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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nellisir" data-source="post: 6391443" data-attributes="member: 70">Reading this thread backward (looking for that Yondalla reference) made me realize that you people have been arguing the same thing for about 10 pages now.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Also that, despite arguing the same thing for 10 pages, everyone has been civil and decent and generally magnificent people.I can see the appeal of no-fluff writeups for monsters, but that's what makes them interesting to me. Is there a certain amount of conflict that comes with that? Sure. It does create, at minimum, an "assumed" reality; a setting made of often disconnected details rather than broad strokes, but I'm OK with working against that on occasion. It's the price to pay for the inspiration. Personally, I think details help ground a creature, and even if you don't use the details, they've often given you a starting point. Alignment, at bare minimum. I put little setting details in my creatures and adventure hooks to keep things interesting and point out unconventional ways to use a monster.A lot of people buy D&D products to read for pleasure.Edit: I read The Shadow's post above, and then skimmed through 10 pages of this thread, and then wrote this post, unintentionally repeating or rehashing some of the things he said, but I said them less fluently. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification