Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6070482" data-attributes="member: 22424">Alternately, only 3e did include all the "core stuff". Although even then, it didn't include all of it - psionics hasn't appeared in the core since 1st Ed.In any event, that "core stuff" is still just a subset of everything. Indeed, I'd be happy to bet that there are more groups using something from outwith the core rulebooks than there are playing in levels 13+ (3e or PF) or 21+ (4e). And, in fact, the overlap between those two groups is probably pretty high.With 4e, WotC took a conscious decision to defer less popular elements from the game in order to make room for elements that they felt would prove to be more popular. And it's very likely that they were actually right to do so - the complaints from Gnome-lovers, for example, are very likely well out of proportion to the number of people who actually played gnomes. Besides, 4e did include support for Gnome PCs from the outset - it's just that those were presented in the MM rather than the PHB.As for the argument that 4e was 'incomplete' - that's as old as 4e itself. Either it is (in that it presents a complete and playable game), or it is not (because it omits something that appeared in previous editions). But in the latter case, the same is true of every edition since 1st - as noted, psionics has been missing from the core since then.No, it won't.But it is also true that the current approach of having near-1,000 page Core Rules (with the expectation that groups will then add another 1,000 pages of supplements) is a very significant barrier to entry for new groups. When faced with the prospect of paying $100 for the rules, then spending hours reading them, then more time creating characters and an adventure to go with them, and then you get to start having fun - and all this for a game you might enjoy), it's really no wonder WoW has killed D&D and taken its stuff.Neither approach is good. But the question WotC need to answer is this: which is less bad for sales - producing core rules that don't include everything people want, or producing core rules that actively drive away new players?</blockquote>

Verification