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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5237566" data-attributes="member: 2067">Personally, I don't see much of a problem here. I did when 4e was first coming out, but my understanding has changed a bit.At least for new DMs, and partially for brand purposes, and likely to give us the best flavor, the D&D default setting has to be the D&D default setting. Be it Greyhawk or "Greyhawk with the serial numbers filed off" or "PoL-land," it's an implied setting. You can't have evocative flavor and solid archetypes without it. Now, that's not to say that D&D can't be used as a toolkit. Indeed, it should be designed with at least an eye toward the tinkerers that grow the hobby like none other. But that is to say that DMs who are likely to use D&D as a toolkit are likely to be changing stuff all the time anyway. Putting in new flavor shouldn't be too tough, since they're not assuming the core setting.But, that core setting needs to be there, at least for the newbie DMs who aren't going to be creating a world. You need an example. That's what the Nentir Vale is in 4e. Given the setting information that's come out to this point, what with the Dawn War and the Primordials and Tharizdun and whatnot, there's actually a whole bag of setting information in the books. That's what Greyhawk was in 3e and 1e (and earlier). So giving us a broad brush-stroked worlds is essential.Here's my main issue with that stance:You don't need an MM by that logic, either, since there are rules for creating monster stat blocks.So why aren't traps, hazards, social challenges, potential allies, mythic quests, threatening behemoths, natural disasters, pernicious politics, diabolical manipulators, and searches for lost artefacts as worthy of additional page space as the swordwing? As bear lore?The answer, as far as I can see, is historical accident coupled with habit. The MM was modeled, in classic Gygaxian style, after medieval bestiaries. This means creatures. So it has been, and so it will be, because it has been thus.But it chafes at that constraint. The Ear Seeker or the Rust Monster aren't really monsters. In game terms, they're more like traps. The Terrasque isn't really a monster. In 4e game terms, it's more like a bag of 3-4 different skill challenges. Dire bears aren't monsters, they're lackeys of monsters. Angels aren't monsters. They're more likely to be allies, companions, and benefactors.We do need rules for that. Mechanical, interesting, varied, even slightly complex rules. That is, rules with unique player resources and meaningful choices and significant variety. Page 42 and Skill Challenges don't meet that need. A book that took seriously the idea that enduring a hurricane or securing an angel's allegiance was worth the same amount of attention as fighting a gnoll would have to address that need. That's a need I desperately need met in my 4e games.I don't think I'm alone. I think part of what underlies some of the demands for "more fluff in the MM!" and "more story and better pacing in the adventures!" is an audience who would like just as much to trick a Fey Lord as to slay an ogre. And I haven't heard a convincing reason as to why the latter is more important to provide engaging, ongoing support for than the former.</blockquote>

Verification