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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pentius" data-source="post: 5721991" data-attributes="member: 6676736">Got your mention, Mark.  I will go ahead and clarify.  Now, obviously, if the rules being written that way doesn't work for you, it doesn't, and what I say won't change that, but maybe I can give a bit of insight as to why they do work for me.  Now me, I like my rules clear and clean, I don't mind my characters and monsters being categorized by combat role.  That focus of the book on numbers and stat blocks actually helps my immersion, because everything is plain, transparent and easy to find.  I know what my character(or my party, when I DM) can do, how to handle improvised actions, etc.  What that comes down to is that at the table, time spent looking things up and interpreting things is minimal.  The less time I spend with my head in a book, the more time I'm spending engaged in the actual game.I don't mind if the book is light on lines of fluff.  If the ones it does have are potent and evocative, all the better.  But, for example, the goblinoid fluff about hobgoblins possibly having bred goblins and bugbears, well, that's pretty cool.  I like that.  But it's entirely useless for my game.  I run a homebrew world that has its own evocative and compelling goblinoid fluff(well, I like to think it's good, but I did write it, so I'm biased).  So, any fluff about goblins in the monster manual is wasted on me.  I value fluff in a monster book less than stats, because if I want to use a monster from the book, I'm probably going to use its stats, but whether I use its fluff is rather up in the air.</blockquote>

Verification