What do you want from the Monster Manual?

[steeldragons]

Really? It has been effective?

I likes ta thinks so...Really.

How many crappy adventures have you written over the years?

Have I?! I beg your pardon, sir. I do not do "crappy adventures."

Well, ok, not since I was in high school...and even then, complaints were few and far between. But...sure...a coupla times what I had all worked out as "this will be sooo coool" fell on deaf ears...and/or dice. Part of learning the game and what works for your group.

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.

If that's what your group wants...how'd they fall flat? Generally speaking, when the group is asking for hack n' slash, I oblige. But when we get into the third or fourth session of hack n' slash I, as DM, am just too bored...and have found, my players are generally as well...throwing in some interactions is a most welcomed change o' pace.

Perhaps...and I am saying PERHAPS, in the age of a bazillion [yes, that's an actual fgure ] video games, the "hack n' slash" game is more desired now than it used to be...but that's not D&D's fault nor does D&D have to become that to be the 21st century's D&D.

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.

Soooo...?...not sure what you're saying here. You want a Monster Manual that is all set up with pre-arranged encounter/adventure/lairs?

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

Because...it is?

I didn't learn to not stick my hand in the fire because someone told me everything that fire does to exposed flesh. I had someone tell me, "The fire is dangerous. Don't do that!" (prolly with a whole lot of "bad's" and "no's" thrown in.) That, symbolically, is easily done through the fluff and the presentation of stats.

Someone doesn't have to tell me, "Don't put a group of 10 4hp kobolds in front of a 10th level party." But if I do anyway, I [the DM] will get burned (barring a freak streak of reeeally bad dice rolls). Lesson learned.

The fact that the Monster Manual stat block tells me: "Kobolds have 4 hit points. They are encountered, on average, in these numbers. They use these weapons/their attacks do this much damage." is that, again symbolically, person who's saying "Don't put your hand in the fire [i.e. don't use these with a 10th level party]."

How else does one learn than by trying, potentially failing, and trying again? You can be guided, certainly, but you will not actually KNOW until you've done it yourself.

I am advocating LEARNING/KNOWING the game...not being handed a game for you to play with all of the parameters established. If that's what you want, the games are out there...that's not D&D.

That's where the imagination and the creativity flourish...without stringent parameters...yeah, you might burn your hand sometimes. Lesson learned.

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.

Riiight. That is kinda what I'm saying...a Monster Manual ought not have pre-built adventures in it. That's the module's job...though with 5e being all about the "rules modules" I suppose we need to come up with some other term for "published self-contained adventures."

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

I believe it should be in both places...as I think I said. The DMG for those DMs with the time and interest to "build" and customize their monsters above/beyond what the MM offers. And in the MM as a simple/generalized set of guidelines, "If you want to customize [beyond what is offered in the entry with generic stats and applied themes/abilities] your kobold fighters, here's how you do it."

OR vice versa! Put the detailed bit in the MM and the general guidelines or an arrow pointing to the MM in the DMG. Any DM should have at their disposal, either a published, complete adventure module OR a Monster Manual of their own. The idea that the MM is "Player's book" needs to stop/go away.

Of course, 9 out of 10 people I played with, DM or not, had their own...or had access to...an MM.

I'd also advocate, to go along with KM's "prepackaged" monsters idea, that in the fluff of things that DO build lairs around/with other creatures, that be included in the fluff.

The "kobolds are known to domesticate vermin" and "sometimes fill their traps with oozes" is a totally valid bit of fluff that belongs under the Kobold entry.

The stats for the vermin (beetles, for example) and the stats for Grey Ooze ought to be listed under "B" for beetles and "O" for oozes, respectively. NOT under the kobold entry, as KM proposes.

If you want to apply those bits of fluff and flavor into your game/adventure...then you are welcome to, and easily pointed toward, doing so.

Same with Goblins using/riding wolves. But to get the wolves info, I need to go from "G" [goblins] to "W" [wolf]. Or "Hill giants often make pets of giant wolves." Go from "G" to "W."

