Core-Plus-What as a Game Descriptor

[unseenmage]

Book bloat is a thing. 3.x and PF alone, necermind combined, have a LOT of sources.

A lot of the time games are described as core (DMG, PH, MM) plus or minus a few additional tomes based on the kind of game that's ro be run or access to material.

TO (theoretical optimization) tends to run on Core+ every book terms for many (including myself).
Others discuss PO (practical optimization) in more muted Core+ some books terms, excluding psionics or PF or spheres or homebrew as needed.

What if we could describe our position when recruiting for games or discussing optimization in a shorthand fashion quickly and efficiently?
Eg. 'This will be a low tier 3 game allowing C+2 sources.'
Or even, I exclusively play top tier C+homebrew games.'
Maybe, 'I once tried to start a Core+ magazines only game.'

EDIT:
Another idea, Core + 1 book per player or 1 book per tier per player.
Not sure if useful though.

What is your preferred Core+ level?

As for myself its Core+ everything including magazines.
Same for PF.

[Morcleon]

Core + everything (including well-written homebrew) :smalltongue:

[Crichton]

Core + All-WotC + Dragon(DM-has-veto), no homebrew

[Quertus]

Core + everything (including well-written homebrew) :smalltongue:

100% this.

Balance to the table. Allow everything.

[Mike Miller]

I allow most 3.5 sources that aren't setting specific, because I usually don't do settings. I avoid 3.0 stuff when possible. I will allow setting specific stuff on a case by case basis, I suppose.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Allow everything first-party, allow Dragon Magazine within reason, allow third-party and homebrew on a case-by-case basis. Make sure the party is aware that anything game-breaking they use, their opponents will also use and the opponents can bring more of it than the party can.

[Aniikinis]

Core+Everything(including homebrew, Pathfinder, etc.). As long as they run it by me first, I couldn't care less.

[Endarire]

Core + everything first party by default, plus whatever homebrew or/and third party stuff I like.

If we're importing stuff from other systems (d20 Star Wars, Pathfinder, etc.), I'm unlikely to allow this other material. Again, details.

[rrwoods]

“Book bloat” is a handwave and it’s a bad one. The only disadvantage it might confer is DM mental overload, which is not actually true except in one kind of circumstance which I’ll get to in a second. But it mostly stems from this horrible misconception that if someone is “using a book”, then the DM has to “know the book”. Look, if I take Darkstalker on my stealthy character you don’t need to know all of Lords of Madness, just read the one feat I took!

The actual barrier to DMing comes in the form of learning new subsystems. Spellcasting, manifesting, initiating, melding, bonding... they all have these heavy frameworks that come with them. If you’re going to limit what players can do for the sake of reducing mental overload, limit the subsystems. (For your players sake please learn initiators, they make melee fun again)

IMO other reasons to limit sources don’t even start from a good place, much less end up there. Even setting-specific stuff can be refluffed (by the player!) to be setting neutral.

Let your players Do The Thing!

[MeimuHakurei]

While I consider it fine to draw on all available sources, I do think it's common courtesy to provide sources for mechanical options not featured in core/SRD. Or at the very least, an exact writeup of the feat/spell/etc. you have on your character if you can't provide a link or book note where it is for some reason (maybe because it's a local GM's homebrew not posted online).

[Psyren]

What is your preferred Core+ level?

Everything first-party, with GM approval/veto. I have to know what's on their sheets to challenge them appropriately anyway, so it's not like there should/need to be secrets. Just use your judgement, and a gentle(person)'s agreement.

[Particle_Man]

What about one that bans core classes? What would the descriptor be?

With me it might depend on theme. Like, if I want an incarnum heavy game, I might try to limit stuff that isn't incarnum.

[unseenmage]

What about one that bans core classes? What would the descriptor be?

With me it might depend on theme. Like, if I want an incarnum heavy game, I might try to limit stuff that isn't incarnum.
Anti-Core?
Nega-Core?
Eroc?

[Psyren]

"Perimeter?"

In my view though, groups that need to ban core display a lack of self-control.

[Quertus]

In my view though, groups that need to ban core display a lack of self-control.

Kinda by definition, groups that *need* to ban anything have issues.

[upho]

Core + everything (including well-written homebrew) :smalltongue:
100% this.

Balance to the table. Allow everything.
Core+Everything(including homebrew, Pathfinder, etc.). As long as they run it by me first, I couldn't care less.
Kinda by definition, groups that *need* to ban anything have issues.200% this.

