So before DNDBeyond started using the terms "Core D&D" and "Noncore D&D" as a sort of Source Category (e.g. as a trait you can use in advanced filters for the Game Rules database, or on the very first section of On/Off buttons on the Home page of editing a character in the Character Builder), 5e players usually used the term "core" to refer to "core rulebooks, and the rules and variant rules within," meaning the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual. No other books. Not Xanathar's, not Tasha's, not Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, not the now-legacy-status bestiary books that were absorbed into Monsters of the Multiverse, and not content from appendices of Forgotten Realms adventures or other sourcebooks. Since that term was implemented, 5e players STILL use the term "core" to refer to "core rulebooks, and the rules and variant rules within."
I would LOVE if the source category filters in the system were changed to reflect how the majority of the players use the word "core" when referring to specific sourcebooks. The current way DNDBeyond uses that word is simply inaccurate, and that's confusing. Here's some options I've brainstormed.
Invent a new source category called "Core D&D" that is just for content from the three core rulebooks - not even variants from other books for that content (e.g. no Tasha's optional class features, no Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus background variants, etc.).
Invent a new source category (I don't have a name for this yet) that's basically "Not intended to be for a specific setting or adventure, but not in the core rulebooks," like Xanathar's, Tasha's, and Monters of the Multiverse.
Rename the source category of "Core D&D" to something else (again, sadly I don't have another name for it, largely because I don't think the term "Core D&D" is clearly defined anywhere that's easy for customers to access) that reflects that it's a collection of actually core DND content, plus setting non-specific content, plus content from an unexplained selection of only some of the campaign settings (Forgotten Realms isn't even the default setting anymore even if most 5e adventures primarily take place there, but also Radiant Citadel, Ravenloft, planes beyond Sigil and the Outlands, Spelljammer, and maybe upcoming Greyhawk). Alternatively, rename it but also include all the other major 5e settings (Planescape, Dragonlance, Eberron, and all the three Magic: The Gathering settings).
Here's some other changes I think would be helpful and clarify confusion. These would help clarify what content is WotC "canon" and rules-as-written, versus what is third party stuff. It would also help clarify what settings certain content is "intended" or originally published for, even though we can obviously use any content we want in any setting as long as the rest of the play group thinks that sounds fun too.
Rename all of the Partnered Content from things like "Humblewood" to "Partnered Content (Humblewood)". The naming convention would be "Partnered Content ([specific partner's name or other identifier term, like Drakkenheim or Ghostfire Games])".
Invent new source categories for other Partnered Content (in this case, I mean that the copyright is shared with or licensed from an organization or individual besides WotC) that is partnered, but doesn't currently have a filter for it. For example: the Acq Inc book, the DND movie items, and a short list of NPCs and locations from Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus. This might be a category for each partner, or a catch-all category for "Other Partners."
Invent new source categories for all of the major 5e settings. We have Eberron, Dragonlance, and Planescape category filters. What about Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Radiant Citadel, Ravnica, Theros, Strixhaven/Arcavios, Forgotten Realms, upcoming Greyhawk, and a catch-all for "Other Magic: The Gathering Content" (like Eldraine)? If a play group thinks Eberron content is inappropriate to use in their Ravenloft game, they might think Forgotten Realms content is inappropriate there too. If they think Dragonlance content is inappropriate to use in their Theros game, they probably think Ravnica and Strixhaven are too. Note that for Vecna: Eve of Ruin, it might be best to say content from that adventure applies to all of settings that adventure touches on, rather than try to piece together whether the priest of Osybus NPC they've mentioned is just connected to the Ravenloft part of the adventure or also the Eberron and Greyhawk parts, or whether Acererak should be in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or both.
Consider renaming the "Planescape" source category to "Planar" or some other catch-all term that describes "Not Material Plane and not Ravenloft, maybe including Spelljammer and the Radiant Citadel, but definitelly including Sigil, the Outlands, the Feywild, the non-Ravenloft Shadowfell, and the Nine Hells". Alternatively, invent a new source category for "Other Planes" or "Around the Great Wheel." Some major content doesn't fit neatly into any of the currently categories, like The Wild Beyond the Witchlight (it's any non-Feywild plane + the Feywild, but mostly the Feywild, but doesn't explicitly use the word "Planescape" anywhere as far as I know), and Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus (it starts in the Forgotten Realms, but mostly takes place in the Nine Hells, and the Nine Hells sure isn't in the Forgotten Realms; like Witchlight, it also doesn't mention the word "Planescape" anywhere as far as I know). Phandelver and Below is mostly in the Forgotten Realms, but also treads into the Far Realm, and that isn't even in the same multiverse as the Forgotten Realms, nevermind the same plane.
I'm a prominent writer on the DMs Guild (my products have earned WotC tens of thousands of dollars, which is honestly is a tiny drop in the bucket of their general income, but a lot more than from the vast majority of any single consumer) and reference DNDBeyond SUPER frequently. Like, multiple times an hour. My first list of bullet points would be helpful for general users and general clarity. My second list would be SO helpful for myself and other Guild creators, as well as potentially being useful for the general community, because these new naming conventions and categories would align with the rules of what WotC intellectual property would or would not be allowed to be referenced in our Guild products. Using consistent terms and classifications makes the two systems SO much more compatible and user friendly.
EDIT: This will become especially important as the new 2024 Core Rulebook Updates start to approach, and more and more players will be relying on the words "core" and "noncore" to mean what they sound like they're supposed to mean. So around the time you start importing the new PHB info into DNDBeyond, even if it's nowhere near time to release that info to the public, that would be a PERFECT time to start implementing a clearer, more user-friendly, more intuitive system of source category labels.
Here's some more findings and details I've uncovered since my last post. The length of this comment indicates how strongly I feel about this and how much work I'm trying to do on DNDBeyond's behalf so it becomes even easier for them to implement something like this.
Given the existence of Core, Noncore, Setting Specific, and Partnered Content filter terms, that means intuitive use of these terms (meaning: can customers use these terms accurately without having to look up somewhere how the website uses these terms differently than how the user and all of their DND friends use these terms) should coordinate with that pattern: a filter for the core rulebook content, a filter for non-core rulebook content that isn't necessarily tied to a specific setting, a filter for any content that is tied to a specific setting, and a filter for any content that is made with a third party (like the Acq Inc or Wildemount books) or is licensed from a third party (like Drakkenheim).
Current Definitions
Here's how the filters are currently defined, according to my searches in the Game Rules databases.
Core D&D:
Core rulebooks (including the Basic Rules)
Content from setting non-specific sourcebooks like Xanathar's, Tasha's, Monsters of the Multiverse, the Book of Many Things, Fizban's, and Bigby's
Content from Forgotten Realms sourcebooks and adventures
Content from Ravenloft sourcebooks and adventures
Content from Radiant Citadel sourcebooks and adventures
Content from sourcebooks and adventures involving planes that aren't Sigil or the Outlands, but also aren't the Material Plane or in Ravenloft (e.g. Feywild's Wild Beyond the Witchlight, Nine Hells' Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus, or Far Realm's Phandelver and Below)
Content from Spelljammer sourcebooks and adventures
Content from Ghosts of Saltmarsh, which is setting non-specific but is traditionally rooted originally in Greyhawk
Content from Stranger Things: Hunt for the Thessalhydra
Miscellaneous (e.g. the Vecna Dossier, Thieves' Gallery)
Noncore D&D:
Content from select DNDBeyond-only, digital-only adventures and sourcebooks (e.g. Misplaced Monsters, Mordenkainen's Fiendish Folio)
Listed in both Core and Noncore D&D:
Some core rulebook content
None of the above:
Content from Dragonlance sourcebooks and adventures (including its Monstrous Compendium)
Content from Eberron
Content from Magic: The Gathering (including the Eldraine Monstrous Compendium)
Content from Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse and Adventure Atlas: The Mortuary
Partnered Content (including Critical Role, Drakkenheim, Grim Hollow, Humblewood, Kobold Press, Minecraft, and Rick and Morty)
And now, here's some interesting conclusions based on the above results.
Stranger Things: Hunt for the Thessalhydra counts as "Core D&D," and NOT "Partnered Content"
Acquisitions Incorporated counts as "Core D&D," and NOT "Partnered Content," but Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (published only a few months later) is both "Critical Role" and "Partnered Content"
Because Tasha's Cauldron of Everything and Spelljammer: Adventures in Space both are "Core D&D," that means a plasmoid artificer character is "Core D&D," which is probably not something a play group would permit if they're trying to restrict character options to the core rulebooks alone and don't realize "Core D&D" is a misleading term
Proposed Definitions
Here's some new filter terms I propose, including example sources that would be classified under each.
EDIT: Since posting this, I've realized there's another good option. Core Rulebooks, Supplemental Rules, a filter term group category for each individual setting except Planescape, and "Across the Multiverse" or "Multiversal" for any sources that largely bridge two or more settings (Vecna, Avernus, etc.) and any sources that take place in exotic planes of existence that aren't already filed under another setting (Witchlight, Phandelver, Avernus again, etc.). Planescape is already intended as a catch-all for bridging everything together anyways (in ways that Spelljammer is not, as that only combines Material worlds and the Astral Plane), so it should probably be moved to the Across the Multiverse group too. Alternatively, you could have Core Rulebooks, Supplemental Rules, and Across the Multiverse (for anything and everything specific to 1+ settings).
Core Rules
Player's Handbook (when new version comes out, the 2014 version will get moved to Legacy)
Dungeon Master's Guide (same)
Monster Manual (same)
Basic Rules (same)
Supplemental Rules
Xanathar's Guide to Everything (some subclasses may be moved to Legacy once the new PHB versions of them come out)
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (some subclasses may be moved to Legacy once the new PHB versions of them come out)
Planescape Setting (working title, as this includes Planescape's unique IP, but also any adventure or other sourcebook intended to largely overlap with any non-Material Plane, not including Ravenloft, the Radiant Citadel, or Spelljammer)
Player's Handbook (2014) (Only once the new one comes out)
Dungeon Master's Guide (2014) (same)
Monster Manual (2014 ) (same)
Partnered Content (Acquisitions Incorporated)
Acquisitions Incorporated
Partnered Content (Critical Role)
Explorer's Guide to Wildemount
Frozen Sick
Critical Role: Call of the Netherdeep
Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn
Partnered Content (Drakkenheim)
Dungeons of Drakkenheim
Partnered Content (Grim Hollow)
Lairs of Etharis
Partnered Content (Humblewood)
Humblewood Campaign Setting
Partnered Content (Kobold Press)
Tome of Beasts 1
Partnered Content (MCDM)
Flee, Mortals!
