Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6366303" data-attributes="member: 1465">Imagine someone said that about the players making player's characters interesting. Would you buy a new edition's PHB if it gave each class 1-2 abilities only, and then tell you that it's the players responsible to be creative, e.g. by launching flasks of oil? That would not be a "wrong" RPG, in fact OD&D/BECMI is quite like that... but at the same time not what most people expect from a game launched in 2014.Not that I think the 5e MM monsters are empty or uninterested, but [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] has a legitimate point indeed. It is the responsibility of the designers to provide character material and monster material which is interesting. I think the 5e MM is overall fine about that. It is also their responsibility to help DMs of various skills run the game, which is why they kept many monsters really simple, for DMs who aren't very skilled at running monsters. So there's a balance to strike between the two.I myself prefer complex monsters, but the big deal is that if WotC also put good monster advancement rules in the DMG, that (fairly) simple monsters are good for me too, because with those rules we are able not only easily able to make more complex monsters, but also vary them a lot.</blockquote>