Community

On a somewhat related tangent I think they should release four books simultaneously at launch: Players handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual and a campaign setting sourcebook of their choice (whatever the first official campaign setting will be). 4e unfortunately only released the PHB initially then released the other books one at a time at about monthly intervals, meaning that it took a few months before you actually had the three core rule books and an initial setting available.  I can't imagine releasing things one at a time like that actually helped the game or helped sales.

So please, WotC, consider scheduling the 5e launch so that four books come out, even maybe as a four book bundle: the three core rulebooks and the first campaign setting book. Those are precisely the first four books most new DMs and Players would want so why not put them out together?  

Feb 28, 2012 -- 5:20AM, Emerikol wrote:

• Everything in the first 3 books.  (This was the definition in earlier editions but not now).

 

Hell, that wasn't even the definition of "core" in the last edition.  (And while I dislike [and disagree with] the 4e "Everything is core!" motto, I understand where they were coming from with it.)


EDIT: I think the whole "core" thing is part of, as some folks on /tg/ like to put it, "3e ruined a whole generation of gamers."

During the 3e (yes, I'm including 3.5; yes, I actually know they're quite distinct) run - I can't speak for before it - the mentality that "Core is best" grew and grew, partially because of a percieved lack of "non-core" product quality (which differed, from product to product), and it seems partially out of the (laughable) notion that "core" was balanced, and everything else was a mess.

4e didn't really help this, with the "everything is core" motto.  It was playing into the "core is best" mentality, and trying to twist it to their own marketing.  To a degree, I think it worked - folks seem to consider all printed 4e material at around the same level (well, until Essentials), though Dragon still labors in the "people think everything in here is crap, for some reason" ghetto.



Personally, I tend to think of "core" as "the materials that other books are going to reference, and be built considering" - which is, itself, a "definition" that grew out of playing for the entire 3e/4e runs.  I also think it can evolve, as it did with 4e - backgrounds and themes, for example, both became "core" (as I think of it) elements of the game soon after (background) and long after (themes) the launch of the game.

Which, altogether, is a rather long way of saying "yes, that is what 'core' means, and - most likely - how WotC is treating it this time around, but just as 4e's motto definition of 'core' was too broad to be useful, I think your 5e definition of 'core' is too specific to be useful."       

Feb 28, 2012 -- 6:14AM, greatfrito wrote:

Feb 28, 2012 -- 5:20AM, Emerikol wrote:

• Everything in the first 3 books.  (This was the definition in earlier editions but not now).

 

Hell, that wasn't even the definition of "core" in the last edition.  (And while I dislike [and disagree with] the 4e "Everything is core!" motto, I understand where they were coming from with it.)

You are right greatfrito.  4e had more things core.  I think DM's should be cautious letting everything under the sun in their games without reviewing it however that is accomplished.  I could just as easily say "the first three books" as say core.   In 5e though I'll have to rule individual modules even in the early books.



 

Feb 28, 2012 -- 6:33AM, Emerikol wrote:

You are right greatfrito.  4e had more things core.  I think DM's should be cautious letting everything under the sun in their games without reviewing it however that is accomplished.  I could just as easily say "the first three books" as say core.   In 5e though I'll have to rule individual modules even in the early books.
 

As I understood it, they're intent was to let people be able to play in multiple modules at the same time. So if someone like'd 4e, they could play a 4e styled fighter and if someone liked 1e, they could play a 1e fighter and they would both be balanced against one another.

My hope is that the DM doesn't have to rule on every module used, or there's the chance that it'll either trap players playing an edition (module reflecting an edition? I'm not positive what word(s) to use there.) they don't want or trap the dm in a massive quagmire of deliberation over what to include. Now that shouldn't be a terrible problem, because the dm normally has a idea of his player base and what they'll like, but that's not a sure thing all the time.

The problem is that module #1 may not be usable with module #2 and yet they are both in the same book.  Skill systems might be an example.

As for RPGA, I imagine they will be inclusive as opposed to exclusive.

I would imagine Leidus87 that by your definition they will try to only rely on stuff marked core (as I defined above) as much as possible but of course some books would inevitably reference a module if they applied to that module.  I believe they will achieve this a lot of the time.

One goal I'm sure is that subsystems are not interdependent.  You can play with simple 4e style skills and also a simple no power fighter.   Or the opposite.  Or any combination.   Certain playstyles may favor groupings of one sort or another but I still see all variations occurring at least somewhat.

@Rheios
I believe that they are designing it to allow what you want.  There will be some DMs though who won't accept certain player options.   You can then decide if those limitations are acceptable or not.  If not then seek another group.  Some DMs may not restrict anything.   Others will.   It depends on DM and group.