All in one rulebook? [Archive] - Wizards Community

All in one rulebook? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ned the Normal
11-11-05, 10:02 PM One of my friends has recently purchased the d20 Modern Core Rulebook, and another the Star Wars RPG Revised Core Rulebook. Now looking at these two systems, I noticed something very interesting. Both systems have all their core rules crammed into one (relatively) massive book. And both books sell at roughly $30 U.S. Now I'm wondering, why do we D&D players get stuck with lugging around 3 books, which are each individually smaller, and as a total far more expensive (even if you do buy the gift set)? Am I the only one who thinks that it would make more sense to cram all of the core 3.5 rules into a single $30 book? Now, I realize that I have to look at this from a marketing perspective, and realize that they would be loosing more than 2/3rds of their core rulebook profit. However, this is assuming that this change of formatting results in equal sales. And with more people in the hobby, there are even more people to purchase gobs upon gobs of those unnecessary yet irresistible splatbooks (Lord knows I have). And this would also be a good time for wizards to update some FAQ and errata. Heck, they could even throw in some new artwork if they felt up to it. How do other people feel about this idea?
mr. special
11-11-05, 10:26 PM That woould be great if they did that I have version 3 and need to replace it becausemy friends play three.5 but oh well i just need the players
sandskimmer
11-11-05, 11:12 PM It's 3 books because it's tradition. The 1st ed AD&D books were the same as what you get in 3.5.

Also, it's easier in a sense. The players only need the PHB. It wouldn't be good for them to have all the Monster stats - it would partly ruin the fun. They also don't need to know how to DM.

While in the other two systems, no one cares if a player has the stats to stormtroopers or a wampa, and they can just skip over the sections for the GM.
JamesDruidDM
11-11-05, 11:18 PM the books are split for a reason as well as tradition

1. Players dont need a MM1 or a DMG at there disposal, if yer a player all you need is one book PHB (possible a "complete" book if you want a specific PRC)

2. The DM is the sorry sod that needs to lug around all the books, thats his penience for killing PCs

3. Players not holding a DMG int here hands cuts down on rules laywers and looking up what treasure they got if no one can cast identify or if you just dont want them to know....

Personally I deduct XP if players and thumbing through a monster manual or DMG while I am running a game, but hey I'm just mean
WizO_Cat
11-11-05, 11:25 PM I'll echo what others said and say that if I'm playing away from my house and I know the other DM or the person hosting the game has the other books, I'll just bring my Player's Handbook. It is all that I will need in the game. Also, trying to cram all of the 3 core rulebooks into one handbook would result in one extremely heavy book. Personally, it is one of the things from 1st edition AD&D that I agree with.
Ned the Normal
11-11-05, 11:26 PM It's 3 books because it's tradition. The 1st ed AD&D books were the same as what you get in 3.5.

Tradition does not equal more fun. Just because something is implemented does not mean that it is the best decision. That goes against the concept of technology and evolution. When Tomas Edison showed off the light bulb, do you really think people said “Naw, lets just stick with torches, its more fun”?

Also, it's easier in a sense. The players only need the PHB. It wouldn't be good for them to have all the Monster stats - it would partly ruin the fun. They also don't need to know how to DM.

Why would it be any easier? For the same price, you’re getting all that was in the Player’s Handbook. It’s true that players don’t need to know how to DM. But when the time comes around when they want to try it, they don’t have to get another $30 book. It’s right in front of you.

While in the other two systems, no one cares if a player has the stats to stormtroopers or a wampa, and they can just skip over the sections for the GM.

Then why would they care if they had the stats for orcs and dragons? And why couldn’t the players skip over the sections on how to DM?

Edit: Hmmm… I guess since it doesn’t seem that a lot of people like this idea, I guess that I could stand it being split into 2 books. A PH and a DMG. But really, is there ANY reason why the DMG and the MM should be separate? I mean really, they cover aspects of the same thing, it would be nice to have them in one book.

