Monster Manuals: Things You Don't Kill

[Aegeri]

Call it "filler", call it "fluff", call it "discovery channel writeup"...

...I call it motivation, lore, mystery, culture, habitat, and just plain old "background" that places the creatures within a world and not just within a dungeon/adventure/the end of a sword.

But sometimes this is irrelevant to the task at hand and there are some things that you CAN just look up on discovery channel. For example one of the first adventures in my upcoming campaign is about a man with an aberrant mark who can control insects, vermin and other creatures. He has assembled quite an array of giant spiders, giant centipedes, beetles and similar. The "fluff" that supports this is independent on the creatures I'm actually using, because the justification is from being bound and controlled by another individual with a powerful mark (Eberron campaign).

The fluff of the individual monsters is rather irrelevant to me after that point - their mechanics become paramount. I want to make fun, themed encounters that don't get stale and can cover a variety of different ideas. I don't need to know the complex mating rituals of centipedes and spiders (albeit, I already do know as I have a strong interest in entomology) I want "Centipede and awesome mechanics A, Centipede and awesome mechanics B" and the biggest variety of them possible. Putting in irrelevant fluff for simple monsters reduces the number of actually usable monsters without enhancing anything at all.

On the other hand aboleths, illithids and other things definitely deserve explanations. The more extraordinary the creature the better the fluff should be to explain what it does. The more weird or unusual, the more fluff becomes important just to get an idea as to what the hell it does. Do you honestly need fluff that tells you about a giant centipede is beyond a paragraph of its dungeon/forest habitat? Does anyone need to know why a giant spider lurks in dungeons and builds webs? On the other hand, something that's completely weird like a Nerra needs more explanation as to what it is before anyone will use it. There's nothing to relate the creature to or figure out what on earth it's about without fluff. That's where I agree fluff is absolutely essential.

But returning to the original point, fluff is not always essential but mechanics (IMO) always are. A non-compelling monster can be saved by mechanics. A compelling fluffy monster can be absolutely ruined by terrible mechanics. I don't need to know much about a giant centipede to want to use a giant centipede, but I do want to have a fun giant centipede monster. As I said previously though, I really need to know a LOT about an illithid not just for combat, but to understand its motivations, where it lives, how it behaves and such to make it genuinely unique as it hasn't got a simple real world equivalent to base it on (at least I hope not ).

But again, no amount of fluff would save an illithid if it isn't any fun as a monster to use*. I either have to make a creature or use one of the other numerous monsters that do both great fluff and mechanics (across all editions). At the same time, a creature can be all fluff and doesn't need mechanics at all. I disagree with you when you say the singing mushrooms need mechanics if they are distinctly noted as being non-combatants.

What point does HP, defenses and similar have against something that can't defend itself? In 4E I'd make them minions with a base 10 defensive line and that's it. I don't need a MM to write that to simply make a quick common sense ruling on the matter. Not that I would even go that far most likely either. As for the stone head, just give him DR 5 per tier and probably soldier defenses and I'm done. If he can actually fight back, then maybe I would give him a full stat block, but if he can't defend himself he has no need for stats. The PCs just spend an hour maybe hacking him apart and they're done with that, with whatever consequences in the story that causes later.

Why does it need stats? Because when I play a video game, I like being able to click on anything, not just the "set pieces" I am "railroaded" into interacting with.

Why does not having stats make something into a thing you can't interact with? This is rather nonsensical argument. Video games have the flaw that they make their NPCs invulnerable or you can't target them. Not giving a creature stats is not the equivalent to this in any manner, it simply means if you go "I magic missile the cat!" the cat just dies. Do we really need to care if the cat can dodge a magic missile or an acid orb or whatever else? Is it relevant? Personally I think the lord coming back to find her prized cat is now a bubbling pile of fur more interesting a consequence. If the cat could potentially scratch a party member for 1 HP of damage before dying in combat just doesn't seem relevant to me.

*Illithids are awesome and have been for ages. It's just an example to illustrate the argument - not highlighting there is anything actually wrong with Illithids in any manner!

I HATE the word fluff. It's terribly dismissive of the very material that hooked a lot of people into gaming in the first place.

I played Wargames before I played Dungeons and Dragons. It was Warhammer and then a game of 1E DnD, then 2nd edition DnD and then taking over from DMing after that point that got me into things. The first 1E and 2E DnD games barely used anything from Dungeons and Dragons that I can recall. Much of it was very much like playing a roleplaying game of Warhammer with Dungeons and Dragons, because we used the models.

Although the word fluff may be dismissive, I like to think that it's only being equally dismissive as those who think mechanics are irrelevant to a monster are being. Making a monsters background and ecology is one thing, making that a compelling creature that makes an exciting battle is the real challenge to me.

 

[Stormonu]

Actually there are squirrels in 4E that do that. They were in an april fools article, but they are there and they are all so adorable with their little bows and such.

And those are certainly more interesting than a common squirrel (wouldn't even mind having them as a PC/NPC race). I couldn't really see having stats for a squirrel unless they were needed for a druid's animal companion, someone cast an enlarge animal on them or they were otherwise somehow unusual - such as the shadow squirrels of 3E or the ones mentioned above. I certainly wouldn't want to see a full page devoted to them.

Also, by "filler" critters, I'm talking about creatures that will most likely never see the light of day in most campaigns. I like campesti, but they'd be tough to justify straight up. Turn them into scouts, spies and messengers for mycanoids and they may have a justification for a full write-up. I'd say the same thing about say, the Rast - a 3E creature I never used in my own campaign because I couldn't find a good fit or reason for them in my game world*. For me, Rast were filler creatures in the 3E MM.


* I did finally come up with, what I thought, to be a good idea for their use:

Rast are elemental beasts of claws and fangs found in the Elemental Chaos.Their primary purpose is to rip apart anything they encounter, turning it into raw elemental matter that is reabsorbed back into the Elemental Chaos (sort of like elemental maggots or the Langoliers from the Stephen King TV show of the same name). There are many types of rasts, each capable of rendering its victim into a particular elemental matter.

 

[Shemeska]

I'd say the same thing about say, the Rast - a 3E creature I never used in my own campaign because I couldn't find a good fit or reason for them in my game world*. For me, Rast were filler creatures in the 3E MM.[/SIZE]

They weren't originally from 3e actually. Their details and ecology from 2e Planescape (PSMC III I think) made them seriously cool, and much of that detail never made much appearance in 3e, which was a shame.

 

[Stormonu]

They weren't originally from 3e actually. Their details and ecology from 2e Planescape (PSMC III I think) made them seriously cool, and much of that detail never made much appearance in 3e, which was a shame.

I had gone back to that source, but I didn't find the write-up there much more interesting either. It wasn't until I watch the langoliers that it sort of clicked what they were.

On the other hand, I love the Planescape write-up for the bebilith, and wish some of that flavor had carried over to 3E and beyond.

 

[Aegeri]

The original planescape Bebilith also had the best mechanics.

Just quietly.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm excited this thread took off! And with mearls and Shemeska coming to an accord, I can only assume the apocalypse is nigh.

Not having stats means the game's purpose for them is predetermined, and the GM has an issue if the players step away from that purpose. Having stats means you can use the stats, or not, as you need.

That's something I do miss about the 3e philosophy of "a rule for everything!" I get that rules make it harder for some DM's to improv, but they make it so much easier for me, since I've got that net waiting to catch me when I take a flying leap off-script. It's like having a good improv partner.

Campestri are in the game already, but since they don't present any sort of real combat challenge they don't have (or need) combat stats, or a spot in the MM. Instead, they interact with PCs in another way, effectively as magic usable terrain, and the stats are supplied for that interaction.

Well, it's still combat terrain. It's still (weirdly enough) only interacting with them in the context of stabbin' time.

That's also why some of the monsters from Fiend Folio seem so bizarre. They originally appeared in adventures where they made sense, but are fairly pointless outside of that context.

So that's part of what this new vision of a monster manual needs -- CONTEXT! Why shouldn't a book of interesting encounters include the game experience that goes along with encountering something like a campestri? That's part of what makes any monster cool, what makes us want to use them. If the succubus was just a statblock and a "grr, adventurers" tag line, that's not nearly as cool as the succubus as a manipulative fiendish force of alluring evil corrupting entire kingdoms from behind the throne. So when "succubus" pops up in the MM, give us the skill challenge involved in uncovering the hidden identity, or in convincing the king she's really evil, or the combat in which she is finally revealed.

Strahd-type masterminds? Yeah, sure. But not all monsters should be like that. The world should have some brutes in it than just want to kill you. Y'know, for when the GM wants that.

Ayup. I don't think it's a question of quantity of fluff. I think it's a question of organization of information. 4e has the infamous Bear Lore Meme, which is actually a symptom of the "write this because it's standard" problem. A bear doesn't need to be center stage in any respect (unless it's being a hell of a prima donna). They can just be stat blocks in encounters with other things. Most normal (and dire) animals probably fill that role, too: they don't need their own entry, they need to be packaged with other things, more interesting things, things that would recruit and domesticate bears. Instead of bear lore, I should be seeing bears as part of this encounter:

...with lore entries devoted to who ever the heck those bearded gods amongst men are who have ridden them! (and how maybe my fighter gets to be one!)

No, creating and running encounters is the purview of the DMG if you ask me.

Sure. Creating and running monsters is part of the 4e DMG, too.

And then we have a big book full of 'em, also.

Why can't we get guidelines for creation in the DMG, with examples ready for instant play in the "MM"? Why do traps and weather effects and other interesting encounters need to be relegated to whatever tiny scoop of pagecount they can weasel out of a DMG?

I've always loved the concept of the monster [the terrasque], it's fluff and its potential but every time I've looked at it I've passed it over. Why? Because the mechanics in no edition of DnD matches its awesome fluff.

The terrasque is a good example of why I think the concept of what an MM is needs to be grown. Godzilla was not taken down by four dudes who met at a tavern walking up to him and hitting him in the ankles with toothpicks. An encouter with Big T shouldn't be about damage and action economies. It should probably be about getting out of his way and finding someone to put him back to sleep for a millennium. In other words, not really a combat encounter.

I still think it belongs in the MM, for all that, and not in some generic DMG "how to make an encounter" advisory panel. It needs to be in all its full-fledged glory, out there, ready to be plucked up and plunked down in your home game.

 

[Shemeska]

It wasn't until I watch the langoliers that it sort of clicked what they were.

Bronson Pinchot was awesome in that.

 

[Aegeri]

...with lore entries devoted to who ever the heck those bearded gods amongst men are who have ridden them!

They are described in the Eberron Campaign Guide IIRC. They are Brelish cavalry units that use bears instead of a regular mount for the terrain they are from (hence the get up). The bears I think might be magebred as well but I'm not 100% sure off the top of my head, but it's pretty easy to make and run such encounters if one wants. They aren't particularly unique bears and just throwing the mount keyword on a bear and going for it is easy.

The terrasque is a good example of why I think the concept of what an MM is needs to be grown. Godzilla was not taken down by four dudes who met at a tavern walking up to him and hitting him in the ankles with toothpicks. An encouter with Big T shouldn't be about damage and action economies. It should probably be about getting out of his way and finding someone to put him back to sleep for a millennium. In other words, not really a combat encounter.

I do agree with you here. This is why I said the tarrasque has never actually managed to have mechanics that ever justified or made using it because of its fluff relevant. A huge entry on the tarrasque and its fluff doesn't change it's a dumb monster that really needs to be made mechanically from the ground up to use. When there are so many other great monsters that are both very fluffy and mechanically great, why does the tarrasque deserve the effort?

So that's part of what this new vision of a monster manual needs -- CONTEXT! Why shouldn't a book of interesting encounters include the game experience that goes along with encountering something like a campestri? That's part of what makes any monster cool, what makes us want to use them.

Specific books like Open Grave, Draconomicon and similar are by far the best for this - not a general monster manual that should be a general monster manual. I want lots of varied and interesting monsters. I don't want a few things taking up space that could be for a lot of unique creatures. I think the MM3 does the best job of the 3 they've released and I'd like to see that continue. There are a lot of great monsters in it across all three tiers of play. What gets a few pages of fluff always deserves it and then we move on to even more awesome monsters. The amount of new, fun and interesting mechanics introduced in MM3 is staggering to me. Even creatures I would never use I want to refluff or make equivalents for of my own that share those mechanics.

Demonomicon also matches the description. Aside from the fact everything I've read from the previews has been fantastic, it introduces great mechanics, introduces daemons as traps (Cacodemon) and more daemons that I can shake a stick at. This is the sort of specialist book that should do what you describe.

Leave monster manuals as general books though. Do not overspecialise them wasting huge amounts of time on one creature. What one person loves another might despise entirely. If people don't like demons, don't make demons occupy too much of the book. Monster Manuals should inherently cover breadth and not depth. Specific books should cover depth, not breadth. I've been very happy with the approach that 4E has taken with this and I would like to see it continue (MM3 like general books, Open Grave/Draconomicon/Demonomicon specialist books).

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

So, I'm wondering if we can't conceive of a new kind of "Monster Manual," maybe more of an "Encounter Encyclopedia" rather than "Combat Compendium," a book full of stats, but stats for things you fight, and for things you negotiate with, and for things you train, and for things you summon, and for things that may interact with your character in interesting and challenging ways aside from trying to murder them with pointy things.

Isn't the forthcoming 4e Dark Sun creature book just exactly this?

"This supplement for the Dark Sun Campaign Setting collects the most iconic and dangerous monsters of the Dark Sun campaign setting into one handy tome. It also contains other hazards and threats found in the desert wastelands and dungeon tombs of Athas. The creatures and threats presented herein make worthy encounters for Athasian heroes or the heroes in your "homebrew" D&D campaign."

Looks like its right up your request?

 

[Stormonu]

I think the last couple of posts have hit on what is a problem for monster manuals - people expect them, well, to be full of monsters. MM IV (from 3E) is probably a good indicator of what a lot people didn't want to see in their monster manual - pages devoted to encounter area maps and quarter-page sample encounters that are, at best one-shot uses. (Not to mention "leveled" versions of monsters we've already seen, but that's a separate issue).

It would be risky to put non-monster "generic" encounters into an MM book, even though they might be brilliantly done. Non-monster "generic" encounters would probably be better suited for books like "Beyond the Grave", "Book of Fiends" or even "Traps and Treachery" and the like where you delving into a broad but unified subject matter rather than the Monster Manuals "miscellaneous collections of foes".

Would I like to see a book of epic (or slightly-more-than-mundane), interactive cut-scenes you can plop into an adventure?* Sure. Would I want it in a Monster Manual? No, not in the slightest.

* Examples: A mine cart chase ala Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom; battling elementals atop a primordial as it plods across the Elemental Chaos ala God of War 3; catching a plane-shifting horse and riding it as it pops through hostile planes in an attempt to shake you before you finally arrive at the plane of your choosing; evading a overpowering swarm of flesh-eating zombies to reach some safe point without losing your life in the process; luring the tarrasque into a killing zone without ending up pancaked on the bottom of its foot; escaping the gauntlet of a burning building filled with open crates of alchemical fireworks as they light and whiz past and around you lighting other crates and creating a shifting maze of flame to escape before being burnt to a crisp; etc.

Even something as "simple" as evading flash floods, forest fires, sinkholes, locust swarms/crop blight could be interesting encounters that could fill a book. A few supernatural ones wouldn't hurt either - getting information from a slightly-more-intelligent-than-average magpie, surviving a flight of dragons (or wyverns) or stealing a valuable monster egg/young to sell back in town could be detailed.