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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gentlegamer" data-source="post: 3720053" data-attributes="member: 2425">[The second part of your post is a response to me, not Glyfair]Why should using monsters as monsters in Dungeons & Dragons be the first consideration of monsters in the D&D Monster Manual?I tried not to bring it to this, but this seems to mean you aren't really interested in playing D&D. You mention Shadowrun, World of Darkness . . . wouldn't you rather use those game systems and the flavor they contain?I think the implication in this discussion that originated with Mearls's quote is that this moddability has hindered the core purpose of monsters in D&D: to be monsters in D&D. That is, the moddability in this area isn't the strength it seemed to be.It's the only version of D&D you would consider playing because it's the only version that can handle settings and playstyles that originated in other role-playing games?Like I said, I think the "all things to all people" concept has encumbered many of the core things about Dungeons & Dragons in 3e. I think this is exactly what Mearls is addressing.In the past incarnations of those settings (none of which originated with 3e), rules for expanded player character races were included. If a setting is to use "monsters as PCs," there ought to be more work done than just pulling stats out of the Monster Manual. In those specific cases, you as a DM need do no work because the authors of the setting have done it during the setting design phase. Why should each monster in the Monster Manual be encumbered because some DM, someplace, sometime, might want to use a monsters as a PC race? Mearls is citing the core purpose of monsters in D&D: to be monsters in D&D. The design side of the game is going to be taking this as its central premise which ought to make monsters in D&D even better.</blockquote>

Verification