MM4 Table of Contents up
- Thread starter Kunimatyu
- Start date
Sammael said:
I think the real bone of contention lies in exactly how we define innovation. Many people want to see monsters with unique, never before seen abilities. I can empathize, since I like that too. However, that doesn't mean that unique abilities are the only way to go.
The idea behind the spawn is to provide a bunch of creatures tied together by theme and built in a way that makes them easy to use together. The redspawn arcaniss is meant to stand back and blast away at its enemies, while other, more melee-oriented spawn fight in melee. He's a very simple, easy to understand and use monster. Many of the spawn are the same way. They are meant to be used together, and are kept simple to make it easy to run a number of monsters at the same time.
That really hasn't been tried in D&D before, so in that sense it's innovative. However, we really have no idea if people will like them. When we try something different, we're flying blind. But without trying anything different, we can't really push the game in new directions. What seems obvious to gamers about how good or bad a monster is isn't obvious to us, because we don't have any feedback on it.
The key is that when we try something different, we pay attention to sales and what people say about the book. We don't like firing blind, but sometimes we do it because we want to see how we can push the game in new directions. With stuff like the spawn, the writeups on monsters, the Black Talon tribe, and so on, we definitely pay attention to what people have to say.
We don't expect every book or idea to appeal to everyone. What we try to do is put new ideas out there and see if enough people respond to them. You might like monsters with new, unique abilities, but if there are a lot of people out there who don't like them, we won't know until we try something a little different.
I just thought of something else.
It might seem like, rather than fire blind, we could just ask what people like. That doesn't always work. What sounds lame sometimes plays very well.
For example, back in early 2000 I was on an RPGA mailing list for the Living Greyhawk campaign. We all had playtest copies of the rules to help us write LG adventures. A lot of people on the list really, really hated rolling once for initiative, as opposed to every round. Yet, once people started playing with the rule it was obvious that rolling once was much, much better than the old way.
Sometimes, you have to throw something out there and see how it works.
It might seem like, rather than fire blind, we could just ask what people like. That doesn't always work. What sounds lame sometimes plays very well.
For example, back in early 2000 I was on an RPGA mailing list for the Living Greyhawk campaign. We all had playtest copies of the rules to help us write LG adventures. A lot of people on the list really, really hated rolling once for initiative, as opposed to every round. Yet, once people started playing with the rule it was obvious that rolling once was much, much better than the old way.
Sometimes, you have to throw something out there and see how it works.
Kunimatyu
First Post
Sammael said:
Geez, man. Usually we see eye to eye on a lot of things, but I think I'm going to have to part company. I think the Arcaniss(aside from the stupidly sibilant syllable at the end of its name), is a well-designed, thematic moster that's a bit more elegant mechanically than, say, a half-red dragon lizardfolk sorceror, which is probably the closest analogue. It's not the most innovative monster(though lots of innovative monsters see no table time -- raise your hands, everyone: who's used the Stonesinger from MM3?) ever, but it's certainly not a bad one.
No, bad will be the CR4 dragonspawn that has some claw attacks, improved grab, and nothing else. I friggin' hate bland improved-grab monsters!
BryonD
Hero
ColonelHardisson said:
Sure, and that is certainly fair. I'm only speaking for myself.
But I'd still prefer a Monster Manual be a Monster Manual and a Rogue's Gallery be a Rogue's Gallery.
And not just for picky language reasons. A collection of Drow Ninjas over a range of levels would be geometrically more valueable than: "Wanna Drow ninja? Here, Level 4. Have a nice day." "But my games is level 13." "Oh? really? hmmmm? We got level 4 here."
As I said before, I'm holding out optimism that the product will be more than that. But the implication of the responses makes me less and less hopeful.
BryonD
Hero
You know, it actually does get tiresome to read the endless "WotC does no wrong" posts from the freelancers. This seems to be a realtively new activity, but it has been quite apparant recently. (Perhaps the point made in Mearls recent Blog entry has something to do with it?)Mouseferatu said:
Sorry if it is an outrageous taboo to actually point it out. But that doesn't make it any less obvious.
Heck, I've been on a "WotC keeps dropping the ball" kick lately. Mostly because I think WotC keeps dropping the ball lately. But get a good 3.5 thread going and you'll have people calling me "fanboy". There have been plenty of times that I've defended WotC against poular objection.
Some people average out and others don't.
When you see a really fixed pattern over and over, you can't help but notice the skew.
BryonD
Hero
I realize this isn't just about me.mearls said:
But for my position, I certainly see other aspects of the book that still look quite appealing.
I've offered my optimism about being wrong over drow with 4 levels on ninja slapped on.
If I'm wrong, I'll be very happy.
If I'm right, then I'm right.
Squire James
Explorer
Razz said:
Hey! We got to stat out all those Magic the Gathering cards somehow!
Similar Threads
