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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3720100" data-attributes="member: 22882">Oops, sorry! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" />  My most sincere apologies.Yes.  It's one possibility.  At my table, and the tables of everyone I've personally played with, the 3.5 Monster Manual has been a book of races as well as antagonists.I'm actually not a big WoD fan, either setting or mechanics, although both have some interesting ideas.  I've always liked Shadowrun's flavor but never its mechanics, and have always played or run it in other systems when given the chance.  Final Fantasy doesn't currently have a licensed tabletop RPG, for whatever ungodly reason, so that's right out.I disagree with Mearls on this issue.Moddability in this area is the only way I'll personally play the game, unless they are incredibly prompt and prolific in providing PC versions of the 'monster' races.It also doesn't have to equal complexity, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread via references to other systems.The fact that 3e did have complex monsters because they used the same rules as PCs indicates that 3e was the first version of the game to do so, and not all the kinks had been worked out.Trust me, my concept for 4e monsters would be a heck of a lot simpler than 3e current version; it would also be compatible with my concept for 4e PCs, which would be heavily based on the Saga rules.Other roleplaying games, D&D's own past, books, movies, non-RPG games - the d20 system has powerful if occasionally somewhat clunky setting emulation.  AD&D did not, and often struggled with even settings indigenous to it.If 4e resembles AD&D in being locked into a narrow view of the game and fantasy in general, it is not suitable for my gaming purposes.Your "encumbered," and apparently Mearls's, is another player's "liberated."WotC has said they'll release one setting a year, starting with the Forgotten Realms (which, I assume, will have at least drow as playable).  Eberron (hopefully with goblins and hobgoblins, this time, as well as the Eberron-specific PC races) will almost certainly be next.We have no way of knowing if they will EVER get around to Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer and Dragonlance, or if they do, when.Five or six years is a long time to wait for racial rules for some of D&D's settings.  In the current version, those rules are already available right from the Monster Manual.Because the game is allegedly about "options, not restrictions?"Because there no reason the two design principles shouldn't be compatible, when they so often are in other games?Because both GMs and players should, in many cases, be able to make that decision?Because some iconic settings from D&D's past pretty much require it?Because it seems likely to be appealing to new players, since it will allow them to more closely model the kind of fantasy most of them have grown up with?Because the current version of D&D has spawned an entire subset of the industry that takes advantage of it, which is allegedly still going to be supported?Because PC-appropriateness should not have to "encumber" a monster?And I honestly hope you enjoy playing it.</blockquote>

Verification