An Open Letter About Of Gods & Monsters

[Troll Lord]

Okay, Davis just showed up and we've begun the reterminologation of this debate. We'll have it fixed soon and Davis came up with a great way to repackage the product.

Following my castle metaphor...if the PH is the only truely CORE book, it must be the Keep of the Castle. The MT, OG&M, CKG etc are the bastions, towers, etc.

It will come together. But when it does it will not involve words like core, rules, system etc.

NOW to work on chapter 8.

Steve
_________________
The High Lord, Coburg the Undying

He who sits on the elephants back

Castle and Crusade Society
troll@trolllord.com

[dachda]

Thanks Steve, for the response. I'm not one of those worried about the use of "core", but perhaps that is because I had a decade long absence from RPGing and missed the whole 3e era. In fact like you I never played "3rd ed, or 3.5, gurps, role master, warhammer or any other games" so perhaps I just don't get it. I don't remember the term 'core books' from my 1e days or from my brief 2e days. My vague notion is that the whole idea is a recent & modern marketing idea to sell more books. Write up some more mechanics, slap on a core book label and convince the consumer they need to buy. So now that word 'core' has some extra meaning I just don't get. But the word does seem to elicit a strong emotional reaction in folks so dropping it does seem wise.

EDIT: Davis' idea is a good one. Should clear up the 'core' issue while still explaining how all the books fit together. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone and we can all let this 'core' thing rest in peace.

Oh, and yes please back to work on Chapter 8!!!
_________________
Sir Dachda McKinty,

Margrave and Knight of Portlandia
Castles & Crusades Society

[Fiffergrund]

Troll Lord wrote:
Okay, Davis just showed up and we've begun the reterminologation of this debate. We'll have it fixed soon and Davis came up with a great way to repackage the product.

Following my castle metaphor...if the PH is the only truely CORE book, it must be the Keep of the Castle. The MT, OG&M, CKG etc are the bastions, towers, etc.

It will come together. But when it does it will not involve words like core, rules, system etc.

NOW to work on chapter 8.

Steve

Amen. Kudos on the decision to ditch the word "core" entirely. I like the approach you just mentioned. Dachda has it right - back in the day there were no "core" books. Just books. As long as they all play nicely with each other, it's all good.

Best of all, it gets WOTC's decision about how to market 3E OUT of the equation. Once "core" is ditched, the paradigm shifts even more.

On another note, congrats to the OP on a successful thread. I know I learned a ton. I haven't been involved in a good thread like this in a long time.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

[Omote]

Troll Lord wrote:
Hallo,

About the core book and marketing concept, sadly, that train left the station several years ago. I wasn't on it. Davis wasn't either. This whole discussion starts with the CKG . . .

I'll repeat what many of you probably already know. TLG did not solicit the CKG. It was really only a design concept and one that was half baked at best, kind of a how to book in its earliest conception. As Davis and Mac were the authors of the PH and MT, I was going to be the author of the CKG. That was in its earliest conception. Way back in 05 Diamond called me wanting to put some information in the catalog about up coming releases. We were still struggling with a number of past projects and I hadn't anything concrete on the schedule, I told them this but they kept pestering me. So I gave them the CKG and a few other titles with the full disclosure that these had no titles, ISBNs, prices, etc. They confirmed it would just go in a catalog but not into solicitation.

They promptly put it in solicitation and we started getting orders on it, killing its chances in the book trade.

So the CKG rapidly became part of the C&C package. But when we look at the word core, it gets worse.

I travel to trade shows in Ft. Wayne, Madison (on occasion) and Las Vegas and talk to retailers at regional cons. Its part of my job to pitch the line into what I call the channel. I have talked to people until I'm blue in the face about C&C, happily so, but I invariably get the question, "when is the game master book coming out?" Some reference the Diamond solicitation, it being on amazon, etc etc. I explain that you don't need this book (this was before OG&M), there are only two books, etc etc etc etc. They stare at me like I'm an interested third party and then say something like "yeah, but when is the game master book coming out?"