But I'm still holding out for the idea off an all-in-one book.
sandskimmer
11-11-05, 11:26 PM Goblin horde vs the Twin Chained Maximized Repeated Empowered Quickened Magic missle of doom

You forgot Intensified! By all that is holy, don't forget Intensified!
sandskimmer
11-11-05, 11:31 PM Tradition does not equal more fun. Just because something is implemented does not mean that it is the best decision. That goes against the concept of technology and evolution. When Tomas Edison showed off the light bulb, do you really think people said “Naw, lets just stick with torches, its more fun”?

Why would it be any easier? For the same price, you’re getting all that was in the Player’s Handbook. It’s true that players don’t need to know how to DM. But when the time comes around when they want to try it, they don’t have to get another $30 book. It’s right in front of you.

Then why would they care if they had the stats for orcs and dragons? And why couldn’t the players skip over the sections on how to DM?

When you run your first game session with a bunch of PCs who look up the monster stats and then know exactly how to kill everything you throw at them so that the entire night is a long bore and then they look up all the magic items in the DMG so they know exactly what they all do and how to use them without any type of experimentation or casting of Identify, then you'll know why you need 3 books for D&D. That and WOTC has to make money (coughe the consumer) some how. It's actually great business sense, but hard on the hobbist.
Ned the Normal
11-11-05, 11:40 PM When you run your first game session with a bunch of PCs who look up the monster stats and then know exactly how to kill everything you throw at them so that the entire night is a long bore and then they look up all the magic items in the DMG so they know exactly what they all do and how to use them without any type of experimentation or casting of Identify, then you'll know why you need 3 books for D&D. That and WOTC has to make money (coughe the consumer) some how. It's actually great business sense, but hard on the hobbist.

Well, I was actually referring to the fact that you said that noone would care if you had the stats for stormtroopers and wampas. As to the marketing aspect of it, I think that it would be a great way to bring more people into the hobby. And more people = more splatbooks sold! Unless I've been misinformed, the core rulebook sales are nothing compared to the profits made from splatbooks.

EDIT: As to knowing all of the monsters and magic items, I know very few D&D players who aren’t familiar with pretty much all the magic item and monster types. With the magic item issue, I'm somewhat confused by your argument. Memorizing all the enchantments isn’t a very difficult feat, and you still don’t really know what it is until you identify it. In a lot of cases, it’s pretty obvious what enchantments are in place. Do you really need to cast Identify to see that a flaming greatsword you find has the Flaming enchantment on it? As for the monsters, defeating your foes buy looking up their weaknesses is mentagaming. That’s what knowledge checks are for. A sorcerer that has never before laid eyes on a troll probably wouldn’t know to hit it with Melf’s Acid Arrow
FlameLover
11-11-05, 11:53 PM I'm working on an RPG myself and I asked myself the same question - one book like most other RPGs or the 3 that D&D has. I could drop the MM since my world hasn't got races vs. monsters but the DMG I was unsure about. As others have said putting all the DM stuff in the cure book for players makes it easier to spoil the fun by looking up magic item details, etc. If they dropped the tonne of items in the back of the DMG and included only the "basic" monsters then they could pull it off. Basically it'd be like the SRD in one book! I wouldn't buy it myself since I already have the 3 books (And then some...) but It would get more people interested since ATM it costs too much to get started.

Ahwell - maybe in 4e :P
Carmath The Pure
11-12-05, 12:37 AM Check your page count...the reason the MM is a separate book is because there are a lot of monster stats. Compare that to the 25 or so pages in the SW book. Also, I personally think SW could have used more space for DM stuff as well. There were a lot of things that just needed more coverage but didn't have the room.

Finally, from a basic knowledge standpoint, you need more room to explain the basic setting (i.e. fantasy) for D&D that you don't need in Modern or SW. Everyone (or at least everyone interested in a SW RPG) knows about the Star Wars univers, who the main players are, what a lightsaber is, etc. Likewise, we all know how things are in the modern world because, well, we're here. ;) For someone with no previous exposure to the game there's a lot of info to assimilate. Heck we've got three big rulebooks and some people are still confused about some of it.

My two cents...do with them what you will.
weasel fierce
11-12-05, 12:57 AM I rather like the words of Greg Stolze, that a designer who cannot fit the essential elements of his game into a single book is just plain lazy or poor.

