What do you want from the Monster Manual?

[ExploderWizard]

Except that you do have to rewrite the stat block in order to add everything to the base.

Some of us would rather not have to waste time doing that. We'd prefer to just photocopy the stat block out of the book and have it there for our use. That's one of the things 4E got right... condensing prep time for the DM. Having several stat block options for monsters (which change more than just one thing... usually it changes several things)... makes it easier create more interesting fights with much less hassle.

This is especially true if you really want 2 entire pages per monster. At that point, three statblocks and a picture on one page with an entire second page devoted to monster info is not asking too much.

If a basic monster can't pass the handwritten notebook paper test without being painfully time consuming then the statblock has failed.

Software or photocopying to write up stats for a pen & paper rpg takes it out of the realm of interest. I look at a 4E statblock and think: TL/DR

Wanna condense prep time:

Orc (AC 6 HD 1 HP 5 #AT 1 Dmg: by weapon, MV: 40', AL: C)

Orc hunters might have long spears. Orc archers will have......you guessed it BOWS! Sub chiefs and leaders will have more HD, HP, better equipment and perhaps some extra description. A shaman will have more HD, HP, and some spells.

 

[Blackwarder]

If a basic monster can't pass the handwritten notebook paper test without being painfully time consuming then the statblock has failed.

Software or photocopying to write up stats for a pen & paper rpg takes it out of the realm of interest. I look at a 4E statblock and think: TL/DR

Wanna condense prep time:

Orc (AC 6 HD 1 HP 5 #AT 1 Dmg: by weapon, MV: 40', AL: C)

Orc hunters might have long spears. Orc archers will have......you guessed it BOWS! Sub chiefs and leaders will have more HD, HP, better equipment and perhaps some extra description. A shaman will have more HD, HP, and some spells.

Exactly! The MM entry should allow us to write the basic monster just like at. Instead of two pages for mister state block for each encounter, we could have a pharagraph for each encounter with lines to spare for describing the encounter.

Warder

 

[steeldragons]

I humbly submit that your perspective is not the only valid perspective. Obviously.

So noted. I never stipulated that it was the only valid one. That is neither herre nor there to the fact that it is the only correct one.

Why not?

Because, in any year, D&D is a fantasy game of imagination and creativity, not a journey through someone else's pre-fabbed depiction of such...though it certainly can be that.

Again, video/board game vs. table-top RPG.

One allows for creativity and expansion...it is automatically inclusive, adding the possible inclusion of the pre-fab (published settings, adventure modules/paths, etc.). The other (presenting pre-fab first) is, immediately, exclusionary to stepping outside that box.

What if that man doesn't know what a fish is? And doesn't really need to fish because hamburgers are growing on trees?

I assume you're joking here since I can not parse out the point or the conflicting metaphors.

What if we give you a meatloaf and show you how we made it, so that you can either eat meatloaf, or make something else?

I suppose that makes sense...though from how you describe your vision of the Mosnter Manual, I do not see how that is possible.

I would say, that perhaps an example lair or two, predone in the back of the book, "Appendix L" if you would, wouldn't be a bad thing. But the details of the creatures placed in them would still be found in the exclopedic A-Z section of the MM. But things like a sample "Kobold's Mine" or "Ogre's Castle" or "Dragon's Lair", easily done within 2 pages each, beautifully illustrated/3-D mapped with "makes sense" combinations of the creatures would be fine with me. But you can't do the whole book that way.

I'd happily publish a whole "Book of Lairs" for you! Just don't think the MM should be done that way.

Because change is a constant and the environment in which D&D dwells in 2013 is not the same as the environment in which it dwelt in 1975. To bury one's head in the sand and ignore that is a mistake, I think.

Noon'es burying anything anywhere. We're talking about 5e...a new edition. there will be new rules...new...just stuff. Everything. Some of it will seem familiar, I'm sure, and some of it will be foreign, "changed", from what we all know. The stat blocks of the 5e Monster Manual will not look like they did in 1975, '85, '95 or '05 for that matter.

I really don't see or understand this point...because it is 2013...the "environment" is different [how?] and that demands...what for the MM?

Your point about how "it's always been this way!" doesn't convince me that you're right about this. I am going to need more persuasive arguments.

And your point of "change for changes sake because it's 2013" is just as persuasive.

Because it's a lot easier to make meatloaf if you get shown a recipe than if you just are handed a pile of ingredients and told to throw them together however you want.

It's a lot easier to fish if you get shown how rather than if you just get handed a net and pointed at the nearest lake and told to do it however you want.

The MM I'm proposing is a recipe book for adventures. The old formula of shoving a pile of statblocks down your gullet is much less viable in 2013 than it was when Gygax conjured the image of a monster manual from the aether.

And...again...why and how does it being 2013 make it any "less viable"? Alphabetical order is somehow too difficult for the 21st century?

I kinda like that description, actually. A recipe book for adventures. It combines (GENERIC FOOD ANALOGY) and adventures.

Yes, that's a good one. For a book that is supposed to be a recipe book for adventures...as I've been saying and agreeing your posed compendium would be WONDERFUL for...That does not make it a "good" Monster Manual.

You don't learn how to cook from ingredients.

You learn how to cook from recipes. Which give you an expected contribution, and an expected outcome, and an expected experience.

You don't learn how to fish from a net and some twine and a twig and some worms.

You learn how to fish from being shown what to do, to get a desired outcome.

A giant pile of ingredients is completely ineffective for learning how to assemble them in a useful and productive way.

And yet...somehow...with our heads in the sand and all...everyone who has played D&D...of any edition...for the passed 40-odd years has just muddled through...ineffective, useless and unproductive, though we were...and by the grace of our ignorance, still managed to have some fun along the way.

So, yeah, I'm still not convinced.

On that, my friend, we are in complete agreement.
--SD

 

[DEFCON 1]

If a basic monster can't pass the handwritten notebook paper test without being painfully time consuming then the statblock has failed.

Software or photocopying to write up stats for a pen & paper rpg takes it out of the realm of interest. I look at a 4E statblock and think: TL/DR

Wanna condense prep time:

Orc (AC 6 HD 1 HP 5 #AT 1 Dmg: by weapon, MV: 40', AL: C)

Orc hunters might have long spears. Orc archers will have......you guessed it BOWS! Sub chiefs and leaders will have more HD, HP, better equipment and perhaps some extra description. A shaman will have more HD, HP, and some spells.

Which is fine... so long as after that basic orc you include the stat lines of the orc hunter, orc archer, orc sub-chief, and orc shaman. You do that, I'm good with what you say.

The thing I don't want though is for the game to give me just that basic orc stat line, then expect me to go running back to the PH to look up the damage of the long spear or bow, or recopy all the spell information for the shaman, or head off to the DMG to figure out and calculate the additional HD, and HP of the leaders and sub-chiefs.

Basically... I want additional monster stat lines more than wanting to know what the monster eats and whether they take long-term mates (if the choice is one or the other.) You might think the 4E stat block is TL;DR... but I see the stat line you wrote and think "that line is so basic that you could use it for 20 other monsters and you'd never tell the difference."

 

[jshaft37]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]

My concern with what you are describing is that it very difficult to run with low preperation. Some DMs either cannot or choose not to prep much for a session. I don't think that should exclude them from having easily accessible, yet interesting monster choices available, and it certainly shouldn't exclude them from playing. I think we can all agree that gaming should be inclusive and that includes making it friendly to DM so more people can and will DM.

Addtionally, WotC has stated that a design goal for Next is to be able to run an adventure in 1 hour. Assuming that can apply to homebrew games as well, I can't imagine prepping for longer than the game time, or even 1/4 of the game time. If I can easily apply your backgrounds/templates/etc in under 5 minutes to several goblins to create some unique monsters, than I'm fine with it. Otherwise I'd prefer to have the 4E MV style of presentation where different monster types are already available to me. Moreover, I find that is very easy to refluff/reskin (or simply roleplay the monsters differently) the 4E presentation and make monsters seem unique to the players.

That's not to say I never customize a creature, I almost always adjust notable NPC villians or "bosses" but for the most part I'd rather just run the monsters straight from the book and make any flavor adjustments on the fly.

 

[nightwalker450]

1) Single Stat Block per Monster
2) Short list of Modifications/Templates that could be applied to the stat block
--- There could be standard ones that could be applied anywhere, but it would be nice to see at least a couple unique ones for that specific monster
3) Enough fluff to understand the generic monster's purpose and inspiration.
4) Most monsters should fit completely on a single page.

 

[Hussar]

Seems to have been entirely effective since the creation of the game. Why would it not be effective now?

Really? It has been effective? How many crappy adventures have you written over the years? I know I've written some real stinkers. Absolute hackfests that were not even redeemed by being fun hackfests. Just endless waves of the same monster over and over and over again.

Why? Because it never occured to me that I could start varying the monsters before I had the horrid experiences of some of my early written adventures.

Why in heck is "learn by making the same mistake that ten thousand other people made" heralded as the best way to learn?

Hey, even back in the day, we didn't learn how to make adventures from the Monster Manual. We learned by having modules right in there with the rule books that we bought. And we used those adventures as templates for further adventures.

Why put that in the Dungeon Master's Guide though? Why not build it right into the Monster Manual?

 

[steeldragons]

@steeldragons

Howdy!

My concern with what you are describing is that it very difficult to run with low preperation.

I don't see why. Using the monsters as written or tacking on a theme should not take any time at all. Obviously, perhaps there's some learning curve as noone will know, until the game comes out, just what/how many themes and backgrounds and such there are. But once we are familiarized with the system/set, I can't see it taking any significant amount of time.

Some DMs either cannot or choose not to prep much for a session. I don't think that should exclude them from having easily accessible, yet interesting monster choices available, and it certainly shouldn't exclude them from playing. I think we can all agree that gaming should be inclusive and that includes making it friendly to DM so more people can and will DM.

Absolutely! We agree on that. DMs that choose not to or cannot, should be easily able to incorporate the "average monster" in their games with no alterations needed. I don't think that mandates a boring or limited experience. And, as I said above, even tacking on a theme ought not require "prep" time. Since we know themes are going to be a package of feats, *POOF*, your goblin now has these feats. This isn't some chemistry equation or calculus as my esteemed colleague mentions above.

Those that wish to put in tons of time, can. But it is hardly necessary.

Addtionally, WotC has stated that a design goal for Next is to be able to run an adventure in 1 hour. Assuming that can apply to homebrew games as well, I can't imagine prepping for longer than the game time, or even 1/4 of the game time. If I can easily apply your backgrounds/templates/etc in under 5 minutes to several goblins to create some unique monsters, than I'm fine with it. Otherwise I'd prefer to have the 4E MV style of presentation where different monster types are already available to me. Moreover, I find that is very easy to refluff/reskin (or simply roleplay the monsters differently) the 4E presentation and make monsters seem unique to the players.

Well, I for one, have no interest in a "one hour" session. But sure, you could play that way...if WotC gets the system right for doing so.

But yes, 5 minutes or less seems about what I'm envisioning. I honestly do not expect that applying a theme or ability on top of the "average" stat block should or would require more than 5 minutes...assuming what we know of Themes as groupings of feats is accurate.

Par example [and completely hypothetical since we have limited knowledge of what the mechanics will actually entail]:

"Ok, 10 goblins, Goblin-archer...ok, that's +1 with their shortbow, called shot and moving/running shot...I'll use that for 3 of them...oh, and I want a shaman to mess with the PC mage. +1 to AC, +5 HP,...they're only 3rd level, so I'll make the shaman 2nd. Ummmmm...Burning Hands and Cause Light Wounds...[possibly, and just totally making this up as I go along] and shaman theme comes with Bless and an at-will Light....I'll reverse that to make it "Darkness" instead."
​

Done. That leaves 4 minutes more to specialize a couple of the other 6 goblins, if I want, and/or use "generic goblin" for the rest.

Even without doing anything else, I have a group of goblins the party hasn't encountered yet and one, they likely will not, precisely, encounter again. But they have a few tricks up their musty sleeves that the party didn't get in their last run-in with a group of goblins [when, hypothetically, I just used a group of 5 generic goblins].

And, yes, of course, refluffing/skinning takes no time at all and requires no "mechanic computations" for the DM, as you noted.

That's not to say I never customize a creature, I almost always adjust notable NPC villians or "bosses" but for the most part I'd rather just run the monsters straight from the book and make any flavor adjustments on the fly.

I see no reason why what I proposed wouldn't allow you to do this.
--SD

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because, in any year, D&D is a fantasy game of imagination and creativity, not a journey through someone else's pre-fabbed depiction of such...though it certainly can be that.

Like any activity of imagination and creativity, it depends on the context around it. Ingredients by themselves are not enough. You must be shown how to use them, if only so that you can ignore that. You can't be Jackson Pollack without first knowing how to turn colors on a canvass into an image. You can't be Shakespeare without first knowing how to put together a play. You can't be a molecular gastonomist without first knowing how to bake a meatloaf. The D&D MM should, IMO, be to the great adventures what a meatloaf recipe is to carbonated fruit at Moto. It shows you the basics.