Lets set that discussion aside for a moment and have another one. There was misrepresentation by me or misinterpretation by gamers way back in 04. In those days we argued that there was only going to be one book needed. One core book. Of course we fully intended to do an Monster book, and had the nascent idea of a CKG type book and wanted a deity book (we were trying to pry Legendary Pantheons from the LA system, but Gary resisted us with a heavy stick and sharp wit haha), and other various and sundries. But the concept was that everything you needed to play was in the one book. I can't remember now how I formulated it or said it but in my tiny one cell brain I was going to put some monsters in the PH, but just enough to get by. This concept was abandoned after a 32 second conversation with Davis, Mac and Peter about length and layout. So the idea of a one book system slowly morphed into a two book system.

Or did it? Is the M&T a core book? Not really. Not when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it. I don't need it. I use it, by default now. But some of us remember the long year between the PH and MT releases. What did you do? I used the AD&D Monster Manual, converting the monsters in seconds.

So the question we beg to answer is, what makes a core book?

Hard to say. What do you need, at the games' core to play? The answer is easy, the Players Handbook. That's the answer. You only need the PH. But truthfully, you need monsters to play and treasures. So the MT too...I guess.

We've all settled on the 2 books being the core books. But what about a black libram, that has spells in it and monsters? Is it s a splat book? How do I market that? Are these optional spells? Or are these spells as valid as any other spell you might cast in the game. What about the monsters in libram? Are they optional? Does the word even apply? What does it even mean? When the M&T of Aihrde comes out are those monsters and treasure optional to the core of the game?

Mechanics are the answers of course. There is a perception here that by using the word "core" book TLG is some how damning the C&C community into those optional rules in Gods and Monsters. That we are creating a landscape in which to play C&C properly then you have to use the CKG and the OG&M.

Well that's not really my intention (and this is all me folks, I did not consult Davis about this at all).

My intention was to create a marketing picture for retailers and distributors that there is a solid group of core support products for the game. Its not just two 20 dollar books (remember if a retailer sells a copy of the PH he only makes about 4 dollars), but a solid group of books that they can purchase and sell and that possess a profit margin. Because here is the crux of the matter, its the same question about the MT being core but from a marketing concept. You don't really NEED the M&T to play, and you don't really NEED core books to sell. But if you want play enhanced and made easier then you should have the MT and if you want to sell more then you want core books. Most retailers don't have the grasp of the game, and because of its low profit margin, they don't have the inclination nor time to come to an understanding about the finer points of what you need and don't need. And if they look over the sheet they can use their limited budget to invest in a couple of books and make 8 dollars or they can buy some magic cards. Well, if you do the math you'll see where that leaves C&C.

Its a hard sell, made harder by the price point. We are basically trying to convince distributors to push and retailers to carry a product that is going up against Dungeon & Dragons and has a price point 1/3 the size. This means more work for us and them and less money for the work. The end game is of course in volume . . . but that's another story. But in listening to the retailer mentioned above who just repeats the question "when is the game master's book coming out" we can hear a great deal. He doesn't care about the finer points of the debate, he has a rent check to make and I have 51 seconds (average time a publisher has with a retailer at GTS) to convince him to carry these books. The horizontal growth of a market is wonderful, but is greatly enhanced by some vertical weight. There comes the core of his question about when the game master's guide is coming out. And the question is parroted about Gods & Monsters. This is the vertical weight he is looking for to drive his profit margin up and pay his rent.

I really conceptualize the Crusade as a castle in progress. We are all (you and I) building a gaming world of walls and towers, bastions and battlements and all that it comes with. The Castle has many towers, but the four key towers are the PH, MT, CKG and OG&M. Why? Because their format and layout is so much larger than the rest.

Are they core books? No. Do we need to use the word core in our marketing copy? I doubt it, because as mentioned above, the retailer doesn't care. Much as I mentioned above these books will probably carry themselves, no matter my copy (though we will probably loose some sales at the retail level from store owners not concerned with RPGs who just don't know the difference or care to learn, they will just by the books needed to play).

So where does this long rambling discourse leave us? I don't know that either, other than I was supposed to be editing Chapter 8 of the CKG and I'm not hahaha.

