Who has picked up "Dragon: Monster Ecologies"?

[Nlogue]

Wow! Awesome Nick. Thanks a ton. You're going to have to tell James and I all about your draconian adventure in a few weeks here at Gen Con. And apologize to the new Mrs. Logue for distracting you! Newlywed wrath is scary.

HA! It's true...it be dangerous! But I have my ways of soothing the beast oh yes indeed I do.

Oh the draconian adventure is killer. Takes place during the height of the War of the Lance...it's off the hook! I'll tell you all about it at Gencon...hell, if we have time, I'll run it for you and James...though the list of adventures I want to run for you guys is already as long as my arm to be honest.

Nick


P.S. Jonathan Richards is the MAN!!! I for some reason only conjure up his excellent work on the "Challenge of Champions" series when I think of him, but now I remember that he is truly the undisputed King of the Ecos too...well maybe he shares the crown with Ed Greenwood sometimes, but you know what I mean!

P.P.S. I've got an Eco left on the schedule!!! I am excited to see it next month!!! IT WAS SOOOOO MUCH FUN TO WRITE!!!

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Such a creature has never had an ecology article. Allow me to remedy:
They look like a statue and will bite you.

You left out the part about the pigeons.

I'm going to have to add this to the list.

 

[The Green Adam]

How does a book of possible explanations that may have nothing to do with your campaign affect this in any way?

It's just a personal preference. The question was who picked up this book. My answer is I can't decide if I should get it. While fun to read, it will not, as you say, "have anything to do with my campaign".

Oddly, over the last few days, I've been in several threads where someone asks you your opinion on something and then someone else asks why you answered with your opinion.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's just a personal preference. The question was who picked up this book. My answer is I can't decide if I should get it. While fun to read, it will not, as you say, "have anything to do with my campaign".

Oddly, over the last few days, I've been in several threads where someone asks you your opinion on something and then someone else asks why you answered with your opinion.

You should re-read the post I was responding to, then, since you stated that you have a problem with your players being able to read this stuff -- i.e. it's a bad thing that it's out there at all.

If your opinion is that "I don't buy it because it's not of interest to me," you're putting out confusing messages in that regard

 

[The Green Adam]

You should re-read the post I was responding to, then, since you stated that you have a problem with your players being able to read this stuff -- i.e. it's a bad thing that it's out there at all.

If your opinion is that "I don't buy it because it's not of interest to me," you're putting out confusing messages in that regard

OK, let's see if I can get rules-lawyer-Trekkie-trivia specific...bare with me as I'm not good at 'letter of the law' style explanations when discussing fantasy...I am not a fan of buying and using material for my campaign universe/background that defines the abilities, habits and weaknesses of an opponent/creature in any kind of 'official' capacity as players will often read such material and gain an advantage against something I wish to be surprising and/or mysterious. Unlike many others it seems, I have no problem with anything being out there, it's just not my style to have monsters portrayed in this way.

I prefer to keep such information vague until such time as the PCs have gotten a chance to study it the creature, encounter it or communicate with an NPC with knowledge of it.

Furthermore, many of the creatures in my campaign are magical to the point where they do not fit properly into the 'natural world' and do not have an ecology per se. Rather, it is their very presence that is the problem as they upset the local balance (eating livestock, causing disease that would not have been there normally, etc.).

Quoted for Troof.

Somebody got it.

 

[Doctor DM]

Pfffffft. Who needs Monster Ecologies? All I need are my Dungeon Crawl Classics!

JK, nah, I can't justifiy spending the money, but it looks really good.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I have a love/hate relationship with "Monster Ecologies". While amny of the articles over the years have been fun, interesting and well written, the idea that certain magically creatures even have an ecology bugs me. The Will o' Wisp? To this day, after 30 years of gaming, my players don't know if they're faeries, the ghosts of faeries, lost spirits or just swamp gas.

IIRC, the original will o'the wisp ecology article (by Nigel Findley) is basically a horror story. Doesn't really demystify the corpselight in any way.

 

[Nightfall]

*four*

Look all I'm saying is while we can get stuff for other monsters, I don't see why would couldn't get more background on a monster that has been in D&D lore for as long as goblins have been around.

Besides who knows, there might be more to them than just "sit there until adventurers" come along to each you.

I mean read what Peter Adkinson wrote about gnolls! He made them more than just "random" encounters. I think the same could be done with gargoyles too!

 

[Zaukrie]

It is a very well done book, and if Pathfinder is of that quality, I'll be buying a few issues to test the quality of those. That said, I own all the Dragon mags these came in, so I passed. Just too many possiblities to spend money on to re-spend it on something I mostly already own.

 

[JustKim]

I mean read what Peter Adkinson wrote about gnolls!

Where was that?