Single rulebook in general. The only time I like two is when the second is primarily a reference guide: terse rules summary, stat blocks, lookup tables, oracles, charts and the like for quick reference at the table; the first book being the rules with explanations and examples, the lore/setting, nice artwork, etc — all of which are valuable and can be beautiful, but which aren’t needed at the table.
I know as a game this is a little outside your wheelhouse but how Shaun Tomkin does it with his Starforged Rulebook and the companion ref book is a great example. The Starforged rulebook is beautiful in hardback, the reference guide is elegantly arranged and lies flat, spiral-bound.
I am a fan of segregation of roles: a book for anyone who wants to run s character and a different book for anyone who wants to run a world... it's rationale, it brings to thinner books and lower costs. It helps to keep books' size closer to ordinary books (like A5), which is an aesthetic must for me!
I’m on the fence. As a GM I likely need both books unless there is significant rules (and any setting info) duplication between a player and GM book which feels wasteful. I see no reason for a separate bestiary or adversary book. There should be enough to start in the GM book plus rules to create your own and space for third parties to add to those. I do like a lower entry point cost for players, but I find my current players/friend group is happy to work with PDF’s, so arguably that’s just an extract. Daggerheart’s player cards are popular but I got those with the base set. I haven’t seen a rush from my players to buy their own. I guess if all story building and campaign stuff is in the GM book (so I don’t really need it at the table) and all rules - char creation, combat, magic etc, everything I need to run a session - are in a separate and therefore smaller player book, so I need less on the table in front of me, I’d go for that. I have to say with older eyes something bigger than microfont and not white on colour text is preferred.
I am a 1 book kinda guy through and through. I'll be first in line for Thousand Suns either way, but the one book format has my vote. Good luck and Godspeed.
I think Thousand Suns does well as a single book. If I were thinking about splitting things up, I'd consider a player-only book which has all the character rules while keeping the full version for DMs. Don't know if that makes economic sense (for you) though.
I prefer the three book method, when running a game I like having each book book open to what I need rather than constantly flipping back and forth through one book
As a player I like only having a smaller book with what I need to carry with me to the game
I don’t have a personal preference towards single or multiple books for a system. I’ve noticed several second editions over the past several years moving towards two books, but this has generally been accompanied by additional material whether that be player options, more adversaries, or more GM tools for scenario building. So my suggestion would be to leave as is, unless you intend to add a significant amount of additional content that sweetens the motivation to get either one or both products.
Single rulebook in general. The only time I like two is when the second is primarily a reference guide: terse rules summary, stat blocks, lookup tables, oracles, charts and the like for quick reference at the table; the first book being the rules with explanations and examples, the lore/setting, nice artwork, etc — all of which are valuable and can be beautiful, but which aren’t needed at the table.
I know as a game this is a little outside your wheelhouse but how Shaun Tomkin does it with his Starforged Rulebook and the companion ref book is a great example. The Starforged rulebook is beautiful in hardback, the reference guide is elegantly arranged and lies flat, spiral-bound.
I am a fan of segregation of roles: a book for anyone who wants to run s character and a different book for anyone who wants to run a world... it's rationale, it brings to thinner books and lower costs. It helps to keep books' size closer to ordinary books (like A5), which is an aesthetic must for me!
May the fun be always at your table!
I’m on the fence. As a GM I likely need both books unless there is significant rules (and any setting info) duplication between a player and GM book which feels wasteful. I see no reason for a separate bestiary or adversary book. There should be enough to start in the GM book plus rules to create your own and space for third parties to add to those. I do like a lower entry point cost for players, but I find my current players/friend group is happy to work with PDF’s, so arguably that’s just an extract. Daggerheart’s player cards are popular but I got those with the base set. I haven’t seen a rush from my players to buy their own. I guess if all story building and campaign stuff is in the GM book (so I don’t really need it at the table) and all rules - char creation, combat, magic etc, everything I need to run a session - are in a separate and therefore smaller player book, so I need less on the table in front of me, I’d go for that. I have to say with older eyes something bigger than microfont and not white on colour text is preferred.
I favor single letter-sized books, possibly below 250 pages.
If I had an issue with how Thousand Suns was presented, is that the font size was a little too small.
I am a 1 book kinda guy through and through. I'll be first in line for Thousand Suns either way, but the one book format has my vote. Good luck and Godspeed.
Single book. No reason to split it up into two.
I think Thousand Suns does well as a single book. If I were thinking about splitting things up, I'd consider a player-only book which has all the character rules while keeping the full version for DMs. Don't know if that makes economic sense (for you) though.
I prefer a single book.
I've always felt that the GM Player split wasn't justified when TSR did it and for most systems since it's been increasingly less justified.
I prefer the three book method, when running a game I like having each book book open to what I need rather than constantly flipping back and forth through one book
As a player I like only having a smaller book with what I need to carry with me to the game
D&D had it right
I don’t have a personal preference towards single or multiple books for a system. I’ve noticed several second editions over the past several years moving towards two books, but this has generally been accompanied by additional material whether that be player options, more adversaries, or more GM tools for scenario building. So my suggestion would be to leave as is, unless you intend to add a significant amount of additional content that sweetens the motivation to get either one or both products.
Personally I like it split up even more. 5 or 6 small books / zines is easier at the table to look things up on the fly