Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Things wrong with 4e: Dragons
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fenriswolf456" data-source="post: 5892324" data-attributes="member: 6687664"><p>I'm not sure I'm following. It sounds like most of your encounters are random, so I'm not sure why it's important for the game to tell you how to use them, since you'll have to work to make it fit to the context of the game. Though I can see such information at least giving you ideas as to what would happen if the party comes across a manticore lair, say.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>True, but this hasn't really been an option until recently. And I do prefer to have more than just a stat block (or line). Usually the big selling point on physical MMs though is the art, since the visual impression of just what a monster looks like adds a lot to being an engaging, interesting monster.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>It would be awesome to have such information at hand. The issue is in space. You simply can't do this for a lot of monsters without sacrificing a bunch. The orc camp may be cool for the orc-lover, but if gnolls got cut out of the manual due to space, that leaves the gnoll-lover out in the cold. So a balance has to be struck at some point.</p><p> </p><p>I've grown used to 4E in that there are often different 'classes' of the same creature. These too could be affected by space considerations, and for myself, I'd rather 6 different orc classes, than 3 orc classes and a sample camp.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>To an extent, sure. But then as a publisher you're going to have to start guessing at to what creatures most of the public wants. And then you'll start getting a bored community, if all you have for first level characters are kobolds. It really should be quantity with quality, but do agree that often this is not the case.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I guess it's a difference in playstyle. I used to love coming up with dungeons and populating them with monsters, then bringing it out for the next game to see how it went. So, at least for me, I would very much disagree with your statement, as that really is part of the job as a DM. It's not necessarily hand-crafting an adventure, it could be reading up on a module, or going over some monsters that you're likely to use in your next sandbox.</p><p> </p><p>I don't see how you can play a game without some amount of preparation. You can't play chess without sitting down and reading the rules, and setting up the board. I suppose you could have a totally open sandbox world with nothing planned and just wing it. But I would find it disjointing if I'm playing and the GM roles on a random table and then spends a few minutes reading up on the creature and thinking about how the encounter should be. I'd have all that done beforehand, so we could just play, as you mention.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I would certainly be agreeable to this level of 'fluff' for a MM entry. It's nice to have to get a feel for the creature. I do agree that 4E, at least early on, went too minimalist on information pertaining to each creature, and often in the wrong direction. Tactics are sort of handy, but I'll play a creature how I want to, not how the flow-chart tells me. And Lore is often useless or far too specific.</p><p> </p><p>I wouldn't want sample lairs for each bear, though, and further extrapolations on the surrounding wilderness and wildlife found there, as that will like mean intead of getting Brown, Cave and Polar bears, I'd just get Brown and Cave bears.</p><p> </p><p>I would approve of a Bearinomicon where multiple lairs could be presented, as well as new bears like the Black and Grizzly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fenriswolf456, post: 5892324, member: 6687664"] I'm not sure I'm following. It sounds like most of your encounters are random, so I'm not sure why it's important for the game to tell you how to use them, since you'll have to work to make it fit to the context of the game. Though I can see such information at least giving you ideas as to what would happen if the party comes across a manticore lair, say. True, but this hasn't really been an option until recently. And I do prefer to have more than just a stat block (or line). Usually the big selling point on physical MMs though is the art, since the visual impression of just what a monster looks like adds a lot to being an engaging, interesting monster. It would be awesome to have such information at hand. The issue is in space. You simply can't do this for a lot of monsters without sacrificing a bunch. The orc camp may be cool for the orc-lover, but if gnolls got cut out of the manual due to space, that leaves the gnoll-lover out in the cold. So a balance has to be struck at some point. I've grown used to 4E in that there are often different 'classes' of the same creature. These too could be affected by space considerations, and for myself, I'd rather 6 different orc classes, than 3 orc classes and a sample camp. To an extent, sure. But then as a publisher you're going to have to start guessing at to what creatures most of the public wants. And then you'll start getting a bored community, if all you have for first level characters are kobolds. It really should be quantity with quality, but do agree that often this is not the case. I guess it's a difference in playstyle. I used to love coming up with dungeons and populating them with monsters, then bringing it out for the next game to see how it went. So, at least for me, I would very much disagree with your statement, as that really is part of the job as a DM. It's not necessarily hand-crafting an adventure, it could be reading up on a module, or going over some monsters that you're likely to use in your next sandbox. I don't see how you can play a game without some amount of preparation. You can't play chess without sitting down and reading the rules, and setting up the board. I suppose you could have a totally open sandbox world with nothing planned and just wing it. But I would find it disjointing if I'm playing and the GM roles on a random table and then spends a few minutes reading up on the creature and thinking about how the encounter should be. I'd have all that done beforehand, so we could just play, as you mention. I would certainly be agreeable to this level of 'fluff' for a MM entry. It's nice to have to get a feel for the creature. I do agree that 4E, at least early on, went too minimalist on information pertaining to each creature, and often in the wrong direction. Tactics are sort of handy, but I'll play a creature how I want to, not how the flow-chart tells me. And Lore is often useless or far too specific. I wouldn't want sample lairs for each bear, though, and further extrapolations on the surrounding wilderness and wildlife found there, as that will like mean intead of getting Brown, Cave and Polar bears, I'd just get Brown and Cave bears. I would approve of a Bearinomicon where multiple lairs could be presented, as well as new bears like the Black and Grizzly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Things wrong with 4e: Dragons
Top