Where Evil Lives (upcoming)
Partnered Content (Minecraft)
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 3: Minecraft Creatures
Lightning Keep
Partnered Content (Rick and Morty)
Dungeons & Dragons vs. Rick and Morty
Partnered Content (Stranger Things)
Hunt for the Thessalhydra
To Be Sorted (this is nonspecific setting adventures or adventure anthologies, plus multisetting adventures or adventure anthologies that do NOT include Planescape)
Tales from the Yawning Portal
Ghosts of Saltmarsh
Lost Laboratory of Kwalish
Infernal Machine Rebuild
Candlekeep Mysteries (not sure about this one, haven't looked at it super in depth)
Spelljammer Academy (overlaps Spelljammer and Forgotten Realms)
Thank you for that vote of confidence! I mean, I wouldn't mind public prestige, but that hadn't even crossed my mind. I'd much rather they clarify the terms without telling anyone I asked them to, rather than just not do it at all.
Noting here, the new 5e 2024 Rules are incorporating a large amount of Tasha's and Xanathar's content into the PHB. Those two books are essentially the "Core Rules Addendums and Expansions" books, so they'd probably be justifiably in the "Core" setting.
By DDB’s definitions, the “core books” are everything published solely by WotC under their own label. The “noncore” books are averting they publish to support the Extra Life charity.
Core Content - Content that is assumed to be permitted by the DM by default. This is (generally speaking) the core three books (see below), any sourcebook such as Xanathar's Guide to Everything or Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and any adventure that isn't explicitly set in a setting other than the Forgotten Realms
Core Three Books - Otherwise known as the 'core three', this is the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual.
Basic Rules - A combined 'book' that consists of the System Reference Document, plus any free rules published by Wizards of the Coast, presented in a format parallel to that of the Core Three books
Non-Core Content - Content published by Wizards of the Coast, typically for Extra Life, that is assumed not permitted by the DM by default.
Eberron/Dragonlance/Planescape Content - Easy enough, content from those specific setting books
Magic: the Gathering Content - Options from the three books based on Magic: the Gathering sets (Ravnica, Strixhaven, and Theros)
Partnered Content - An umbrella term for content that is either made by a third party, or made in collaboration with a third party. A prime example of the difference between those two distinctions would be Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn (made by a third party, Critical Role/Darrington Press) and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (made with a third party, Critical Role/Matt Mercer).
Critical Role Content - All content on D&D Beyond, be it first party (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount and Critical Role: Call of the Netherdeep), third party (Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn) or homebrew (Blood Hunter class and Gunslinger subclass) made by/with Critical Role/Darrington Press/Matt Mercer
Core Content - Content that is assumed to be permitted by the DM by default. This is (generally speaking) the core three books (see below), any sourcebook such as Xanathar's Guide to Everything or Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and any adventure that isn't explicitly set in a setting other than the Forgotten Realms
Core Three Books - Otherwise known as the 'core three', this is the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual.
Basic Rules - A combined 'book' that consists of the System Reference Document, plus any free rules published by Wizards of the Coast, presented in a format parallel to that of the Core Three books
Non-Core Content - Content published by Wizards of the Coast, typically for Extra Life, that is assumed not permitted by the DM by default.
Eberron/Dragonlance/Planescape Content - Easy enough, content from those specific setting books
Magic: the Gathering Content - Options from the three books based on Magic: the Gathering sets (Ravnica, Strixhaven, and Theros)
Partnered Content - An umbrella term for content that is either made by a third party, or made in collaboration with a third party. A prime example of the difference between those two distinctions would be Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn (made by a third party, Critical Role/Darrington Press) and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (made with a third party, Critical Role/Matt Mercer).
Critical Role Content - All content on D&D Beyond, be it first party (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount and Critical Role: Call of the Netherdeep), third party (Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn) or homebrew (Blood Hunter class and Gunslinger subclass) made by/with Critical Role/Darrington Press/Matt Mercer
I think that covers everything?
TL;DR See bolded question.
Thank you for those definitions! That helps me understand much better what they were trying to get at with all this. Though I'm concerned there's still some inconsistencies with how the labels fit the definitions, and how the sources are classified in each one. Before I describe those concens, I tried to give this feedback on the official DND discord under DNDBeyond feedback and they told me that it didn't count as a good place to give feedback about this particular function of DNDBeyond, as Wizards of the Coast defines these categories. That caught me by surprise, given that Wizards of the Coast owns and operates DNDBeyond and uses it as its primary 'customer-facing online presence' for the DND TTRPG, and given that the official DND Discord server is the official server for the DND TTRPG and only has one channel labeled "Feedback," the DNDBeyond Customer Support site says to post here in these forums with feedback, the DNDBeyond Customer Support site also explains the differences between the source categories while the DND Customer Support site (which apparently is different) does not, and the DND Customer Support site doesn't give any clear method of providing feedback. So that all being said, do you know how I could provide this feedback straight to WotC?
