Where's the oppressive fluff?

[Fifth Element]

For a really serious example of this read the Basilisk entry withhout looking at the picture and describe what it looks like.

Why would I not refer to the illustration when dealing with the monster's appearance?

Besides, wouldn't describing the monster in detail count as oppressive fluff?

 

[Imaro]

Why would I not refer to the illustration when dealing with the monster's appearance?

Besides, wouldn't describing the monster in detail count as oppressive fluff?

Check out the other post on this page, where I put the Basilisks description at. Does a picture tell you it's weight? how long it is, etc.

No, if you look at 3.5 it gives a good example, especially when dealing with general monsters on how to describe them without having "oppressive" fluff. I honestly think the 4e MM was designed and put out in a really lazy manner.

 

[Fifth Element]

Check out the other post on this page, where I put the Basilisks description at. Does a picture tell you it's weight? how long it is, etc.

No need. I have the MM.

I honestly think the 4e MM was designed and put out in a really lazy manner.

I believe I know what you're saying, though you could probably say the same thing without insulting the designers. They apparently made a design choice that the weight of a monster was not important enough to be included in the MM. You may disagree with the decision, but there's no need to impugn their work ethic.

 

[Imaro]

No need. I have the MM.


I believe I know what you're saying, though you could probably say the same thing without insulting the designers. They apparently made a design choice that the weight of a monster was not important enough to be included in the MM. You may disagree with the decision, but there's no need to impugn their work ethic.

Perhaps "lazy" isn't exactly what I meant, and I am in no way trying to insult the designers. Perhaps I am a little irritated that they stated they held back monsters on purpose... but still couldn't decrease the font size, or cut down on some of those variations, in order to give us more on the monsters that were in MM 1. I don't think it had to be a one or the other decision.

 

[Fifth Element]

Perhaps "lazy" isn't exactly what I meant, and I am in no way trying to insult the designers. Perhaps I am a little irritated that they stated they held back monsters on purpose... but still couldn't decrease the font size, or cut down on some of those variations, in order to give us more on the monsters that were in MM 1. I don't think it had to be a one or the other decision.

I think the font size and layout is very important. The 3E MM is cluttered with words in small type, and as a reference work that hurts. The 4E MM is much easier to reference during play, and as such I don't mind having to make up a basilisk's weight on the spot if I have to.

 

[jdrakeh]

Actually, there's a thread on RPG.net complaining about the blandness and genericness of the 4e rules...

There are several threads here (and two at Circvs) wherein people complain about the lack of prescriptive fluff. I guess it just goes to show that you can never please everybody

 

[Imaro]

I think the font size and layout is very important. The 3E MM is cluttered with words in small type, and as a reference work that hurts. The 4E MM is much easier to reference during play, and as such I don't mind having to make up a basilisk's weight on the spot if I have to.

See that's great for you, you've probably had a nice bit of experience under your belt and have read previous versions of D&D to draw on. For a new DM I think a better balance could have easily been struck, even if it entailed dropping some variations. The monster creation rules cover that in an easy to use format. 2, 3 or even 4 variations I could see, but when it's knocking on 5, 6 or 7 for a simple monster (Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs I'm looking at you) I start feeling a little cheated.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Well, I'm not trying to gloat so much as saying "That was a lot of unnecessary arguing and gnashing of teeth."

You just described the whole internet. But, yeah, the 4e forum over the last 9 months was particularly bad for that. The amount of wailing over utter trivialities like the folding of erinyes into succubus, Golden Wyvern Adept and dragonborn breasts was ridiculous.

 

[Scribble]

See that's great for you, you've probably had a nice bit of experience under your belt and have read previous versions of D&D to draw on. For a new DM I think a better balance could have easily been struck, even if it entailed dropping some variations.

Then you start cluttering the stat block with more stuff that isn't ALWAYS needed. I can honestly say I've never had a need to look up the precise weight of a basilisk.

The monster creation rules cover that in an easy to use format. 2, 3 or even 4 variations I could see, but when it's knocking on 5, 6 or 7 for a simple monster (Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs I'm looking at you) I start feeling a little cheated.

But then that's 3-4 less variations for a monster I'm probably going to use a lot. Goblins, Kobolds, Orcs... They're the flagship monsters. They show up a lot. More variations in the book means less work for me as a DM.

 

[Imaro]

Then you start cluttering the stat block with more stuff that isn't ALWAYS needed. I can honestly say I've never had a need to look up the precise weight of a basilisk.

I didn't say anything about abilities or powers... so what does the stat block have to do with this?

But then that's 3-4 less variations for a monster I'm probably going to use a lot. Goblins, Kobolds, Orcs... They're the flagship monsters. They show up a lot. More variations in the book means less work for me as a DM.

Every DM is going to tailor the monsters used to their campaign, so while it might be a good thing for you that there are less overall monsters and more variations, for others (especially seeing as it is ridiculously simple to create variations on monsters), looking at it from a general view I don't like it that much. I wonder, would you have been even happier if there had been a quarter of the monsters presented and even more variations? Personally, like I said earlier 3 or 4 variations and I'm good, give me more to base my own variations on.