Keeping the monsters separate is fine, but there's no real need for the player/DM split anymore, now that its not 1978.
Ranger REG
11-12-05, 01:27 AM One of my friends has recently purchased the d20 Modern Core Rulebook, and another the Star Wars RPG Revised Core Rulebook. Now looking at these two systems, I noticed something very interesting. Both systems have all their core rules crammed into one (relatively) massive book. And both books sell at roughly $30 U.S.
Roughly? Their US price tag is $40 for each rulebook.

Now I'm wondering, why do we D&D players get stuck with lugging around 3 books, which are each individually smaller, and as a total far more expensive (even if you do buy the gift set)? Am I the only one who thinks that it would make more sense to cram all of the core 3.5 rules into a single $30 book?
I don't think you can cram all them texts from three core rulebooks into one book at the price tag of $30, not even $40. Even if we do, it would be one hell of a thick book akin to a California white page phonebook. Also, the players don't need to have access to DMG and MM.

Besides, it's a tradition.
weasel fierce
11-12-05, 01:33 AM My old D&D Rules Cyclopedia is a good 300 pages, and already includes plenty of material I will never use (like becoming a god, or running a siege).

D20 is supposed to be the simple, streamlined version, surely the rules can fit into a single book. Limit spells to ones that are important (rather than just more powerfull versions of each other), throw out the majority of magic items, and give some guidelines on how to create items, and keep the monsters to a healthy selection of iconic and important critters, and voila :)
Tenzhi
11-12-05, 01:36 AM My old D&D Rules Cyclopedia is a good 300 pages, and already includes plenty of material I will never use (like becoming a god, or running a siege).

D20 is supposed to be the simple, streamlined version, surely the rules can fit into a single book. Limit spells to ones that are important (rather than just more powerfull versions of each other), throw out the majority of magic items, and give some guidelines on how to create items, and keep the monsters to a healthy selection of iconic and important critters, and voila :)

You beat me to the punch. I love that book.
WizO_Cat
11-12-05, 01:41 AM My old D&D Rules Cyclopedia is a good 300 pages, and already includes plenty of material I will never use (like becoming a god, or running a siege).

D20 is supposed to be the simple, streamlined version, surely the rules can fit into a single book. Limit spells to ones that are important (rather than just more powerfull versions of each other), throw out the majority of magic items, and give some guidelines on how to create items, and keep the monsters to a healthy selection of iconic and important critters, and voila :)

The problem is that then what would happen is that there would be references for each of the books to cover the extra monsters, spells, and magic items that used to be in the old versions of the game but players still would want. Thus, all that would happen is that you'd have spells, magic items, and monsters scattered across a variety of references instead of centralized in the books as they are now. Frankly, I'd like the latter much more than the former. And, if you want just the basics of the game streamlined, then you can always get the 3.5 Basic box. There - a scattering of material from various items in one source.
Ned the Normal
11-12-05, 01:49 AM Roughly? Their US price tag is $40 for each rulebook.

I was biasing the price of the Star Wars RPG on the amazon.com price, so I guess that’s probably a bit cheaper than average, but the Modern d20 book my friend got at the local bookstore for $25.
Ranger REG
11-12-05, 01:53 AM I was biasing the price of the Star Wars RPG on the amazon.com price, so I guess that’s probably a bit cheaper than average, but the Modern d20 book my friend got at the local bookstore for $25.
Huh? :uh-huh:

Since when did Amazon.com set the MSRP for all products?

Sighs. :rolleyes:
Ned the Normal
11-12-05, 01:59 AM Huh? :uh-huh:

Since when did Amazon.com set the MSRP for all products?

Sighs. :rolleyes:

Since never :D

EDIT: Yah, thats why I said roughly. I didn't really know if my freinds had bought them at the standerd prices or not.

Now about the Rules Cyclopedia… We need one of those for 3.5. Everything from all of the non-setting specific splatbooks published. Even if it cost $100, I’d buy it. The possibilities are just too mouth watering :drool:
Tenzhi
11-12-05, 02:00 AM The problem is that then what would happen is that there would be references for each of the books to cover the extra monsters, spells, and magic items that used to be in the old versions of the game but players still would want. Thus, all that would happen is that you'd have spells, magic items, and monsters scattered across a variety of references instead of centralized in the books as they are now. Frankly, I'd like the latter much more than the former. And, if you want just the basics of the game streamlined, then you can always get the 3.5 Basic box. There - a scattering of material from various items in one source.

