| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's ridiculous to say that someone is oppressing you for expressing their preference for more esquilaxes in an appropriate forum, though.
Yes, you are right, polling different opinions is a good approach. What you get from that is the smallest common denominator (modified by the tastes of the developers), that is what gets printed. Being against that would be ridiculous indeed.
Saying, "I don't like ghouls, and I would not use them and would like to see them used less in publications.", is expressing an opinion. That is fair, and I am not saying the least against that.
What I oppose is the attitude, " Ghouls are rubbish and outdated, no idea why they are used as we have so many other undead to chose from, and anyone who thinks different is a numtard." - that is beyond the pale!
No. Similar critters were in those SRDs. PRD changed them, they're not the same, technically.
We're splitting hairs here man, so we do it right.
Are you really suggesting that an ogre with CMB/CMD is a different monster from an ogre with a grapple bonus? That's silly. You're silly.
I'm silly. But I'm also technically correct. The best kind of correct!
The thing was the the OP arbitrarily restricted 3.5 SRD monsters (or so was his delusion). Not old monsters, not PRD monsters, or anything else.
That was arbitrary and silly. So I responded in kind. Only more arbitrary and silly. So I win.
You need to learn to cope with your envy, man.
Ogre was not the best of choice, as there are more differences that you acknowledge...
And the new ogre is a humanoid. That's a big thing. I can charm person the PRD ogre, but not the SRD one.
|
It's ridiculous to say that someone is oppressing you for expressing their preference for more esquilaxes in an appropriate forum, though.Yes, you are right, polling different opinions is a good approach. What you get from that is the smallest common denominator (modified by the tastes of the developers), that is what gets printed. Being against that would be ridiculous indeed.
Saying, "I don't like ghouls, and I would not use them and would like to see them used less in publications.", is expressing an opinion. That is fair, and I am not saying the least against that.
What I oppose is the attitude, " Ghouls are rubbish and outdated, no idea why they are used as we have so many other undead to chose from, and anyone who thinks different is a numtard." - that is beyond the pale!
Well said.
It should be noted, KaeYoss, that I wasn't saying that I agreed 100% with the OP. Just that I saw where his post was coming from. I do feel that it's easier to work monsters with better fleshing out into a game on your own, which means that it's easier to work orcs and goblins in to a game by your own volition than it is to incorporate, say, Akatas when all you have to go on is the single paragraph in the Bestiary 2. It's much easier to really get the vibe for the monster and how best to weave it into the narrative when it's been fleshed out more and given more spotlight. The reason that the classics are so familiar, comfortable, and easy to use is because they have decades or centuries of spotlight. They can be made new and inventive, but they're still familiar because of their long term traction.
The best way to get monsters into that "traction" spot is to give them more spotlight time, which means that it doesn't necessarily hurt to put them into more campaigns and APs and stuff.
Doesn't mean that they shouldn't use monsters that have been around for ages. I'm not advocating that we remove all instances of the classic monsters from everything ever. Honestly, I try to restrict my monsters to a certain set because I don't believe that my world contains millions upon millions of different monsters. I want them to have an appropriate niche. I also rarely run APs, so I don't really care one way or another.
All I'm saying is that I understand his general feeling. He'd like to see more monsters getting interesting usage. The Paizo guys have made countless monsters, and it would be kind of nice to really feel like the newer ones mattered more and were easier to understand through more spotlight time.
|
Mighty Thoth says: I'd rather have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them; besides, I never understood why certain folks are against 'more.' After all, how difficult is it to just not use them. It's not like someone is forcing you to use them.
Mighty Thoth has left his mental signature
I'm a fan of adventures using creatures I have represented in my crate of minis. I.e. old standbys.
|
|
Totally unnecessary, and I almost didn't post this but...
[rant]With all the published thesaurus works available, why do we keep reusing the same words over and over? 'Sword', 'shield', 'spell', 'horse', 'man', 'woman', etc, etc, etc. Tolkien used a these words to death. We should never use them again, because that will make our stuff better![/rant]
All in good fun, folks. All in good fun.
It should be noted, KaeYoss, that I wasn't saying that I agreed 100% with the OP. [...] The Paizo guys have made countless monsters, and it would be kind of nice to really feel like the newer ones mattered more and were easier to understand through more spotlight time.
I'm not against new monsters getting their deserves spot-light.
However, I think the ratio we have right now is quite good. Maybe a few more newer monsters wouldn't be so bad, but the world won't end if it doesn't happen.
One of the biggest problems this thread, especially the first post, has is the extremist view: "Never use core monsters again!" I don't understand how anyone could think he'd be successful with this approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a post and the replies to it. Play nice with others.