Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5906423" data-attributes="member: 92511">So noted. I never stipulated that it was the only valid one. That is neither herre nor there to the fact that it is the only correct one. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Because, in any year, D&D is a fantasy game of imagination and creativity, not a journey through someone else's pre-fabbed depiction of such...though it certainly can be that.  Again, video/board game vs. table-top RPG.One allows for creativity and expansion...it is automatically inclusive, adding the possible inclusion of the pre-fab (published settings, adventure modules/paths, etc.). The other (presenting pre-fab first) is, immediately, exclusionary to stepping outside that box. I assume you're joking here since I can not parse out the point or the conflicting metaphors.I suppose that makes sense...though from how you describe your vision of the Mosnter Manual, I do not see how that is possible.I would say, that perhaps an example lair or two, predone in the back of the book, "Appendix L" if you would, wouldn't be a bad thing. But the details of the creatures placed in them would still be found in the exclopedic A-Z section of the MM. But things like a sample "Kobold's Mine" or "Ogre's Castle" or "Dragon's Lair", easily done within 2 pages each, beautifully illustrated/3-D mapped with "makes sense" combinations of the creatures would be fine with me. But you can't do the whole book that way.I'd happily publish a whole "Book of Lairs" for you! Just don't think the MM should be done that way. <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=":)" />Noon'es burying anything anywhere. We're talking about 5e...a new edition. there will be new rules...new...just stuff. Everything. Some of it will seem familiar, I'm sure, and some of it will be foreign, "changed", from what we all know. The stat blocks of the 5e Monster Manual will not look like they did in 1975, '85, '95 or '05 for that matter.I really don't see or understand this point...because it is 2013...the "environment" is different [how?] and that demands...what for the MM? And your point of "change for changes sake because it's 2013" is just as persuasive. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /> And...again...why and how does it being 2013 make it any "less viable"? Alphabetical order is somehow too difficult for the 21st century?Yes, that's a good one. For a book that is supposed to be a recipe book for adventures...as I've been saying and agreeing your posed compendium would be WONDERFUL for...That does not make it a "good" Monster Manual.And yet...somehow...with our heads in the sand and all...everyone who has played D&D...of any edition...for the passed 40-odd years has just muddled through...ineffective, useless and unproductive, though we were...and by the grace of our ignorance, still managed to have some fun along the way.On that, my friend, we are in complete agreement. <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" />--SD</blockquote>

Verification