However, not all groups/GMs have the rules-fu or time to properly understand the actual power level and workings of all available subsystems, so I'd recommend less experienced GMs to limit their games to the specific subsystems they're comfortable with rather than to sources (which is a very clunky tool IMO).

Also, I believe the most common "default" in PF games is "everything 1PP allowed" rather than "core +X", probably mostly because everything 1PP is available and easily browsed for free online and because PF has setting-specific content for only one setting.

Importantly, the seemingly still prevalent belief - largely established by 3e - that limiting a game to fewer sources beyond core will somehow drastically affect the possible power span of PCs or vastly increase the risk of party imbalance really needs to go.

[Particle_Man]

"Perimeter?"

In my view though, groups that need to ban core display a lack of self-control.

What about groups that want (rather than need) to ban core? It can be fun to see what can be done if the core races and classes are not in a setting.

Also, I have heard it argued that to get a balanced party it is easier if one starts with banning many of the core classes. If true, I would not call that a lack of self-control, just a way to make a sought-after goal of a group easier.

[Quertus]

200% this.

However, not all groups/GMs have the rules-fu or time to properly understand the actual power level and workings of all available subsystems, so I'd recommend less experienced GMs to limit their games to the specific subsystems they're comfortable with rather than to sources (which is a very clunky tool IMO).

Also, I believe the most common "default" in PF games is "everything 1PP allowed" rather than "core +X", probably mostly because everything 1PP is available and easily browsed for free online and because PF has setting-specific content for only one setting.

Importantly, the seemingly still prevalent belief - largely established by 3e - that limiting a game to fewer sources beyond core will somehow drastically affect the possible power span of PCs or vastly increase the risk of party imbalance really needs to go.

So, I strongly agree with the notion that the false correlation between "moving beyond core" and "risk" needs to be laughed at with maximum scorn until its proponents hide their heads in shame at ever believing or perpetuating such inaccuracies.

What I disagree with is the implication that the GM needs to understand the PCs, systems, etc. Simply observe the PCs, and let the group throw books at anyone too clueless to realize when their character is not in balance with the group. No deeper understanding required.


What about groups that want (rather than need) to ban core? It can be fun to see what can be done if the core races and classes are not in a setting.

Also, I have heard it argued that to get a balanced party it is easier if one starts with banning many of the core classes. If true, I would not call that a lack of self-control, just a way to make a sought-after goal of a group easier.

It's certainly a hilarious way to attempt to aim for balance. I'd love to hear stories of just how effective it turns out in practice, for GMs who got just that one piece of the puzzle, and ran with it, hard, like that.

So, not a lack of self-control, just some clueless knee-jerk reaction to a (very) incomplete understanding of how 3e (im)balance works.

Still, it might work out better than "core only, for balance". :smallannoyed::smallyuk:

[JMS]

So, I strongly agree with the notion that the false correlation between "moving beyond core" and "risk" needs to be laughed at with maximum scorn until its proponents hide their heads in shame at ever believing or perpetuating such inaccuracies.

What I disagree with is the implication that the GM needs to understand the PCs, systems, etc. Simply observe the PCs, and let the group throw books at anyone too clueless to realize when their character is not in balance with the group. No deeper understanding required.
(Emphasis added)
While most things work this way, and I fully believe that Core+ is not a good idea, subsystems often do require at least a touch of DM knowledge, without an absurd amount of trust. How would you feel to find the DM has been rolling spell resistance for your warblade’s strikes?


It's certainly a hilarious way to attempt to aim for balance. I'd love to hear stories of just how effective it turns out in practice, for GMs who got just that one piece of the puzzle, and ran with it, hard, like that.

So, not a lack of self-control, just some clueless knee-jerk reaction to a (very) incomplete understanding of how 3e (im)balance works.

Still, it might work out better than "core only, for balance". :smallannoyed::smallyuk:
Yeah, non-core is usually a joke idea, but if someone has actually played it, please tell!

[unseenmage]

A question for those who are replying with Core+everything...Do you also allow magazine and web content?

[Particle_Man]

Another way of doing it might be "Tier 3-4 only" I suppose.

[Morcleon]

A question for those who are replying with Core+everything...Do you also allow magazine and web content?

Yes. No real reason not to, though again, this runs with the assumption that either the group is skilled enough to be able to balance among themselves, or the DM is skilled enough to help adjust PCs to be balanced among each other.

[Aniikinis]

A question for those who are replying with Core+everything...Do you also allow magazine and web content?