I suppose that makes sense...though from how you describe your vision of the Mosnter Manual, I do not see how that is possible.

There's nothing saying that kobold stat block MUST be part of the default kobold set-up, just like there's nothing saying that an onion MUST be part of your meatloaf. You can do a lot of things with an onion. You can do a lot of things with that statblock. The recipe book shows you one way to use it.

I'd imagine something like the Compendium would even catalog all the stat blocks in one place, so you could use it like a grocery store: go and browse and get what you want to bring home and turn into stuff.

I really don't see or understand this point...because it is 2013...the "environment" is different [how?] and that demands...what for the MM?

If one wants fantasy adventure goodness in May of 2013, they'll be up to their eyeballs in swords and sorcery in every form of media imaginable and then some, each one capable of delivering an amazing, delightful experience within minutes.

D&D offers something subtly different, but the more hurdles there are to get to that, the more likely someone's just gonna boot up Diablo III to kill things and take their stuff (maybe with friends!) instead of figuring out this arcana, because it's good enough for them.

So one way that I think D&D can lower the hurdles is by giving people MM's that are more useful at the table, instantly.

It's also the case that things like the Compendium didn't exist in 1975, and an internet database is by far a better format for gobs of stat blocks than a book.

Yes, that's a good one. For a book that is supposed to be a recipe book for adventures...as I've been saying and agreeing your posed compendium would be WONDERFUL for...That does not make it a "good" Monster Manual.

It seems then that we're mostly quibbling over the names of things. And I suppose this is where a lot of the controversy comes from. There's an expectation that the MM be formatted a certain way, and a gut hostility toward changing that format. It's all "Awesome idea, just don't call it The Monster Manual."

I see the MM more as "the third core book for D&D, the one with the DM's cast of characters in it." I don't see it as an alphabetical compendium of random beasties, because that's never been the point of an MM to me. The fun part about monster manuals wasn't the alphabetical order or the encyclopedic format, it was that these were characters that I as a DM would get to be. So what I want is more help in playing these characters. Not a bigger cast with less info.

And yet...somehow...with our heads in the sand and all...everyone who has played D&D...of any edition...for the passed 40-odd years has just muddled through...ineffective, useless and unproductive, though we were...and by the grace of our ignorance, still managed to have some fun along the way.

I think the old MM format was fine for 1975 standards. Even for the standards that have existed at the start of every edition until 4e.

But just because a horse-and-buggy has been fine and dandy for thousands of years doesn't mean that an automocar isn't a more useful way to tool around the countryside. And if you persist in using a horse and buggy when there's cars out there, you become the Amish -- marginalized, small, and insular.

Not that the new thing is automatically better in every way (cars cause pollution, this format would probably mean fewer monster entries), just that it's better for your main use (cars get you places faster, this format gives you more material to use at the table).

 

[steeldragons]

Like any activity of imagination and creativity, it depends on the context around it.

Ummm.. I would say "no." Imagination and creativity know no constraints...regardless of what's around them. Particularly context. That's kinda part and parcel of what makes it "imagination" and "creativity."

There's nothing saying that kobold stat block MUST be part of the default kobold set-up,

No, of course not. But, as you're proposing, for ease of use...for immediate gratification out of the Monster Manual, this is what you would use.

The PHB gives the "rules"/guidelines for Players. The DMG gives the "rules"/guidelines for DMs. The Monster Manual gives the "rules"/guidelines for monsters the DM can use. Can you change any or all of them, of course. Always could. Some people like or have the time to, some don't.

just like there's nothing saying that an onion MUST be part of your meatloaf. You can do a lot of things with an onion. You can do a lot of things with that statblock. The recipe book shows you one way to use it.

While my cooking experience humbly disagrees with your supposition about onions in meatloaf, that's not really the point. [I make a damn fine meatloaf, if I do say so...]

This is kinda proving my point as much as, if not more than, defending yours. Give me the onion. What I do with it is up to me...Will it work in my recipe? Maybe. Maybe not. I taste. I learn. I move on with more onion...or less, or none at all, next time.

I'd imagine something like the Compendium would even catalog all the stat blocks in one place, so you could use it like a grocery store: go and browse and get what you want to bring home and turn into stuff.

Which is precisely what the MM is supposed to be...why are we at odds, again?

If one wants fantasy adventure goodness in May of 2013, they'll be up to their eyeballs in swords and sorcery in every form of media imaginable and then some, each one capable of delivering an amazing, delightful experience within minutes.

D&D offers something subtly different, but the more hurdles there are to get to that, the more likely someone's just gonna boot up Diablo III to kill things and take their stuff (maybe with friends!) instead of figuring out this arcana, because it's good enough for them.

Then they are welcome to do so. I would PREFER if people looking to play Diablo, go play Diablo! Instead of saying, well people are playing Diablo, we have to make D&D like that. That's not a "solution"...or "innovation"...or whatever. That's pandering and warping things that don't need to be..."changing for the sake of change" is not innovation.

So one way that I think D&D can lower the hurdles is by giving people MM's that are more useful at the table, instantly.

And, I suppose the question here becomes...Why should D&D "lower [its] hurdles"??? This is the game. Learn it. Love it...or don't. The 5e police won't be coming after you to MAKE you love it. Go play something else [or house-rule it] if you don't like it. Noone's stoppign you. But, as I've said umpteen other times in a multitude of other threads, change something enough and it ceases to be the thing it was. that is not innovation or evolution...that's just "change" for the sake of change or "looking cool" or some other reason I can't rightly fathom.

It's also the case that things like the Compendium didn't exist in 1975, and an internet database is by far a better format for gobs of stat blocks than a book.

I don't believe anywhere was I sayign the internet shouldn't be used or a factor. In fact, I would expect to see a VIBRANT monster builder online by WotC. But...again, that's not something that should be needed to play the table-top-pen-n'-paper RPG called D&D game.

It seems then that we're mostly quibbling over the names of things. And I suppose this is where a lot of the controversy comes from. There's an expectation that the MM be formatted a certain way, and a gut hostility toward changing that format. It's all "Awesome idea, just don't call it The Monster Manual."

That is a big part of it. Yes. You have been saying "make the Mosnter Manual this way"...and, as we find ourselves in a thread about "what the Monster Manual should be"...I must, respectfully, disagree with your proposal.

I see the MM more as "the third core book for D&D, the one with the DM's cast of characters in it."

No argument with that.

I don't see it as an alphabetical compendium of random beasties, because that's never been the point of an MM to me. The fun part about monster manuals wasn't the alphabetical order or the encyclopedic format, it was that these were characters that I as a DM would get to be. So what I want is more help in playing these characters. Not a bigger cast with less info.

I don't think anyone in this thread has been advocating "less info." Nor any formatting that would detract from everyone's fun in using the potential characters presented in the book.

It's an organizational question (yes, with/and the name included). What you propose is not "more useful", easier/more intuitive to use or, except in a very specific definition of the game, "better" to use/more new player friendly by having a bunch of different monsters all glommed in together under a single entry.

I think the old MM format was fine for 1975 standards. Even for the standards that have existed at the start of every edition until 4e.

Funny. I never thought of the birth of the RPG gaming genre...or 1975, for that matter...having "standards." hahaha.

But just because a horse-and-buggy has been fine and dandy for thousands of years doesn't mean that an automocar isn't a more useful way to tool around the countryside. And if you persist in using a horse and buggy when there's cars out there, you become the Amish -- marginalized, small, and insular.

Are you makin' fun of my beard? What's wrong with my overalls?!

Seriously though, I think you are drawing faaaaar to far a conclusion and assuming waaaay too much with this analogy.

Not that the new thing is automatically better in every way (cars cause pollution, this format would probably mean fewer monster entries), just that it's better for your main use (cars get you places faster, this format gives you more material to use at the table).

I understand, KM. I do. And...for the fourth? Fifth time? I like your idea...as/for a supplemental, "easy to use for beginners", pre-made lairs or mini-adventures sorta book. That is not the Monster Manual...to me and I suspect many others.

And nothing you've said sounds like other than "I like my idea. I think it'll work better. So make it this way."

There's nothing inherently "wrong" with that. We're talking about what we'd like to see. We're talking about "what if"...it's an intriguing proposal and discussion. But nothing you've said (other than the onions in meatloaf bit with which I stringently disagree ) has said anything that convinces me your "what if/I'd like to see" should be my "what if/I'd like to see."

Respectfully, agree to disagree?

[and PM me once we know what the actual rules are...I DO think your recipe book "Complete Lairs Compendium" is a GREAT idea for a supplemental work....provided 5e has the OGL, of course.]

--SD