"Core Content" still uses the word "Core," when other words would be just as broadly understood but less potentially misleading, such as Default, Standard, General, or Universal*. If source categories have to be mutually exclusive (meaning, it could be labeled as one toggle but not another) then Supplemental might be a good way to separate this content from the core rulebooks and basic rules.
I recognize you specified that this definition only applied generally, but there's some noticeable outliers. The "Core Content" category includes things from multiple non-FR adventures and blatantly non-FR sourcebooks that include an adventure (especially a feature length one). If the goal is to provide some sort of way for players and DMs to quickly distinguish between "default, traditional, medieval fantasy setting-agnostic content" and "major products that aren't so traditional but still cool," these really don't fit. The primary offenders are:
Curse of Strahd (Horror, Ravenloft)
The Wild Beyond the Witchlight (Feywild, so Planescape/Planar)
Journeys through the Radiant Citadel (Fantasy based on real world cultures that aren't a clear derivative of western Europe, Planar)
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft (Horror, Ravenloft)
Spelljammer: Adventures in Space (Swashbuckling/pulp action science fantasy, combination of whimsical and horrific, Spelljammer, Planar)
Honorable Mention: Baldur's Gate Descent into Avernus (Starts in the FR, but mostly in the Nine Hells, so Planescape/Planar)
Honorable Mention: Vecna Eve of Ruin (Starts in the FR, but mostly takes place literally everywhere else, so Planescape/Planar)
Clearly, I would love if there were a source category/content toggle for the Core Three Books! There's just not one. At least, not on the customer-facing side that I can see. I can search for the 3 specific core rulebooks under the Source filter in the Game Rules databases, but that takes a lot more typing and scrolling and searching than simply clicking on the Source Category filter and clicking on a hypothetical "Core Rulebooks" label.
Along those lines, for the sake of brevity I would personally mix the Basic Rules and Core Rulebooks together within the same source category, but there may be other benefits of being able to separate the two that outweigh the benefit of being a bit simpler to navigate.
"Non-Core Content" implies that it encompasses all content outside of the core rulebooks, which clearly doesn't fit the intended definition. Sounds like "Support Charities" or "Charity" would be more accurate labels, given that there's plenty of sources that are short like these ones are, but don't benefit charities, like Monstrous Compendium 4: Eldraine.
Since we have Eberron (roughly 1910s western society aesthetic with pulp action and noir intrigue), Dragonlance (medieval fantasy), and Planescape (literally everything) as their own categories separate from the default (usually medieval european fantasy or setting agnostic, sometimes with genre spins like horror in Icewind Dale or comedy in Acq Inc, but also very much not medieval european fantasy options like Ravenloft, Radiant Citadel, and Spelljammer), I don't see the strengths of including only some (but not all) of the "nontraditional" genres and settings within the Default/Standard/General/Universal/Multiversal Collection. Similarly, the MTG settings are all very different themes despite coming from the same intellectual property source and narrative multiverse. I imagine that if someone doesn't want to allow greek mythology themed content in their young adult adventure campaign at a magic school, having a distinct MTG toggle/source category that combines all three into one doesn't do much for separating sources by genre, setting, or theme.
Partnered and Critical Role content I'm fine with leaving pretty much as they are, they seem to be doing well enough, except that the Partnered source categories are not clearly distinct in the Game Rules database filters from the WotC source categories. But that would be easily fixed by just changing the names to something like 'Partnered Content (MCDM)" or "MCDM (Partnered)". Well, I guess I would also say that the Acq Inc and Stranger Things sources should get their own Partnered labels as well, but that might rely on legal licensing and trademark things I know very little about.
*Depending on if they switch which categories include which products, perhaps "Multiversal" would be a better word than Universal. For example, Vecna Eve of Ruin, Baldur's Gate Descent into Avernus, The Book of Many Things, and (kind of) Spelljammer Academy blatantly take place in multiple different settings. They may also want to move Planescape content into any sort of "Across the Multiverse" category, given that it's intended to be a catch-all, across the Great Wheel and beyond setting anyways. Spelljammer connects different Material worlds and the Astral Plane, yes, but Planescape connects all of those together with everything else too.
Oh, I'd also add that since so far in 5e WotC has said that the official setting for 5e is "the multiverse," even though most of its adventures take place in the Forgotten Realms and lend themselves most readily to medieval fantasy. But it's been reported that the new DMG will present Greyhawk as the official setting, or at least the default "example setting" that many homebrewers can build off of, but NOT the Forgotten Realms. So given all that, I still think that FR-specific content should be treated just as "not general default" as any other setting.