All the monsters don't need to be in the main book in force anyway - after all, they inevitably get spread across supplemental releases as is. With the proper formatting you could fit the DMG, PHB, and about 50 monsters into one book the size of the Rules Cyclopedia. You'd lose out on some of the art, but most of that is just taking up space and costing money anyway.
detchss
11-12-05, 02:08 AM i'm looking for the 3.5 phb for D&D on-line can anyone help???
Tenzhi
11-12-05, 02:15 AM i'm looking for the 3.5 phb for D&D on-line can anyone help???

That would be illegal. However, you can legally find the basic 3.5 rules online at www.opengamingfoundation.org or www.d20srd.com - I find the latter to be more conevnient for looking stuff up.
Ranger REG
11-12-05, 02:22 AM All the monsters don't need to be in the main book in force anyway - after all, they inevitably get spread across supplemental releases as is. With the proper formatting you could fit the DMG, PHB, and about 50 monsters into one book the size of the Rules Cyclopedia. You'd lose out on some of the art, but most of that is just taking up space and costing money anyway.
Ah. You're in favor of trimming content to fit the rules into one book. After seeing what WotC did with d20 Future, I gotta vote NO.
Tenzhi
11-12-05, 02:40 AM Ah. You're in favor of trimming content to fit the rules into one book.

The fact of the matter is that there are at least four monster manuals already. There's a Spell supplement coming out soon. There's been an equipment supplement. And a plethora of books dedicated to classes, prestige classes, and feats. Was the content trimmed to fit the rules into three books, or is some of it just superfluous? If the former then as long as they're trimming content they should at least be practical about the core system; if the latter, then it doesn't really matter if "only" 50 or so monsters are in the main book.

The problem with d20 Modern/d20 Future is a completely seperate thing. Akin to trying to conceptually incorporate several D&D settings into one book. A better D&D analogue to that problem is the OA book, which is a wishy-washy mish-mash of material.
FlameLover
11-12-05, 02:57 AM If they trimmed them down to the essentials then it would be perfectley workable. Base it on the SRD, include only about 30-50 monsters (i'd go for less myself), have only the item enhancements and pricing guidelines, etc. I mean all the other RPGs i've seen get it down to 1 book fine - why not D&D? One thing to avoid though is having some sort of "player's section" and "DM's section". Everything the DM needs should be where the "player's stuff" is except tables for stuff like random encouinters and treasure which could be in an appendix.

I only starting playing D&D this year so i havn't got the fond memories of first edition some other posters have but I feel in many ways D&D needs to evolve, and this is one of those cases. There is no need for a seperate book for DMs and seperate book for players, it serves only to disconect them and bring about a "me vs. them" mentality in DMs. If everyone is playing from the same book it makes DMs feel more like Storytellers than Masterminds trying to kill the PCs!
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster
11-12-05, 12:50 PM I sort of wish Wizards would give DnD the Star Wars treatment and include everything you need in one book, but that'd jack up the price considerably and leave soem content out. Personally, I'd rather buy one big book and fill the rest in with paperback supplements, leaving me with roughly the same amount as the three core books.
Ranger REG
11-13-05, 02:15 AM I sort of wish Wizards would give DnD the Star Wars treatment and include everything you need in one book, but that'd jack up the price considerably and leave soem content out.
Yeah, and eventually they would have to come out with an Ultimate Alien Anthology and Galactic Campaign Guide.

Right, they did. :P
Ranger REG
11-13-05, 02:21 AM The fact of the matter is that there are at least four monster manuals already. There's a Spell supplement coming out soon. There's been an equipment supplement. And a plethora of books dedicated to classes, prestige classes, and feats.
With the exception of the first MM, all are optional supplements, written and published after the release of the core rules.

Or are you like a conspiracy theorist like me, that they already have these contents and are trickling them out slowly in order to keep their business afloat? Kinda like how Intel already have constructed the fastest CPU (at least a 50-GHz) but are just releasing their earlier slower CPU to the general public. (Yep, them 3.0-GHz Pentium 4 was actually created back in 1980.)

