One of my players was recently bemoaning his other game. In that game, the GM spent a lot of time flipping through multiple rulebooks looking for “the answers.” Meanwhile, my friend and the other players sat there not adventuring. One way to avoid this is to limit your options to just a few core rulebooks. The purpose of this column is to examine whether we can pare that number of rulebooks down to one.
One.
Just One.
This may sound very limiting, but there are some good reasons to consider it. One book is easy on the wallet, and you can try out a new system without taking out a second mortgage. With one book, you’ll spend less time looking up rules and more time focused on your players and your world. It also greatly reduced rules confusion while you GM. With one book, you can learn the rules inside and out. Let’s look at some areas of the game and how we might get by with just one book.
CHARACTER CLASSES
Books containing additional character classes certainly provide players with more options. But they generally come with a cost: rules bloat. As a GM, you now have to manage a number of non-standard classes at your table (wood or virtual). Under a one-book model, you simply make minor modifications of existing classes, rather than hanging another albatross around your GM neck.
For example, suppose a player really wants a holy knight or paladin, and that’s not a standard class in your one book. You might simply adjust your cleric class by allowing them to use edged weapons and to own
a horse. To compensate for these extra benefits, increase the number of XP to get to the next level. With a simple fix you’ve given the player most of what they want without bringing additional complexity to your game. You may want to note these changes right on their character sheet and just let the player handle the differences from the standard class.
In fact, even a modified class may be unnecessary. One of my players wanted to be a swashbuckling, musketeer type. After looking at some options, he decided just to play a standard fighter. However, he roleplayed him as a chivalrous dandy who hated getting his fine clothes damaged. We’re having a blast with the character, and the roleplaying is more important than the mechanics.
OPPONENTS
Roleplayers love their bestiaries. In fact, many one-book systems provide a section with creatures and opponents. With very little work, you can simply reskin these creatures and NPC’s. Change their appearance, adjust a special ability or attack, and you’ll have plenty of trouble to throw at your players for years.
Even if your book is only a player’s handbook type, you can still create endless opponents with very little work. Most combative creatures are based on a fighter/warrior model. Make up a chart of the fighter’s relevant abilities at different levels, bolt on extra attacks or a spell-like ability, and you’re done. Here’s another dirty trick: take your PC’s character sheets, and swap a few spells, skills, or special abilities. You’ve got ready made opponents almost exactly balanced with your party. Give them pointy-ears, green skin, or a bumpy forehead and they’ll never know. You can always bump them up or down a few notches to adjust the difficulty of the encounter. Whichever method you use, you’ll actually save yourself time and maybe come up with something unique for your campaign.
TRAPS, CHALLENGES, AND REWARDS
Many one-book systems list at least some options for these items. If not, simply take a look at a standard character sheet for your game. What abilities or skills could be used to avoid a trap or overcome a challenge? What are the consequences for failure (loss of health, etc…)? What ways might they recover from a failure? Using this method, you can tailor your traps and challenges to your PC’s and their genre.
Creating rewards is a similar process. However, in this case, take a close look at your weapons and spell lists. Many magic items/weapons mimic the effect of existing spells or grant a bonus against certain enemies. Give your new items some reasonable restrictions (one per day, doesn’t work against anything yellow), and hand them out to your players. Better yet, ask your players what they might want in a magic item. Then give them some of what they want.
SETTINGS
Single book systems typically provide little in the way of setting information. However, this can be a feature not a bug. By not being tied to a specific setting, you can mold your world to your characters. Suppose someone is playing a barbarian. Make one of your villains the leader of a rival tribe. Do something like this for each of your players, and your campaign planning is easy. Also, if you are playing in a shared world like Star Wars, Star Trek or Middle-Earth, there are more than enough resources available online.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The one book model is not a religious edict. Use whatever you find helpful in your session prep. However, you might find that it is sometimes easier to use one book and make creative adjustments as needed. It’s often quicker, keeps the rules manageable, and may even foster your own resourcefulness in the process.
What do you think? What points do you disagree with, and what did I miss? Let us know below.
Just got back from a long weekend at Ambercon, and one book was the maximum I saw a GM use in any game, rather than the minimum. (And that mostly because Lords of Gossamer and Shadow is so new we GMs haven’t fully internalized it yet.)
It really is wonderful not to be looking stuff up all the time…
That’s one reason we’ve stuck with old school D&D (using BASIC FANTASY RPG’s version). Generally we don’t need to look much up during play.
But to each their own.
or you know, how about zero books?
i asked the players recently, “do we want to bother a system for this one?” and we got a resounding ‘No!’ from everyone; and a great game was had by all.
Hey, if you can go systemless, great. In fact, most of our rp-ing encounters are pretty systemless anyway.
You missed my own personal pet peeve for rules bloat: spells. Oh, god, the spells! The Vancian magic system used by D&D has probably killed more trees than all of the fantasy spellbooks containing those spells combined.
