PDA

View Full Version : What does core mean to you?



shadzar
2009-05-16, 10:57 PM
In recent times there has been discussion on a very specific game about the meaning of what the core of a game is. But what really is the core of a game like a board game, and the core of an RPG? Are they really any different?

Is the core the foundation of rules that all other parts of the game are based on?

Here are some things said about several RPGs and their cores:

-Everything non-setting specific is core.
-AD&D Core Rules listed tens of books that were core in its CD-ROM software.
-Core is what is needed as a minimum to play the game.
-The core of the game is the rules system itself and what separates it from other games.

Do any of these definition work for you?

Does the dictionary definition work for you?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/core

So what is the core of an RPG to you?

Swordguy
2009-05-16, 11:03 PM
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/200px-Kore.jpg

Yeah, I know. Not helping...

Option 3 from your list, I suppose

sonofzeal
2009-05-16, 11:07 PM
"Core" in D&D almost always means PHB + DMG + MM1.

"Extended Core" is a more fuzzy term, but often includes that plus Complete Warrior, Arcane, Adventurer, and Divine. Possibly Expanded Psionics Handbook too.

"SRD" is anything on d20srd.org, which includes most of PHB, DMG, MM1, XPH, UA, ELH, and a smattering from other sources.

(edit - I guess in general, "core" is the base game without any extra expansion packs)

afroakuma
2009-05-16, 11:07 PM
Option 3, most definitely.

toasty
2009-05-16, 11:07 PM
Core is the minimum books needed to play a game.

For DnD 4E this is probably the DMG, PHB 1 and MM 1. Though, technically, you don't need the DMG, but there are some very good rules in that book.

Swooper
2009-05-16, 11:10 PM
It probably means different things to people who play different games. Most of the people on this board play D&D 3.5 and 4E, so most of them will say option 3 because that's the accepted terminology for those systems.

Saph
2009-05-16, 11:12 PM
For D&D 3.5 and 4e, I usually take it to mean PHB + DMG + MM.

Don't know if that's the official definition (or if there even is an official definition) but that's the most useful one. It's the 'common denominator' book set which nearly everyone has.

- Saph

sonofzeal
2009-05-16, 11:13 PM
Core is the minimum books needed to play a game.

For DnD 4E this is probably the DMG, PHB 1 and MM 1. Though, technically, you don't need the DMG, but there are some very good rules in that book.
You technically don't need the MM either, at least not for a social campaign or one where fights are exclusively against bandits, soldiers, mercs, assassins, thugs, mages, holy orders, armies, or things like that. You could run a very good campaign based purely out of the PHB. But DMG and MM1 are part of the base set and not considered expansions, so they're counted in "Core".

ghost_warlock
2009-05-16, 11:23 PM
From the list, I'd probably say option 3.

For 3.5 D&D, I consider everything in the SRD to be core. Yes, that means I consider XPH and UA to be core. Anything less would be uncivilized. For 4e, 2e, & 1e, I'd list the PHB, DMG, & MM1 to be be core. For OD&D, it's the Rules Cyclopedia.

Swooper
2009-05-16, 11:31 PM
For D&D 3.5 and 4e, I usually take it to mean PHB + DMG + MM.

Don't know if that's the official definition (or if there even is an official definition) but that's the most useful one. It's the 'common denominator' book set which nearly everyone has.

- Saph
Well, to be honest, those three books say "Core Rulebook I/II/III" on the cover, so it's pretty official.

penbed400
2009-05-16, 11:37 PM
1st edition MM, PHB and DMG :-)?

sonofzeal
2009-05-16, 11:46 PM
To elaborate on my post - I'd say "Core" is the original format the game was published in. In hypothetical system Q, they probably published 1-3 books right off the bat, and then incrementally released more later on. That initial release would be the original format, and hence "Core", even if some of them aren't necessary to play the game. If a whole pile were released right together, then the books themselves would probably indicate. Generally speaking, that initial offering of books should form a cohesive and complete product, fully playable, with no major lose ends.

For D&D, the DMG and MM1 are not strictly necessary to play but do provide for a far more robust product, and the core three together feel like a complete game more than just the PHB by itself. They're designed to be used together and are all interdependent.

Core for D&D it's PHB + DMG + MM1. For Gurps it's Characters + Campaigns (I believe; limited experience there). For Paranoia it'd be the Paranoia Rulebook, and possibly the Little Red Book.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-16, 11:48 PM
Core is PHB, DMG, MM and nothing more.

ShadowFighter15
2009-05-16, 11:49 PM
I use Core the same as what other posters have said; referring to the PHB, the DMG and MM1. I use the term Core+ for both PHBs, both DMGs, all of the MMs, the EPH and UA. Everything else would be just "X & Y". So for example, "Core & Psy" (with Psy referring to the XPH) or "Core+ & Completes & Psy".

Thajocoth
2009-05-17, 12:38 AM
In 4E, the PHB2's cover says "Roleplaying Game Core Rules" despite not being the PHB1, MM or DMG... I consider those 4 books to be core. Martial Power, Arcane Power, Adventurer's Vault, Manual of the Planes, Forgotten Realms Guide... Not core, but we allow all of in the groups I'm in. Dragon articles... VERY not core... But we allow all of them too.

Dacia Brabant
2009-05-17, 12:41 AM
For my part, Core should be whatever is needed to make the game playable, so basically the OP's #3 definition but I really want to emphasize its playability as a game--as in, what needs to be in place for players to be able to fill the key roles of the game.

In D&D 3.5 those roles seem to be the Tank, the Skillmonkey, the Supporter, the Battlefield Controller, the Nuker and the Gish (and the Face, though that's something several other roles can fill). Of those I would say about half are playably filled by PHB classes, with PHB2, XPH, Completes and UA variants accounting fairly well for the rest. My own personal Core is a bit different than that--such as ToB/PHB2/XPH for melee, XPH and books with any of the "specialist caster" base classes (Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, the invokers) for arcane magic--but otherwise d20srd +PHB2 +Completes is serviceable.

shadzar
2009-05-17, 12:46 AM
Seems I made the right choice asking this here on a site dedicating to making fun of D&D, while at the same time times it serioursly and most people of level head.

Since it went so fast to get response, it should onyl be fair to expres my own opinion now.

I think core is the minimum needed to play the full game.

In the event of D&D, that would be having a playable game through all levels.

BECMI would all be core for playing through all levels. Ben a while since I looked through RC, but it also is an example of a complete game in one book, making it the core of games played with it. Likewise could be said true for PAthfinder, or any other game presnting a single book with all that is needed to play in it.

So for most recent editions of D&D would have 3 core books that present the game since the beginning of PHB, DMG, and MM books.

Those first 3 books would be the core, and any additional books beyond them are supplemental accessory books. Likewise not even all of the material in the core books are required to play.

So it seems here that the idea of core to be the foundation on which the game is built is the assumed meaning for most.

RTGoodman
2009-05-17, 12:59 AM
In 4E, the PHB2's cover says "Roleplaying Game Core Rules" despite not being the PHB1, MM or DMG... I consider those 4 books to be core. Martial Power, Arcane Power, Adventurer's Vault, Manual of the Planes, Forgotten Realms Guide... Not core, but we allow all of in the groups I'm in. Dragon articles... VERY not core... But we allow all of them too.

See, Wizards has a different idea.

As far as 4E goes, every Player's Handbook, every Dungeon Master's Guide, every Monster Manual, and EVERY DUNGEON AND DRAGON MAGAZINE are considered part of the Core 4E rules. From this month's Dragon "Ampersand" (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/2009May) article:


Officially Core

In case you missed the memo, or if we haven't been as clear as I think we have (which is a distinct possibility), I wanted to make sure I put this out there for D&D Insiders everywhere to read and digest. (Readers are kind of like gelatinous cubes in that regard.) Everything that appears through the online magazines that make up part of your D&D Insider subscription is official D&D material and part of the core rules of the game. For the first time in the history of D&D, the gatekeepers of D&D creative content (namely, myself and my R&D team) oversee all creative expressions of D&D. If it appears in a novel or a physical game product or in an issue of digital Dragon or Dungeon, it goes through the same process. It gets concepted or approved as a concept by my team. It gets designed by my team or by a freelancer (which includes new freelancers submitting material through the digital magazines for the first time). It gets developed by my team (which means it undergoes rigorous testing and power balancing and other mechanical adjustments). It gets edited by my team or by a freelancer. It goes through a final check (usually by me or one of the managers on my team). And then it finds a home in a product or a digital magazine. That makes everything you see here official and core. That was one of the goals for the new edition of the game, and I love the way the process has come together.

