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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6294130" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Well.  They did the work in providing unprecedented, robust rules frameworks to mechanically resolve noncombat conflicts and threats;  Skill Challenge, Disease/Condition Track, a mathematically transparent Trap/Hazard system, a terrain system, a transparent and tightly functional encounter budgeting system, an easy monster template/theme system.  Then there is guidance and communication on how to use these things and how to pace an adventure to deliver the style you're going for (such as the implications of Extended Rest denial until specific, difficult conditions are met).  All of the above are, of course, located in the DMG and DMG2.  This is where I would expect them to be found.  Learning how to functionally use the swath of available system rules to create thematically coherent and challenging conflicts for your players is the purview of the DMG(s).And as far as the work goes, the actual mental overhead is minimal for a skilled GM.  The above took me about 2-3  minutes to come up with.  It is pretty generic/vanilla but would do the job aplenty.   I wouldn't need to prep (I typically spend little to no time on prep).  I could run that right now with some scratch paper, some dice, and a bunch of strangers (who know the system).  Brainstorming thematically coherent and internally consistent complications and conflict fallout is the GM's job, not any Monster Manual's job.  Understanding various genre tropes, having a forensic base of knowledge to draw upon and deploy during play, honing your creativity and your ability to improvise immediately...these are all honed and not any Monster Manual's job.It seems that, overall, your complaint is that 4e MM1 didn't properly convey enough thematic material for the GM such that a brand new GM to the game would have no idea how to compose proper thematic, and internally consistent, pushback from the distinctive dragons; 1)  regional complications/conflict2)  the wyrm's changing ecology as it ages3)  its (granular) means available4)  granular lair info5)  ts typical servitors 6)  the denizens of the surrounding regions it might ruleYou're looking for fully-fleshed, prescriptive examples of thematic noncombat complications/conflicts/fallout and servitors for each dragon?  That would require an extreme amount of page count to supplement the MM for each of the relevant legendary/mythic monsters that each have their own thematic niche in the implied setting of D&D.  Further, I dispute that the 2e or 3e books provided such information.  They provided an outrageous amount of prescriptive fluff that did little to nothing to aid me at the table.  I suppose it made for quality Reader's Digest material (if that is what one is looking for), but in no way did all of that 2e or 3e fluff marry itself to the actual system components available, which in turn basically nullified the prospect of ease of use in actual play at the table...which moved much of the GM's job away from actual play at the table to (often considerable) pre-play prep (some GMs love this I guess...I despise it with the burning hatred of a thousand suns).  It was entirely up to the GM to sort the wheat from the chaff from those entries and then find a way to make up their own noncombat rules, leverage the (scantly) available rules, or figure out whether they were convinced the PCs power plays (typically involving spells and magic items which were not located in the MM) would work when there were no legitimate resolution tools invoked (rulings).  I wonder how much of these debates comes to a head over the fact that a certain segment of the player-base yearns for a granular, prescriptive, canonical bent to their monsters and their settings.  Then you have another segment of the player-base that merely wants some (perhaps highly) malleable defaults that provide just enough to let them refluff and customize at their discretion.Does a MM need to tell me that a blue smells of ozone or sand?  That it uses illusions/hallucinatory effects and wards to ensnare and dispose of those who enter its domain?  That it has a general disposition of mocking disdain toward lesser creatures and is generally manipulative when it isn't being outright cruel?  Why it is more apt to be involved with Storm Giants than Stone Giants?  What it diet consists of during adolescence?  Does it need to spend 3-5 extra pages outlining specific noncombat challenges/conflicts/threats likely to be encountered when tangling with a mighty blue?</blockquote>

Verification