“I want a spell that lets me fire off bursts of purple sparks that damage the enemy.”
“You mean Magic Missile?”
“Um, no, duh! Magic Missile clearly states it creates WHITE MISSILES, I want PURPLE SPARKS!”
“Uh-huh.”
I agree on the spells. And one core book helps alleviate the problem a bit.
On the rare occasion I play Pathfinder I do my best to do everything from the core book.
As I GM, I mostly just use the core too but I let the players build what they want as long as I can review it first. When I build magic item, I try to stick to the core book for the spells needed to make them as well.
Thanks Knight of Roses and everyone else for their thoughts. Seems like we are all on the same page.
Yeah, if I’m not delving deep into a system like Pathfinder, I prefer something closer to Pathfinder Core. For old hands who love the system and feel they’ve exhausted the stock options, Core can be a challenge to get creative with tighter constraints.
Indie books are particularly easy– many are intentionally one book, no expansions. Sometimes the books are tiny too… a unified resolution system doesn’t take much page count at all.
To be contrary, though, I’ll point out that sometimes extra books are about trading money to gain time. A book of monsters is quicker to prep from than deriving them anew each time. Similarly, a module can show new ways to explore a system, sometimes breaking you out of ruts.
So: good challenge, and good to think about. But I’m not going to hate on monster books anytime soon.
Scott,
If a monster book/adventure module is saving you time and sparking creativity, huzzah!!!! But if it is bogging down play or prep (doesn’t sound like it in your case), then it may be time to rethink dependence on books.
Just my two cents, which can’t even buy coffee.
I agree, one book is the way to go for the GM. It is really boring to sit and watch the GM hunt through all their books for the “right” answer. What my groups do is outsource the rule hunting to other players whose turn it isn’t and that are not directly involved with the rule question (perhaps they are in a different part of town doing something else). That way the GM can continue with what is going on while the rule is being looked up. Or, we make a ruling now and then investigate later.
Thanks Hagen, like the idea of farming things out to the players as well.
There is a lot of bias in this article towards D&D, pathfinder and other lots of books systems.
There are excellent games throughout the hobby that have only one book and are often better for it.
Check out some indie games that focus on a core concept rather than a generic game system that says it can do anything. You have a player who wants to play a holy warrior (your example) discuss with the group why that is interesting to all of them and then look at Paladin by John Wick or Dogs in the Vineyard by Lumpley games.
There are a lot of games that get missed by this blog that are worth people’s time to investigate and learn a lot of good lessons to bring back to more traditional games like D&D.
I think you’ll enjoy tomorrow’s article…
You happened to pick the my favourite game of all time to write on so…. yeah you are right.
Most of the stuff we play only requires one book, but as Paul alluded to, my group doesn’t play D&D or Pathfinder. The Firefly game has a couple of sourcebooks, but in play, I only use the core book — I’ve been running Battlestar Galactica with a single book, no issues. Hollow Earth Expedition has three sourcebooks, but I only crack the main book now and again. Marvel Heroic, Atomic Robo — one book used. Mostly, it’s a function if the simplicity of the systems played in this case.
Having tons of material ready made is nice from a prep standpoint; it cuts down on the GM workload, but it can cause analysis paralysis when trying to choose what cool thing to bounce off the players.
That Marvel Heroic is one hell of a book. The cortex system stripped back and fine tuned in a direction that I had a normal mortal reporter character and Thor running around in the same group.
Totally agree with the analysis paralysis of having too many books, I have a large collection of old WOD games. I can’t ever think of getting rid of them but I have not used them for anything more than inspiration in 10-15 years.
As Roleplaying games go, D&D (since AD&D 1st edition) is really its very own thing that is very unlike almost all other games when it comes to complecity. (The Basic line and OD&D are much much smaller and almost rules-light, except for the number of spells.)
Since we’re playing online (Roll20) first and foremost these days, I’ve been doing most of my rule referencing from the core PDF. The great thing about that, I’ve discovered, is that I can amend it with any house rule, errata change or extra material I want. So we only ever will have one book. As extra material comes out, I’ll pick and choose what I want to allow into our game and add it into the core book. Then I keep an updated copy of the PDF on Evernote for easy referencing via phone or tablet. So far, its worked like a dream.
Which system are you using, BluSponge?
John: Witch Hunter: The Invisible World. Granted, the 2nd edition only has the core book so far. But there is a lot of material from the previous edition and the publisher is working to get the updated material out there. But the idea of having to reference multiple PDFs, especially on a tablet, is just a pain. Having a master campaign rulebook is an experiment that is paying off very well right now.
And if you play an open source game, you can just edit the file to your group’s content.
I use Evernote as well and love it.
OR, you could learn the rules to the game.
OR, you could play a game that is mechanically simpler that doesn’t require high-level trigonometry and pie charts to play.
I think the one book rule does help simplify incredibly complex games that add rule after rule, but it just band-aids a symptom of a larger problem.