Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DLichen" data-source="post: 4617801" data-attributes="member: 71083">I can see where the 3e guys are coming from, but I don't really feel that it is a matter of the rules but of presentation.The 4e rules can support monsters doing cool things out of combat, but the 4e books have pretty much failed to deliver on that account. If you want Orcus to be a big bad manipulator, all you can do is whip up the story and hope it is good. Big Bads with the capital Bs really should have more fluff and samples with their entries so that DMs have something to build off of.The Draconomicon for some example has some really cool flavor ideas and background which I feel should have been in the monster manual entries on dragons to flesh them out a bit.Edit:I also see a lot of parallels between this and the removal of crafting rules. On one hand, it's cool to have a set of rules that make a blacksmith a blacksmith. On the other hand, nearly none of the PCs ever used it, the rules were flawed, and it was generally a waste of space. Remove it in 4e however, and now if one PC says he wants to have a smithing background and handcrafted his set of dwarven armor, any PC with a weakling wizard can claim to do the same since there's no rule repercussions. The removal of crafting might have been good for the game in general, but it also leaves a hole where DMs have a hard time arbitrating.On one hand, it's cool to have rules that tell you which monster can hatch a grand plot, summon an army, bind nations around its thumb, and pretend to be your grandmother with magic. On the other hand, most of the time it's just garbage and DM fudgery. But without it, the game world feels a bit more empty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DLichen, post: 4617801, member: 71083"] I can see where the 3e guys are coming from, but I don't really feel that it is a matter of the rules but of presentation. The 4e rules can support monsters doing cool things out of combat, but the 4e books have pretty much failed to deliver on that account. If you want Orcus to be a big bad manipulator, all you can do is whip up the story and hope it is good. Big Bads with the capital Bs really should have more fluff and samples with their entries so that DMs have something to build off of. The Draconomicon for some example has some really cool flavor ideas and background which I feel should have been in the monster manual entries on dragons to flesh them out a bit. Edit: I also see a lot of parallels between this and the removal of crafting rules. On one hand, it's cool to have a set of rules that make a blacksmith a blacksmith. On the other hand, nearly none of the PCs ever used it, the rules were flawed, and it was generally a waste of space. Remove it in 4e however, and now if one PC says he wants to have a smithing background and handcrafted his set of dwarven armor, any PC with a weakling wizard can claim to do the same since there's no rule repercussions. The removal of crafting might have been good for the game in general, but it also leaves a hole where DMs have a hard time arbitrating. On one hand, it's cool to have rules that tell you which monster can hatch a grand plot, summon an army, bind nations around its thumb, and pretend to be your grandmother with magic. On the other hand, most of the time it's just garbage and DM fudgery. But without it, the game world feels a bit more empty. [/QUOTE]

Verification