Two Books or Three?

[captainjapan]

Dungeons & Dragons comprises three books: a player's book, a referee's book, and a catalogue of monsters; but it doesn't have to be this way. Why were the rules divided up in this manner to begin with and how has the three book model survived up until today when so many independent publishers are releasing single volume rulesets? In what form factor do you prefer your game, thinking both as a player and as a referee?

As a follow-up: Are there tables or sections of rules that you think would be more useful if moved from one book to another?

[Attronarch]

I prefer a single tome with rock-solid index.

[sixdemonbag]

Some of the information was intended to be hidden from the players, which is why it was originally split up. There may have been a binding cost-benefit as well but that's just conjecture.

These days, a single book would be my preference, since I really wouldn't expect players to have to know any rules. A single volume is easier to reference as well (whether it's a physical book or digital.)

[hamurai]

For me it really depends on how much info there is in each of these parts. OD&D works well as a single volume and divided up. There are big tomes out there which should be divided (and some do get split up, like OSE, City of Mist, Against the Darkmaster, Weird Frontiers, to name a few which I had a look at recently). If 5E was just one big book it would not be as easy to handle because of the size/weight alone.

In general, I like a single volume to read and learn the rules, but at the table I prefer split volumes which allow for faster use and which can be use simultaneously by more than one player.

[DungeonDevil]

Three little booklets is so classic, it's hard to want anything else. And the DM's book of Naughty Little Secrets should be locked with a clasp and have poisoned pages to deter any furtive attempts by players to catch a glimpse of Forbidden Lore.

[sixdemonbag]

For 5E, and this is just my opinion, the DMG is completely pointless (mostly just optional stuff) outside of the magic-items. The PHB, is fine, but too complex for my tastes (I'm on an OD&D forum posting, so shouldn't be a surprise there) so could obviously stand to be much shorter in page count.

A single volume 5E would be easy to do, and basically already exists in the free downloadable rules, which is what I use anyway.

And for the record, I like 5E and have played it quite a bit, I just scale it down. The Rules Cyclopedia is the model I wish WOTC would follow. If you can't fit a whole core game in 303 pages, then you might need to find a better editor.

[doublejig2]

Two books or three or The Book of Three from Lloyd Alexander.

[sixdemonbag]

Also, I should say that I prefer boxed sets to books, in general. They create a natural limit and length on what can included. It also allows for booklets to make more sense since, in a box, you can easily have a spell booklet, monster booklet, magic item booklet, DM advice, Player rules, etc.

If someone made me Hasbro CEO for a day, the first thing I'd do is commission a full-game boxed set that could be sold at major retailers to replace the current starter sets.

[geoffrey]

My favorite way is the way that Castles & Crusades does it:

1. Players Handbook (for players and for DMs)
2. Monsters & Treasure (for DMs only)

[scottenkainen]

I like the three-book model. You have the player-facing book, the DM-facing book, and - I don't think any third book has ever actually done this, mind you - but a perfect 3rd book, to me, would be campaign world-specific information that is meant to be shared, but players don't necessarily need to know up front.

[Falconer]

Mar 3, 2024 20:16:58 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

I like the three-book model. You have the player-facing book, the DM-facing book, and - I don't think any third book has ever actually done this, mind you - but a perfect 3rd book, to me, would be campaign world-specific information that is meant to be shared, but players don't necessarily need to know up front.

The Call of Cthulhu 3rd Ed. boxed set has three booklets: Investigators’ Book, Keeper’s Book, and Sourcebook for the 1920s. I love that, and I also love that there’s a hardcover compilation.

[Punkrabbitt]

I much prefer the one book. Tunnels & Trolls, or The Traveller Book do this well. And yes, I do know that Traveller was three books in the beginning lol!

[jacar]

I think they were divided for a couple of reasons. First, it let the GM pass the players handbook to the player to make their characters, choose spells and choose equipment. The second was so that the GM could keep information on game mechanics from the players so they would not try to game the system. The first was super important while the latter was more a fools errand. Players can also simply buy the players handbook with out the extra expense of all the other books. You, in theory, only need one monster manual and one DMs guide. A player's handbook per player is extremely useful for game flow. I do prefer 3 books if we are talking 1st ed AD&D and beyond. 2 books (Men and Magic and DMs guide) if we are talking Whitebox style games.

[jamesmishler]

They were originally split up for two reasons...

One, player and DM info needed to be separate... That's two books...

And two, the DM info required too many pages in saddle stitched booklet form, so it was split into two booklets by subject matter.

And say what you like about DM info other than monsters and treasures, at that time, the Underworld and Wilderness materials in Vol. 3 were indispensable to run the game, as everyone was a newbie at that time...

Today, I prefer the two book solution, one for players, one for game masters.

[machfront]

I prefer a single volume, despite old-school sensibilities (as I grew up in the Mentzer era but utilizing B/X and familiar with the split of AD&D).
I think it goes along with my preference with very lite rules. So… they ought be so lite that it would make little to no sense otherwise. Heheh
I sure cannot make any case to split RISUS or some iteration of Fighting Fantasy (such as the excellent Spellzard or even Troika!) into multiple volumes. lol

[rayotus]

My take is two or one. There are two types of players at the table - character players and the world player (GM/DM). One book for each. The player book needs all info relevant to the player and the rules they need to understand. Everything else in the DM book. I don't believe in endless DM advice, but if you are going to do that I could see why you might split the DM book into one that has only monsters or monsters/treasures and another that has all the rest. I'm not opposed to it all being in one book, other than the potential awkwardness of the size of the tome.I like having a smaller book for players that they can bring with them to make characters/reference as needed without all the extra stuff that only the GM needs or should have.

