Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6120625" data-attributes="member: 92511">Sooooo...NO Monster Manual?! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> That's &quot;what's wanted&quot;? I dunno if I'd really think of it as &quot;&amp;D&quot; if there's no MM...not saying they couldn't do that, in today's day and age...but, might be my grognard showing again [checks zipper], but I want a book. Is that just me?Yes, I recall (and have heard for decades since) about the 2e Monstrous Compendium. The &quot;cards&quot; idea is just so...bleck to me. You don't want to tote around a M but a card album or stuffed &quot;recipe card box&quot; is preferable?&nbsp;Right. Yeah, distinctions were rather &quot;cuz I sed so&quot;. Dragons: 1-36 under &quot;D&quot;, but Djinni under &quot;D&quot;, Efreeti under &quot;E&quot;, Marids under &quot;M&quot;...not a single member of genie-kind, or even some generic &quot;Genie&quot;, listed under &quot;G.&quot; Giants: 1-10 under &quot;G&quot; but Brownie, Pixie, Sprite scattered all over the place.Which is kinda what I'm asking about...does that sort of &quot;intuitive&quot; thing work (and we've got 30+ years that seem to say &quot;yeah, it's fine&quot;), &quot;I want a Giant, I'm turning to G. I want a Demon, I'm turning to D.&quot; Or are more individual things or more groupings preferable?the way I'm thinking of it, all Dragons, Demons, etc... would be under D still, but, in the &quot;complete individuality&quot; model, instead of having:&quot;Dragon:Common dragon stuff for all dragons.Black DragonBlue DragonBrass Dragon...&quot;You'd have:&quot;Dragon, Black: all info on black dragons, including the common to all dragons stuff.Dragon, Blue: ditto blue dragons.Dragon, Brass: ditto brass dragons....Dragon, White: all things white dragon and common to all dragons stuff.Dragon Turtle: blah blah blahDragonne: blah blah blahDuegar: blah blah blah.&quot;This would mean Brownies are listed under B, Dryads under D, there would be no &quot;Faerie&quot; section under F.Demons, Devils, Giants, etc.. would all still appear close together IN the book, as well as being listed identically in the index, since every entry would be:&quot;Demon, Type I:Demon, Type II...Demon, Lord: DemogorgonDemon, Lord: GrazztDemon, Lord: Orcus...&quot;Giants, for example, would all be listed,&quot;Giants, FireGiants, FrostGiants, Hill...Giants, StormGnomeGoblin...&quot;With no &quot;Giants&quot; section, per se.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6120625, member: 92511"] Sooooo...NO Monster Manual?! :erm::confused::erm: That's "what's wanted"? I dunno if I'd really think of it as "&D" if there's no MM...not saying they [I]couldn't [/I]do that, in today's day and age...but, might be my grognard showing again [checks zipper], but I want a book. Is that just me? Yes, I recall (and have heard for decades since) about the 2e Monstrous Compendium. The "cards" idea is just so...bleck to me. You don't want to tote around a M but a card album or stuffed "recipe card box" is preferable? Right. Yeah, distinctions were rather "cuz I sed so". Dragons: 1-36 under "D", but Djinni under "D", Efreeti under "E", Marids under "M"...not a single member of genie-kind, or even some generic "Genie", listed under "G." Giants: 1-10 under "G" but Brownie, Pixie, Sprite scattered all over the place. Which is kinda what I'm asking about...does that sort of "intuitive" thing work (and we've got 30+ years that seem to say "yeah, it's fine"), "I want a Giant, I'm turning to G. I want a Demon, I'm turning to D." Or are more individual things or more groupings preferable? the way I'm thinking of it, all Dragons, Demons, etc... would be under D still, but, in the "complete individuality" model, instead of having: "Dragon: Common dragon stuff for all dragons. Black Dragon Blue Dragon Brass Dragon..." You'd have: "Dragon, Black: all info on black dragons, including the common to all dragons stuff. Dragon, Blue: ditto blue dragons. Dragon, Brass: ditto brass dragons. ... Dragon, White: all things white dragon and common to all dragons stuff. Dragon Turtle: blah blah blah Dragonne: blah blah blah Duegar: blah blah blah." This would mean Brownies are listed under B, Dryads under D, there would be no "Faerie" section under F. Demons, Devils, Giants, etc.. would all still appear close together IN the book, as well as being listed identically in the index, since every entry would be: "Demon, Type I: Demon, Type II ... Demon, Lord: Demogorgon Demon, Lord: Grazzt Demon, Lord: Orcus..." Giants, for example, would all be listed, "Giants, Fire Giants, Frost Giants, Hill ... Giants, Storm Gnome Goblin..." With no "Giants" section, per se. [/QUOTE]

Verification