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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 257755" data-attributes="member: 1008">OK.I was a little overcome by emotion when I posted originally. And I sort of missed all the games that include detailed monster descriptions in their main rulebook (as opposed to d&d, which put out a separate book).My bad.I'll try to be a little more precise with my semi-rant.I pretty much started playing with MERP. This included a collection of critters, but certainly not a huge one. I moved on to Rolemaster, which included brief stats for a fair few monsters, but no detailed descriptions/rules.I think that I am better of for it. Of course, I also believe that d20 over-guides new players. I'm all for learning from your mistakes, rather than the new d20 style that gives (me at least) the impression that it is trying to present a perfectly balanced system - which, simply, it isn't. But that's a different issue.I guess what I was really meaning to get at (and something that I didn't express very well) is that with the MM as a core rulebook, it is looked upon by many players as a definitive explanation of the monsters contained within. NOT as merely a handy resource, which is what it really is. As with so many things d20, IMHO, it is presented as a final arbiter of what is right and wrong with respect to monsters - and while there is Rule-0, and there are a few spots in the DMG where it talks about the rulebooks as guidelines, the overwhelming feeling from all three books is that "This is the way things should be done - do otherwise at your own peril". This, in my opinion, stunts the learning curve of new players, and especially with regard to the MM, which should have far less import given to it than the PHB and DMG. To quote myself, from the thread that inspired this one:</blockquote>

Verification