:shifty:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ned the Normal 11-11-05, 10:02 PM	One of my friends has recently purchased the d20 Modern Core Rulebook, and another the Star Wars RPG Revised Core Rulebook. Now looking at these two systems, I noticed something very interesting. Both systems have all their core rules crammed into one (relatively) massive book. And both books sell at roughly $30 U.S. Now I'm wondering, why do we D&D players get stuck with lugging around 3 books, which are each individually smaller, and as a total far more expensive (even if you do buy the gift set)? Am I the only one who thinks that it would make more sense to cram all of the core 3.5 rules into a single $30 book? Now, I realize that I have to look at this from a marketing perspective, and realize that they would be loosing more than 2/3rds of their core rulebook profit. However, this is assuming that this change of formatting results in equal sales. And with more people in the hobby, there are even more people to purchase gobs upon gobs of those unnecessary yet irresistible splatbooks (Lord knows I have). And this would also be a good time for wizards to update some FAQ and errata. Heck, they could even throw in some new artwork if they felt up to it. How do other people feel about this idea?
mr. special 11-11-05, 10:26 PM	That woould be great if they did that I have version 3 and need to replace it becausemy friends play three.5 but oh well i just need the players
sandskimmer 11-11-05, 11:12 PM	It's 3 books because it's tradition. The 1st ed AD&D books were the same as what you get in 3.5. Also, it's easier in a sense. The players only need the PHB. It wouldn't be good for them to have all the Monster stats - it would partly ruin the fun. They also don't need to know how to DM. While in the other two systems, no one cares if a player has the stats to stormtroopers or a wampa, and they can just skip over the sections for the GM.
JamesDruidDM 11-11-05, 11:18 PM	the books are split for a reason as well as tradition 1. Players dont need a MM1 or a DMG at there disposal, if yer a player all you need is one book PHB (possible a "complete" book if you want a specific PRC) 2. The DM is the sorry sod that needs to lug around all the books, thats his penience for killing PCs 3. Players not holding a DMG int here hands cuts down on rules laywers and looking up what treasure they got if no one can cast identify or if you just dont want them to know.... Personally I deduct XP if players and thumbing through a monster manual or DMG while I am running a game, but hey I'm just mean
WizO_Cat 11-11-05, 11:25 PM	I'll echo what others said and say that if I'm playing away from my house and I know the other DM or the person hosting the game has the other books, I'll just bring my Player's Handbook. It is all that I will need in the game. Also, trying to cram all of the 3 core rulebooks into one handbook would result in one extremely heavy book. Personally, it is one of the things from 1st edition AD&D that I agree with.
Ned the Normal 11-11-05, 11:26 PM	It's 3 books because it's tradition. The 1st ed AD&D books were the same as what you get in 3.5. Tradition does not equal more fun. Just because something is implemented does not mean that it is the best decision. That goes against the concept of technology and evolution. When Tomas Edison showed off the light bulb, do you really think people said “Naw, lets just stick with torches, its more fun”? Also, it's easier in a sense. The players only need the PHB. It wouldn't be good for them to have all the Monster stats - it would partly ruin the fun. They also don't need to know how to DM. Why would it be any easier? For the same price, you’re getting all that was in the Player’s Handbook. It’s true that players don’t need to know how to DM. But when the time comes around when they want to try it, they don’t have to get another $30 book. It’s right in front of you. While in the other two systems, no one cares if a player has the stats to stormtroopers or a wampa, and they can just skip over the sections for the GM. Then why would they care if they had the stats for orcs and dragons? And why couldn’t the players skip over the sections on how to DM? Edit: Hmmm… I guess since it doesn’t seem that a lot of people like this idea, I guess that I could stand it being split into 2 books. A PH and a DMG. But really, is there ANY reason why the DMG and the MM should be separate? I mean really, they cover aspects of the same thing, it would be nice to have them in one book. But I'm still holding out for the idea off an all-in-one book.
sandskimmer 11-11-05, 11:26 PM	Goblin horde vs the Twin Chained Maximized Repeated Empowered Quickened Magic missle of doom You forgot Intensified! By all that is holy, don't forget Intensified!
