Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 5964724" data-attributes="member: 115">There's nothing inherently offensive about having broader mechanical information in the monster entry.&nbsp; Most editions have included some encounter notes.&nbsp; I think Mike's thinly-veiled 4E-bashing tends to push it that way.4E innovated and did a lot right with monster and encounter design from a mechanical standpoint.&nbsp; However, from a literary standpoint (ie, setting/lore) it was about as evocative as drying paint.&nbsp; The point Mike is making is that both mechanics and lore have merit, but more importantly both have a place where they are important.The obvious question being asked is this: what is the main focus of a monster's entry in the MM?&nbsp; Is it their individual mechanics (ie, stat-block)?&nbsp; Is it their broad mechanics (ie role)?&nbsp; Is it their literary description (ie, lore)?&nbsp; Or should all three hold equal weight?&nbsp; A more subtle question is: what is the purpose of the MM?&nbsp; Is it a collection of literary nuggets?&nbsp; Is it a collection of purely mechanical stats?&nbsp; Is it a method by which to build encounters and adventures?For my part, I feel the answer is that the MM has to be all three in roughly equal balance.&nbsp; To that end, a monster's stat-block has to include mechanics, lore, and &quot;meta-mechanics.&quot;&nbsp; Does the latter need to be as overt (and frankly, rigid) as 4E?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; However, I think having a &quot;Role&quot; entry in the stat-block is appropriate in aiding how a monster can be incorporated into an encounter, in the same manner as having lore or stats is appropriate.&nbsp; The entry should contain everything needed to run the monster, and that includes its mechanical interactions on a broader scale.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LightPhoenix, post: 5964724, member: 115"] There's nothing inherently offensive about having broader mechanical information in the monster entry. Most editions have included some encounter notes. I think Mike's thinly-veiled 4E-bashing tends to push it that way. 4E innovated and did a lot right with monster and encounter design from a mechanical standpoint. However, from a literary standpoint (ie, setting/lore) it was about as evocative as drying paint. The point Mike is making is that both mechanics and lore have merit, but more importantly both have a place where they are important. The obvious question being asked is this: what is the main focus of a monster's entry in the MM? Is it their individual mechanics (ie, stat-block)? Is it their broad mechanics (ie role)? Is it their literary description (ie, lore)? Or should all three hold equal weight? A more subtle question is: what is the purpose of the MM? Is it a collection of literary nuggets? Is it a collection of purely mechanical stats? Is it a method by which to build encounters and adventures? For my part, I feel the answer is that the MM has to be all three in roughly equal balance. To that end, a monster's stat-block has to include mechanics, lore, and "meta-mechanics." Does the latter need to be as overt (and frankly, rigid) as 4E? No. However, I think having a "Role" entry in the stat-block is appropriate in aiding how a monster can be incorporated into an encounter, in the same manner as having lore or stats is appropriate. The entry should contain everything needed to run the monster, and that includes its mechanical interactions on a broader scale. [/QUOTE]

Verification