Quote from: TristramEvans;583558You also don't need the DMG or M&M to play D&D. So what the OP meant was obviously not limited to just the book with the basic or enough rules to play if you're willing to make up the rest.

In AD&D1e, the rules for combat were in the DMG. In D&D3e IIRC and 4e, rules for awarding XP are in the DMG. Also, magic items are an integral part of how the system operates in D&D3e and were contained in the DMG.

I kind of agree with you on the MM, though I think missing monsters in D&D is a magnitude of difference from missing notable NPCs in Star Wars.

FWIW I agree that you could play D&D with just the PHB, but the stuff that you are making up aren't examples of the rules in operation, but core operating rules themselves.

Quote from: Skywalker;583562FWIW I agree that you could play D&D with just the PHB, but the stuff that you are making up aren't examples of the rules in operation, but core operating rules themselves.

No, I don't think you can safely determine magic items to be 'core operating rules'.  What about low-magic settings?  They're every bit as much flavor as the 'examples' left out of the Star Wars book.

Further, I don't think you can safely do any 'branded' setting without including all the major points under that brand.  Doesn't matter if it is Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy, or whatnot.  You need to either touch all the bases lightly, or limit the campaign to the 'starter' material.

If we were talking about the D6 system, uncoupled from Star Wars the RPG, that would be different.

Quote from: mcbobbo;583566No, I don't think you can safely determine magic items to be 'core operating rules'.  What about low-magic settings?  They're every bit as much flavor as the 'examples' left out of the Star Wars book.

Its a gray area. For AD&D1e and 2e, I think you have a strong argument. However, D&D3e does make assumptions about the magic items in how the rules operate. So, I think the argument is less stronger there. In D&D4e, the magic item rules were moved to the PHB, though the assumptions of how they would be used are in the DMG.

Notable NPCs are not an assumption in terms of how the Star Wars WEG1e rules operate.

Quote from: mcbobbo;583566Further, I don't think you can safely do any 'branded' setting without including all the major points under that brand.  Doesn't matter if it is Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy, or whatnot.  You need to either touch all the bases lightly, or limit the campaign to the 'starter' material.

At what point must setting be included to make an RPG a complete RPG though? This cannot be objectively answered, so it makes it difficult to use as a gauge for anything but a generic settingless RPG where it is irrelevant.

For example, Star Wars WEG 1e does include elements of the Star Wars setting and storymaking in the core book. At what point does that get gauged to be sufficient or insufficient to provide completeness? FWIW if you throw setting contained in the book in isolation into the mix then I would say that Star Wars Sourcebook is insufficient to provide completeness. It would be a poor setting book and doesn't cover all the major points IMO

You don't need any of the main characters from the movies for a Star Wars game to be "Star Wars".  There is enough flavor in the template descriptions, examples, and sample adventures that with the 1E rulebook you could almost play a game of "Star Wars" without ever having seen the movies.

I can assure you I have played several games of "real" Star Wars with just the rule book.

Quote from: Skywalker;583562I kind of agree with you on the MM, though I think missing monsters in D&D is a magnitude of difference from missing notable NPCs in Star Wars.

The difference is that everything in the Star Wars Sourcebook can be found in the 1st Edition core rulebook: Starship stats? Droids? Aliens? Equipment? NPCs? The core rulebook has all of these things. The Sourcebook only served to expand your options in this areas.

By contrast, if you don't have the MM for 2E and 3E you don't have any monster stats at all. There's a major component of the game that's entirely missing.

Quote from: mcbobbo;583566No, I don't think you can safely determine magic items to be 'core operating rules'.  What about low-magic settings?  They're every bit as much flavor as the 'examples' left out of the Star Wars book.

No, actually, this is another big difference: There are PHB class abilities in 3E that you can't use unless you own the DMG and the MM. Sure, we could hypothesize some house ruled version of 3E in which those class abilities doesn't exist. But that would be completely inverted from the Star Wars example (where you would need to add house rules in order to make the Sourcebook a required volume).

Quote from: Technomancer;583577You don't need any of the main characters from the movies for a Star Wars game to be "Star Wars".  There is enough flavor in the template descriptions, examples, and sample adventures that with the 1E rulebook you could almost play a game of "Star Wars" without ever having seen the movies.

