What would you rather see: core rulebook or traditional trilogy?

[Jack Daniel]

Most RPGs out there come in either a single book, or a pair of books (one for players and one for GMs). Advanced D&D is somewhat unique in its "core trilogy" model, PHB + DMG + MM. My question to the EN World community is pretty simple: which form would you prefer to see the most basic core of "D&D Next" take?

1) A single core rulebook, outlining the basic game. Like ye Rules Cyclopedia of old, everything for players and DMs (monster stats included) is in one book. Further hardcover books would expand the game in different directions (e.g. added complexity layers, like tactical combat, epic-level play, custom character builds, dominions and armies, not unlike the 2nd edition PO line of books).

2) A duology, one book for players and one book for DMs (which includes monster stats). Pretty typical for most RPGs, and this is also how all the Mentzer boxed sets (except Expert) handled things in the 80s. Alternity too, now that I think about it. AD&D has never really tried this, though, due to the huge volume of monsters we've all come to expect.

3) The Traditional Trilogy, PHB + DMG + MM, keeping continuity with every version of AD&D since 1st. Is this a good idea or a bad idea? I'm not sure, but that's why I'm asking what people think. Of all the different editions, 2nd edition did the best job of keeping the core game pretty slick and simple, with all of the extra complexities marked clearly optional. 2nd also had all those extra PO/DMO books, quite a bit like what the designers are hinting at. All other judgments aside, this is by far the likeliest outcome.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm honestly torn...

I'm pretty well married to the "trilogy" idea - one book for players, one just for helping the GM run things, and one big book of monsters - and have been for a while.

But then I remember just how freakin' awesome the Rules Cyclopedia was, and I think to myself, if they can make something that incredible again, then it'd be all I'd need for the new D&D...

 

[Ahnehnois]

I am fan of having a player's guide that doesn't have all the rules of the game, just those needed to create a character. And then a compendium of general rules. And then a monster manual. And then a DMG.

 

[Nivenus]

I voted one book, but I really mean one book for both Players and DMs as well as a Monster Manual, similar to how Pathfinder operates.

Most RPGs that aren't D&D can fit both the player's rules and instructions for GMs into the same book. There's no reason D&D can't. However, given the vast array of monsters in D&D I think it's only fair that the critters get their own book. We all know they're going to get like six all to themselves anyway.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Personally, I'd like to see the books (however many) published in 96-page softcover format á la the Pathfinder Chronicles books. Each book would have a specific theme, set of classes, monsters and rules, whatever. Whatever they do decide, I hope that the main books are lightweight and easy to carry. Just make sure it is nothing like the Pathfinder Core Rulebook in size and weight.

Please don't use fancy colours, as it makes your posts invisible to people using other CSS schemes. Thanks. Plane Sailing, ENworld admin

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I voted one book, but I really mean one book for both Players and DMs as well as a Monster Manual, similar to how Pathfinder operates.

Most RPGs that aren't D&D can fit both the player's rules and instructions for GMs into the same book. There's no reason D&D can't. However, given the vast array of monsters in D&D I think it's only fair that the critters get their own book. We all know they're going to get like six all to themselves anyway.

Beaten to it.

Sure, come out with an optional DMG, with guidelines on running games, and ancillary rules for things like random NPC creation, populating towns, etc.. Again, kind of like Pathfinder.

The Auld Grump

 

[Li Shenron]

I have always taken for granted the 3 corebooks structure, but now that I have to think about it, this question is tougher than I thought...

One thing I think is generally good is to separate the player's main book from the DM's main book. Especially the material which can make a huge difference whether it is freely allowed or restricted by the DM (magic items and prestige classes or similar concepts). There is also the stuff related to environment, traps, dungeon design etc. that players really don't need to know about.

If they can fit enough monsters in the DMG for the DM to run the game for a few adventures, then it's ok for me to have 2 corebooks only. For me this means something like ~100 monsters.

One book with everything is too few... unless you want to have it really huge and expensive OR limited to the first X levels material. My opinion one huge book with everything could be ok if someone (typically the DM) already knows she would have bought all the corebooks anyway, but could seriously put off those who aren't normally a DM.

So that leaves the completely different option of having corebooks divided by level ranges rather than utility. While this old-fashioned solution has some odd appeal to me, I'm going to have to rationale against it, or at least against it being the only option. Non-DM players would have to buy one of these books after the other, but will end up with a lot of material which is useless for them (and players having access to all knowledge about the monsters sometimes pisses some DM too).

Overall I suppose my conclusion would be 1 player core book + 1 DM core book if you can fit enough monsters.

I think will also depend on where is the "rules modules" going to end up, in the PHB or in the DMG? Even in an "opt-in" scenario, it can be expected that every gaming group will use at least some of those modules, so players should benefit from having them in their own books to read and study.

 

[DonTadow]

I am a fan of the triology -or just 2 books.

It doesnt matter what I want. I'd love just 1 core book. I'd buy it. I'd use it. But no one else would, and it would be just like Pathfinder, where my players wait until i'm done to use my book.

Nope, I want 3 books, with hte core playrs book fairly thin and available in paperback and hardcover.

 

[Knightfall]

While I could get behind a Rules Cyclopedia for D&D^N, I want the traditional PHB, DMG, and MM.

Sort of.

Yes, I think there should be a basic set that gives a more bare bones version of the game (4 races, 4 classes, 10 levels); and the D&D^N Player's Handbook should include everything required for the core game: abilities, races, classes, skills & feats, combat mechanics, and spells & rituals. While I like 1-30 for levels, I'm fine with leaving Epic play out of the core, so that iconic D&D concepts are NOT left out of the PHB.

The Dungeon Master's Guide should have everything the DM needs to run a standard D&D^N game and then some. It should be a meaty tome full of RPG goodness. It should outweigh the PHB and be to D&D^N what the Gary Gygax's DMG was to 1E. And if it includes a "modular" (new) urban setting as a starting point in an appendix, I wouldn't complain.

The monster reference is a tougher choice for me. While I would love a D&D^N Monster Manual that rivals the Pathfinder Bestiary, I wouldn't object to a boxed D&D^N Monster Vault instead. Regardless, make it big and bold. Fill it with every iconic monster from the game's history. Fill it with more than mechanics. Describe the monsters and give some in-game background. But don't overdo it. Don't tie the monsters to any of the D&D worlds. Let the reference stand on its own. If its a boxed set then include counters, but I'd prefer it not to include battle tiles.

Also, I want a digest-sized rules compendium like the one created for D&D Essentials. That is a cool little book.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Beaten to it.

Sure, come out with an optional DMG, with guidelines on running games, and ancillary rules for things like random NPC creation, populating towns, etc.. Again, kind of like Pathfinder.

The Auld Grump

I think a DMG is indeed useful, but optional. You can run a game without one, and it should be written with that in mind.