But it does seem that many here think I, and TLG by default, are being disingenuous with use of the word "core" on OG&M. As you probably have already determined and to be completely honest, I really don't understand the debate on a consumer level. When I played AD&D I never used the DMG as I thought it had too many rules in it. I used pieces of all the books though, but never thought in terms of core books. I never played 2nd ed, or 3rd ed, or 3.5, gurps, role master, warhammer or any other games so my points of reference are way far off base what yours are. I honestly don't remember a time when my game had anything but saddle stitch modules and hard cover books. Hence my more modern connection between the four C&C hard cover books as core books and everything else as just books.

The debate probably has something to do with these *#@&^#@ cell phones. Of that I'm pretty sure. Apparently something happened between the years 1985 and 2005. I'm not really certain what has happened, but I guess I got to call breakdaddy and ask him!

But humor and goofing aside we will drop the use of the word core as Mark and I determined this morning, when in doubt, follow the ethical road. And if folks have walked away from my ad copy with the idea that we are being disingenuous then I have to take that to heart. As I've always said, its not what you say that is important, its what they hear.

So, now I'll have to rethink my terminology a little bit and get it fixed. AND THEN I'LL WORK ON THE CKG!!!!

Steve

This is quite possibly the best post you'll ever read from TLG on pretty much any matter. It shoud be stickied, remembered and copied to all those who don't get it. Good, important stuff.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Treebore]

The "core" issue is about continuity with me. During the bloody message board battles what was "needed" to play C"&C, IE "core" was brought up many times, and people were told, many times, that only 2 books were needed (for the C&C system to run all by itself) and that only these two books were "core".

Now here we are a couple of years later looking like we lied because now 2 more books are being referenced as "core", and if I were to engage in bloody internet message board battles again all the "ammo" about there being 4 "core" books would be on the outsiders side of the battle field.

There are now 4 core books, the ad copy says so.

So you now have to have 4 books to play C&C now, the ad copy says so. Discussion with outsiders is over.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Wow...a 5-page discussion (over the course of <24 hours...not bad) on the semantics of one word. Unbelievable.

Here's what gets me. This was a decision to put the word "core" on the web page. I have copies of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th printings of the PHB, and of the 2nd and the 2nd print (I think...the one before the current incarnation) M&T. Nowhere on any of the C&C books I own do I see the words, "Core Rulebook." That's yet another gimmick for which we can thank the...ummm...wonderful people...at WotC.

I was never under the impression that there were C&C Core Rulebooks and splat books. When the game was first pitched to me last summer at GenCon, it was pitched from the standpoint that you only needed 2 books to play the game. I didn't hear anything different this year. Granted, I didn't catch too much of the Trolls pitching the product to noob customers, but I didn't hear a single person saying that you needed anything beyond PHB & M&T to play the game.

I don't know if distributors or retailers insist on having the word "Core" associated with a product or not. Since the word doesn't appear on any of the rulebooks in the first place, and to the best of my knowledge never has, this reminds me of the opening sequence in the movie, "1776." A bunch of bickering over something that ultimately shouldn't have much effect on how the game sells. That being said, however, understand that I'm no marketing guru. Apparently, WotC hit on something that led to big sales of the 3.x products.

The 1e and even 2e AD&D books were split into rulebooks and supplements. While some of the supplements were hardcover books, they pretty clearly said something to the effect of "Official supplement for the AD&D game. This product requires the use of the PHB, DMG and MM."

Sorry for the rant here. I understand the idea that people don't agree with calling these other two soon-to-be hard cover books "Core" rulebooks, but at the end of the day, none of the books have EVER said "Core Rulebook" in them. I don't consider OG&M to be any more core than Engineering Dungeons, CGA&A or The Black Libram of Nartarus. Is that to say that I haven't derived immense enjoyment from all of the above-named works? Of course not. But none of those books say "Core Rulebook" either. I guess I would rather see in-depth discussion of the rules put forth in the book than on the semantics of the word, "Core".

[gideon_thorne]

Sir Osis of Liver wrote:
Wow...a 5-page discussion (over the course of <24 hours...not bad) on the semantics of one word. Unbelievable.

*chuckles* Ya. I was just thinking myself on some of the lines from the movie "My Fair Lady" over phonetics and the science of speech.
"One common language... I'm afraid we'll never get...."
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Troll Lord]

Treebore wrote:
The "core" issue is about continuity with me. During the bloody message board battles what was "needed" to play C"&C, IE "core" was brought up many times, and people were told, many times, that only 2 books were needed (for the C&C system to run all by itself) and that only these two books were "core".

