Monster Manuals: Things You Don't Kill

[Shemeska]

But, later, we change from mind flayer to Illithid. And Ultrathid. And Ilithlich. And and and. We go from a very basic concept of a sort of Cthulu-esque brain eater, to this massive tome of canon that intrudes every single time mind flayers are used in a subsequent supplement.

It's Ulitharid and Illithilich (or Alhoon if you prefer). They're made of awesome IMO, and you're always welcome to ignore any level of detail that rises about whatever baseline you decide to set for your own campaign.

I abhor monsters devoid of flavor, but what I find awesome and perfectly appropriate and in fact -vital- to inspiring new players and DMs alike as they migrate into the game, you seem to find as oppressive overkill. A lot of people didn't like the accumulation and detail in 2e, but when I got into the game that's where I went for inspiration in large part rather than the 3e sourcebooks that often alluded to that deeper detail but provided little of it oftentimes (or not to the level that I found best).

 

[pawsplay]

That's sort of an extreme interpretation.

Extreme in what way? The mere existence of tools implies using the skills and efforts of others to meet your goals. That's all I'm saying.

Buying a set of appropriate saws, a portable mill, some measuring devices, and a hammer with a plan to change a bunch of timber into a deck is an entirely different proposition from buying pre-cut boards, having a frame delivered, and borrowing a nail gun.

See, I see it as substantially similar, and very much something that falls on a continuum. Certainly, my wife has enlisted my help on several assembly projects, because my experience with woodworking was needed to resolve problems that arose.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it should be noted, again, that for my mileage, quantity of story text is mostly irrelevant. More doesn't solve much. Better is always welcome, but sometimes, less is better. 2e's got so much information on cloaker breeding cycles that the law of diminishing returns kicks in right after the words cloaker breeding cycles. 4e's got paragraphs on bear lore that say innovative things like "bears attack with their paws."

Mearls's idea to keep the story self-contained is pretty brilliant, to boot (even if a lot of deity/primordial/far realm stuff weasels in everywhere).

This, for me, isn't about having more or less story info.

For me, it's about not having the rules I need to run a game in which the players save villagers from a rampaging terrasque, in the MM entry for the terrasque, for instance.

Best I've got is vague guidelines, samey skill challenges, and level-adjusted Page 42.

Which is kind of like giving you the monster creation guidelines that 4e has, and then only giving you 5 sample monsters (and maybe others spread accross increasingly obscure specific resources).

The annual DMG idea is interesting, and I think it has merit, but a lot of these encounters, for better or worse, are linked to actual creatures. Looking in a DMG for the "terrasque" seems counter-intuitive. But that might be my own habit of history speaking to me.

 

[MichaelSomething]

As I always do in threads that discuss Monster flavor and flavor in general, I post a link to my list of flavor books.

If you're the type who can't get enough flavor, there are plenty of companies out there who are willing to sell to you.

 

[pemerton]

It would have been real nice to see something like you briefly mentioned wrt details utilized for the 4e MM rather than a purely stat-centric or combat design focus that was sort of blanket imposed there

I see this said a lot, but I can't say I've especially noticed it.

Thinking through some entries off the top of my head: the MM has a history of the Abyss (demon entry), it tells me that Lolth was the god of fate before she went to the Abyss (spider entry), it gives me a semi-ecology for the Feywild and Shadowfell (various beasts like hounds and panthers), it tells me quite a bit about various humanoids and their gods, etc. Plus each entry has a list of encounters which suggests further gameworld facts about alliances, domestication of animals, etc.

Some entries, like elementals, are fairly sparse, but I'm not sure I want a lot of lore about elementals - they're conjured creatures made up of elemental forces, and there's not a lot more I need to know (when I use them I'll work out who summoned them).

Now I never GMed 2nd ed and don't know the monster entries from that edition very well. But when I compare the lore in 4e it doesn't compare adveresely to the 1st ed AD&D Monster Manuals, which (with a few exceptions like Demons, Devils and Sahuagin) are pretty sparse on lore. And when I compare it to other mainstream fantasy games, like RM or HARP, it's fine. Even RQ doesn't have much detail in it's monster entries - that's all in the Glorantha worldbook (much like 4e has Underdark, Plane Above and similar worldbooks).

 

[pemerton]

Out of curiosity, which is your favorite 4e MM?

For flavour text, I prefer the first over the third.

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.

Agreed.

I find an interesting sentence or two more thought-provoking than 5 rambly paragraphs

I was almost going to start a thread today on the quality of writing in RPGs. The following is from a recent article on the WotC site:

You have a price on your head, because you have earned the enmity of powerful enemies that will stop at nothing to capture you dead or alive. You have no safe places to hide and few whom you can trust without fear of betrayal. Friends are a luxury you can hardly afford, because your mere presence endangers their lives. You do not stay in one place for long and you have learned to sleep lightly, with a weapon close at hand. One day you will face your hunters and make a final stand. Until then, you must run.​

That's really not very good writing. And a lot of other D&D material, and material for other RPGs, is not very well written. Too many adjectives, too many cliches, altogether not very tight. I don't want to have to wade through paragraphs of that to get what I need to know about the monster or the ingame situation that's relevant to me as a GM.

I find this is a problem even with the books like Underdark and Plane Above. These books are full of ideas for interesting situations that I want to use in my game, but to get that stuff out of them is sometimes hard work.

I don't hold it against game designers that their writing is often not the best - it's a job that draws on a range of different skill sets and writing is just one of them. But given that, I prefer an approach that plays to strengths rather than weaknesses. Short, tightly written lore - like that found, on the whole, in the 4e MM - is what I want.

EDIT:

The same author also wrote this, about Oublivae:

She is called the Angel of the Everlasting Void, the Demon Monarch of the Barrens, and the Queen of Desolation. She stalks the empty wastelands, lurks amongst abandoned buildings and toppled ruins, and haunts the trackless seas and the starry void between planes and worlds.​

It's not quite poetry, but it's a lot better than the other passage. The rate at which this stuff is being written, as much as the ability of the writers, is probably a factor contributing to variable quality. In any event, tight writing rather than rambling paragraphs are what I want to see!

 

[Jhaelen]

For flavour text, I prefer the first over the third.

The increased amount of fluff has been widely praised but I have to admit I'm not entirely happy with the changes. There's at least two areas that I prefered the way they were in MM1 and MM2:

- Monster Knowledge: In MM3 you typically get a single entry with half a column of stuff. That's not user-friendly. In MM1 and MM2 I could simply read the information for the DCs that the pc had met. In MM3 I get a wall of text that I have to compress into usable info.

- Monster Tactics: In MM3 for some monsters this entry no longer mentions any of their attack powers. Instead it provides a fluffy blurb about general tendencies.
That's less useful, I think, especially since there seem to be cases where the tactics don't even work if you look closely at their attack powers: E.g. Oblivion Moss (How does it create more than one minion at a time?) or some of the Nerra (Changing appearance to match a pc doesn't work the way the description alludes to).

And MM3 still doesn't include what I felt was _really_ missing: A short textual description how the monster looks like. I don't like having to rely on the accompanying art (assuming there actually is art for the monster which is not a given for every monster).

So, there's definitely room for improvement for MM4.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I picked up the MM3 under the recommendation of this thread (I usually don't buy books until they've popped up in the DDI), and the story text there is pretty great.

What I like is that it gives me a reason to use the monsters. It evokes specific encounters and plotlines. It motivates me. Which is important when you have 3,000+ monsters: a reason to use this one over that one, something unique they contribute to the gameplay experience. It's also important when you DM from the hip as I enjoy doing.

There's even a sidebar that describes what a Page 42 challenge might look like, with a monster, which is brilliant, and the kind of thing I'd like to see more of. And more the thing I'm talking about.

The MM3 is a very solid step in the right direction, and, from the sound of it, the Athas monster book will be even better.

I'm looking forward to the next year or two of monster products from WotC. They should be really interesting.

Edit: PS: I also like that the book is 98% free of horrible portmanteau! "Feyspitter" and the legacy of "Shardminds" (which is only a little bad) and "Wilden" (which only count as half a horrible portmanteau, with the "wild") aside, Wizards can pat its writers and designers on the back for dodging that bullet this time around.

 

[Imaro]

(bold mine)

I would say that you are advocating considerably more flavour than I am.

You seem to want more than just the following:

1. Appearance
2. Where it lives
3. Basic motivations and outlook

Would that be correct?

Me, all I want are those three things.

Depends, your 3 things are pretty broad and, depending on level of detail could encompass anywhere from 3 sentences to 10 pages. I think KM summarizes best what I want out of a MM...

What I like is that it gives me a reason to use the monsters. It evokes specific encounters and plotlines. It motivates me. Which is important when you have 3,000+ monsters: a reason to use this one over that one, something unique they contribute to the gameplay experience. It's also important when you DM from the hip as I enjoy doing. [\QUOTE]

Quite simply a reason within the narrative of the default setting to want to use this monster... outside of... "this one slides when you miss" vs. "this one slides when it misses".

 

[Hussar]

See, I think the breakdown here is in approach.

I simply don't read the monster manual that way and, honestly, never really have.

When designing, the first thing I do is look at the rough level range of the adventure I'm creating. Then I make a list of the creatures that fall into that level range. Then I pick the monsters that either fit the theme I'm incorporating into the adventure, or monsters I can respec fairly easily to fit into the theme of the adventure.

I can't think of a time I've every worked in the other direction - Hrm, here's monster X, what interesting adventure can I make from what I have here? It's just never occured to me to work that way.