Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Melan" data-source="post: 2981213" data-attributes="member: 1713">I don't get it. Why do all monsters have to have general appeal? It has always seemed to me that it is more healthy to have an array of staple monsters (orcs, zombies, dragons and big snakes, for example), supplemented by a range of monsters with niche appeal (ogre mages, various oozes and slimes) and a few odball things that should come up rarely in any given campaign - if at all (beholders). It seems more exciting to me when some monsters are common and others are special and highly specialised. It breaks the monotony of yet another critter with X hit points and Y resistances. The standardisation philosophy removes the individual touch of the D&amp;D menagerie and robs it of its coolness.Beholders, rust monsters and ogre mages are fun because they are not the same old, same old. They are oddballs, requiring oddball strategies to fight as a player and to run as a DM.I don't see how that is bad. Really, Hussar, I don't get it. This is not rhetorical. I can't wrap my mind around the idea that someone would like to get them out of the game or change them to conform to a standardised design philosophy. It is a game of wild imagination and improbable strangeness, right? In short, fantastic and unpredictable. Or is that considered bad game design in today's environment?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Melan, post: 2981213, member: 1713"] I don't get it. Why do all monsters have to have general appeal? It has always seemed to me that it is more healthy to have an array of staple monsters (orcs, zombies, dragons and big snakes, for example), supplemented by a range of monsters with niche appeal (ogre mages, various oozes and slimes) and a few odball things that should come up rarely in any given campaign - if at all (beholders). It seems more exciting to me when some monsters are common and others are special and highly specialised. It breaks the monotony of yet another critter with X hit points and Y resistances. The standardisation philosophy removes the individual touch of the D&D menagerie and robs it of its coolness. Beholders, rust monsters and ogre mages are fun because they are not the same old, same old. They are oddballs, requiring oddball strategies to fight as a player and to run as a DM. I don't see how that is bad. Really, Hussar, I don't get it. This is not rhetorical. I can't wrap my mind around the idea that someone would like to get them out of the game or change them to conform to a standardised design philosophy. It is a game of wild imagination and improbable strangeness, right? In short, fantastic and unpredictable. Or is that considered bad game design in today's environment? [/QUOTE]

Verification