I don't know about the others, but I allow everything as long as I can read it and evaluate it. Homebrew, Web, Magazine (Dragon or otherwise), etc. As long as I don't deem it too overpowered for my game, I couldn't care less. I balance for the table and reevaluate for the situation/scenario/campaign.

[JMS]

I generally allow web content, and magazines are a ”clear the absurd stuff with me”

[Falontani]

Core+ everything in a specific folder.
I've put all the 3.5 books in a folder as well as unupdated 3.0 books, a few third party books, and my personal homebrew (which has been checked and approved by those in my group with system mastery). If players want access to something else they need to get me a legal copy of it and I'll read it, then usually add it to the folder.

[Psyren]

Also, I have heard it argued that to get a balanced party it is easier if one starts with banning many of the core classes. If true, I would not call that a lack of self-control, just a way to make a sought-after goal of a group easier.

Core has the highest peaks and the lowest valleys, yes. That doesn't mean people have to climb.



What I disagree with is the implication that the GM needs to understand the PCs, systems, etc. Simply observe the PCs, and let the group throw books at anyone too clueless to realize when their character is not in balance with the group. No deeper understanding required.

Yeah, people act like it's the end of the world if a character ends up unbalanced relative to everyone else in the party. For a few groups, yeah that causes bad feelings and friction when that person is asked to remake their character, but I'd argue that the vast majority simply fix it and move on - especially since there are two clear ways to do so.


A question for those who are replying with Core+everything...Do you also allow magazine and web content?

That falls under the "first-party" provision. So I consider stuff like Mind's Eye to be official, but stuff like Dragon Magazine to not be.

The simple reason for that - first-party stuff is more likely to have been analyzed by a critical mass of the playerbase, which means less work for me. I can google something like an online vestige and see any broken combos (or just cool ones) it was used in far more easily than I can a third-party feat.


Core+ everything in a specific folder.
I've put all the 3.5 books in a folder as well as unupdated 3.0 books, a few third party books, and my personal homebrew (which has been checked and approved by those in my group with system mastery). If players want access to something else they need to get me a legal copy of it and I'll read it, then usually add it to the folder.

This is fine too.

My main thing is that I want sufficient material available so that the players can make something fun. So if I have an "allowed folder", the contents are likely to grow over time, especially for a game like PF or SF where new material comes out.

[Quertus]

(Emphasis added)
While most things work this way, and I fully believe that Core+ is not a good idea, subsystems often do require at least a touch of DM knowledge, without an absurd amount of trust. How would you feel to find the DM has been rolling spell resistance for your warblade’s strikes?

Absurd? Not really. It's good if someone the table understands it, though.

Me: I attack with my War Blade stance maneuver.
GM: it has SR; roll to overcome.
Me: ... I don't think it works that way...
Player who actually plays muggles: it doesn't.
GM: OK, never mind.

Sounds perfectly reasonable for the alternate reality in which I played a War Blade.


A question for those who are replying with Core+everything...Do you also allow magazine and web content?

Personally, yes. No real reason not to, afaict.

In 3e, my mantra is "balance to the table"; if someone is out of balance, they fix it - or, if they don't, we talk. Absolutely no system mastery (or GM knowledge the character stats) whatsoever required. Admittedly, having system mastery makes it more likely

In 2e, the party was *always* out of balance (but not too such extremes), so my motto was, "I'll allow anything i understand. If I don't understand it, explain it to me".

Since 2e, I've learned a) that I don't need to be the one who understands; b) there doesn't need to be anyone who understands b1) beyond the minimalistic "interface" b2) and the concept of game balance.

If everyone is balancing to the table, what does it matter whether their source material is book A or magazine B or web content C?

[Psyren]

(Emphasis added)
While most things work this way, and I fully believe that Core+ is not a good idea, subsystems often do require at least a touch of DM knowledge, without an absurd amount of trust. How would you feel to find the DM has been rolling spell resistance for your warblade’s strikes?

I'd be fairly put out, since SR doesn't even work that way against spells :smallconfused:

But what you're forgetting is that intuitive design doesn't actually need rote memorization or blind trust. Nothing in ToB is subject to spell resistance, and that makes intuitive sense because swords aren't subject to spell resistance. In fact, it's right there in the name - spell resistance - and maneuvers not being spells should be the first big clue. No need to memorize or trust.

[Mehangel]

My games are generally described as Core + SoMP (Spheres of Might & Spheres of Power).

