Ok, just tell me Why

[Ahglock]

I just have two questions for those who like less fluff in the MM...how is this in anyway better for new DM's? I mean an experienced DM can change things confidently, a new DM is just trying to understand how everything works and fits together, he's looking for inspiration and the MM is lacking big time in this department. It seems a default that can be changed would have been a better route.

Second question, Where are the "more monsters" this format allowed. Or do you consider different roles/same monster as a "new" monster?

I think there is enough fluff, especially with he art for a new DM to know what the monster basically is. The 4e MM lets a new DM know what basic role the monster will be playing.

This will help him a heck of a lot more than knowing that McNgugget monsters come from all white meat chicken pressed into goo, and fried to delicious goodness. Famed in horrible conditions so its ,lack of movement gives it more fatty flavor crystals.

That kind of information may be more fun to read. But knowing its purpose is to slow the players on the battlefield, because really you are over 18 and a 20 piece with two large fries and a diet coke is just too much for you now.

As for the 2nd question, yes and no. There are less unique monsters so style wise you may be running out quicker. But, I think you do have more monsters that fit adventure building roles.

On a side note I really like the art, I am from the school of old and it works for me.

 

[hellbender]

You know, Brilbadr, you are just in the wrong place. Those games you seek exist, but finding them here is pointless. Try to find Labyrinth Lord, Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game, OSRIC, or, if you like a Gamma World type game, check out Mutant Future.

The past and the old look never died. I run b/x D&D because the new material makes itself redundant. Never set your books down, just look around. On the Paizo boards a Hasbro executive said the new movement would grind the grognards to grist.

Note to Hasbro: We are thriving. Keep churning out your books and we will keep playing our games and gathering recruits.

 

[Mercule]

This confuses me, honestly.

I mean, I haven't read the MM, since our copy hasn't arrived yet. I'm nearly positive I won't like it. But lay down my D&D books? Not until you pry my cold, dead fingers off my dice.

So you don't like 4E. Don't play it. You have several earlier editions to choose from. Why take your ball & bat & go home, just because you don't like the current edition.

Dunno. I did, at one point. The bungling of much of 2e ticked me off to no end. I actually sold all my BECMI, 1e, and 2e books at one point and switched completely to Hero, oWoD, and some other systems. Of course, I was 19 or 20 at the time and prone to fits of... um... adolescence. I can't imagine doing that today, but it made sense at the time.

Personally, I'm still not entirely sure whether I like 4e or not. I think I do, but I haven't seen it in enough actual play to be sure. At one point, I thought I'd love 3e because they finally had one set of rules for both PCs and NPCs/monsters. Turns out that wasn't as cool as I thought it'd be.

For 4e, I like the idea of rituals vs. "right now" spells. But, I'm not sure I like the exact implementation of them for either wizard or cleric.

I'm warmer to the idea of martial "powers" than I thought I'd be, but the fact that I find myself actually considering using cards to track sword swings gives me the heebie-jeebies.

I really liked what I saw of the warlord in play. But, one of the (non-warlord) players said he felt like just a cleric.

Paragon paths look better than PrCs, but I think we're just looking at something else that will eventually be bloat. Either way, I consider it a minor point.

If the prep is as easy as has been advertised, I'm probably going to need to change my underwear. I don't completely believe the hype, plus, I'm pretty strongly opposed to classic monsters losing some of their signature abilities just because it isn't optimal or convenient -- golems don't have magic immunity, for example. I'm willing to deal somewhat, though.

So, the jury is still out, for me. I'm guessing I'll like it, just on the bright shiny principle, if nothing else. Any more, all I really want is one campaign out of a system, then I'm ready to move on. That might just be my attitude on 3e, though. I've had less fun per session and maintained that level of fun for less time than any other system I've played (well, besides GURPS, which was something I wouldn't wish on anyone). It might also be my current group -- nice people all around, but half of them seem about as focused on the game as I'd expect at Bridge.

 

[Mercule]

Same here. I hate it when a player assumes the book's flavor text is valid when it's something I've changed (and something I hope the players discover). "Flavor lawyers" exist, and they can be frustrating.

Yup. I ditched the Great Wheel sometime in the 1980s because it was the standard fluff. Ditto for the gods (well, more like, I never added the 3e gods into my home-brew). I even purged the elemental planes because having "the four elements" be important has become painfully cliché -- elementals IMC are nothing more than spontaneous anthropomorphisms of "human" concepts, which also explains and allows for various other elementals without straining the internal consistency of the game's metaphysics.