Will You Count "Roman Numeral" Books As Core?

[Lackhand]

Count me in as another "they're core if they're in the SRD".

The whole book doesn't need to be in.

But since I tend to DM from a laptop... The more of the book that's in the SRD, the more I'll end up using.

 

[howandwhy99]

I prefer the "All Rules are Guidelines" approach.

 

[shadewest]

Philisophically, I guess I belong to the SRD faction at this point. That doesn't mean I'll end up allowing everything that shows up in the SRD IMC.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The Roman numeral Books- PHB II, DMG II, MM III, etc...

Will you consider them core books?

Edit: I might want to make a new poll querying the potential sale landscape of the Roman Numeral Books.

First, tell me what's going to be in these mark II, mark III, etc. books, so that I can decide whether or not they count as core.

Addendum:
I think that as a business manoeuvre, putting these books into the SRD will fix their status as "core" and encourage widespread adoption (read: purchase), while limiting the SRD to the mark I books will have the opposite effect.

 

[Alnag]

The Roman numeral Books- PHB II, DMG II, MM III, etc...

Will you consider them core books?

Edit: I might want to make a new poll querying the potential sale landscape of the Roman Numeral Books.

No. I will buy first tiro and I will give a look to DMG II, or DMG III. If they will be as good as the the DMG II was in 3.5e I will buy them. But not because they are "core", just because there are good. Robin Laws rulez! Cheap marketing trick by WotC is not working for me.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I have always thought core to be an odd concept beloved of rule lawyers and that ilk.

Perhaps that is a bit harsh, but ask ten people what Core is, and you get at least 2 or 3 different answers. For most people it is what I want to play with. For me, I consider every book I own fair game in a campaign. And man, I wish I could find more DMs like me. So much cool stuff I won and will never get to play.

I'm disappointed that this Core concept is going to go over to 4E.

 

[GVDammerung]

If their basic content is included in the SRD, I will consider it core. If it isn't added to the SRD, I will not.

DING DING DING! We have a winner! QFT.

 

[Henry]

"Core 3" Worked for me in 3E and 3.5 because I always considered everything in the PHB, DMG, and MM to be very well balanced, applicable to all campaigns, and not so "out there" it couldn't find a place in 90% of D&D campaigns out there. When any of our DMs said, "core books plus this other stuff", we knew what it meant, and worked off of the same base.

My largest concern is that the material in the later expansions will not be nearly as well tested as the original set, and problem rules will slip in through the cracks (like, oh say, the Energy Missile as originally written in the Expanded Psi Handbook, or the Frenzied Berserker in Complete Warrior. ) Even the much-vaunted Druidic shapechange from 3.5 that was touted as "game-breaking" I've never seen a problem with, only heard second-hand. Having "core" be very open-ended means a larger pool to stuff to pass/fail on a case by case, and DMs having to go case-by-case what they will and won't allow in a given game.

Me, I dislike the idea of Tieflings being a core race from the start, just on general story grounds; it presumes to me a much more default planar-open cosmology than I'm used to. Maybe I'll change my mind when it gets here, but on first blush I am very hesitant about it, as one example.

So when I tell a group, "I'm starting a new campaign, core books only," I'll instead have to say, "I'm starting a new campaign, all PHB 1 races except Tieflings and Eladrin, all classes from the PHB 1 except Warlock, Include the bard from PHB 2, and exclude the new ability from the bard's such-and-such talent tree," or something similar. or worse -- go back to that ugly tradition from 2nd edition, and make pages of house rules of what's included and excluded from each book in the "core" series, as well as any expansions.

OR.... I've just treat each game as its own totally separate entity, and run totally different types of campaigns for 4E than I would for 3E and lower.

 

[Korgoth]

So when I tell a group, "I'm starting a new campaign, core books only," I'll instead have to say, "I'm starting a new campaign, all PHB 1 races except Tieflings and Eladrin, all classes from the PHB 1 except Warlock, Include the bard from PHB 2, and exclude the new ability from the bard's such-and-such talent tree," or something similar. or worse -- go back to that ugly tradition from 2nd edition, and make pages of house rules of what's included and excluded from each book in the "core" series, as well as any expansions.

Unfortunately, this looks like the way it would have to be. By including very non-traditional (or "vanilla", or whatnot) in the 1st PHB ("1st PHB" sounds so absurd!) and hijacking the word "core" for marketing purposes, they are increasing the burden on the DM. One nice thing about 2E and 3E, even when they were bloated with countless suppliments, was that you could say "Just the main books" and everybody knew that meant no "Complete Book of Flumphs", no "Flumphwrack", no "Flumphs and Powers", etc. Just "straight up". Now, not so much.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Meh. I don't see those as a big deal. I've often run campaigns that were "mostly core, but no non-humans," or "mostly core, but here are the new rules for elves," or "mostly core, but only classes X, Y, and Z" are allowed.

Saying "Core, but no tieflings and no warlocks," or saying "Just the first three books" doesn't strike me as any harder.