[upho]

What I disagree with is the implication that the GM needs to understand the PCs, systems, etc. Simply observe the PCs, and let the group throw books at anyone too clueless to realize when their character is not in balance with the group. No deeper understanding required.
(Emphasis added)
While most things work this way, and I fully believe that Core+ is not a good idea, subsystems often do require at least a touch of DM knowledge, without an absurd amount of trust. How would you feel to find the DM has been rolling spell resistance for your warblade’s strikes?
Yeah, people act like it's the end of the world if a character ends up unbalanced relative to everyone else in the party. For a few groups, yeah that causes bad feelings and friction when that person is asked to remake their character, but I'd argue that the vast majority simply fix it and move on - especially since there are two clear ways to do so.Just to clarify, I didn't intend to imply that less experienced groups and GMs should limit their games to certain subsystems primarily in order to mitigate the risks of PC imbalance issues. I simply meant that if nobody in your group has much general experience with 3.X/PF and no experience with "subsystem X", if you're going to put a blanket ban on anything, "subsystem X" is actually a far more understandable and reasonable ban than the typical "sources A, B and C". Does anyone actually find it strange that most people are likely to treat this just as if they were playing a complex regular tabletop game they've only played a few times before? (Meaning they'd likely find a bad idea to complicate matters by also adding all ten available expansions before they have a bit more experience and insight into the basics.)


It's certainly a hilarious way to attempt to aim for balance. I'd love to hear stories of just how effective it turns out in practice, for GMs who got just that one piece of the puzzle, and ran with it, hard, like that.Actually, I think no PC (or NPC) options beyond maybe one or two feats or spells in my current "long-haul" PF game is/has been core. Not even a single monster opponent I've used has been from Bestiary 1, and no other core options have seen play. But that's maybe less weird than it may initially appear, since the game also makes at least as much use of DSP and homebrew options as of 1PP options.

[ericgrau]

Book bloat is a thing. 3.x and PF alone, necermind combined, have a LOT of sources.

A lot of the time games are described as core (DMG, PH, MM) plus or minus a few additional tomes based on the kind of game that's ro be run or access to material.

TO (theoretical optimization) tends to run on Core+ every book terms for many (including myself).
Others discuss PO (practical optimization) in more muted Core+ some books terms, excluding psionics or PF or spheres or homebrew as needed.

What if we could describe our position when recruiting for games or discussing optimization in a shorthand fashion quickly and efficiently?
Eg. 'This will be a low tier 3 game allowing C+2 sources.'
Or even, I exclusively play top tier C+homebrew games.'
Maybe, 'I once tried to start a Core+ magazines only game.'

EDIT:
Another idea, Core + 1 book per player or 1 book per tier per player.
Not sure if useful though.

What is your preferred Core+ level?

As for myself its Core+ everything including magazines.
Same for PF.

I agree with most that it's nice to say anything goes including homebrew, as long as the DM looks over it first. I'd probably be more restrictive than most on what's allowed but I'd still allow it to come from all kinds of books or even made up out of thin air. Often nerfing slightly rather than banning, unless a nerf would be complicated. Lugging books can be mostly solved by writing down all the abilities you have.

But it can be hard for a DM to review too much and sometimes you may want to have books as a reference. So making lists of related books could be nice. For example spell compendium + magic item compendium provide some nice options and are great books to include. I've also seen grouped "the completes" (e.g., "core + completes"). Or "It's X ouside": frostburn - it's cold outside, sandstorm - it's hot outside, stormwrack - it's wet outside, etc. Etc. Yeah there's also dragon magazine, homebrew and 3rd party.

[Crichton]

A question for those who are replying with Core+everything...Do you also allow magazine and web content?


I generally allow web content, and magazines are a ”clear the absurd stuff with me”


Pretty much exactly this. I don't allow homebrew at all, not because it's bad or anything, but because I don't really see the need to open that particular Scary Door™.

Having said that, when I say no homebrew, I mean no new classes/races/feats/etc, but I do fairly freely allow and advocate for re-fluffing of things while keeping their mechanics the same, so no one feels restricted from using a mechanical option that just doesn't fit their backstory, fluff-wise, and other such minor cosmetic alterations of existing features.

[ekarney]

Core + All first party that isn't Eberron (Artificers and the Renegade Mastermakers are still allowed though), as well as Dragon Mag, and Homebrew with approval.

The reason I don't allow Eberron is simply because I play in FR and adding even small things from Eberron requires adding in large chunks.
"I wanna take X feat, which requires Lesser Dragonmark of Y, which means House of Y exists..." and so on so forth.

