Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 4673386" data-attributes="member: 20854">When I first heard of it, I liked the concept of the Monstrous Compendium, but it turns out that the execution was flawed.&nbsp; Since a single sheet often had monsters printed front and back, it wasn't possible to insert sheets and keep things in order, so what was the point?I know it's not the &quot;common wisdom,&quot; but I also don't like all the fluff in the 2e monster books, with the in-depth ecology and all that.&nbsp; (I wonder if some of that approach was born of the need to fill up the space on a page of the Monstrous Compendium? -- hadn't thought of that, before...)&nbsp; I think it gives the monsters too much of a &quot;National Geographic Wildlife Encyclopedia&quot; feel.&nbsp; I prefer monsters to be mysterious and unknown.&nbsp; Give me the stats for a goblin and a couple lines of description.&nbsp; I'll create multiple &quot;skins&quot; for that monster and multiple spins/twists on those stats.&nbsp; Players won't even *know* that they're facing a &quot;goblin,&quot; in may cases.&nbsp; I like the &quot;what the hell is that thing&quot; approach.&nbsp; All the fluff in the 2e monster books doesn't *have* to be used, but I think it's usually considered to be the canonical or &quot;correct&quot; description of the monster.&nbsp; I don't like that tendency.&nbsp; I also don't like the implication that monsters *need* a well-developed ecology; I abjure the very concept.Of course, the info in the 2e monster books could be seen as just an example, and nothing prevents me from re-skinning and re-imagining the descriptions and fluff; I can just ignore all that.&nbsp; And that's my point, really -- I don't consider it a good thing, so I'd ignore it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Philotomy Jurament, post: 4673386, member: 20854"] When I first heard of it, I liked the concept of the [i]Monstrous Compendium[/i], but it turns out that the execution was flawed. Since a single sheet often had monsters printed front and back, it wasn't possible to insert sheets and keep things in order, so what was the point? I know it's not the "common wisdom," but I also don't like all the fluff in the 2e monster books, with the in-depth ecology and all that. (I wonder if some of that approach was born of the need to fill up the space on a page of the [i]Monstrous Compendium[/i]? -- hadn't thought of that, before...) I think it gives the monsters too much of a "National Geographic Wildlife Encyclopedia" feel. I prefer monsters to be mysterious and unknown. Give me the stats for a goblin and a couple lines of description. I'll create multiple "skins" for that monster and multiple spins/twists on those stats. Players won't even *know* that they're facing a "goblin," in may cases. I like the "what the hell is that thing" approach. All the fluff in the 2e monster books doesn't *have* to be used, but I think it's usually considered to be the canonical or "correct" description of the monster. I don't like that tendency. I also don't like the implication that monsters *need* a well-developed ecology; I abjure the very concept. Of course, the info in the 2e monster books could be seen as just an example, and nothing prevents me from re-skinning and re-imagining the descriptions and fluff; I can just ignore all that. And that's my point, really -- I don't consider it a good thing, so I'd ignore it. [/QUOTE]

Verification