Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6007730" data-attributes="member: 87792">Summing the above up, you've just described why I find the even the 2e monster manual mechanically bores me rigid.&nbsp; Without such abilities, the difference between an orc and a hobgoblin with the same equipment is something like +1 to hit and damage.&nbsp; And there's no major difference between a gnoll and an orc in terms of the way you fight them.&nbsp; Send in the clones!&nbsp;With such mechanics for monster psychology and tactics, the way we fight differing monsters varies.&nbsp; Pack animals are creatures who are much more dangerous in packs and you defeat them in detail to win.&nbsp; We often go in with psychological warfare against orcs - but against hobgoblins it ain't gonna work.&nbsp; Simple, effective, allows for differing monster psychology (which is far more iteresting than &quot;Orcs are seven foot tall, green skinned eat the left hind leg of worgs, and are +2 hit points and +1 to hit and damage over humans but -1 morale value&quot; which is about all you are left with when you remove disassociated mechanics).&nbsp;As a player, monsters who think differently and are at their most effective behaving differently are much more interesting than what are mechanically a set of clones and that I only gain an advantage over by unsettling them thanks to the generosity of a DM.&nbsp; And as a DM, I have literally never had problems working out how to interpret bonusses that are given for monsters behaving in the way they ought to.&nbsp;Disassociated mechanics: An aid to gamism as they mean the monsters can be wrongfooted.&nbsp; An aid to narrativism as they mean the monsters feel more like their mythical archetypes.&nbsp; And an aid to any except the most process dirven simulationism because it allows the outcomes to match the desired outcomes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6007730, member: 87792"] Summing the above up, you've just described why I find the even the 2e monster manual mechanically [I]bores me rigid[/I]. Without such abilities, the difference between an orc and a hobgoblin with the same equipment is something like +1 to hit and damage. And there's no major difference between a gnoll and an orc in terms of the way you fight them. Send in the clones! With such mechanics for monster psychology and tactics, the way we fight differing monsters varies. Pack animals are creatures who are much more dangerous in packs and you defeat them in detail to win. We often go in with psychological warfare against orcs - but against hobgoblins it ain't gonna work. Simple, effective, allows for differing monster psychology (which is far more iteresting than "Orcs are seven foot tall, green skinned eat the left hind leg of worgs, and are +2 hit points and +1 to hit and damage over humans but -1 morale value" which is about all you are left with when you remove disassociated mechanics). As a player, monsters who think differently and are at their most effective behaving differently are much more interesting than what are mechanically a set of clones and that I only gain an advantage over by unsettling them thanks to the generosity of a DM. And as a DM, I have literally [I]never[/I] had problems working out how to interpret bonusses that are given for monsters behaving in the way they ought to. Disassociated mechanics: An aid to gamism as they mean the monsters can be wrongfooted. An aid to narrativism as they mean the monsters feel more like their mythical archetypes. And an aid to any except the most process dirven simulationism because it allows the outcomes to match the desired outcomes. [/QUOTE]

Verification