Now here we are a couple of years later looking like we lied because now 2 more books are being referenced as "core", and if I were to engage in bloody internet message board battles again all the "ammo" about there being 4 "core" books would be on the outsiders side of the battle field.

There are now 4 core books, the ad copy says so.

So you now have to have 4 books to play C&C now, the ad copy says so. Discussion with outsiders is over.

Yeppers. I pointedly stayed out of those discussions for obvious reasons. You were ever in the vanguard of those battles for sure.

Well we are going to purge it, but I'm having trouble finding it. Its not in the ad copy for Gods, but rather on the product listing on the left hand side, but that lists ED as Screens as core too.

So if you find the word anywhere that I'm missing, let me know and I'll purge it.

Still musing on my Keep idea.

Steve
_________________
The High Lord, Coburg the Undying

He who sits on the elephants back

Castle and Crusade Society
troll@trolllord.com

[Treebore]

I like the "keep" idea, and used correctly it will add to the "atmosphere" of Castles and Crusades and the kind fo game it is. So I hope you run with it.

Also, since I know how those who will argue the point will do so, unfortunately the new 4th Crusade ad copy gives the impression that those 4 books are "core".

So if you really want to give us some ammo put in the website ad copy for the PH and M&T "Core Book 1" and "Core Book 2", and then for the other 2 put nothing. Or to be clearer put the words "Supplement 1" and "Supplement 2".

Its just electronic digits, so costs nothing but a bit of time, but will give us good ammo in any future message board wars. Errr, discussions.

Edit: by ad copy I am referring to the individual pages describing each individual product, not the 4th Crusade ad copies.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Troll Lord]

I'll come up with something Tree. I'm going to try get away from terms though. In listening to breakdaddy pitch the game, and hearing myself, I know we almost never use the words core, but rather something like "this is all you need to play the game" while pointing to the PH.

I'm in musing mode at the moment. and like you really like the metaphor. Now how to turn a metaphor into ad copy....well the visual is best for that.

And Peter will be the next person I bother...
Steve
_________________
The High Lord, Coburg the Undying

He who sits on the elephants back

Castle and Crusade Society
troll@trolllord.com

[AslanC]

It's like seeing backstage at the show
I kid, I kid.

This has been a very interesting and enlightening conversation about the semantics of marketing.

I once got into the comic/rpg distribution game first as a shipper and then as a salesman (and then as a I-cant-stand-this-job).

It was in a conversation with a comic store owner when she explained to me how she sells $3 comics, and won't give up shelf space for a $1 comic since it makes her less money.

I never understood until she said that to me, why comics HAD to be so expensive.

I guess it is the exact same in the gaming world. If you can move a lot of product A for sure (even thought it costs $40 a book) you profit is superior to product B (which cost only $20 but doesn't sell like A).

Even if B is the better product.

The history of the 20th century is rife with stories of the better product not selling as well as an inferior one.

Le sigh.
_________________
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Earth Alpha: Yet another RPG blog!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Visit the new BASH Forums!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[gideon_thorne]

AslanC wrote:
It's like seeing backstage at the show
I kid, I kid.

This has been a very interesting and enlightening conversation about the semantics of marketing.

I once got into the comic/rpg distribution game first as a shipper and then as a salesman (and then as a I-cant-stand-this-job).

It was in a conversation with a comic store owner when she explained to me how she sells $3 comics, and won't give up shelf space for a $1 comic since it makes her less money.

I never understood until she said that to me, why comics HAD to be so expensive.

I guess it is the exact same in the gaming world. If you can move a lot of product A for sure (even thought it costs $40 a book) you profit is superior to product B (which cost only $20 but doesn't sell like A).

Even if B is the better product.

The history of the 20th century is rife with stories of the better product not selling as well as an inferior one.

Le sigh.

Ya, that's the thing. If a given book costs X to produce per unit, one then multiplies ones cost by a certain amount. Retailers buy it for about half of that usually. Which is why direct sales are so good for any game company. One keeps a lot more of the profits.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[AnthonyRoberson]

Ok. I have just started to dig into Of Gods & Monsters and I will definitely send emails to Steve with what I find, but here a couple of things that I noticed right off the bat:

- The name of a deity's avatar should be pluralized consistently throughout the book. Some are and some are not. References to that avatar should also be pluralized accordingly. For instance, on pg. 26 it should be Breathmaker's Avatar (and not Breathmaker Avatar) and the reference to it in the text should read as 'Breathmaker's avatar' and not as 'the Breathmaker avatar'.

- There is inconsistency in the way bonuses for weapons are expressed. For instance, on pg. 26 Breathmaker's Longspear is listed as having a '+4 to strike and do damage' while on pg. 88 the Bident of Hades is listed as '+4 doing 4d6 +4 damage'. There are many variations on these.

For consistency, I would suggest either just referring to a weapon by its bonus i.e. a +4 sword (since bonuses for magic weapons are applied to both to-hit and damage according to the rules). Or if it needs to written out, use the M&T format i.e. +4 to base to hit (BtH) roll and damage roll. Either way, pick a format and stick to it.

More later...

[Julian Grimm]

I'm glad to see that I am not the only one to see that the 'core' name was misleading. I do think that a remarketing is needed and the whole 'core' issue taken out. This does fix some of my problems that I stated earlier.

I however still stand by my other arguments.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Christina Stiles]

AnthonyRoberson wrote:
- The name of a deity's avatar should be pluralized consistently throughout the book. Some are and some are not. References to that avatar should also be pluralized accordingly. For instance, on pg. 26 it should be Breathmaker's Avatar (and not Breathmaker Avatar) and the reference to it in the text should read as 'Breathmaker's avatar' and not as 'the Breathmaker avatar'.

I don't think you mean pluralized here. You mean that they should all be standardized as possessive case--which is a good point.
_________________
Christina Stiles

The Misfit Troll Word Wrangler
www.christinastiles.com
www.misfit-studios.com
www.trolllord.com

[AnthonyRoberson]

Christina Stiles wrote:
don't think you mean pluralized here. You mean that they should all be standardized as possessive case--which is a good point.

That's what I meant. Thanks for catching that!

[cleaverthepit]

i luv editors
srsly

i actually hired one in college to fix my papers i suk so bad

[Sir Osis of Liver]

cleaverthepit wrote:
i luv editors
srsly

i actually hired one in college to fix my papers i suk so bad

I love the razor-sharp wit around here. It makes things so much fun.

[seskis281]

So... maybe I'm gonna start callin' the White Box "OC&C" heh....

That'll really get things a confusin'....

EDIT: Seriously, the thread's a good example of how criticism can be useful when it's constructive.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

[Omote]

OC&C it is! The best base, core, all-you-ever-need-in-one-box-set Castles & Crusades, ever!

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

I'm sticking with playtest 3.18, personally. That's pre-pub OC&C, and is the absolute definitive system (for C&C.) All others are pale imitations, to paraphrase and be an ass.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Christina Stiles]

cleaverthepit wrote:
i luv editors
srsly

What's not to love?
_________________
Christina Stiles

The Misfit Troll Word Wrangler
www.christinastiles.com
www.misfit-studios.com
www.trolllord.com

[Wasgo]

Weighing in late, but I like "Core" for Monsters & Treasures, Of Gods and Monsters and the Castle Keeper's Guide. While only the Player's Handbook is required, these books still represent the standards for the game.

Monsters & Treasures introduced rules on how to add monsters and treasure to the game, Of Gods and Monsters introduces how to add deities to the game and the Castle Keeper's Guide should present optional additions to the base C&C game as well. While all three of these books expand on the core game, as presented in the Player's Handbook, they're different than most rule expansions; these books represent a blueprint for how to run a C&C game.

While Of Gods and Monsters does present a less mechanically balanced game, I think it's necessary to create that unbalance when introducing Gods as a focal point in the game. The basic C&C rules include enough information for Gods to be included for an abstract, out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach. If Gods are included to a larger degree, there needs to be further effect. I like the approach in Of Gods and Monsters that grants granter powers while fully integrating worship and ritual as a more important part of the game. People worshipped these Gods in order to obtain power, and this feels fair to me. Increasing requirements for Gods without offering a benefit would have seemed far worse.

Trying to strip the term Core from the book, just because they're optional, seems to be an overreaction. They're Core in the way they define the base game, not just expand upon it. I think it's important to label them Core, because of the way they represent approaches to C&C. If they come across as splat books, their value is lost. While it's noble to want to create your own new labels and definitions, I think those would be lost on the consumer. Labelling them Core, but optional would be a far better compromise so that consumers don't feel imposed upon, but so that they still feel compelled to at least consider them.

What I propose is, instead of stripping away the Core label, ensure that the introductory page more clearly defines the purpose of the book. Of Gods and Monsters moves Gods from the background of a campaign to the forefront of it. By using the book you move away from a world in which characters quietly pray and characters religious rites are performed in name only, to a richer world where Gods may walk among us, and angering a God means more than just a penalty on skill checks. For that style of play, Of Gods and Monsters is Core.

It's Core in the same way the DMG is, that it enriches the game and everyone should own it. Core doesn't have to mean required to buy, but hopefully it does mean required to consider. Anything else is just a splat book.

[Julian Grimm]

It is a nice ideal but, since the d20 revolution of the market, core is defined as 'needed to play'. I agree this shouldn't be this way but new gamers will see core as this and it is a term to be avoided.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Lord Dynel]

Well, I'm going to come along a play a bit of Devil's Advocate. Not terribly much...but enough, I suppose.
I think WotC did a good thing when they labeled the PHB, DMG, and MM with the "Core Rulebook" label back in the day. It identified what many old gamers already knew and had known for many, many years - that these three books were what was necessary to play a D&D game. It also was used, I feel, for identification purposes in a tulmutuous time when product recognition was probably important, more so for gamers new to D&D than anything else.

Maybe it was when Hasbro bought WotC or maybe it was the brainchild of some WotC folk, but at some point the term "Core" shifted from "what is needed to play" to "non-campaign specific sourcebook or accessory." That was the marketing ploy, right there. I think this is where the term Core got it's ugly reputation from. I've had quite a few arguments on the WotC boards over this very subject, and it can get ugly. I feel someone, at some point, thought, "Hey, if we call everything 'Core' then people will snap it up!" And I also feel that with the mindset of "player empowerment" that WotC promoted, they wanted to push as many people to buy their splatbooks as possible, sometimes causing trouble at game tables everywhere (where the GMw as feeling pressure from players to allow things from the latest book).

I have absolutely no problem with the term "Core," as I understand what its original intent was. I never used the term in the 1st or 2nd Edition days, but that's only because I hadn't thought about it. I could see me calling the PHB, DMG, and MM "core" back in those days - they're what I took to most games back in those days. I support what ever the Trolls do, though, as it's their decision. I'm just along for the ride.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Wasgo]

Julian Grimm wrote:
It is a nice ideal but, since the d20 revolution of the market, core is defined as 'needed to play'. I agree this shouldn't be this way but new gamers will see core as this and it is a term to be avoided.

The DM's Guide isn't required to play D&D, nor are the Player's Handbook 2 or 3, but all of those are marked Core. Wizards has clearly redefined what Core means as of 4th Edition.

[Frost]

I think you could solve the "core" issue simply by using a different term. "Core" has become loaded ever since WotC started putting that word on its book with 3e. I never heard anyone say any book was "core" until 3e. Maybe something such as "primary" would work.
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

[Fiffergrund]

I still like "Foundation" as it works with the Castle theme.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

[Julian Grimm]

Personally, I think if you slap supplement or sourcebook on the cover it works better. The term supplement does not have the same 'need this' ring that core does. Go a bit further with stressing that the books with supplement on them can be cherry picked and are not needed in the intro and I think the issue can be laid to rest.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I could see me calling the PHB, DMG, and MM "core" back in those days - they're what I took to most games back in those days. I support what ever the Trolls do, though, as it's their decision. I'm just along for the ride.

Good points LD, but if I'm not running a game, then the only thing I really take with me is a PHB and, if I'm running in 3.x, whichever splatbooks I need to run my character. Even at that, though, the Rules Compendium is all you really need anymore.

Only one person from a group NEEDS to own everything on top of the PHB. So from that standpoing, the PHB is the only real "Core" rulebook.