But it's been reported that the new DMG will present Greyhawk as the official setting, or at least the default "example setting" that many homebrewers can build off of, but NOT the Forgotten Realms.
From what I've seen of the snippets they're reporting on, it's not that FR is no longer the default setting. It's still the one whose gods and characters are referenced throughout the PHB and the DMG. Greyhawk is specifically used in the DMG to provide an example of creating a unique world. So FR is the 'default', but the DMG shows you how to build your own, using Greyhawk as the example.
Just a note for the OP. the terms you are refering too were never used in the way you are mentionning. there used to be two terms used back in the previous editions.
Core and Supplements. Core always meant the official rulebooks that expanded on the game itself. which tasha and other books does. Supplement books, were always books that derived the content into something else.
mind you adventures never were refered in any of these descriptions. adventures had their own word.
but yeah, core never meant just PHB, MM and DMG. it was always also refering to updated core rulings books. i can give you an exemple of Core versus supplement based on 3rd edition since i have all the books. Core was always refering to the setting books, so any books describing the settings were considered core for that setting. so in 3E there was eberron, forgotten realms, darksun those were all core books for that settings. supplements books were the likes of, complete arcane, complete adventurers, book of exalted deeds. that kind of books. they were not able to provide information for a specific settings but were expanding on such a settings. so they were called supplements.
in the current iteration on the site, i do agree that the terms used here are confusing. i have not tested this, but i am pretty sure this is what it means. Non-Core means adventures.
as an exemple, in a current campaign, my friend doesn't lalow anything else then core. we deactivate all other settings, all other third parties, and by disabling non-core we disable adventures too. so for him, i simply leave everything off. and it will leave me with only core and supplement for that core.
this is how we have been working for now. they already separated the core settings from each others, so all thats left is adventures which is i'm sure what non-core is refering too. if i were them though, i would change non-core to adventure. and i would add the supplement category just in case people don't want it.
all that said, you have to understand that AL is not managed on this website. so the +1 rule of AL isn't enforced here.
EDIT: should of read the entire thread first. so yeah, we really need an adventure toggle too, because my friend doesn't allow adventures to be used. read what davyyd said. thanks for desciption.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Actually the terms core and accessories were used back in the early days. Core meant the primary three, PHB, MM, and DMG.
Anything made and distributed thereafter was considered an accessory and expansion of work in progress that is the game. It was during the 3.0/3.5 days that terminology became muddled given the vast amount of material that was available and created.
Core has always and will always be considered just the prime three, and everything else is just expansion material. For 5e, everything beyond the core truple, is and should be considered accessories.
This is a great list, but it needs to have the Setting category separated from Adventures, as often some the mechanics in an Adventure book is really only intended for that adventure.
Honestly, a second level of "Features" for each category or book would be great, as I tend to allow many of the Backgrounds from any book into my games. And to be able to selectively add races, subraces, subclasses, spells and magic items would be fantastic. For instance, I might want the spells from the Exandria setting added to my campaign, but not the playable races/subraces.
By Myrkul's pants. They did it. They actually did it. I seriously didn't expect them to, they always have so many things to take care of and a whole lot of things underway that they can't necessarily publicly announce yet. But they actually freaking did it.
Here's the new source category names (my favorites are in bold):
Core Rules
Critical Role
Drakkenheim
Expanded Rules
Grim Hollow
Humblewood
Kobold Press
Legacy (includes 2014 rules)
MCDM
Minecraft
Rick and Morty
It's not identical to my detailed proposal and it seems to have entirely dropped the canon setting-specific content, now instead combining everything first party from all settings (even the forgotten realms) and adventures into "Expanded Rules." But hot dang I think this is a great way to do it. It meets all of the most important needs. I think I'm satisfied.
Wow, thank you Wizards. When I had to do a rabbit hole of research and customer support to find the final Contact Us portal, and then I got an automated "No we read these, we promise, we just get a lot so we can't respond to most" and for the first time no support folks told me "Actually despite our name clearly indicating this is the exact kind of thing we cover, we don't cover that at all; you should talk to these other people instead," I had given up. But apparently you got the message, you couldn't respond, and you liked the idea enough to implement it even though there weren't hordes of twitter users calling for your big, floppy wizard hat on a silver platter. I appreciate it.
<3
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So before DNDBeyond started using the terms "Core D&D" and "Noncore D&D" as a sort of Source Category (e.g. as a trait you can use in advanced filters for the Game Rules database, or on the very first section of On/Off buttons on the Home page of editing a character in the Character Builder), 5e players usually used the term "core" to refer to "core rulebooks, and the rules and variant rules within," meaning the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual. No other books. Not Xanathar's, not Tasha's, not Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, not the now-legacy-status bestiary books that were absorbed into Monsters of the Multiverse, and not content from appendices of Forgotten Realms adventures or other sourcebooks. Since that term was implemented, 5e players STILL use the term "core" to refer to "core rulebooks, and the rules and variant rules within."
I would LOVE if the source category filters in the system were changed to reflect how the majority of the players use the word "core" when referring to specific sourcebooks. The current way DNDBeyond uses that word is simply inaccurate, and that's confusing. Here's some options I've brainstormed.
