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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 5721723" data-attributes="member: 7006">Actually... it sounds as though the real dispute here is not whether it's right or wrong to want more fluff or less fluff in a Monster Manual... but rather the motivations and intentions of the guy who wrote the article.It's the use of the term 'story burden' that has gotten people all riled up... with some people putting much more emphasis on the negative tone and tenor of Rich Baker's decision to use it, as opposed to others thinking that Baker probably didn't mean much (if anything) by it.And in this case, there's no right answer.  Because it all comes down to what Rich Baker actually feels, and thus is nothing we're going to be able to ascertain just by arguing about it.  We'd have to wait for Baker to clarify his remarks.(Although if the past is any indication... most of these kinds of remarks never get clarified.  And my personal guess is that it's because they are so inconsequential to the people who write them that they just don't really care if they get misinterpreted.  Especially considering even the most clearly-written post will still get misinterpreted because some people just can't help but argue or find bogeymen under the bed, and think there's always a sinister truth behind every statement.  (See <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/313547-understanding-edition-wars-other-heated-arguments.html" target="_blank">Aberzanzorax's thread and link</a> for details.  LOL)</blockquote>

Verification