sandskimmer 11-11-05, 11:31 PM	Tradition does not equal more fun. Just because something is implemented does not mean that it is the best decision. That goes against the concept of technology and evolution. When Tomas Edison showed off the light bulb, do you really think people said “Naw, lets just stick with torches, its more fun”? Why would it be any easier? For the same price, you’re getting all that was in the Player’s Handbook. It’s true that players don’t need to know how to DM. But when the time comes around when they want to try it, they don’t have to get another $30 book. It’s right in front of you. Then why would they care if they had the stats for orcs and dragons? And why couldn’t the players skip over the sections on how to DM? When you run your first game session with a bunch of PCs who look up the monster stats and then know exactly how to kill everything you throw at them so that the entire night is a long bore and then they look up all the magic items in the DMG so they know exactly what they all do and how to use them without any type of experimentation or casting of Identify, then you'll know why you need 3 books for D&D. That and WOTC has to make money (coughe the consumer) some how. It's actually great business sense, but hard on the hobbist.
Ned the Normal 11-11-05, 11:40 PM	When you run your first game session with a bunch of PCs who look up the monster stats and then know exactly how to kill everything you throw at them so that the entire night is a long bore and then they look up all the magic items in the DMG so they know exactly what they all do and how to use them without any type of experimentation or casting of Identify, then you'll know why you need 3 books for D&D. That and WOTC has to make money (coughe the consumer) some how. It's actually great business sense, but hard on the hobbist. Well, I was actually referring to the fact that you said that noone would care if you had the stats for stormtroopers and wampas. As to the marketing aspect of it, I think that it would be a great way to bring more people into the hobby. And more people = more splatbooks sold! Unless I've been misinformed, the core rulebook sales are nothing compared to the profits made from splatbooks. EDIT: As to knowing all of the monsters and magic items, I know very few D&D players who aren’t familiar with pretty much all the magic item and monster types. With the magic item issue, I'm somewhat confused by your argument. Memorizing all the enchantments isn’t a very difficult feat, and you still don’t really know what it is until you identify it. In a lot of cases, it’s pretty obvious what enchantments are in place. Do you really need to cast Identify to see that a flaming greatsword you find has the Flaming enchantment on it? As for the monsters, defeating your foes buy looking up their weaknesses is mentagaming. That’s what knowledge checks are for. A sorcerer that has never before laid eyes on a troll probably wouldn’t know to hit it with Melf’s Acid Arrow
FlameLover 11-11-05, 11:53 PM	I'm working on an RPG myself and I asked myself the same question - one book like most other RPGs or the 3 that D&D has. I could drop the MM since my world hasn't got races vs. monsters but the DMG I was unsure about. As others have said putting all the DM stuff in the cure book for players makes it easier to spoil the fun by looking up magic item details, etc. If they dropped the tonne of items in the back of the DMG and included only the "basic" monsters then they could pull it off. Basically it'd be like the SRD in one book! I wouldn't buy it myself since I already have the 3 books (And then some...) but It would get more people interested since ATM it costs too much to get started. Ahwell - maybe in 4e :P
Carmath The Pure 11-12-05, 12:37 AM	Check your page count...the reason the MM is a separate book is because there are a lot of monster stats. Compare that to the 25 or so pages in the SW book. Also, I personally think SW could have used more space for DM stuff as well. There were a lot of things that just needed more coverage but didn't have the room. Finally, from a basic knowledge standpoint, you need more room to explain the basic setting (i.e. fantasy) for D&D that you don't need in Modern or SW. Everyone (or at least everyone interested in a SW RPG) knows about the Star Wars univers, who the main players are, what a lightsaber is, etc. Likewise, we all know how things are in the modern world because, well, we're here. ;) For someone with no previous exposure to the game there's a lot of info to assimilate. Heck we've got three big rulebooks and some people are still confused about some of it. My two cents...do with them what you will.
weasel fierce 11-12-05, 12:57 AM	I rather like the words of Greg Stolze, that a designer who cannot fit the essential elements of his game into a single book is just plain lazy or poor. Keeping the monsters separate is fine, but there's no real need for the player/DM split anymore, now that its not 1978.