I'm on the fence about that considering how much stuff is Insider-exclusive yet they intend it to be core (the Warforged and Gnoll race write-ups, for instance), but maybe they mean something different than I do when they say the magazine content is "core." Maybe that's just their word for "first-party?"



As for 3.x Edition, I consider the PHB, DMG, and MM (and the Rules Compendium) all Core. "Expanded Core" includes PHB2, DMG2, the rest of the MMs, and MIC.

Asbestos
2009-05-17, 01:36 AM
I'm on the fence about that considering how much stuff is Insider-exclusive yet they intend it to be core (the Warforged and Gnoll race write-ups, for instance), but maybe they mean something different than I do when they say the magazine content is "core." Maybe that's just their word for "first-party?"



Yeah, but then FRPG would be 'core' as well. Really the 'Insider-exclusive' stuff is just as exclusive as any of the books. There is no SRD so everything is 'consumer-exclusive' ideally. Insiders just have access to another book published by the same company and written by the same people (no reason you can't let others look at it, same as a book)

For 3.x I say that the PHB/MM/DMG is 'core' and the SRD is 'expanded core'.

shadzar
2009-05-17, 01:38 AM
See, Wizards has a different idea.

That is why I asked this question in regards to all RPGs, to see where the myriad other games players consider the definition to lie, since Wizards has surely lost their focus in an interest to redefine not only gaming terms, but the English language where core and official are interchangeable.

Neither should matter when it comes to playing the game, and core doesn't even have any meaning with regards to their RPGA. So long as it is an official D&D product, then that should suffice to explain what they allow to be used in their RPGA environment.

Most definitions of core, mean what is central to something and all residual material expands upon that core. Core rules, the core of an apple, Earth's core, etc.

So recent misunderstanding of the language aside from WotC, what do people that play the game and who REALLY decide what things mean within them, define as core to their chosen RPGs?

bosssmiley
2009-05-17, 03:41 AM
See, Wizards has a different idea.

As far as 4E goes, every Player's Handbook, every Dungeon Master's Guide, every Monster Manual, and EVERY DUNGEON AND DRAGON MAGAZINE are considered part of the Core 4E rules.

Ah, the concept of "extended core". Now there's a b*llsh*t "buy more of our stuff" marketing creation if ever there was one. The industry != the hobby. :smallamused:

Core: the big three books. Anything else is just diluting the term into meaninglessness.

DaltonTrigger
2009-05-17, 03:50 AM
This is why I quit Pokemon cards years back. And quit Magic cards. And stopped buying D&D books once Wizards took over the game.

That's all they do, really, is continually make new supplements and new editions to their game where they make things more powerful, giving a clear advantage in "winning" rather than "fun" to people who are willing to spend more money.

I remember my rage years ago when I had a Magic deck built, and a new edition came out. Suddenly everybody had cards that "just happened" to make everything in my deck completely moot, and they could cast the same spells I could, but cheaper and with more effect. To make matters worse, they blatantly banned any of the old cards that were actually good, further enforcing the need of the new cards if you wanted to be able to win by official standards.

My options were to accept that I can no longer win the game, or toss out my old cards and buy all new ones. I'm cheap, so I just stopped playing.

Mini rant over.

I'd prefer almost any game system over D&D always and forever. Only reason I stick with D&D is that it's familiar and lots of people play it so when I look for RP groups I tend to find that they're playing D&D. It's not really too horrible, I suppose, if your DM just blatantly breaks lots of rules for the sake of making the game fun like my DMs tend to do. I'm having fun at least.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-17, 06:11 AM
The books that say "Core Rulebook" or similar on them.

So for D&D, PHB, MM and DMG. For GURPS, the two Basic Set books. For Risus, that six page PDF. And so on.

The "core" of something is the foundation. Without the core there's nothing else, but with the core you still have something.

Narmoth
2009-05-17, 06:18 AM
Depends. Core what?
Core classes: PHB only
Core rules: PHB and DMG
Monsters: all official material. non-core would be homebrew monsters and monsters form previous editions updated by the dm.

Berserk Monk
2009-05-17, 06:26 AM
Books needed (as in, they have the fundamental rules):

PHB
MM
DMG

Books needed to munchkin:

All of them

I always munchkin, hence, they're all core books.

