Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7656661" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Above where I noted that I come down squarely in the &quot;Hussar Camp&quot;, I was referring to disinterest or active disdain of world-building.&nbsp; If I had to come up with an opinion on the &quot;Manticore Affair&quot;, I would say that it definitely depends on play agenda and the system.&nbsp; If I'm running a pawn stance, Gygaxian dungeon-crawl/wilderness exploration game, then knowledge earned from prior experience is all a part of the &quot;skilled play&quot; format.&nbsp; I do my best to not upend that metagame knowledge so the players can appropriately prepare for, strategize around, and execute their honed SOPs for dealing with &quot;problem n&quot;. If I'm running a hex-crawl or a sandbox game and the default canon knowledge is relevant to PC build (of which has been bought and paid for by the player), then I'm going to do my best to adhere to it.&nbsp; If I make a mistake and that mistake negatively impacts a PC's shtick (thematic and mechanical), then I want to know about it and I want to rectify the situation.If none of the above apply, then who really cares?&nbsp; If the player is just being a canon-snob for the sake of being a neener neener canon-snob, then I'd just tell them to tackle the problem and move on.&nbsp; Although I've met a few neener neener canon-snobs, my guess is that the two cases above likely make up a fair chunk of the issues that Hussar is describing.Personally, again, just like I prefer low resolution setting/canon, I prefer a &quot;less is more&quot; approach with monsters.&nbsp; Endless ecologies and all the rest leave me cold.&nbsp; I'll take a tight, focused, brief description/story for the NPC/monster, replete with keywords such that I can use them as interesting, proper-themed antagonism and I'm good to go.&nbsp; The 4e and Dungeon World approach are exactly what I want.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, <a href="http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/monsters#TOC-Manticore" target="_blank">this</a> is pithy, malleable, and just full of awesome.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7656661, member: 6696971"] Above where I noted that I come down squarely in the "Hussar Camp", I was referring to disinterest or active disdain of world-building. If I had to come up with an opinion on the "Manticore Affair", I would say that it definitely depends on play agenda and the system. If I'm running a pawn stance, Gygaxian dungeon-crawl/wilderness exploration game, then knowledge earned from prior experience is all a part of the "skilled play" format. I do my best to not upend that metagame knowledge so the players can appropriately prepare for, strategize around, and execute their honed SOPs for dealing with "problem n". If I'm running a hex-crawl or a sandbox game and the default canon knowledge is relevant to PC build (of which has been bought and paid for by the player), then I'm going to do my best to adhere to it. If I make a mistake and that mistake negatively impacts a PC's shtick (thematic and mechanical), then I want to know about it and I want to rectify the situation. If none of the above apply, then who really cares? If the player is just being a canon-snob for the sake of being a neener neener canon-snob, then I'd just tell them to tackle the problem and move on. Although I've met a few neener neener canon-snobs, my guess is that the two cases above likely make up a fair chunk of the issues that Hussar is describing. Personally, again, just like I prefer low resolution setting/canon, I prefer a "less is more" approach with monsters. Endless ecologies and all the rest leave me cold. I'll take a tight, focused, brief description/story for the NPC/monster, replete with keywords such that I can use them as interesting, proper-themed antagonism and I'm good to go. The 4e and Dungeon World approach are exactly what I want. For example, [URL="http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/monsters#TOC-Manticore"]this[/URL] is pithy, malleable, and just full of awesome. [/QUOTE]

Verification