Here's some other changes I think would be helpful and clarify confusion. These would help clarify what content is WotC "canon" and rules-as-written, versus what is third party stuff. It would also help clarify what settings certain content is "intended" or originally published for, even though we can obviously use any content we want in any setting as long as the rest of the play group thinks that sounds fun too.
I'm a prominent writer on the DMs Guild (my products have earned WotC tens of thousands of dollars, which is honestly is a tiny drop in the bucket of their general income, but a lot more than from the vast majority of any single consumer) and reference DNDBeyond SUPER frequently. Like, multiple times an hour. My first list of bullet points would be helpful for general users and general clarity. My second list would be SO helpful for myself and other Guild creators, as well as potentially being useful for the general community, because these new naming conventions and categories would align with the rules of what WotC intellectual property would or would not be allowed to be referenced in our Guild products. Using consistent terms and classifications makes the two systems SO much more compatible and user friendly.
EDIT: This will become especially important as the new 2024 Core Rulebook Updates start to approach, and more and more players will be relying on the words "core" and "noncore" to mean what they sound like they're supposed to mean. So around the time you start importing the new PHB info into DNDBeyond, even if it's nowhere near time to release that info to the public, that would be a PERFECT time to start implementing a clearer, more user-friendly, more intuitive system of source category labels.
Here's some more findings and details I've uncovered since my last post. The length of this comment indicates how strongly I feel about this and how much work I'm trying to do on DNDBeyond's behalf so it becomes even easier for them to implement something like this.
Given the existence of Core, Noncore, Setting Specific, and Partnered Content filter terms, that means intuitive use of these terms (meaning: can customers use these terms accurately without having to look up somewhere how the website uses these terms differently than how the user and all of their DND friends use these terms) should coordinate with that pattern: a filter for the core rulebook content, a filter for non-core rulebook content that isn't necessarily tied to a specific setting, a filter for any content that is tied to a specific setting, and a filter for any content that is made with a third party (like the Acq Inc or Wildemount books) or is licensed from a third party (like Drakkenheim).
Current Definitions
Here's how the filters are currently defined, according to my searches in the Game Rules databases.
Core D&D:
Noncore D&D:
Listed in both Core and Noncore D&D:
None of the above:
And now, here's some interesting conclusions based on the above results.
Proposed Definitions
Here's some new filter terms I propose, including example sources that would be classified under each.
EDIT: Since posting this, I've realized there's another good option. Core Rulebooks, Supplemental Rules, a filter term group category for each individual setting except Planescape, and "Across the Multiverse" or "Multiversal" for any sources that largely bridge two or more settings (Vecna, Avernus, etc.) and any sources that take place in exotic planes of existence that aren't already filed under another setting (Witchlight, Phandelver, Avernus again, etc.). Planescape is already intended as a catch-all for bridging everything together anyways (in ways that Spelljammer is not, as that only combines Material worlds and the Astral Plane), so it should probably be moved to the Across the Multiverse group too. Alternatively, you could have Core Rulebooks, Supplemental Rules, and Across the Multiverse (for anything and everything specific to 1+ settings).
Core Rules
Supplemental Rules
Dragonlance Setting
Eberron Setting
Forgotten Realms Setting
Greyhawk Setting
Planescape Setting (working title, as this includes Planescape's unique IP, but also any adventure or other sourcebook intended to largely overlap with any non-Material Plane, not including Ravenloft, the Radiant Citadel, or Spelljammer)
Radiant Citadel Setting
Ravenloft Setting
Ravnica Setting
Spelljammer Setting
Strixhaven Setting
Theros Setting
Miscellaneous
Legacy Content
Partnered Content (Acquisitions Incorporated)
Partnered Content (Critical Role)
Partnered Content (Drakkenheim)
Partnered Content (Grim Hollow)
Partnered Content (Humblewood)
Partnered Content (Kobold Press)
Partnered Content (MCDM)
Partnered Content (Minecraft)
Partnered Content (Rick and Morty)
Partnered Content (Stranger Things)
To Be Sorted (this is nonspecific setting adventures or adventure anthologies, plus multisetting adventures or adventure anthologies that do NOT include Planescape)
I would also recommend a credit to you for the idea, however I doubt wizbro will implement your ideas, let alone give credit to you for the idea.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Thank you for that vote of confidence! I mean, I wouldn't mind public prestige, but that hadn't even crossed my mind. I'd much rather they clarify the terms without telling anyone I asked them to, rather than just not do it at all.
Noting here, the new 5e 2024 Rules are incorporating a large amount of Tasha's and Xanathar's content into the PHB. Those two books are essentially the "Core Rules Addendums and Expansions" books, so they'd probably be justifiably in the "Core" setting.
By DDB’s definitions, the “core books” are everything published solely by WotC under their own label. The “noncore” books are averting they publish to support the Extra Life charity.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Some clarifications of terms used on D&D Beyond
Core Content - Content that is assumed to be permitted by the DM by default. This is (generally speaking) the core three books (see below), any sourcebook such as Xanathar's Guide to Everything or Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and any adventure that isn't explicitly set in a setting other than the Forgotten Realms
Core Three Books - Otherwise known as the 'core three', this is the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual.
