What do you want from the Monster Manual?

[Mallus]

It is a controversial idea.

Heh... my reaction is: "It's a great idea. I don't want it". The idea to place each monster in it's fictional context right in the monster book is a really clever idea. Organization for context instead of just for clarity.

However, putting beasties in their fictional context is something *I* want to do as DM. So I'm not in the market for a product that does it for me, and therefore is organized in a way unsuited for my needs. But it's still a really interesting.

That approach would work well for a game with a single, explicit setting.

 

[I'm A Banana]

However, putting beasties in their fictional context is something *I* want to do as DM. So I'm not in the market for a product that does it for me, and therefore is organized in a way unsuited for my needs. But it's still a really interesting.

That approach would work well for a game with a single, explicit setting.

I get that. I tend to think that DMs who don't want to or don't have time to futz with that context are an under-served group, and a group that, if you want a game with mass market appeal, D&D needs to cater to (because if they're not catered to, they just won't play D&D). Meanwhile, DMs who DO want to futz with that context and do it themselves can, even with this format: a trap included with the kobolds can be removed from the kobolds, simply by doing the bookmarking that you're already doing, or by looking it up in the Compendium while you're doing your pre-prep and printing it out.

 

[Stormonu]

It is a controversial idea.

Is the objection systemic (e.g.: the entire format doesn't work for you for some reason) or specific (e.g.: you want to see the rules material called out a little more blatantly)? It's a pretty raw idea, so I'm interested in refining it, and finding out what its real weaknesses are.

Well, for one, when I flip to the kobold entry, the first thing I want to see is the base statblock (and a picture, of course). Also, I don't want to have to remember under what creature I'd find the stats for, say, Rhinoceros beetle. I'd like to just flip to "Beetle" and expect it there, whether or not it works with some other race.

Your mock-up would do well for an expanded book on kobolds, such as Ecology of The Kobold, The Complete Kobold, or The Koboldinomicon. When I scan through a MM, its generally an in-game resource and I'm mostly using it for refernce in an encounter, so the faster I can parse the info - usually because of a shorter entry, the better. Sort of open-to-this-entry and immediately play; no setup or read-through required. Your layout seems better suited to a liesurely read-through ahead of the game and the incorporation of the monster as a long-term foe.

 

[steeldragons]

As I said in whatever other "Monster Manual" thread we had the other week wherein KM also presented this idea, it's a cool concept for a supplemental work...to serve this "underserved" population, you perceive. A "Complete Book of Lairs" or the "The Encounter Builders Handbook" or some such.

It sounds like a really cool book. But it, quite simply, is not a D&D "Monster Manual"...it's a "Monster's Home & Garden" or "Monster Mini-adventures"...or something.

I am sorry the alphabetical encyclopedic formatting is too passe for you. But it is clearly the easiest most intuitive way of presenting a...ya know, encyclopedia of creatures to use in D&D. Something I can use in "prep" or I can use on the fly, as needed. Cuz when I decide the time is ripe for, say, a troll, I can just look up "Troll."

If I need a spider, I should not be going to an index to be told "See under Drow." I should be going to "S". But wait! I want that other kind of spider...was that in Gloomwood Forest or Ettercap Village? Oh, and I need a dire wolf...now was that "Gobin Encampment" or "Hill Giant Homestead"?

Let alone that the formatting then allows you to use each of these "appropriate collections" of creatures and their lairs, once. Then every orc camp the players see, "Oh yeah, the treasure room and the chieftain's chambers are down this way...remember the last three times?"

It's a cool concept for a book. It is! That book is some kind of collection of pre-made encounters/adventures...it just isn't the D&D Monster Manual.

--SD

 

[GX.Sigma]

Kamikaze Midget's mockup almost works. Just do it backwards: Instead of having the stat blocks for non-kobold things in the kobold section, just list them and give a page number.

"Kobolds often domesticate monstrous vermin, such as rhinoceros beetles (MM p.123) and dire rats (MM p. 203). They commonly use pit, spike, and rock traps (DMG pp.123-4)."

This would also help the kobold section not be six freaking pages long.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I flip to the kobold entry, the first thing I want to see is the base statblock (and a picture, of course).

That makes sense, though I prefer an introduction for two reasons. The first is engagement, so that the book is a thing you can both read in preparation, and use at the table. The second is for education, so that a new DM with no preconceived notion of what the hell a "kobold" is knows in a few quick sentences the creature's main characteristics -- combat stats are not the main focus of an MM formatted like this, so while we want to make them stand out clearly, we don't need to put them out there like they are the only thing worth knowing.

I didn't include any art there, but, yeah, I'm with you in that a picture right near the name is a good plan.

Also, I don't want to have to remember under what creature I'd find the stats for, say, Rhinoceros beetle. I'd like to just flip to "Beetle" and expect it there, whether or not it works with some other race.

Anything wrong with an index?

When I scan through a MM, its generally an in-game resource and I'm mostly using it for refernce in an encounter, so the faster I can parse the info - usually because of a shorter entry, the better.

This is designed for use at the table, too, but it acknowledges that kobolds are not just going to be used for their statblock (hence the bits about lairs and interactions). When I use kobolds in my game, combat stats are not the first or only important thing I need to know about kobolds. I need to know their personalities, their liars, their treasures, their allies, their traps, their schemes, their hooks -- this is all relevant information in actual play, not theoretical fluff (notice that there's nothing about kobold mating or kobold ecology or kobold religion or anything in there).

When I've used MMs before, they tell me, "Kobolds use traps in their lair and ally with vermin" and then, to use traps and vermin along with my kobolds, I need to consult obscure DMG pages and tab different books and weigh how many of what kind and of what level -- I've got a lot of overhead to just using the kobolds here and now. This kind of format is principally designed for more efficient use in play, which is to say, more information that is relevant to using the monster with the monster, not buried in some appendix somewhere.

Admittedly, this makes it a less than purely efficient "consume" product for those who only need combat stats but, IMO, if it is efficient enough for them (via an index), then an online resource like the Compendium is actually a better place to do a quick search-and-parse when you're prepping between sessions.

Having something like the Compendium changes the calculus for an MM, in my mind, rather dramatically. Because if what you are looking for is a statblock and not much else, that delivers on the promise much more efficiently then any book could ever hope to. Meanwhile, an MM that is going to get used is an MM that includes information for all three pillars of play, and as much information in one location as possible.

Part of the "controversy" of this idea is that I think there's a lot of people out there who still think that the best MM is a list of names and statblocks, and this can't make them happy. But the Compendium can probably make them more happy than ANY book can, while the MM has room to grow into something that is more broadly useful for more purposes than a list of numbers and dice associated with a creature.

In other words, I don't think the ideal product for people who really want statblocks is the MM, anymore. But there's probably a lot of people who still believe that an MM is the best place for their list of stat blocks.

 

[CM]

I get that. I tend to think that DMs who don't want to or don't have time to futz with that context are an under-served group, and a group that, if you want a game with mass market appeal, D&D needs to cater to (because if they're not catered to, they just won't play D&D). Meanwhile, DMs who DO want to futz with that context and do it themselves can, even with this format: a trap included with the kobolds can be removed from the kobolds, simply by doing the bookmarking that you're already doing, or by looking it up in the Compendium while you're doing your pre-prep and printing it out.

Have you looked at Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale? Because that's quite similar to what you describe. The creatures in it are great but the organization isn't to my taste.

 

[Stormonu]

Anything wrong with an index?

I'm a man. Looking at an index is akin to asking for driving directions.

 

[Blackwarder]

Just as a quick note, I really love the bestiary section in the kingmaker AP from Paizo.

Warder

 

[Leatherhead]

If I were making my dream monster manual It would go something like this.

For the "normal monsters" like kobolds and orcs and owlbears and gelatinous cubes:

Enough (meaning as many as it takes for them to get every level covered) pages of "blank" level x monsters, each blank comes in one of various different flavors; The Muscle, The Sneak, The Caster, The Shooter, and "elite" variations of each. Each blank comes with pre-programed attacks and whatever special powers they need to fill that role (like a fireball spell) This can be shoved in an appendix if they need to.

A different appendix will cover themes. The short of it would be "This a fire cult, they are bad dudes who like to burn everything. If you want to make a monster a member of the fire cult, dress them up in orange robes and give them one of these powers."

Under each monsters individual listing I want a raw block of racial stats and attacks/powers to plug into those blanks. And like 4 example monsters at their typical encounter level, just enough material to cover one page, or a page and a half if needed. I'm aiming for one minute monster making here. Or a few clicks if you are using a builder program.

The individual listings will have all fluffy goodness of how those monsters typically act in a living world. A reference number to any popular themes for the group (or to integrate other monsters into this group) It would also have a nifty meta-box with a few paragraphs of developer commentary with stuff like how to use them, or memorable games featuring the creature. And a nice picture to top it off. This should also take up one to a page and a half of space.

"Special" monsters, like beholders and dragons, would have to be done in less of an assembly line fashion. Mostly because they are supposed to be powerful and capstone encounters, and as such they need to be more fine-tuned.