Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Benimoto" data-source="post: 4498297" data-attributes="member: 40093">I must have missed the official announcement then.&nbsp; I've read the 3e and 2e Monster/Monstrous Manuals fairly recently, and there is next to nothing in either of them about cooperation or negotiation with adventurers.&nbsp; Most of it is filled with monsters that essentially exist to fight.&nbsp; To avoid being directly repetitive, the writers describe the monsters with a whole thesaurus of &quot;aggressive&quot;, &quot;hateful&quot;, &quot;predatory&quot;, &quot;territorial&quot;, &quot;xenophobic&quot;, &quot;sadistic&quot;, etc., but nearly every monster is described as being there to fight adventurers in one way or another.When I made up the Cliffsinger tribe of lizardfolk in my 3e campaign, I basically ignored the entire entry about lizardfolk being aggressive, warlike, shamanistic creatures that live in the swamp.&nbsp; I imagined that particular tribe as a peaceful, primitive group, that lived in mountain hot springs and waterfalls and were led by storytellers.&nbsp; About all I used from the 3e MM entry was that creatures called lizardfolk existed, what they looked like, and that they were good swimmers who spoke Draconic.The 4e Monster Manual cuts a lot of stuff about how &quot;hill giants can have tan or brown skin and brown or black hair&quot; or &quot;kobolds tribes have 30% noncombatants and one egg per household&quot;.&nbsp; And it has more combat stat blocks.&nbsp; I admit, some of the descriptions were entertaining, and the Monster Manual is less entertaining without them.&nbsp; But I don't think it's trying to declare a whole playstyle &quot;unfun&quot; or anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Benimoto, post: 4498297, member: 40093"] I must have missed the official announcement then. I've read the 3e and 2e Monster/Monstrous Manuals fairly recently, and there is next to nothing in either of them about cooperation or negotiation with adventurers. Most of it is filled with monsters that essentially exist to fight. To avoid being directly repetitive, the writers describe the monsters with a whole thesaurus of "aggressive", "hateful", "predatory", "territorial", "xenophobic", "sadistic", etc., but nearly every monster is described as being there to fight adventurers in one way or another. When I made up the Cliffsinger tribe of lizardfolk in my 3e campaign, I basically ignored the entire entry about lizardfolk being aggressive, warlike, shamanistic creatures that live in the swamp. I imagined that particular tribe as a peaceful, primitive group, that lived in mountain hot springs and waterfalls and were led by storytellers. About all I used from the 3e MM entry was that creatures called lizardfolk existed, what they looked like, and that they were good swimmers who spoke Draconic. The 4e Monster Manual cuts a lot of stuff about how "hill giants can have tan or brown skin and brown or black hair" or "kobolds tribes have 30% noncombatants and one egg per household". And it has more combat stat blocks. I admit, some of the descriptions were entertaining, and the Monster Manual is less entertaining without them. But I don't think it's trying to declare a whole playstyle "unfun" or anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification