more work to take stuff out of the core rules than to put stuff in the core rules.
 

Oni

First Post
Terrible idea. It takes a lot more work to take stuff out of the core rules than to put stuff in the core rules.

That's not true. It depends entirely on how integrated a particular rules widget is with the whole of the system. For instance if I wanted to remove encounter powers from 4E that would be quite the undertaking and would have a massive amount of cascading consequences. On the other hand if I wanted to remove Dragonborn from 4E that's as simple as saying, "hey guys, there are no Dragonborn in my campaign." See the difference?

If the rules are kept modular then removing things would be a great deal less work than having to make up rules widgets whole cloth if you need something that isn't there. And should you decide you want to do it differently than they've laid it out in the rules, then it's not any more work than it would have been if it wasn't there in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
Terrible idea. It takes a lot more work to take stuff out of the core rules than to put stuff in the core rules.

See, now this I disagree with. Unless you're trying to strip out mechanics, which of course can get problematic. But stripping out stuff like equipment, races or classes? That's ridiculously easy.

DM: No.

See how easy that was? That's all it takes.

Now, if your sensibilities are so sensitive that even a picture in a game book that you probably only open up once in a blue moon (at least, that's how I played 3e and 4e) sets your teeth to grinding, well, I can see the point. But, honestly, catering to people whose tastes are that ingrained is poor business practice. Catering to that crowd is no different than TSR catering to MADD and removing Demons and devils.

Someone who draws a line in the sand over a couple of pictures in a game book is just going to find something else to bitch about every time you try to appease them. You're better off by far to just write them off entirely. Because if you try to make your game based on people who hate everything you do, you wind up with a game that everyone hates.
 

WheresMyD20

First Post
See, now this I disagree with. Unless you're trying to strip out mechanics, which of course can get problematic. But stripping out stuff like equipment, races or classes? That's ridiculously easy.

DM: No.

See how easy that was? That's all it takes.

Now, if your sensibilities are so sensitive that even a picture in a game book that you probably only open up once in a blue moon (at least, that's how I played 3e and 4e) sets your teeth to grinding, well, I can see the point. But, honestly, catering to people whose tastes are that ingrained is poor business practice. Catering to that crowd is no different than TSR catering to MADD and removing Demons and devils.

Someone who draws a line in the sand over a couple of pictures in a game book is just going to find something else to bitch about every time you try to appease them. You're better off by far to just write them off entirely. Because if you try to make your game based on people who hate everything you do, you wind up with a game that everyone hates.

The term "core" implies that it's a central part of the game. If it's so easy to take out, then why put it in the core rules?

Saying "no" is easy, I do it all the time. But saying "no" to something that's optional creates less strife than saying "no" to something that's core. Putting unnecessary stuff in the core just creates a sense of player entitlement.
 

MoxieFu

First Post
"Core" and "modular"

I really wish people would look these words up in a dictionary before using them with their own personal definition. Your own personal definition is utterly meaningless to another person.
 

Nivenus

First Post
The term "core" implies that it's a central part of the game. If it's so easy to take out, then why put it in the core rules?

Saying "no" is easy, I do it all the time. But saying "no" to something that's optional creates less strife than saying "no" to something that's core. Putting unnecessary stuff in the core just creates a sense of player entitlement.

Really, this is no different than 2e players who disliked dwarven mages or elven paladins. It's just as easy/hard to say no to dragonborn as it was to say no to those things.

2e players who couldn't handle it stayed with 2e. Those who could moved on.
 

WheresMyD20

First Post
Really, this is no different than 2e players who disliked dwarven mages or elven paladins. It's just as easy/hard to say no to dragonborn as it was to say no to those things.

2e players who couldn't handle it stayed with 2e. Those who could moved on.

Why should things like dwarven mages or elven paladins need to be in the core? Why not just make them optional?

I think it's much better for the game as a whole for the player to have to ask the DM to say "yes" than for the DM to have to tell the player "no".
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top