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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6050102" data-attributes="member: 87792">And this is a perfect example of a major difference in how we read books.  I have an entire bookshelf full of good fiction books.  Compared to most of them, Kenzer and Co (or WotC or just about any other game company) are half-baked.   And the stories I'm interested in at the table are the stories we are telling as we play; I don't want to have to read through fifty lines of Kenzer & Co's fiction and obfuscated rules so I can work out what the dog does next.  I want things to resolve at the tabletop so we can play our game, not read Kenzer's fiction and spend a minute or two distracted from the game in front of us.If the purpose of a rulebook is to sit on the shelf and be read as bedtime reading, I've better.  Booker winners.  Hugo winners.  If it's to be played, I want to be able to figure out the mechanics at a glance.If the fiction gets in the way of actually playing the game then it shouldn't be there.  Fifty lines to do what should be done in five does get in the way of actually playing the game.That's why.  The "fluff" in this case gets in the way of playing the game and telling the actually important story at the tabletop - i.e. that concerning the PCs.Finally you seem to have not been reading the thread.  In terms of fiction, fluff, and inspiration, many of us have been demonstrating how Monster Vault blows away the competition from the 2e Monstrous Manual and is far more inspiring.  It does this in addtion to making rules like the dog pack mauling rules look like childish finger paintings.  So talking about "solely for the hard math crunch" is irrelevant, and shows you haven't been reading the thread.</blockquote>

Verification