Search results

Why are you here just contemplating 2 sides of the GNS monstrosity? How can you say they didn't lean fully into the game side? Reading "Wizard Presents: Worlds and Monsters", it really seemed like they wanted more monsters in because it was fun, not because they were wanting to narratively...

Yes. That is the classic argument for that interpretation. And it is absolutely a valid argument. There just are other interpretations with similarly valid arguments associated with them :) (Granted, there could be some abilities that has a form that makes the ability hardly worthwhile if...

I am pretty certain the books are not spelling out "If you do not have the ability, you cannot do the thing". I think this was a hotly debated topic with regard to the appropriate interpretation/implementation. You clearly ended up with the hard liners on one side. Draw Steel for instance is...

I do not have well-kerneled fonts in mind (that is typesetting, not layout). Pages upon pages of strongly colored pieces of rules text however I think could trigger some psychological associations to these rules somehow being important for the game. I think I agree to the overall sentiment...

I think that is exactly the argument. It was the people that told you "you cannot do that" that was restrictive, not necessarily the game itself.

I think still that what you are pointing to is mainly amplifying what I tried to say. The elements you point to like phrasing and repeated requests to be creative I sort of consider part of the rules text. When I was writing "presentation" I had in mind things like layout and marketing. You are...

That is the thing! There is also a difference between handwavy DM fiat decide what happens (like just plain stating the commoners come and throw some stones irritating the ogres so 2 of them go after them and are out of the encounter for now), and the suggestion of introducing the mechanical...

What are you referring to? If you are talking about how 4ed has been claimed to have contextual rules handling of creatures, I have had about a dozen post recently in this thread trying to argue how I think that appear to be (mainly) a misconception? That is if you want contextual rules...

If the changing up monsters, involve introducing entirely new concept, then yes :) I could for instance design a monster that everytime would take damage, you need to also defeat the GM in a best out of 3 rock paper scissors match, or else the damage is ignored. I think most would consider this...

Ah, it seem like you might have slightly misread me. The way I read you, you are rather amplifying than disagreeing with my final point? That is that the community effect "forcing" them into this extreme is more important than the intrinsic factors of the game previously mentioned? I agree that...

This might be. But the issue is that entering this gap is not so easy as this has been a very polarizing issue. The entire rulings over rules vs RAW vs RAI + system matters debate has been present for a long time, and as such most games have been pushed to make a stance. FATE is the only major...

Can be mentioned that I like Asterix aesthetics. This very much applies to minions. It can also be pointed out that demonizing might not be so bad, if the opponent in question is actual demons.. That said, this is a issue I have with the common violence aesthetics presented, even without...

The thing is - now you are (propely) introducing contextual rules handeling of a creature. You are dynamically transition the ogres between "normal" and minion state depending on their current environment, and you have taken the commoners that could have been represented by stat blocks and based...

I agree to this. I think this was a tradeoff I think they would be aware of, and they decided to take open eyed. I just think the tradeoff was larger in context of 4ed than what it might be in some other contexts. Never mind about 2024, seem like I misread the mob rules, or confused them with...

Yes, and I pointed out to me the xps indicate to me that they were originally intended to follow the same pattern as goblins, but that the math involved caused the effective level of moderate xp monsters to explode in a way I suspect was not anticipated. Not particularly. But 4 ogres I need to...

What do you think the idea was? I think the idea was: "With only 1 hp, we don't have to track hp". This was meant to fix the hp tracking problem for insignificant goons - a staple of the genre. As such I would think pure game consideration in terms of limiting complexity might have been just...

If you need to go across books to find evidence of the design, that doesn't make it seem like they were pushing that design particularly hard? If that had been the intention, why didn't they present "goblin skirmisher - elite (Level 1)", "goblin skirmisher(level 2)", and "goblin skirmisher -...

Where is this understanding from? I have now digged deep in the source material, and find absolutely nothing to support that in the actual 4ed books. Rather the opposite. I suspect this is a misunderstanding that has been spread as part of the anti-4ed frensy back in the day. Enough people...

Oh! Ref my previous post. I now think I understand how the 4ed MM ogre might situation might have arrisen! They thought it would be cool with 3 flavors of standard ogres on 350xp, alongside the weakling 150xp minion and the 1200 elite. One that is just smash stuff, one that has has a scary...

I am confused. My argument in defence of the minion concept is that this is exactly how I read the minion concept? That is minions are creatures that is substantially weaker and with less interesting abilities than "normal" monsters. This makes them easier to handle in larger groups. For tough...