Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4497495" data-attributes="member: 48965">You know I'm starting to see a real disconnect as far as what makes 4e books good.  I mean I'm seeing people praising the DMG as great because it goes through alot of the square one basics of DM'ing... yet I'm seeing the MM lauded because it leaves all the imagination and fluff up to the DM who of course knows how to do this already because he's played for years... but wait then why does he need all the extraneous stuff in the DMG??? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />I mean really I'm wiling to accept one or the other but IMO, that's bad design when two books that are suppose to complement each other and are part of the same game are praised for being almost opposite in their approach to the game.  Really, I think with the new cosmology and breaking of traditions this could have been the perfect opportunity for WotC to throw down some original fluff and background for alot of their monsters, especially if they are truly trying to capture new gamers and broaden D&D's appeal.IMO, the MM is totally uninspiring and without the wealth of my knowledge from previous editions of the game...Well I'd probably just be using them as pieces in a boardgame like playstyle.  I remember when I was a kid and reading through the monster manual was, IMO, cooler than reading the actual game...but there's no way I'd say that about this MM.  I guess it's different strokes for different folks, as I see how it could be great for certain people.</blockquote>

Verification