I also have a soft ban on Psionics and Incarnum because I haven't bothered reading through the subsystems yet.
Soft ban being a "I'd prefer you didn't play a psion" rather than "No you can't play a psion".

As for banning core, the problem with doing so isn't because it immediately means you're a bad DM or whatever, it's just awkward because a massive amount of non-core content requires core to function.

[Morcleon]

Core + All first party that isn't Eberron (Artificers and the Renegade Mastermakers are still allowed though), as well as Dragon Mag, and Homebrew with approval.

The reason I don't allow Eberron is simply because I play in FR and adding even small things from Eberron requires adding in large chunks.
"I wanna take X feat, which requires Lesser Dragonmark of Y, which means House of Y exists..." and so on so forth.

Why not just remove the fluff and replace it with something more fitting with the setting? Dragonmarks are just now special magic tattoos that can be granted from many different sources (crafted by a mage, bestowed by a deity, granted by a dark power, blessings from a fey, etc) and give exactly the same mechanical benefits without any of the fluff implications.

Similar refluffs can be done for all the other Eberron material.

[Quarian Rex]

What is your preferred Core+ level?


That can be a very interesting question. As a player, I want the kitchen sink. I have been playing this game a long time. Few things will bore me to tears faster than someone saying that they want to run a Core only game. As a DM you tend to want to limit things so that you don't have to account for every damn thing. Yes, yes, I know that not everything has to be accounted for, but if ToB is being used by a player then it is a thing in your world. If it is a thing in your world then why isn't every army training their soldiers in its use? Questions like that plague me when I'm sorting out world creation and such. Since I will be DMing a game for some friends soon™ (it keeps getting pushed back for a multitude of reasons) I have had to come up with a solution.

In what is essentially a 3.PF (heavily on the PF) game I have been putting together some (fairly extensive) tweaks to, among other things, slow down progression and keep a coherent game world while still allowing access to all the things that I want and increasing player options and autonomy (run the game that you want to play in and all that). Among other things, initial character class selection will be limited to any of the Core, Base, and Alternate Classes on the PFSRD, as will spell and feat selection to the Core book. Sounds like I'm a hypocrite doesn't it? Well, to counter that I added a special Trait...

Esoteric Knowledge - Select one class/PRC from an alternate source (Pathfinder, 3.5, 3PP, extremely well done homebrew, etc.). You can now freely select this class/PRC upon level up or teach it to others (even if you have yet to take a level in the class yourself). This trait is not considered to be part of any trait category and can be selected multiple times.

Alternatively, this trait can be used to select spells (two per selection) or feats, either two specific feats or a feat tree (select a feat to unlock and you unlock all feats that use it as a prerequisite). You may also use this to select a Martial Tradition (from Spheres of Might) so long as you qualify (are level 1 and have all martial/1 exotic/etc.). If you can already select a martial tradition then Esoteric Knowledge allows you to create your own. Martial traditions created this way are not mutable and will maintain their selections when taught to others. Keep this in mind if you are trying to cherry-pick for a character.

This can also be used to gain access to specialist knowledge that might otherwise be restricted, like how to make Orichalcum (see Practical Enchanter p.154), Rune Weapons (limited magic weapons, see Practical Enchanter p.202), being able to make weapons/armour with a Template (DMGII p.273), etc.

Note that Esoteric Knowledge is not required for any feats based on your class features (so a Spheres of Might Striker can select Extra Striker Art, Extra Combat Talent, or Combat Sphere Specialization without research or this trait). Talk to me about specifics. The purpose here is not to add a trait tax to every little thing, but to provide access to all the exotic weirdness of 3.P while having a justification for it still being weird and exotic.

... to provide a reason why the world seems mostly vanilla when weirdness can be found by the PCs. Since a PC can start with up to 7 traits (3 base, +2 for drawbacks, up to +2 for starting with a lowered Wealth Template, something from the Practical Enchanter) and can take Extra Traits as a feat, everything but the most exotic of builds should be accommodated from the start. Even this is purely optional since I will be allowing just about everything to be researched [feats as well, possibly with an equivalent spell level equal to 1+number of prerequisites of the feat (Eldritch Heritage would be researched as if it was a 4th level spell due to its three prereqs), that sort of thing].

What I think this will do is allow a tertiary economy in the game world where characters can meaningfully trade specialized knowledge and allow even martials to have a something useful to do during downtime. This can also provide actual reasons (both fluff and mechanical) why certain individuals/families/societies are known for certain things and others are not.