The one misstep here I think in Oe was including reactions and loyalty tables in volume 1, Men and Magic. That's stuff rolled by the GM and players shouldn't really see the tables IMO. Otherwise, I am generally satisfied with how the info is divided in the 3 LBBs (but NOT with the organization of it, of course).

[Parzival]

All of the above.
A single volume reference book like the Rules Cyclopedia is great to have.
But a divided Players’ Manual and DM’s Manual is also handy.
And of course a tome which is only about monsters is a nice solution, too.

So, yeah, all three!

[howandwhy99]

Three for me, but they are different for different purposes.

The DM has all of the rules which are never shared with the players. All of the advice on how to run and all of the large number of pages to read for problems that can arise, procedures, campaigns, Adventure creation. All of these things are needed in a very large book.

The players don't have a rule book but a guidebook. A slim one. Something on how to create their own character sheet. How to track and what notes need to be taken. How to play the game and learn not based on what the campaign rules are expected to be, but what is good and courteous play. The expectations of a tabletop rpg.

Lastly 2E edition had the best manifestation of a design catalog. But not just for monsters. Spells, magic items, equipment, traps, and of course all the mazes both campaign and adventure sized.

[waysoftheearth]

OD&D is divided into three booklets.

We could, arguably, combine two of these into a single one for the ref. So then we'd be down to just two booklets.

But there would still be something essential missing: that would be a playable game setting including whatever example PCs, towns, wilderness and/or dungeon maps, hidden traps and treasures and cast of NPCs and monsters with their mysterious agendas, as required to actually play!

So if it were to be three books, I'd have:

1) the players stuff (some of M&M, with how to play guidance),
2) the refs stuff (UWA + M&T), and
3) the playable game scenario stuff.

Of course 3 would be a toolbox of content and expandable goodness (useful examples of what the content generation mechanisms in UWA can produce) that you could combine in weird and wonderful ways, and continue to develop and/or build out from there. Or use as is to jumpstart a game with minimum fuss.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 6, 2024 2:30:29 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

The players don't have a rule book but a guidebook. A slim one. Something on how to create their own character sheet. How to track and what notes need to be taken. How to play the game and learn not based on what the campaign rules are expected to be, but what is good and courteous play. The expectations of a tabletop rpg.

Yes to this!

[Megatapirus]

I got my start in RPGs with a combination of B/X and AD&D 1E, but the moment I discovered games like Call of Cthulhu and WEG Star Wars that used a single book format, it was like the proverbial scales fell from my eyes as I beheld The Way.

When I got my hands on the Rules Cyclopedia in 1991, I thought for sure TSR had finally figured it out. Alas, I guess three books bring in more money than one. 😉

It's a big part of why I'm more likely to use Swords & Wizardry Complete or OSRIC at the table these days. That, and wanting to keep my originals well away from food and drinks.

[DungeonDevil]

Mar 3, 2024 19:08:49 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

My favorite way is the way that Castles & Crusades does it:

1. Players Handbook (for players and for DMs)
2. Monsters & Treasure (for DMs only)

As a kid I absolutely hated the notion (pushed solemnly by my D&D-owning friends) that mere players were not supposed to look at the DMG nor MM, and the MM is the coolest of the three books (IMOAAY, in my opinion as a youth).

[geoffrey]

Yeah, it is admittedly a fantasy that players as a whole won't look at DM-only books, but at least the publisher of a two-volume game can say, "We tried!"

To this day I think monster books are the coolest thing in gaming. Make mine Fiend Folio!

[jamesmishler]

I think the two volume method is the best for consumers and for publishers.

Two volume, a D&D group of four players and a DM might optimize their purchase with five player books @$30 each and one DM book @ $50 = $200.

Single volume? As a player why would I spend all that money on a book that is only 1/3 dedicated to what I need? So the group buys only one book... Maybe two, and the player info is shared at the table. @ $60 each that's only $60 maybe $120...

[Megatapirus]

Mar 7, 2024 12:15:26 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Yeah, it is admittedly a fantasy that players as a whole won't look at DM-only books, but at least the publisher of a two-volume game can say, "We tried!"

To this day I think monster books are the coolest thing in gaming. Make mine Fiend Folio!

The cynic in me also wonders if they weren't secretly banking on the "forbidden fruit" angle, too. Reverse psychology is a common enough concept.

And I also love FF. It's tough for me to gauge it against the MM purely for personal nostalgia reasons, but I'll definitely take it over MM2. It's just such an extreme take on a monster book. That is, everything in it is some combination of extremely cool, extremely weird, or extremely stupid. And that gritty as hell art...delightful.

[Punkrabbitt]

Regarding players not seeing DM books, back in the day we all took turns DMing. We all had the first three AD&D books and the Holmes boxed set. It never caused any problems for our groups.

[ochrejelly]

Why did 3 books persist in d&d? $$$money$$$ of course

[tdenmark]

Mar 10, 2024 0:18:56 GMT -6 ochrejelly said:

Why did 3 books persist in d&d? $$$money$$$ of course

I dunno. I really like having a Players Handbook for the players. A Dungeon Masters Guide for the DM. And the monster book seperate, otherwise the DM's guide would be too cluttered, it has enough going on with all the useful tools for the DM.

Except of course certain Single Volume Editions, while much has to be sacrificed to keep it all in one book there is something great about just packing one book to game night or a convention.

[ochrejelly]

I also like the 3 books, but I’m not talking about preference, I’m talking about a corporation saying “why sell 1 book when we can sell 3.” Hence the persistence of the 3 book model.

[Falconer]

Evil corporation… giving the fans what they prefer… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