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

[Psion]

Pre WOTC, when SKR was still just a poster dueling with Rob Repp, the consensus from rec.games.frp.dnd that I remember was that the 2e MM was a prime example of how 2e was a dumbed down version of 1e and how it basically sucked because of all the padding a.k,a the fluff.

I thought that was mainly the loud rhetoric of a few (one I could name...)

 

[Markn]

Maybe it's because I went back and reread my Basic/Expert books recently.

Look at the monster writeups in those books. You get four (sometimes five) monsters per PAGE! A statblock that is about eight lines, 2 columns, a paragraph, sometimes two, of information about the monsters and that's it.

Yet, B/E is heralded as one of the greats of the game. It was certainly the gateway game for many here. Obviously back in the early 80's when many of us got our start, we didn't need two or three paragraphs of nothing but fluff about a given monster. Why do we need it now?

Interesting point. Looking at it from this perspective, I'd say the 4e MM, forex, has more information than what was given in modules and box sets from those ages. I'd go so far as to say that a lot of peoples idea of appropriate fluff is based on 2e where there were tons!

On the flipside, products of yesteryear often contained some mechanics that applied to that adventure only. You don't see that as much now a days except in major releases like PH3 with skill powers and certainly not in adventures.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Maybe it's because I went back and reread my Basic/Expert books recently.

Look at the monster writeups in those books. You get four (sometimes five) monsters per PAGE! A statblock that is about eight lines, 2 columns, a paragraph, sometimes two, of information about the monsters and that's it.

Yet, B/E is heralded as one of the greats of the game. It was certainly the gateway game for many here. Obviously back in the early 80's when many of us got our start, we didn't need two or three paragraphs of nothing but fluff about a given monster. Why do we need it now?

I don't think B/E is heralded for it's good monsters, though. In fact, I do believe the earliest D&D were laughed at and mocked for their miles and miles of hilariously dumb monsters.

 

[Nikosandros]

Most of the monsters in B/X do have a written description, though.

 

[Drkfathr1]

And a much, much smaller stat block.

 

[Windjammer]

Most of the monsters in B/X do have a written description, though.

And a much, much smaller stat block.

Appearances are deceptive. We're looking at exactly the same monster entry, except that the information is redistributed.

Let me explain. First, a transcript I did from the WotC podcast on 4E MM 2:

If MM1 was my attempt to put Fiend Folio (1st edition) monsters into the game, this book let me put a few Basic D&D (Red Box, Blue Box, Turquois Box Set) [monsters into the game], none of them retained their original flavor. But if you notice – the Oni Devourer [ed.: MM2, 170] is a Bhut, which is from a module called “Master of the Desert Nomads”… and arch and those guys are straight from there. And the Witherlings were originally two critters called the Topi and the Agarat from the Module “Drums on Fire Mountain” which is a great James Bond Adventure. So the Death Shreaker and the Witherling now have the features of the Topi and the Agarat.

And now have a look at this:

Topis are undead human or humanoid creatures similar to zombies. Before the bodies are animated, however, they are shrunk untilt hey are only 2 feet tall, giving them dark, wrinkled, leathery skin. This process is long and complex, and is known only to certain primitive tribes.

Topis are more agile than normal zombies. They roll for initiative as usual, and can leap up to 6 feet (vertically or horizontally) when attacking. Any creature struck by a topi's claw must make a saving throw vs. Poison or fall victim to a venom which acts like a SLOW spell and lasts for 1-2 turns.

Non-edged weapons inflict only half damage on topis, but a hit with such a weapon will knock a topi off balance, making it unable to attack in the next round. Topis are immune to SLEEP, CHARM and HOLD spells. Clerics have the same chance of turning topics as of turning wights.

Compare it to the witherling entry in the 4E MM 2. And what do we see?

We see that the first paragraph is about the same in length (and tone, and vocab!). And we see that the second and third paragraph are where they belong - in the stat block.

And that, gentlemen, is why some BECMI lovers drool all over 4E. It's the same game all over, except with 21st century layout. In short, peanut butter + sex.

 

[Fifth Element]

I thought that was mainly the loud rhetoric of a few (one I could name...)

This is true of any edition-hate, really.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Appearances are deceptive. We're looking at exactly the same monster entry, except that the information is redistributed.

Let me explain. First, a transcript I did from the WotC podcast on 4E MM 2:


And now have a look at this:



Compare it to the witherling entry in the 4E MM 2. And what do we see?

We see that the first paragraph is about the same in length (and tone, and vocab!). And we see that the second and third paragraph are where they belong - in the stat block.

And that, gentlemen, is why some BECMI lovers drool all over 4E. It's the same game all over, except with 21st century layout. In short, peanut butter + sex.

I don't have the books in front of me since I'm at work right now, but is that true of every entry in the MM and MM2, or just some of the entries? I know some of the critters have those Knowledge DC charts with info, but not all of them do. I haven't cracked the 4E MM in a while now, so my memory could be faulty, but I was sure that some of the monsters did have some brief write-ups, but it seemed like a larger percentage were missing anything buy a single sentence or two.

Even if the "fluff" is now buried in the stat blocks, it sure makes for a dry, dull read. At least for me.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the Ghoul entry. The claw attack still causes Paralysis of a sort (Immobilization), but nothing in the Ghoul's entry actually describes what causes it. You need knowledge from prior editions to fill in the blanks, and that totally goes against the newbie friendly philosophy.

 

[Windjammer]

One of my biggest pet peeves is the Ghoul entry. The claw attack still causes Paralysis of a sort (Immobilization), but nothing in the Ghoul's entry actually describes what causes it. You need knowledge from prior editions to fill in the blanks, and that totally goes against the newbie friendly philosophy.

I agree 100% with this. As I said in an earlier post, part of my (exceeding) happiness with 4E MMs is that I can draw on other resources.

Mind you, not that that's changed much since me 3E days. When I first cracked open the 3.5 MM I was greeted by the first entry - the achaierai. Had no clue what these things were or why they had the abilities they had.

Months later I chanced upon their bestiary entry in one of the 2e Planescape boxes (guess it was Planes of Law), and learnt about how the fabric of the bird's legs (being steel or some such!) accounts for their high AC and so on. Suddenly things fell in place.

I still think the revised 2e MM (the one issued ca. 1994) is the best book to complement a newbie DM starting out on the 4E core ruleset.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Definately!

I wonder how well a book that was nothing but fluff would do? Something that collected alot of really cool artwork and no game stats, but was all D&D? Some kind of encyclopedia of monsters?

That would be neat, but probably fall to the realm of "niche" product.