I didn't ask for explanations, but I did ask for more encounter groups, and I am open to this sort of fluff, if done concisely and/or evocatively. As a relatively inexperienced DM with very little free time, I find encounter groups a much more useful building block than individual monsters.I want more fluff, but I was asking about explaining encounter groups. I can't remember anyone, ever, asking for that kind of fluff.
And giving reasons why ENCOUNTER GROUPS hang together? I laughed out loud with that. Who uses encounter groups anyway? Now they will waste even more space.
I approve. It's a step in the right direction.
However they still need to produce monster flavor text that's actually interesting and evocative. You can still produce monster fluff that's some combination of dry, boring, repetative or poorly researched* if it builds on prior sources (knowledge check sidebars and monsters with classes tagged on in MM4 I'm looking at you). I really don't want to see something lackluster that's then used as evidence that flavor just doesn't sell if the book flops, because that sort of thing tends to snowball to peoples' psyche and it can influence other games, etc.
*Voor and Corruptor of Fate "yugoloths" in MM4...
People who don't like 4e.Um, did anyone ask for fluff on why encounter groups were together? Anyone? Hello? Anyone?
Perhaps the comment was a little unfair.So being critical of one part of the game = person who doesn't like the entire game?
It's purely an self-central view thing. If it's not useful TO ME, then it's a waste (for me). I want what I WANT. I don't CARE what other people want. ME ME ME ME ME. I am paying my money for less.Why is it "wasted space" if it helps some (maybe many) DM's have more fun playing the game?
Why is it "wasted space" if it helps some (maybe many) DM's have more fun playing the game?