Ranger REG 11-12-05, 01:27 AM	One of my friends has recently purchased the d20 Modern Core Rulebook, and another the Star Wars RPG Revised Core Rulebook. Now looking at these two systems, I noticed something very interesting. Both systems have all their core rules crammed into one (relatively) massive book. And both books sell at roughly $30 U.S. Roughly? Their US price tag is $40 for each rulebook. Now I'm wondering, why do we D&D players get stuck with lugging around 3 books, which are each individually smaller, and as a total far more expensive (even if you do buy the gift set)? Am I the only one who thinks that it would make more sense to cram all of the core 3.5 rules into a single $30 book? I don't think you can cram all them texts from three core rulebooks into one book at the price tag of $30, not even $40. Even if we do, it would be one hell of a thick book akin to a California white page phonebook. Also, the players don't need to have access to DMG and MM. Besides, it's a tradition.
weasel fierce 11-12-05, 01:33 AM	My old D&D Rules Cyclopedia is a good 300 pages, and already includes plenty of material I will never use (like becoming a god, or running a siege). D20 is supposed to be the simple, streamlined version, surely the rules can fit into a single book. Limit spells to ones that are important (rather than just more powerfull versions of each other), throw out the majority of magic items, and give some guidelines on how to create items, and keep the monsters to a healthy selection of iconic and important critters, and voila :)
Tenzhi 11-12-05, 01:36 AM	My old D&D Rules Cyclopedia is a good 300 pages, and already includes plenty of material I will never use (like becoming a god, or running a siege). D20 is supposed to be the simple, streamlined version, surely the rules can fit into a single book. Limit spells to ones that are important (rather than just more powerfull versions of each other), throw out the majority of magic items, and give some guidelines on how to create items, and keep the monsters to a healthy selection of iconic and important critters, and voila :) You beat me to the punch. I love that book.
WizO_Cat 11-12-05, 01:41 AM	My old D&D Rules Cyclopedia is a good 300 pages, and already includes plenty of material I will never use (like becoming a god, or running a siege). D20 is supposed to be the simple, streamlined version, surely the rules can fit into a single book. Limit spells to ones that are important (rather than just more powerfull versions of each other), throw out the majority of magic items, and give some guidelines on how to create items, and keep the monsters to a healthy selection of iconic and important critters, and voila :) The problem is that then what would happen is that there would be references for each of the books to cover the extra monsters, spells, and magic items that used to be in the old versions of the game but players still would want. Thus, all that would happen is that you'd have spells, magic items, and monsters scattered across a variety of references instead of centralized in the books as they are now. Frankly, I'd like the latter much more than the former. And, if you want just the basics of the game streamlined, then you can always get the 3.5 Basic box. There - a scattering of material from various items in one source.
Ned the Normal 11-12-05, 01:49 AM	Roughly? Their US price tag is $40 for each rulebook. I was biasing the price of the Star Wars RPG on the amazon.com price, so I guess that’s probably a bit cheaper than average, but the Modern d20 book my friend got at the local bookstore for $25.
Ranger REG 11-12-05, 01:53 AM	I was biasing the price of the Star Wars RPG on the amazon.com price, so I guess that’s probably a bit cheaper than average, but the Modern d20 book my friend got at the local bookstore for $25. Huh? :uh-huh: Since when did Amazon.com set the MSRP for all products? Sighs. :rolleyes:
Ned the Normal 11-12-05, 01:59 AM	Huh? :uh-huh: Since when did Amazon.com set the MSRP for all products? Sighs. :rolleyes: Since never :D EDIT: Yah, thats why I said roughly. I didn't really know if my freinds had bought them at the standerd prices or not. Now about the Rules Cyclopedia… We need one of those for 3.5. Everything from all of the non-setting specific splatbooks published. Even if it cost $100, I’d buy it. The possibilities are just too mouth watering :drool:
Tenzhi 11-12-05, 02:00 AM	The problem is that then what would happen is that there would be references for each of the books to cover the extra monsters, spells, and magic items that used to be in the old versions of the game but players still would want. Thus, all that would happen is that you'd have spells, magic items, and monsters scattered across a variety of references instead of centralized in the books as they are now. Frankly, I'd like the latter much more than the former. And, if you want just the basics of the game streamlined, then you can always get the 3.5 Basic box. There - a scattering of material from various items in one source. All the monsters don't need to be in the main book in force anyway - after all, they inevitably get spread across supplemental releases as is. With the proper formatting you could fit the DMG, PHB, and about 50 monsters into one book the size of the Rules Cyclopedia. You'd lose out on some of the art, but most of that is just taking up space and costing money anyway.
detchss 11-12-05, 02:08 AM	i'm looking for the 3.5 phb for D&D on-line can anyone help???
Tenzhi 11-12-05, 02:15 AM	i'm looking for the 3.5 phb for D&D on-line can anyone help??? That would be illegal. However, you can legally find the basic 3.5 rules online at www.opengamingfoundation.org or www.d20srd.com - I find the latter to be more conevnient for looking stuff up.
Ranger REG 11-12-05, 02:22 AM	All the monsters don't need to be in the main book in force anyway - after all, they inevitably get spread across supplemental releases as is. With the proper formatting you could fit the DMG, PHB, and about 50 monsters into one book the size of the Rules Cyclopedia. You'd lose out on some of the art, but most of that is just taking up space and costing money anyway. Ah. You're in favor of trimming content to fit the rules into one book. After seeing what WotC did with d20 Future, I gotta vote NO.
Tenzhi 11-12-05, 02:40 AM	Ah. You're in favor of trimming content to fit the rules into one book. The fact of the matter is that there are at least four monster manuals already. There's a Spell supplement coming out soon. There's been an equipment supplement. And a plethora of books dedicated to classes, prestige classes, and feats. Was the content trimmed to fit the rules into three books, or is some of it just superfluous? If the former then as long as they're trimming content they should at least be practical about the core system; if the latter, then it doesn't really matter if "only" 50 or so monsters are in the main book. The problem with d20 Modern/d20 Future is a completely seperate thing. Akin to trying to conceptually incorporate several D&D settings into one book. A better D&D analogue to that problem is the OA book, which is a wishy-washy mish-mash of material.
FlameLover 11-12-05, 02:57 AM	If they trimmed them down to the essentials then it would be perfectley workable. Base it on the SRD, include only about 30-50 monsters (i'd go for less myself), have only the item enhancements and pricing guidelines, etc. I mean all the other RPGs i've seen get it down to 1 book fine - why not D&D? One thing to avoid though is having some sort of "player's section" and "DM's section". Everything the DM needs should be where the "player's stuff" is except tables for stuff like random encouinters and treasure which could be in an appendix. I only starting playing D&D this year so i havn't got the fond memories of first edition some other posters have but I feel in many ways D&D needs to evolve, and this is one of those cases. There is no need for a seperate book for DMs and seperate book for players, it serves only to disconect them and bring about a "me vs. them" mentality in DMs. If everyone is playing from the same book it makes DMs feel more like Storytellers than Masterminds trying to kill the PCs!
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster 11-12-05, 12:50 PM	I sort of wish Wizards would give DnD the Star Wars treatment and include everything you need in one book, but that'd jack up the price considerably and leave soem content out. Personally, I'd rather buy one big book and fill the rest in with paperback supplements, leaving me with roughly the same amount as the three core books.
Ranger REG 11-13-05, 02:15 AM	I sort of wish Wizards would give DnD the Star Wars treatment and include everything you need in one book, but that'd jack up the price considerably and leave soem content out. Yeah, and eventually they would have to come out with an Ultimate Alien Anthology and Galactic Campaign Guide. Right, they did. :P
Ranger REG 11-13-05, 02:21 AM	The fact of the matter is that there are at least four monster manuals already. There's a Spell supplement coming out soon. There's been an equipment supplement. And a plethora of books dedicated to classes, prestige classes, and feats. With the exception of the first MM, all are optional supplements, written and published after the release of the core rules. Or are you like a conspiracy theorist like me, that they already have these contents and are trickling them out slowly in order to keep their business afloat? Kinda like how Intel already have constructed the fastest CPU (at least a 50-GHz) but are just releasing their earlier slower CPU to the general public. (Yep, them 3.0-GHz Pentium 4 was actually created back in 1980.) :shifty: