Pathfinder 1E WotC desperately needs to learn from Paizo and Privateer Press

[carmachu]

For example, the Pathfinder stuff. I've tried to use it in my homebrew, but it's so integrated, so well tied together, so setting specific that I just can't use it other than as-is. And I don't want to run the entire AP, and I don't want to run my game in Golarion, as excellent as I think it is.

You realize pathfinder APs =/= All pathfinder adventures? There's a whole slew of stand alone adventures(pathfinder modlues). I have many planned for my own games with minimal fuss.

 

[SSquirrel]

Doesn't that mean that the MM's are somewhat incomplete then? The MM's should have the monster's stats as well as lore, tactics, and pictures of the monsters. If I have to buy book X, to get the lore or ecology of monsters from Monster Manual I, that just seems like a tricky way to get me to pay for two books to get all the info that should be in one book. This seems to be standard WotC practice, and I don't really like it. I shouldn't have to buy Open Grave to get the complete info on undead in MMI. That info should already be in MMI. I should only have to buy it if I want more undead monsters, templates, etc. to use in my campaign.

As much as people griped about all the monsters they weren't putting in MM1 already, imagine if they had said "Because we had a huge upsurge in requests for quality lore for each monster, we have agreed to add it in. The bad news is that the book has swelled by $5, 30 pages and has 40 less monsters than it had before."

There is already basic information about the monsters in the books. If I look at the entry for the Skeleton or Vampire, I get more than enough information to slot them into my game. Granted, these are traditional monsters, which most of MM1 is anyway. You need less lore for things most people playing the game have heard of. Brand new players may not be as familiar, but I bet they could figure out the basics of a good chunk of those monsters.

Open Grave is for those who really want a lot more information about the undead. Yes, some of that could have been in the MM, but it would have detracted from all the non-undead in the book.

 

[Dannager]

I understand that it would mean an increased page count or less mosnters, but that's okay by me, if it means better, more evocative monsters. Monsters in 4E are so bland, it's sad.

So, you're okay with paying more for one book with all the info you want in it, but it annoys you when you have to pay more for two books with all the info you want in them? You're paying more either way, but one way makes it a pain in the rear to those who don't need all the extra stuff you want, and the other way allows both types of gamer to get what they want.

 

[Jack99]

If thats the case, then why Forgotten realms, Ebberron, and now dark sun?

Why release one world a year, as the 4e model seems to be?

Because some people still want either a world to play in or inspiration for their own world.

Point is, I think its a minority of DM's that wants everything done for them. DM's want to make up their own worlds, to some degree at least. Or at least thats what WotC's research shows. Hence the current model.

 

[Markn]

Because some people still want either a world to play in or inspiration for their own world.

Point is, I think its a minority of DM's that wants everything done for them. DM's want to make up their own worlds, to some degree at least. Or at least thats what WotC's research shows. Hence the current model.

I think its also important to add that when a new edition is released, it fundamentally has to be different in presentation than the last edition. Thus, in 3e, since it was information heavy they would either have to spew the same stuff as the previous edition (and not sell the book since everyone has that info already) or they have to forward the timeline/radically change the world. Both of those scenarios aren't much more inspiring that what the person originally bought - thus there has to be a fundamental shift in presentation. Every edition has changed the presentation from previous ones.

 

[Shemeska]

Well, it may be fine by you, but it's not fine by many others (myself included). Do you remember the uproar back then when they announced that several of the old favorites (frost giants, metallic dragons, iron golems, etc.) would not be in MM1?

You may also remember how badly MM4 for 3e was received which attempted to move away from a pure listing of monsters.

I think those are both seperate issues or different circumstances than the current complaints about the dearth of flavor text in the 4e MM.

The first point you mention as I recall was mostly to do with the perception by many folks that WotC was intentionally leaving out classic monsters purely as a way to hold them back and thereaby force people to buy subsequent "core" monster manuals to get well known monsters that in prior editions would have been there up front and center. I was an objection to a perceived loss of value and money making tactic by WotC, not an objection to how many monsters in general would be in the book.

The second point you raised, the so-called fluff in the 3.x MM4 that was again somewhat of a different issue. The MM4 fluff was often derided as being dull, generic, and written not to detail and explore new monsters, but filler for preexistant creatures with class levels tacked on which were being presented as new monsters. The so-called flavor text was also more an admixture of bare bones delve setup and dungeon encounter than it was Ecology and Society & Culture like we saw for instance in 2e monster books, or even now in the monster writeups in each Pathfinder AP.

Personally I look at the progression from 2e to 3e to 4e and see a continual downhill trend in the amount of flavor text and the depth of the flavor text presented. Some late 3.x monster flavor text was often little more than bullet points with grossly general one sentence details keyed to various knowledge DCs. Color me unimpressed. 4e took that trend to an extreme and provided virtually nothing of substance in the MM, and what was there I found disturbingly brief and uninspiring. I literally read it, put it down, looked at one of my players and said, "What the hell? There's not even a description of what they look like. Nothing. Did they leave it out by accident?" (The disturbingly high amount of recycled artwork probably didn't help my impression either).

Had the flavor text level of the 4e MM been what I was exposed to when starting gaming, I would not be writing stuff today. You can blame late 2e for inspiring me (and the less expansive 3e stuff for pointing me back to get those details). Even if you don't use flavor text as presented, it serves IMO an invaluable role in inspiring new players and new DMs - hooking them on the game and keeping them as players, versus dry and anemic listings of monsters that nobody is going to feel nostalgic for or talk about and create stuff based upon it a decade from now.

 

[Snoweel]

You realize pathfinder APs =/= All pathfinder adventures?

Yeh.

There's a whole slew of stand alone adventures(pathfinder modlues). I have many planned for my own games with minimal fuss.

Sure but I just really like Adventure Paths.

If I'm going to use one-shot adventures I may as well use ones that don't require conversion to 4e, like the Goodman Games modules.

 

[billd91]

Well, it may be fine by you, but it's not fine by many others (myself included). Do you remember the uproar back then when they announced that several of the old favorites (frost giants, metallic dragons, iron golems, etc.) would not be in MM1?

You may also remember how badly MM4 for 3e was received which attempted to move away from a pure listing of monsters.

Now obviously I don't have any numbers but I suspect, a majority simply wants as many monsters in their monster manuals as will fit within the page count.

I'd like to note that while that's what I expect when buying a D&D monster manual it's absolutely not what I'd expect when buying an Ars Magica bestiary. It's a D&D-specific thing, since D&D is about 'killing monsters and taking their stuff'.

There are other factors involved as well, with both the 4e MM1 and the 3e MM4. Part of my low opinion of both products was the repetitiveness - multiple blocks of stats detailing specific variations on individual monsters rather than getting more general inspirational flavor. I can stat out my own variations, but I'd like something to inspire it and the adventures I'll design around it.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

"They would have to cut back/enlargen the book/raise the price" doesn't work when the damn thing is almost half white space to begin with

 

[Dire Bare]

I think these discussion always miss this:

How the heck could a 12 year old that had never played before (or 16 year old, or whatever) develop ANY fluff at all that had any meaning? I just think the MM should have:

A clear description of the monster
A little bit about tactics
A little bit about the culture. What is the difference between the various evil humanoid races?

As for "most DMs want their own fluff". I call bull. I want fluff I can use, or not use. But, I want fluff to inspire my ideas. I have two kids, golf, ski, volunteer for two groups, work full time.....I don't have time to do all my own work. I do have time to take decent to good modules and make them fit into my concepts (but my concepts are based on 40+ years of reading and watching movies and playing D&D).

Fluff is needed for beginners. It is needed to provide inspiration. And, sometimes, it is needed to be used as is.

I agree. Some DM's don't want "forced" fluff, but many do. I do. I can always change it. And more importantly, your point regarding newbies!

That's really the only thing I find lacking in the 4e MM format. A brief text description. Not every creature gets a picture, and sometimes the pictures they get are crap! (subjective, I know)

Of course, without a text description, the reader can't notice when the art doesn't match the text! A clever solution to an old problem!