Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 5719986" data-attributes="member: 13107">Negative reaction from me on this most recent rule of three.  Anyone else having a similar reaction?See:<a href="http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20111031" target="_blank">Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 10/31/2011)</a>I'm just not buying it.  I can see fluff being omitted as a way of throttling value (which is a copyright holder's right), but not because folks will feel constrained to only use the monsters in their usual locale.Also, omitting descriptions in preference to pages of repetitive crunch seemed to be a way to emphasize the skirmish focus.  As in, please don't get that role playing fluff in my skirmish/tabletop battle game.Mind you, if the goal is to create "universal" creatures to fill specific roles, then why not go the whole way and strip off the descriptions altogether?  Having lots of selectable options, with a primary role selection and a tunable setting for the target level, would seem to be a great way to setup a monster builder.  I'm wholly behind this sort of idea.  Then actual named monsters could be provided as "thematic archetypes" for the generic creatures.  Getting stuck halfway seems to lose both the value of rich descriptions and the value of a generic, composition based monster builder toolkit.  Of course, you might loose half the page count.TomB</blockquote>