AgentPaper
2009-05-17, 06:34 AM
For 4E? Anything with a hard cover, minus setting specific material. Extended core would include everything in the character builder/compendium. (so, Dragon Magazine articles, setting books, previews, etc)

afroakuma
2009-05-17, 07:16 AM
In 4E, the PHB2's cover says "Roleplaying Game Core Rules" despite not being the PHB1, MM or DMG... I consider those 4 books to be core.

4E players keep telling me this, and I keep telling them that they drank the Kool-Aid:


See, Wizards has a different idea.

As far as 4E goes, every Player's Handbook, every Dungeon Master's Guide, every Monster Manual, and EVERY DUNGEON AND DRAGON MAGAZINE are considered part of the Core 4E rules.

=corporate shenanigans.

Satyr
2009-05-17, 07:21 AM
Core is the minimum books needed to play a game.

That's it. Best definition of core in this thread. And it is pretty much universal applicable as well.

Curmudgeon
2009-05-17, 07:29 AM
"Core" are the books from the main publisher of the game. So all WotC material for D&D. 3rd-party = non-core.

potatocubed
2009-05-17, 07:36 AM
The core of a roleplaying game to me is the material with which you can play a complete game. D&D has your 'big three', although you can plausibly squish that down to two or even one if you're running the right sort of game. Burning Wheel has the rulebook and the character burner. Pretty much every other game there is comes in one book.

The 4e concept of 'extended core' can bite me. If the product is good enough, it gets inducted into 'potato core'. If not, it never makes an appearance in my games regardless of the official ruling.

I also call bullspoon on most of that Bill Slavicsek quote. "Rigorous testing and power balancing" my ass.

Surfing HalfOrc
2009-05-17, 08:39 AM
To me, "Core" is the Basic/Expert rules as written by Tom Moldvey and David Cook! The Best Rule Set EVER! (And about the only ruleset ever done up to be "Family Game Night Friendly)

But yeah... For 3.X, the Core Rules are the PHB, DMG and MM1. Those three books, a fistful of dice and #2 pencils, a few friends, and you've got all the adventure you could want. The "Complete Whoever" are shortcuts to creating characters designed to roll over standard and most non-standard monsters and NPCs, the Environmental Books gives you fluff for background, and the rest is as useful or useless as you want it to be.

I hope that one day there will be another B/X D&D ruleset, a simple yet complete set of rules in a single or pair of books with everything you need to play. But I seriously doubt it.

Maroon
2009-05-17, 08:43 AM
For the first time in the history of D&D, the gatekeepers of D&D creative content (namely, myself and my R&D team) oversee all creative expressions of D&D.
"We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

I heard they inject nanoprobes when you sign up for D&D Insider. Apparently, all original thought is quarantined pending a decree of the mechanical overlords to either assimilate the drone into the Franchise Collective (TM) or vaporise the thought criminal. Another glorious victory of the Ministry of Entertainment (Minifun) over Emmanuel Gygaxstein!

Seriously now, core is what you need to play the game.

potatocubed
2009-05-17, 09:09 AM
I hope that one day there will be another B/X D&D ruleset, a simple yet complete set of rules in a single or pair of books with everything you need to play. But I seriously doubt it.

Swords and Wizardry? (http://www.lulu.com/content/6374501)

I mean, I don't know exactly what you're after, but S&W is all-in-one D&D. Plus, it's free!

AslanCross
2009-05-17, 09:29 AM
Option 3. Even if XPH is included in the SRD, I don't count it.

Asbestos
2009-05-17, 11:13 AM
What's Core for WoD?

Rant!

I think a big issue with the definition change of 'core' from 3.x to 4e is that non-core books in 3.x were often dirt, full of broken insanity, or introduced some bizarre new gimicky strangeness. 4e has done a pretty good job so far at keeping things coherent and balanced with respect to each other. Yes, there are feats here or there (Sacrifice to Caiphon? Is that what its called? oh, and RRoT) that are a bit ridiculous, but to me at least, houseruling away single feats makes much more sense than huddling down and taking a 'CORE ONLY' stance (which, yes, this thread isn't about, but people totally do do that)
Now, based on other posts I'm sure that someone will say that I've "Drank the Kool-Aid" but I really prefer getting by without a binder full of house rules or lists of banned books/issues of Dragon.

