Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6385987" data-attributes="member: 7635">I think one issue that comes up a lot is this absurd notion that if a monster has flavor text NOTHING can EVER change that text. It immutable. You have to hand in your DM card. Therefore, we get these notions like:* Multiple story origins need to be provided to account for said monster in dozens of campaign settings.* The fluff has to be so generic that it never is contradicted by any other source, even the DM.* Any fluff that comes from a campaign setting published after 1986 is impure and must be discarded to keep the One True Vision of the monster.Doesn't anyone ever use the phrase, &quot;Well, the book may say that, but in my world...&quot; anymore? I like that D&amp;D has a &quot;default&quot; assumption. When I was young and getting used to the game, default assumptions gave me a good idea how to use the monster. I wasn't given a buffet table and told to make a meal that works, nor was I given unflavored dish and told to add my own spices. When I got comfortable, I made my own changes. When I liked something, I kept it, when I didn't I changed it. I like the fluff on kobolds worshiping dragons or seeking a lost deity; it sparked my imagination. It still won't stop me from using them as cannibalistic psychopaths in my next game. Likewise, I see things like the Jackelware's connection to Grazzt or the Blood War or such as great default assumptions for when I don't have the time or inclination to assign a backstory to every monster in the manual, but when I do, I have 0 problem changing it and saying &quot;In my game...&quot;Though I never cease to be amused by the sheer number of D&amp;D players that hate D&amp;D's default assumptions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 6385987, member: 7635"] I think one issue that comes up a lot is this absurd notion that if a monster has flavor text NOTHING can EVER change that text. It immutable. You have to hand in your DM card. Therefore, we get these notions like: * Multiple story origins need to be provided to account for said monster in dozens of campaign settings. * The fluff has to be so generic that it never is contradicted by any other source, even the DM. * Any fluff that comes from a campaign setting published after 1986 is impure and must be discarded to keep the One True Vision of the monster. Doesn't anyone ever use the phrase, "Well, the book may say that, but in my world..." anymore? I like that D&D has a "default" assumption. When I was young and getting used to the game, default assumptions gave me a good idea how to use the monster. I wasn't given a buffet table and told to make a meal that works, nor was I given unflavored dish and told to add my own spices. When I got comfortable, I made my own changes. When I liked something, I kept it, when I didn't I changed it. I like the fluff on kobolds worshiping dragons or seeking a lost deity; it sparked my imagination. It still won't stop me from using them as cannibalistic psychopaths in my next game. Likewise, I see things like the Jackelware's connection to Grazzt or the Blood War or such as great default assumptions for when I don't have the time or inclination to assign a backstory to every monster in the manual, but when I do, I have 0 problem changing it and saying "In my game..." Though I never cease to be amused by the sheer number of D&D players that hate D&D's default assumptions. [/QUOTE]

Verification