Monster Manuals: Things You Don't Kill

[Aegeri]

Just from that entry, we know:

- There are humans in the game world and mind flayers live in some proximity to them.
- There is a vast subterranean world full of "terrible races" who speak weird languages.
- The mind flayers probably have an underground city.

That's about as much as the 4E monster manual entry as well, which also has 2 individual stat blocks for mind flayers at the same time. The above and the 4E MM is about all I really need for lore on a creature. I know as much as I need to about Illithids to have an idea what they do and generally function. From the stat block above, I would also have a good idea about what they do and how they function.

That's all I need from a general monster manual. As I really love Illithids, Aboleths and other far realm horrors, what I would want is a specific book that expands on these things specifically. Gives them more background, options and similar in that book to really flesh them out and similar if required. Give page space to other monsters - not everyone wants to have pages on illithids when they could have other monsters. This is the problem here, what one person loves another person just hates on principle: no matter its fluff. Some people hate demons and want nothing to do with them in the book as an example.

On this point, I'm extremely annoyed we don't have any indication of a 4E Far Realm book in the style of Open Grave, Demonomicon or Draconomicon yet, especially when the PHB3 stuff and other things were so focused on the Far Realm in general!

Angels aren't monsters. They're more likely to be allies, companions, and benefactors.

I have an entire campaign where angels have been villains so I would very much disagree with that. Additionally, even evil gods have angels as they are the servants of gods - not specifically of good anymore. This is a change I really like incidentally.

We do need rules for that. Mechanical, interesting, varied, even slightly complex rules. That is, rules with unique player resources and meaningful choices and significant variety. Page 42 and Skill Challenges don't meet that need. A book that took seriously the idea that enduring a hurricane or securing an angel's allegiance was worth the same amount of attention as fighting a gnoll would have to address that need. That's a need I desperately need met in my 4e games.

This is everything a DMG3 should be covering and yet for some reason has disappeared! I really want a DMG3 that covers much of this as well, especially at epic tier and just more traps/hazards.

I would in fact buy a book on traps, hazards and skill challenges with example "drop" in encounters (rather like the dungeon delve book). Unfortunately it looks like the DMG3 may be a dead concept, much to my disappointment.

 

[hamishspence]

On this point, I'm extremely annoyed we don't have any indication of a 4E Far Realm book in the style of Open Grave, Demonomicon or Draconomicon yet, especially when the PHB3 stuff and other things were so focused on the Far Realm in general!

I'm a bit worried that we might not get anything, because of the Essentials line- if all subsequent books are Essentials, where will the splatbook type stuff go?

I'd like 4E books for all the planes in the fashion of "The Plane Below" and "The Plane Above"- Feywild and Shadowfell could be "The Planes Between" and Far Realm could be "The Plane Beyond"

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm a bit worried that we might not get anything, because of the Essentials line- if all subsequent books are Essentials, where will the splatbook type stuff go?

I'd like 4E books for all the planes in the fashion of "The Plane Below" and "The Plane Above"- Feywild and Shadowfell could be "The Planes Between" and Far Realm could be "The Plane Beyond"

No need to be worried. You're practically guaranteed to get them. 'Plane Below' and especially 'Underdark' have been received very well.

Someone on these boards posted the WotC product catalogue for Spring 2011. I don't remember the details, but it definitely included products that aren't part of the Essentials line. One title I remember is 'Mordenkainen's Emporium'. It read like 'Adventurer's Vault 3' but for DMs, including story hooks, etc.

 

[Hussar]

Just from that entry, we know:

- There are humans in the game world and mind flayers live in some proximity to them.
- There is a vast subterranean world full of "terrible races" who speak weird languages.
- The mind flayers probably have an underground city.

This is the problem that always comes up in this discussion. If I say I don't want much flavour, it automatically means that any flavour included in an entry somehow "disproves" my point.

I know that there is flavour there. OF COURSE there is flavour there. There has to be some. But, two paragraphs is a far cry from the reams of flavour that some seem to be advocating. Now, if you're happy with two shortish paragraphs of flavour, then we're 100% in agreement. So am I.

At the end of the day, it comes down to how do you view a monster manual. Is it a reference rule book or is it a supplement to the setting? I prefer the former, although I have nothing against specific supplements for specific settings. To me, the monster manual is a rule reference that I pick up to stock my adventures with.

It's not something I sit down and read, any more than I sit down and read the dictionary or any other reference work. It's a tool to be used, not something to peruse, IMO.

Now, the Tech Readouts for Battletech were almost 100% flavour really. Other than a fairly short stat block for the weapon and armor loadout of a mech, the book spends about 2/3rds of a 2 page spread on flavour. I don't mind that because the Tech Readouts were the primary source of setting information about the BTech universe.

Monster manuals, OTOH, are not. They are not a source of setting information. And, when you start getting carried away with flavour, that's what they become. So, every demon and devil HAS to be part of the Blood War and fit into the D&D cosmology. Daemons (or 'Loths) HAVE to be mercenaries for both sides in the Blood War. Drow have to be matriarchal societies that live in the Underdark. On and on.

D&D doesn't need that. I want a toolkit that lets me build my own campaigns, not piggy back on others. If I want to piggyback, that's what setting manuals are for.

It was mentioned that a stronger setting is helpful to new players. I disagree actually. A stronger setting requires you to buy into more and more supplements to keep up with the setting information. If you "skip" some supplements, later supplements start making less and less sense because you're missing pieces of the puzzle.

KISS rules. Give me enough information that I can tell my players what they are facing. Telling me that the monster is a Thoul isn't quite enough. Even telling me that they are the hybrids between trolls and ghouls and hobgoblins is a good start, although a bit more might be appreciated. Spending the next thousand words telling me the detailed history of the Thoul, including buckets of extraneous detail is too much.

 

[Imaro]

At the end of the day, it comes down to how do you view a monster manual. Is it a reference rule book or is it a supplement to the setting? I prefer the former, although I have nothing against specific supplements for specific settings. To me, the monster manual is a rule reference that I pick up to stock my adventures with.

It's not something I sit down and read, any more than I sit down and read the dictionary or any other reference work. It's a tool to be used, not something to peruse, IMO.

I'm going to have to disagree here, especially as far as 4e is concerned. DDI is what I would use if I want a pure reference, with little to no fluff. The book is what I want to be able to sit down and read for inspiration and enjoyment... otherwise there is no point to me buying the book. Consumers like you are specifically catered to already with DDI, so why should both products be focused towards you. This is why I haven't bought MM2, what incentive is there without something beyond stat blocks (I can just use the compendium or adventure tools for that.)... this is also why, after hearing good things about MM3 I am actually interested in buying it.

...

Monster manuals, OTOH, are not. They are not a source of setting information. And, when you start getting carried away with flavour, that's what they become. So, every demon and devil HAS to be part of the Blood War and fit into the D&D cosmology. Daemons (or 'Loths) HAVE to be mercenaries for both sides in the Blood War. Drow have to be matriarchal societies that live in the Underdark. On and on.

So where exactly should the "setting information" for monsters be presented. Contrary to what some believe, 4e D&D has a default setting which in turn has it's own fluff. I mean should the races in the PHB not have setting info, just stat blocks and powers, or what about the classes? Yet players and DM's have no problem reflavoring/reskinning classes and races to be different things, so I find it hard to believe that somehow it would be harder for monsters, especially since players shouldn't assume a DM is using a monster as is from the MM.

D&D doesn't need that. I want a toolkit that lets me build my own campaigns, not piggy back on others. If I want to piggyback, that's what setting manuals are for.

Again, that's exactly what DDI gives you... and I'm sorry but the Nentir Vale and many of it's assumptions were presented in the first 3 corebooks... 4e is not a totally generic toolkit.

It was mentioned that a stronger setting is helpful to new players. I disagree actually. A stronger setting requires you to buy into more and more supplements to keep up with the setting information. If you "skip" some supplements, later supplements start making less and less sense because you're missing pieces of the puzzle.

Yes because scattering the information about your default setting across multiple books with no way to reference or index it is less confusing for new players (Sorry this is one of my major pet peeves with 4e... you change the entire cosmology and mythology of the game, but then make it difficult for players and DM's to get an understanding and overview of it).

Sorry, but nothing forces you to buy more and more anything... FR and Eberron haven't required anything beyond two (three with the modules) books.

KISS rules. Give me enough information that I can tell my players what they are facing. Telling me that the monster is a Thoul isn't quite enough. Even telling me that they are the hybrids between trolls and ghouls and hobgoblins is a good start, although a bit more might be appreciated. Spending the next thousand words telling me the detailed history of the Thoul, including buckets of extraneous detail is too much.

DDI is your friend.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well, what do you think?

Great post, great idea. I fully support you and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Plane Sailing]

at least those I read, as your first post was simply too long.

This, however? Not good.

we're increasingly seeing people carping about the length of posts (and KM isn't even particularly long here).

If you're an individual who has difficulty reading more than a couple of paragraphs, that is your issue and not a problem with the person posting. Just gloss over it, don't read it, comment on the bits you did read or whatever.

But lets stop with the "Oh, your post was too long".

(of course, if it was a literal wall of text with no paragraphs, that can be pointed out - but well formatted? That's fine)

 

[Hussar]

And, just to repeat myself, in bold this time:

This is the problem that always comes up in this discussion. If I say I don't want much flavour, it automatically means that any flavour included in an entry somehow "disproves" my point.

I'm going to have to disagree here, especially as far as 4e is concerned. DDI is what I would use if I want a pure reference, with little to no fluff. The book is what I want to be able to sit down and read for inspiration and enjoyment... otherwise there is no point to me buying the book. Consumers like you are specifically catered to already with DDI, so why should both products be focused towards you. This is why I haven't bought MM2, what incentive is there without something beyond stat blocks (I can just use the compendium or adventure tools for that.)... this is also why, after hearing good things about MM3 I am actually interested in buying it.
/snip

Again, just for clarity. This is not an either/or situation. It's not that I want nothing but bone dry mechanics with zero flavour. Let me repeat that in case you didn't understand:

I do NOT want nothing but bone dry mechanics with zero flavour

However, I also do not want books that are stuffed to the gills with presumed setting canon that people latch on to like limpets and refuse to part with. There is a happy medium here. I admit, my happy medium for monster manuals is lighter on the flavour. As I said, I want to be told what the monster is, give a rough direction of its motivations and what it wants and maybe where it usually lives. Beyond that? No thanks.

That's what setting books are for.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think a paragraph or two of flavor text for a monster is the right amount. You can fit a lot of ideas into that length, as the mind flayer entry demonstrates. 4e gets it pretty much right, imo, as does 1e. Those ecology articles in Dragon magazine? Six pages on the ecology of the trapper? Very not right, imo.

 

[Imaro]

And, just to repeat myself, in bold this time:

I read that, but it was irrelevant to my point.

Again, just for clarity. This is not an either/or situation. It's not that I want nothing but bone dry mechanics with zero flavour. Let me repeat that in case you didn't understand:

I do NOT want nothing but bone dry mechanics with zero flavour

Dude, don't be condescending... I don't believe I replied in that type of manner to you.

However, I also do not want books that are stuffed to the gills with presumed setting canon that people latch on to like limpets and refuse to part with.

This sounds like much more of a problem with the people you describe, rather than the amount of setting backstory. I mean this problem is a lack of willingness to make the game one's own. This could just as easily happen with mechanics, but your solution, in this instance, is akin to saying keep mechanics to a minimum so people won't "latch on to like limpets and refuse to part with.". Yet I've seen people play a minimal rules game and, because there was no rule for it, tell a player they couldn't do something. In other words they've latched onto the available rules and won't deviate... amount has nothing to do with it.

How about either people will make a game their own or they won't. I've seen people take a licensed game (I've done it myself using Buffy & Angel for an urban fantasy game), fulll of setting info and run the game they want with it. The problem you're refering to isn't aboout the amount of info but with the mindset of the person who feels thay cannot change things.

There is a happy medium here. I admit, my happy medium for monster manuals is lighter on the flavour. As I said, I want to be told what the monster is, give a rough direction of its motivations and what it wants and maybe where it usually lives. Beyond that? No thanks.

That's what setting books are for.

See and for me this isn't enough to inspire a fantasy game (and again D&D is not generic fantasy, it has it's own mythology, archetypes, etc. Choosing to change them is cool but pretending that D&D is a generic FRPG is disingenuous.). I want hooks for creatures (for in and out of combat interactions) beyond... "This is how and why it attacks" I want a background for the creature within the default setting, quirks & hooks I can use when running the creature within the default world's mythology... of course if I want to change something the "Canon police" aren't going to kick down my door and force me to keep everything the same.

Now, let me repeat myself... 4e wasn't a generic toolbox from the moment the first 3 corebooks were released. There was a setting attached to it and thus a mythology, background, etc... So why should I or any new player who doesn't have years and years of D&D lore from previous editions not have the mythology that this default world is built upon within the gamebooks he or she has bought? I could see your point if no mention of the Nentir Vale, class background, planar background, racial background, etc. existed in the corebooks (and thus D&D was really generic)... but that's not the reality of the situation.