Edit: The funny thing is I think that the most unbalanced book in 3.x is the PHB. Had more houserules relating to the classes from that book than any other.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-17, 11:18 AM
What's Core for WoD?

The main (black) book and the main rulebook for whatever 'race' you happen to be playing.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-17, 11:51 AM
Most definitions of core, mean what is central to something and all residual material expands upon that core. Core rules, the core of an apple, Earth's core, etc.
Yeah, it's basically a synonym for "central". However, that might not mean "only the rules needed to play the game." You might be able to get by without a given edition's Monster Manual or Dungeon Master's Guide, but...


To elaborate on my post - I'd say "Core" is the original format the game was published in. In hypothetical system Q, they probably published 1-3 books right off the bat, and then incrementally released more later on. That initial release would be the original format, and hence "Core", even if some of them aren't necessary to play the game. If a whole pile were released right together, then the books themselves would probably indicate. Generally speaking, that initial offering of books should form a cohesive and complete product, fully playable, with no major lose ends.

For D&D, the DMG and MM1 are not strictly necessary to play but do provide for a far more robust product, and the core three together feel like a complete game more than just the PHB by itself. They're designed to be used together and are all interdependent.
I agree with this. You could say "The books that everyone playing this game is expected to have." I think that summarizes it nicely.


You technically don't need the MM either, at least not for a social campaign or one where fights are exclusively against bandits, soldiers, mercs, assassins, thugs, mages, holy orders, armies, or things like that. You could run a very good campaign based purely out of the PHB. But DMG and MM1 are part of the base set and not considered expansions, so they're counted in "Core".
Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards all have special animal friends whose stats are in the Monster Manual. It's technically not house-ruling to play without one, but it's still leaving out a significant part of several classes, regardless of environment.

(Animal friends are common enough that you'd want to make having one an option for a generic adventurer class, if you were designing one. Same deal with spellcasting; D&D does not embrace the idea that magic should be very rare.)

You can theoretically play without the DMG's magic items, but you need to award experience so characters can level up, and the DMG tells you how to do that. You can house-rule something, but you can also make up your own system, so you technically don't "need" anything to play, do you? At that point we come to the question of what the "essential" parts of a game are. (I don't think I even believe in essence, personally. I mean, not as an actual thing that actually, non-metaphorically exists outside of linguistic convention.)

Another reason that "needed to play" doesn't quite technically work as a definition: It doesn't seem appropriate to discount books just because the needed info in them is available in another format, like the SRD.

Anyway, I definitely don't consider "core" to mean "whatever the company labels 'core'". I treat "Dungeons & Dragons" pretty much that way because it's proper noun. But "core" isn't; it's an adjective in the English language.

Satyr
2009-05-17, 11:57 AM
The problem I have with the Core/not-Core definitions is, that they are often used to describe a difference in quality; as if the Core books were superior, just because... well they are the core books. Especially in the case of D&D 3rd edition, I found this to be ambivalent at best, as some of the most broken stuff was right there in the three first books (Polymorph for example). But even more impotant was, that many, many books published by Wizards of the Coast are vastly inferior to many more innovative, better thaught-out and more dedicated books by third party publishers. WotC published several books, which are just bad, or only partially useful. Why should any sane person prefer those towards simply better books which are fully compatible which happen to be published by other people?

shadzar
2009-05-17, 01:27 PM
The problem I have with the Core/not-Core definitions is, that they are often used to describe a difference in quality; as if the Core books were superior, just because... well they are the core books.

Just out of curiosity can you point me to anywhere that has said that? I am curious to see its context and how someone came to that conclusion. :smallconfused:

What I understand about core from 3rd from WotC is the let the later produucts quality deteriorate while working on 4th because it was better for them that way to put the best people on 4th and just squeak out things.

Would that happen to be where that concept comes from?

OR mayhaps that most games will allow core first before non-core material because the players have tested out the core more than random supplemental datum X from book Y?

TheThan
2009-05-17, 01:36 PM
You typically need the PHB, MM and the DMG guide to play dnd 3.5 and 4.0. The pcs need the phb to make their characters, learn combat, learn the magic system etc. while the DM needs the DMG and the monster manual. It’s basically the rules that cover how the system works, and that’s what most people consider core.

