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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6133931" data-attributes="member: 8461">I wouldn't define it, because that's not the term I would use. I certainly wouldn't use "how often it's been reprinted" as a yardstick, if only because that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy (e.g. using something that's been used many times before means that it's been used that much more, and so should be used again, ad infinitum). Likewise, the presumption that just because a creature's appearances are all within a specific setting means that it has no appeal outside of that setting is fallacious. The recent discussion on kender helped show that. By contrast, the Tarrasque has appeared fewer times in published materials (ironically, several of those appearances were in setting-specific adventures, such as DL16 World of Krynn, SJR4 Practical Planetology).Leaving aside the problems of measuring the broadest possible appeal, many if not most monsters are fairly niche in their applicability, being of use at certain levels, in certain environments, and having certain abilities. There's also the (perfectly valid) idea that if you want the Core as a whole to have the broadest possible appeal, there's nothing wrong with it serving several different niches, rather than trying to have everything be universal. Specificity isn't a vice.Again, you've made several presumptions here. First, you are not privy to all, or even most, gaming discussions, so your third point can be discounted. Likewise, your definition of "gaining traction" as being "printed in the Core rules" is also fallacious, as described above, so we can likewise discount that. That leaves only your point about them "rarely" having been featured in any setting other than Planescape, which is easily countered by the Tarrasque vs. kender argument above.You're attempting to legitimize your personal opinions as objective metrics by utilizing the question of how often things have been printed - and the unrelated notation of how often they're printed in the Core rules - to set some sort of baseline. However, those are facts that have no issue on discussions of the qualitative merits or flaws of a given creature.It's also a very circular argument. "How do I know something has 'gained traction?' Because it's in the Core. Why was it printed in the Core? Because it had 'gained traction.'"Suggesting that people who disagree with you find your statements "earth-shattering" is (another) gross mischaracterization of their opinion.</blockquote>

Verification