Coming to a MM near you- FLAVOR!


log in or register to remove this ad

Okay, well, I'm sure there have been some, I was exaggerating, unsuccessfully, for effect. I do love fluff, and it might work if it is done well....
 

I want more fluff, but I was asking about explaining encounter groups. I can't remember anyone, ever, asking for that kind of fluff.
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.
 

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.

Yeah - I agree with this (But I loved MM4 for 3.5 :p ). The encounter groups are a waste of space and now I can look forward to them taking even more space from the book. I want more fluff, I really do, but not on why the freaking random encounter groups hang out together. :erm:
 

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...

SOoooo it could suck....unless it doesn't? This could be said about anything, couldn't it?
 

I'm not sure if more fluff would have made the first two MM better; but I am in favor of a little more fluff in the third book for sure.

As far as encounter groups go; heck ya I use them all the time. They help big time for winging it, as I'm often forced to do... but the groups sometimes were a little odd.

I am all for fluff for the encounter groups really, even more than any other additional fluff angle.

But if you don't wing it that often they might not be that useful to you.
 


Um, did anyone ask for fluff on why encounter groups were together? Anyone? Hello? Anyone?
People who don't like 4e.

So being critical of one part of the game = person who doesn't like the entire game?

Aw, man, I don't know why I'm spending all this money paying for books and electronic subscriptions to this game that, it turns out, I didn't even like! ;)

Seems like most of the people in the thread are critical of the idea. What do you guys think we'll be giving up for all this added information? Why is it "wasted space" if it helps some (maybe many) DM's have more fun playing the game?
 

So being critical of one part of the game = person who doesn't like the entire game?
Perhaps the comment was a little unfair.

But I think the loudest complaints come from those who don't play or are otherwise unhappy in general with the game. Not those who love it, but don't like x or y.

I will bet a tooth that a hefty number of those who took said survey don't currently play 4e.

Why is it "wasted space" if it helps some (maybe many) DM's have more fun playing the 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.

For instance, rarely do you see anyone say "Well, I don't like this. But since someone else might like it, I guess I shouldn't mind it." If that were the case, the internet would be empty. ;)
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top