However, that isn’t the whole story. You have to consider the group dynamic. How those people sitting at the table deal with the rules of the game they are playing. One group may just run with the PHB, MM and the DMG and be perfectly happy with it. While another group may choose to always include other sourcebooks to fit their tastes. It they use other sourcebooks all the time, then that will become their core rules.

For example, my gaming group uses the PHB, PHBII, MM, DMG guide and Dungeonscape. To them that what they expect to always be able to use when they make characters, level up etc. Now I have a friend who plays in a different gaming group. They have a different dynamic and expect different things. They typically use whatever source books they can get their hands on and generally power game. (Doesn’t make it right or wrong, it’s just the way they choose to play.)

So I guess my answer is that core is whatever you and your gaming group expects to have access to when they sit down to play the game.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-17, 03:56 PM
Oooh, how about this one:

The Expanded Psionics Handbook is core to a game of 3.5 D&D that includes psionics, because the information in it is needed to run 3.5 psionics, and all the psionic material introduced in later books builds on it. However, it is not core to a campaign that doesn't use psionics.

Discuss.

Satyr
2009-05-17, 05:21 PM
Just out of curiosity can you point me to anywhere that has said that? I am curious to see its context and how someone came to that conclusion.

This may be a purely subjective impression, but the sentiment that the WOTC books are intrinsically superior to pretty much any third party publications seem to me a more frequent belief.


What I understand about core from 3rd from WotC is the let the later produucts quality deteriorate while working on 4th because it was better for them that way to put the best people on 4th and just squeak out things.

Among the later 3rd edition publications was the fan favorite Tome of Battle, so I am not sure if this is a viable thesis. Weapons of Legacy, one of the truly bad books (and a rip-of of an idea from a 3rd party campaign setting, only in bad) was published in mid 2005. It's not like the books became wose, there just isn't much of a continuity in quality.


The Expanded Psionics Handbook is core to a game of 3.5 D&D that includes psionics, because the information in it is needed to run 3.5 psionics, and all the psionic material introduced in later books builds on it. However, it is not core to a campaign that doesn't use psionics.

Discuss.

What do you want to discus about this? If you play with psionics and regard them as an essential part of your campaign, then you need the psionic rules, and the XPH becomes core by application. If psionics just doesn't matter for your campaign, than the book is completely irrelevant. What you define as Core rules is basically subjective and depends on the participants (players and gamemaster) and the campaign setting.

Waspinator
2009-05-17, 08:55 PM
Personally, I think it's more that fewer people have generally heard of any given third-party book when compared to first-party ones. People tend to ban them just because they don't want to use something that they are not super familiar with.

If you ask me, it depends a lot. Are there some horrible third party books? Of course. Are there some really awesome ones? That too. Some of the campaign settings that have been put out are pretty cool. Dragonmech, for example, is a great setting largely because it's D&D based. I don't think I'd like it as much if it didn't boil down to the concept of "take your standard Tolkeinesque world and natural disaster the *censored* out of it". I like it a lot more than Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms. I don't really hate those two, I've just never been too intriqued by them. Eberron and some third party settings (Dragonmech, Dragonstar, Iron Kingdoms, Midnight, Warcraft, etc) are a lot cooler in my opinion. I've thought for awhile now it could be neat to do a partially homebrewed campaign setting that mixed Dragonmech and Eberron. I would advance the timeline by at least a few decades, to start. During that time, a previously undiscovered moon (which I believe has been mentioned as a theory in some Eberron books) has appeared in the sky of Eberron and is coming closer. It started to break up due to tidal stress, just like the moon in Dragonmech, and invaders from it and falling debris would play out the same way that they did in that setting. There are any number of factions in Eberron that could conceivably built Dragonmech style robots. I'm not sure if I would want to include steam power, since that would kind of come out of nowhere in the setting, but magic-powered construct mechs are something that artificers could come up with.

shadzar
2009-05-18, 12:40 AM
This may be a purely subjective impression, but the sentiment that the WOTC books are intrinsically superior to pretty much any third party publications seem to me a more frequent belief.

Ah ok, so it is a 3rd edition thing. Well it does kind of make sense.

Company A makes a product.
Company B makes an accessory for that product.

You still need Company A's creation to make use of Company B's.

So only official first creation for the product line could be core, while any third party accessory product could never be.

Like the upgrade to the game of Monopoly that places another ring inside the board. The Monopoly game itself is core, and the expansion is just that, an expansion. So with all the 3PP under 3rd, they would never be core as they were never required to play the game, with the most common definition here.

That seems fair to call 3PP not core, because it was not created as the foundation of the game, but built onto that foundation, and isn't needed by everyone to play with it.

This goes for psionics as well. They have been in and out of D&D so often, it isn't even funny.

So 3PP could never really be core, since the game was not built on 3PP otherwise the entire game would be made by that 3PP making them then the first party. :smalleek:

Kurald Galain
2009-05-18, 04:07 AM
-Core is what is needed as a minimum to play the game.

That sounds fair.

Note that the term "core" only applies to rules-heavy RPGs. Most RPGs I can think of only have one thin-ish rulebook, and the other books contain setting or background or whatever. Thus, restricting a rules-heavy RPG to core serves primarily to make it less rules-heavy.

shadzar
2009-05-19, 11:05 AM
That sounds fair.

Note that the term "core" only applies to rules-heavy RPGs. Most RPGs I can think of only have one thin-ish rulebook, and the other books contain setting or background or whatever. Thus, restricting a rules-heavy RPG to core serves primarily to make it less rules-heavy.

Good call. A game that is on one book really just has rules rather than "core" rules, but a book heavy game more often than not does have "core" rules to give most standard things as common ground for all.

shadzar
2009-05-22, 10:42 AM
Not bumping but if the thread is truthfully dead, then let it die with this post.

I just have been reading other forums with less than factual information and need to set some things traight about this concept.

1- D&D was not the first game to use "core" to define its essential material, that which is required to play the game. A company that came out with a game aroudn the same time, called Games Workshop, that sold D&D product, also labeled their main rulebook Core Rulebook for WH40k, and IIRC WHFB. This one rulebook contained all the rules you needed to play the game, including the basic rules for minimal army size for all available armies at the time.

The army books themselves were supplemental if you wanted to add all the extra choices for your troops and armies. They were not needed to play the game. Even White Dwarf, and every other last supplement was not needed if you were not planning on playing in a Rogue Trader Tournament (RTT). So GW has been using "core" one one book for the same length of time D&D has existed, and prior to D&D using it.

2- AD&D Core Rules CD-ROM by TSR, did NOT include anything more than 5 books. PHB, DMG, MM, Tome of Magic, and Arms & Equipment guide. Arguably the last two are not really needed, but offer expansion on all those things listed in the PHB to give them more depth where spells were needed a bit more depth and weapons needed some more description for all those listed. Also it gave all that adventuring gear. You didn't need those books, and they really aren't core, but they were there. These are the only books I can access because my 1.0 CD won't load in this machine, but that is all that is included as RTF versions form the 1996 1.0 version

2.0 added all the brown splat books and the player's/DM's options books AFTER WotC bought TSR and released the new Core Rules CD-ROM in 1998.

WotC changed the dang name not TSR. Even the old TSR website prior to the WotC revamp listed 90% of the products as accessories. Yes character sheets, dice, and DM screen were core, but most people did use them after all.

So unless someone else wants to install 1.0 and correct me on it, then I wish someone would take this info to those other websites, that you couldn't pay me to give my email address to to signup to post, and correct these factual errors it would be great for everyone's benefit so this mistaken information does not continue to spread through incorrect research.

Anyone know what WW had for "core books" when VtM came out? I can't recall and no longer have those original books. I am sure Rifts, had one core book as well, so I have no idea where the English language went astray this badly in our little niche of the world.

:smallfrown:

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

[/rant]

CheshireCatAW
2009-05-22, 11:18 AM
Core, to me, depends on what I'm playing.

If I go to a D&D 3.5 game and I hear Core books only, I know it's PHB, MM and DMG only.

In a 4E game, even though many books and articles are titled as core books, I only consider the PHB, MM and DMG as Core.

In nWoD books, I consider the original black covered WoD book core, in addition to whatever primary book there exists for the race/game you're playing.

In regards to the 4th edition "core" stamp, I think it's a bit too much of a blatant ploy to make you buy more books. It seems as if they've heard that there are groups out there that play the game with only three books and they've titled their stuff such as to pressure these groups into buying more books. This play has ultimately affected my opinion of them quite negatively; I can understand why they'd want to do this as a business, but it seems exploitative of their customer base, especially those who only want to try a little of the game and not have to get every single item that exists for it.