Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5906640" data-attributes="member: 92511">Ummm.. I would say "no." Imagination and creativity know no constraints...regardless of what's around them. Particularly context. That's kinda part and parcel of what makes it "imagination" and "creativity."No, of course not. But, as you're proposing, for ease of use...for immediate gratification out of the Monster Manual, this is what you would use. The PHB gives the "rules"/guidelines for Players. The DMG gives the "rules"/guidelines for DMs. The Monster Manual gives the "rules"/guidelines for monsters the DM can use. Can you change any or all of them, of course. Always could. Some people like or have the time to, some don't. While my cooking experience humbly disagrees with your supposition about onions in meatloaf, <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=";)" /> that's not really the point. [I make a damn fine meatloaf, if I do say so...]This is kinda proving my point as much as, if not more than, defending yours. Give me the onion. What I do with it is up to me...Will it work in my recipe? Maybe. Maybe not. I taste. I learn. I move on with more onion...or less, or none at all, next time. Which is precisely what the MM is supposed to be...why are we at odds, again? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />Then they are welcome to do so. I would PREFER if people looking to play Diablo, go play Diablo! Instead of saying, well people are playing Diablo, we have to make D&D like that. That's not a "solution"...or "innovation"...or whatever. That's pandering and warping things that don't need to be..."changing for the sake of change" is not innovation.And, I suppose the question here becomes...Why should D&D "lower [its] hurdles"??? This is the game. Learn it. Love it...or don't. The 5e police won't be coming after you to MAKE you love it. Go play something else [or house-rule it] if you don't like it. Noone's stoppign you. But, as I've said umpteen other times in a multitude of other threads, change something enough and it ceases to be the thing it was. that is not innovation or evolution...that's just "change" for the sake of change or "looking cool" or some other reason I can't rightly fathom. I don't believe anywhere was I sayign the internet shouldn't be used or a factor. In fact, I would expect to see a VIBRANT monster builder online by WotC. But...again, that's not something that should be needed to play the table-top-pen-n'-paper RPG called D&D game.That is a big part of it. Yes. You have been saying "make the Mosnter Manual this way"...and, as we find ourselves in a thread about "what the Monster Manual should be"...I must, respectfully, disagree with your proposal.No argument with that.I don't think anyone in this thread has been advocating "less info." Nor any formatting that would detract from everyone's fun in using the potential characters presented in the book.It's an organizational question (yes, with/and the name included). What you propose is not "more useful", easier/more intuitive to use or, except in a very specific definition of the game, "better" to use/more new player friendly by having a bunch of different monsters all glommed in together under a single entry.Funny. I never thought of the birth of the RPG gaming genre...or 1975, for that matter...having "standards." hahaha.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Are you makin' fun of my beard? What's wrong with my overalls?!Seriously though, I think you are drawing faaaaar to far a conclusion and assuming waaaay too much with this analogy.I understand, KM. I do. And...for the fourth? Fifth time? I like your idea...as/for a supplemental, "easy to use for beginners", pre-made lairs or mini-adventures sorta book. That is not the Monster Manual...to me and I suspect many others.And nothing you've said sounds like other than "I like my idea. I think it'll work better. So make it this way."There's nothing inherently "wrong" with that. We're talking about what we'd like to see. We're talking about "what if"...it's an intriguing proposal and discussion. But nothing you've said (other than the onions in meatloaf bit with which I stringently disagree <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />) has said anything that convinces me your "what if/I'd like to see" should be my "what if/I'd like to see."Respectfully, agree to disagree?[and PM me once we know what the actual rules are...I DO think your recipe book "Complete Lairs Compendium" is a GREAT idea for a supplemental work....provided 5e has the OGL, of course.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" />]--SD</blockquote>

Verification