Basic Rules - A combined 'book' that consists of the System Reference Document, plus any free rules published by Wizards of the Coast, presented in a format parallel to that of the Core Three books
Non-Core Content - Content published by Wizards of the Coast, typically for Extra Life, that is assumed not permitted by the DM by default.
Eberron/Dragonlance/Planescape Content - Easy enough, content from those specific setting books
Magic: the Gathering Content - Options from the three books based on Magic: the Gathering sets (Ravnica, Strixhaven, and Theros)
Partnered Content - An umbrella term for content that is either made by a third party, or made in collaboration with a third party. A prime example of the difference between those two distinctions would be Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn (made by a third party, Critical Role/Darrington Press) and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (made with a third party, Critical Role/Matt Mercer).
Critical Role Content - All content on D&D Beyond, be it first party (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount and Critical Role: Call of the Netherdeep), third party (Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn) or homebrew (Blood Hunter class and Gunslinger subclass) made by/with Critical Role/Darrington Press/Matt Mercer
I think that covers everything?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
You forgot Spelljammer and M:tG content. Likewise as self explanatory as Eberron & Planescape.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Good shout on MtG content, but Spelljammer isn't a content toggle
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Which has struck me as rather peculiar since it launched.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
TL;DR See bolded question.
Thank you for those definitions! That helps me understand much better what they were trying to get at with all this. Though I'm concerned there's still some inconsistencies with how the labels fit the definitions, and how the sources are classified in each one. Before I describe those concens, I tried to give this feedback on the official DND discord under DNDBeyond feedback and they told me that it didn't count as a good place to give feedback about this particular function of DNDBeyond, as Wizards of the Coast defines these categories. That caught me by surprise, given that Wizards of the Coast owns and operates DNDBeyond and uses it as its primary 'customer-facing online presence' for the DND TTRPG, and given that the official DND Discord server is the official server for the DND TTRPG and only has one channel labeled "Feedback," the DNDBeyond Customer Support site says to post here in these forums with feedback, the DNDBeyond Customer Support site also explains the differences between the source categories while the DND Customer Support site (which apparently is different) does not, and the DND Customer Support site doesn't give any clear method of providing feedback. So that all being said, do you know how I could provide this feedback straight to WotC?
"Core Content" still uses the word "Core," when other words would be just as broadly understood but less potentially misleading, such as Default, Standard, General, or Universal*. If source categories have to be mutually exclusive (meaning, it could be labeled as one toggle but not another) then Supplemental might be a good way to separate this content from the core rulebooks and basic rules.
I recognize you specified that this definition only applied generally, but there's some noticeable outliers. The "Core Content" category includes things from multiple non-FR adventures and blatantly non-FR sourcebooks that include an adventure (especially a feature length one). If the goal is to provide some sort of way for players and DMs to quickly distinguish between "default, traditional, medieval fantasy setting-agnostic content" and "major products that aren't so traditional but still cool," these really don't fit. The primary offenders are:
Clearly, I would love if there were a source category/content toggle for the Core Three Books! There's just not one. At least, not on the customer-facing side that I can see. I can search for the 3 specific core rulebooks under the Source filter in the Game Rules databases, but that takes a lot more typing and scrolling and searching than simply clicking on the Source Category filter and clicking on a hypothetical "Core Rulebooks" label.
Along those lines, for the sake of brevity I would personally mix the Basic Rules and Core Rulebooks together within the same source category, but there may be other benefits of being able to separate the two that outweigh the benefit of being a bit simpler to navigate.
"Non-Core Content" implies that it encompasses all content outside of the core rulebooks, which clearly doesn't fit the intended definition. Sounds like "Support Charities" or "Charity" would be more accurate labels, given that there's plenty of sources that are short like these ones are, but don't benefit charities, like Monstrous Compendium 4: Eldraine.
Since we have Eberron (roughly 1910s western society aesthetic with pulp action and noir intrigue), Dragonlance (medieval fantasy), and Planescape (literally everything) as their own categories separate from the default (usually medieval european fantasy or setting agnostic, sometimes with genre spins like horror in Icewind Dale or comedy in Acq Inc, but also very much not medieval european fantasy options like Ravenloft, Radiant Citadel, and Spelljammer), I don't see the strengths of including only some (but not all) of the "nontraditional" genres and settings within the Default/Standard/General/Universal/Multiversal Collection. Similarly, the MTG settings are all very different themes despite coming from the same intellectual property source and narrative multiverse. I imagine that if someone doesn't want to allow greek mythology themed content in their young adult adventure campaign at a magic school, having a distinct MTG toggle/source category that combines all three into one doesn't do much for separating sources by genre, setting, or theme.
Partnered and Critical Role content I'm fine with leaving pretty much as they are, they seem to be doing well enough, except that the Partnered source categories are not clearly distinct in the Game Rules database filters from the WotC source categories. But that would be easily fixed by just changing the names to something like 'Partnered Content (MCDM)" or "MCDM (Partnered)". Well, I guess I would also say that the Acq Inc and Stranger Things sources should get their own Partnered labels as well, but that might rely on legal licensing and trademark things I know very little about.
*Depending on if they switch which categories include which products, perhaps "Multiversal" would be a better word than Universal. For example, Vecna Eve of Ruin, Baldur's Gate Descent into Avernus, The Book of Many Things, and (kind of) Spelljammer Academy blatantly take place in multiple different settings. They may also want to move Planescape content into any sort of "Across the Multiverse" category, given that it's intended to be a catch-all, across the Great Wheel and beyond setting anyways. Spelljammer connects different Material worlds and the Astral Plane, yes, but Planescape connects all of those together with everything else too.
Oh, I'd also add that since so far in 5e WotC has said that the official setting for 5e is "the multiverse," even though most of its adventures take place in the Forgotten Realms and lend themselves most readily to medieval fantasy. But it's been reported that the new DMG will present Greyhawk as the official setting, or at least the default "example setting" that many homebrewers can build off of, but NOT the Forgotten Realms. So given all that, I still think that FR-specific content should be treated just as "not general default" as any other setting.
From what I've seen of the snippets they're reporting on, it's not that FR is no longer the default setting. It's still the one whose gods and characters are referenced throughout the PHB and the DMG. Greyhawk is specifically used in the DMG to provide an example of creating a unique world. So FR is the 'default', but the DMG shows you how to build your own, using Greyhawk as the example.
Oh, good to know! I'll keep that in mind.
Just a note for the OP. the terms you are refering too were never used in the way you are mentionning.
there used to be two terms used back in the previous editions.
Core and Supplements.
Core always meant the official rulebooks that expanded on the game itself. which tasha and other books does.
Supplement books, were always books that derived the content into something else.
mind you adventures never were refered in any of these descriptions. adventures had their own word.
but yeah, core never meant just PHB, MM and DMG. it was always also refering to updated core rulings books.
i can give you an exemple of Core versus supplement based on 3rd edition since i have all the books.
Core was always refering to the setting books, so any books describing the settings were considered core for that setting.
so in 3E there was eberron, forgotten realms, darksun those were all core books for that settings.
supplements books were the likes of, complete arcane, complete adventurers, book of exalted deeds. that kind of books. they were not able to provide information for a specific settings but were expanding on such a settings. so they were called supplements.
in the current iteration on the site, i do agree that the terms used here are confusing.
i have not tested this, but i am pretty sure this is what it means.
Non-Core means adventures.as an exemple, in a current campaign, my friend doesn't lalow anything else then core.
we deactivate all other settings, all other third parties,
and by disabling non-core we disable adventures too.so for him, i simply leave everything off. and it will leave me with only core and supplement for that core.
this is how we have been working for now.
they already separated the core settings from each others, so all thats left is adventures
which is i'm sure what non-core is refering too.if i were them though,
i would change non-core to adventure.and i would add the supplement category just in case people don't want it.all that said, you have to understand that AL is not managed on this website. so the +1 rule of AL isn't enforced here.
EDIT: should of read the entire thread first.
so yeah, we really need an adventure toggle too, because my friend doesn't allow adventures to be used.
read what davyyd said. thanks for desciption.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Actually the terms core and accessories were used back in the early days. Core meant the primary three, PHB, MM, and DMG.
Anything made and distributed thereafter was considered an accessory and expansion of work in progress that is the game. It was during the 3.0/3.5 days that terminology became muddled given the vast amount of material that was available and created.
Core has always and will always be considered just the prime three, and everything else is just expansion material.
For 5e, everything beyond the core truple, is and should be considered accessories.
This is a great list, but it needs to have the Setting category separated from Adventures, as often some the mechanics in an Adventure book is really only intended for that adventure.
Honestly, a second level of "Features" for each category or book would be great, as I tend to allow many of the Backgrounds from any book into my games. And to be able to selectively add races, subraces, subclasses, spells and magic items would be fantastic. For instance, I might want the spells from the Exandria setting added to my campaign, but not the playable races/subraces.
Update:
By Myrkul's pants. They did it. They actually did it. I seriously didn't expect them to, they always have so many things to take care of and a whole lot of things underway that they can't necessarily publicly announce yet. But they actually freaking did it.
Here's the new source category names (my favorites are in bold):
It's not identical to my detailed proposal and it seems to have entirely dropped the canon setting-specific content, now instead combining everything first party from all settings (even the forgotten realms) and adventures into "Expanded Rules." But hot dang I think this is a great way to do it. It meets all of the most important needs. I think I'm satisfied.
Wow, thank you Wizards. When I had to do a rabbit hole of research and customer support to find the final Contact Us portal, and then I got an automated "No we read these, we promise, we just get a lot so we can't respond to most" and for the first time no support folks told me "Actually despite our name clearly indicating this is the exact kind of thing we cover, we don't cover that at all; you should talk to these other people instead," I had given up. But apparently you got the message, you couldn't respond, and you liked the idea enough to implement it even though there weren't hordes of twitter users calling for your big, floppy wizard hat on a silver platter. I appreciate it.
<3