I can assure you I have played several games of "real" Star Wars with just the rule book.

That a person can play a game with just the rules from one book is not in question, as this is not contrary to the format of D&D. The big difference between the two is that D&D is a genre game. It has no specific setting, rather an implied setting. If the game in question was a culture game, like Tekumel, then the game would not be "complete" with just the rules, if no information was given on the setting. Star Wars has a specific setting. The majority of the information on that setting and how it translates into game terms are in the Star Wars sourcebook, thus it is a core product. A person "could " play a Star Wars game with any generic system if they wanted, depending on what they were willing to invent on their own.

What makes a gamebook "complete" is an argument that's as old as online forums, so obviously I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but my assesment of what constitutes a "core product" of a gameline is what books are required to provide all the information and rules needed to run the game as the game was intended to be played by the authors.

Quote from: Skywalker;583562In AD&D1e, the rules for combat were in the DMG.

In brown box D&D the rules for combat were in another product of the buyer's choice. And you could also, at the time AD&D was published, buy the "complete rules" for play in one boxed set.

QuoteIn D&D3e IIRC and 4e, rules for awarding XP are in the DMG.

But the game is playable without these. The DM can make these up as he sees fit, or the players can play 1st level characters without needing the other product, basically fulflilling the same standards you applied to the Dragon Age boxed set 1.

QuoteAlso, magic items are an integral part of how the system operates in D&D3e and were contained in the DMG.

You're saying it was impossible to play 3e without magic items rules? I disagree.

QuoteI kind of agree with you on the MM, though I think missing monsters in D&D is a magnitude of difference from missing notable NPCs in Star Wars.

Yet you don't consider the monster manuals of any other RPG besides D&D to be "core products"?

Again, the problem is that you're constantly altering your standards depending on what game you're talking about. If lacking the rules for creating magic items is a loss of "core operating rules" in D&D, how is the same not applicable to Burning Wheel? If you consider the MM a core product of D&D , how is that not also true of WHFRP 2e, or any other number of games?

The OP may not be clarifying, but you certainly can at least come up with your own standards for what constitutes a core product and stick with them, so at least we'd be able to say "okay, here we disagree", rather than the somewhat nonsensical approach of holding every RPG to completely different standards than the game its being compared to.

Quote from: TristramEvans;583743Star Wars has a specific setting. The majority of the information on that setting and how it translates into game terms are in the Star Wars sourcebook, thus it is a core product. A person "could " play a Star Wars game with any generic system if they wanted, depending on what they were willing to invent on their own.

My view as well.

Quote from: TristramEvans;583743That a person can play a game with just the rules from one book is not in question, as this is not contrary to the format of D&D. The big difference between the two is that D&D is a genre game. It has no specific setting, rather an implied setting. If the game in question was a culture game, like Tekumel, then the game would not be "complete" with just the rules, if no information was given on the setting. Star Wars has a specific setting. The majority of the information on that setting and how it translates into game terms are in the Star Wars sourcebook, thus it is a core product. A person "could " play a Star Wars game with any generic system if they wanted, depending on what they were willing to invent on their own.

What makes a gamebook "complete" is an argument that's as old as online forums, so obviously I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but my assesment of what constitutes a "core product" of a gameline is what books are required to provide all the information and rules needed to run the game as the game was intended to be played by the authors.

Whatever, dude.  There is enough info on the setting in just the rule book to play Star Wars, without making anything up (other than maybe NPC write-ups).  Just because some parts of the setting are not in the main rule book does not mean there is not enough there to play Star Wars.  That's like saying a WW2 game is incomplete without stats for every ship, tank, airplane, and firearm.  I suppose that's a valid point of view, if not very reasonable in my view.

Quote from: Technomancer;583762That's like saying a WW2 game is incomplete without stats for every ship, tank, airplane, and firearm.  I suppose that's a valid point of view, if not very reasonable in my view.

Of course it isn't very reasonable - you designed it as such, to support your argument.

My expectation would be that every vehicle, race, and piece of equipment featured in the three movies would be detailed.  Not every piece of scenery, but everything that gets actual screen time, influences the plot, etc.  Because chances are you're going to want to emulate this at some point.  This would be the entire reason for using that setting over a generic one.

It might help to cover what is actually in that first edition book.  Anyone still have one?  I'm pretty sure I don't, but I can check when I get home.

Quote from: TristramEvans;583745And you could also, at the time AD&D was published, buy the "complete rules" for play in one boxed set.

I assume you are referring to B/X or BECMI D&D? If so, then yeah, I think there is an argument to say that they were complete games. Assuming you don't apply the definition you applied to Dragon Age of course.

I also think there would be an argument that these are distinct from AD&D, but I think that's for another thread.

Quote from: TristramEvans;583745But the game is playable without these. The DM can make these up as he sees fit, or the players can play 1st level characters without needing the other product, basically fulflilling the same standards you applied to the Dragon Age boxed set 1.

No. When core rules are missing then its incomplete. That's the case, if you play without the DMG and arguably the MM but not Dragon Age.

Quote from: TristramEvans;583745You're saying it was impossible to play 3e without magic items rules? I disagree.

I am saying that D&D3e is incomplete without magic items given that their use was an assumption of the core rules. The DMG also has other core rules that make it incomplete with the PHB alone.

On saying that, I agree, you can play D&D with just the PHB. Hell, you could do it without any books I imagine. But you would be doing so with several core rules missing or replaced. The ability to RPG with a book alone doesn't dictate whether the RPG incomplete or not in one book.

Quote from: TristramEvans;583745Yet you don't consider the monster manuals of any other RPG besides D&D to be "core products"?

I would consider that there are other RPGs where having monsters would be a core rule. I can't recall any of those not that don't have at least some monsters in the core book though.

Quote from: TristramEvans;583745If lacking the rules for creating magic items is a loss of "core operating rules" in D&D, how is the same not applicable to Burning Wheel? If you consider the MM a core product of D&D , how is that not also true of WHFRP 2e, or any other number of games?

If the rules operate on the assumption that magic items are used, then its an issue. That's not the case in WFRP or many other games.

Okay, so if it were possible to pirate a PDF of this 1987 production, and I'm not saying it is or isn't, a person might make the case that there are exactly five ships in the 1e game.

There's no Y-Wing, no Star Destroyer, no Tie Interceptor, no Slave 1, etc.  (Note the Y-Wing does appear later, in an adventure...)

And this list is far less than 'every' ship in the setting.  These are just those featured prominently in the films.  If you wanted to use the provided Millennium Falcon stats to recreate the escape from Tatooine in the first film, how do you do that without making things up?  How many hits from a Star Destroyer can it take?  What if the players want to attack it and bring it down, like in RoTJ?  Is it possible?  Do you railroad it away as 'impossible'?  Vis-a-vis Boba Fett (or similar bounty hunter).

There are also exactly three 'stock characters'.

Finally, the only representation of races are the three or four character templates.

It isn't impossible to play out the movies with just this book, but isn't anything close to an ideal situation either.  You get a small handful of examples and that's it.

As said above, I think it is a valid criticism that Star Wars WEG1e does not have much "stuff" in the core book. That is equally valid of the Star Wars Sourcebook too. But I don't think its a valid criticism to say its incomplete in the same way that the PHB is incomplete.

Quote from: Skywalker;583783As said above, I think it is a valid criticism that Star Wars WEG1e does not have much "stuff" in the core book. That is equally valid of the Star Wars Sourcebook too. But I don't think its a valid criticism to say its incomplete in the same way that the PHB is incomplete.

If you hold both books to the same standard, then you're probably right.

Though, I don't find it reasonable to do that, for reasons already discussed.  Chiefly they have different goals.

Quote from: mcbobbo;583785Though, I don't find it reasonable to do that, for reasons already discussed.  Chiefly they have different goals.

I am not sure what's unreasonable about it.

Saying that the Star Wars WEG1e doesn't have much stuff in it and the PHB is an incomplete rulebook is more informative as a criticism than trying to lump this all into a single category of "they are incomplete".