If I just want a pack of wolves in the wild...I just go to "W". Why do I need to know/remember/flip to the index for "Wolf, Dire...See under Goblin." How many wolves are in a pack? Are Winter Wolves listed under Goblins, also? So we're going to have dire wolves/worgs under "Goblin"...but "Winter Wolves" have their own entry? Or they're under "Giant, Frost"?

The organization just BEGS headaches, anti-intuitive looking up and "extra work" to find what you want.

That's all I'm sayin'.
--SD

 

[Arlough]

No. I mean, yes, I know this is your view. But no. That is not so. Your latter is for people who need their dungeons/lairs/encounters all worked out for them in a neat little package. That is not "how" the game has ever been nor should be learned to play.

Give a man a fish and he eats for the day. Teach a man to fish and he eats forever.

If you give me a "meatloaf" monster manual. Yay! I have a meat loaf. It will probably be delicious!

If you give me ground beef, an onion, some garlic, salt n' pepper, maybe some ketchup...some people like eggs in it, some add green pepper or bread crumbs or cumin. I can come up with half a dozen "meatloaves" of my own design...or maybe I make some hamburgers, instead,...or meatballs...or sloppy joes.

THAT is the purpose of the Monster Manual. THAT is the purpose of learning to play the game. Not being given a game to play...That's a computer game...or a board game...but it is not a table-top RPG.

<snip>

No argument there. Handing the new player fully "built" combinations of monsters as the developers see fit to combine them in the book is not the way for a new player to learn and learn to ENJOY D&D.

The 'new player" more likely than not, might not have any books. They're being brought into the game by a more experienced player or DM that they know. A friend, a family member, someone they struck up a conversation with at the local comic/gaming shop. I would not expect them to have all of the books on their own before they sit down...maybe their own PHB for the very enthusiastic.

I also wouldn't expect, if they did have all of their own books, that they'd have books filled with meatloaf...So, enjoy the meatloaf...Next week/game, guess what?...MEATLOAF! Yaaay. Instead of "enjoy whatever combination of ingredients you want."

A Monster Manual that offers the "packaged encounters" you propose is then telling people they have to disassemble and rearrange as they like.

How is that "better", more intuitive or easier than saying here's the ingredients...just assemble and season to taste as you want? You're adding, as a necessity, another level of work...another step to pull apart the pre-made package, which, it seems to be by everything I've read, is NOT what people, new or old, want. "Ease of use" does not equate to "Do it all for me."

And while your meatloaf, as I said, would be delicious...it is not some simple thing to pull it apart, add in the peppers I want and put it back together as a meatloaf. (in fact it's damn near impossible in the case of actual meatloaf).

Just give me the ingredients. Everyone needs to learn to cook for themselves.
--SD

The recipe for monsters, in the current edition, is not in the MM but in the DMG in the section called "DM Toolbox"
And I think that is how it should be. If I have the DMG and the PHB and some people to play with, that should be enough. But, I also want the option of making my life a little easier, so I will want to then buy the MM. I think the MM should be a supplement. Maybe a really nice supplement, but still just an add on.

 

[steeldragons]

Ok, folks.

At the risk of being gauche...I've been getting notifications all damn day to respond to this thread...and every. time. I click on the drop-down...not a single ONE of them has been an XP! Just "Quote", "Quote", "Quote"..."Mention"..."Quote"..."Quote" again...

Am I that off balance? Show a fellow ENworlder a little love, if you agree with...ya know, ANTHING, I've said...preeeeeease?

and thank you in advance.
/begging for XP

--SD

 

[Ratskinner]

Perhaps. But, I feel, in general, the tribal monsters especially and all monsters to a certain extent, do get repetitive. We [anyone who's been playing for any amount of time] have a built in knowledge or at least conception of what a kobold or a goblin or orc is like. To keep them from being repetitive, then that puts the onus on the DM to take some time and make them their own (as, I feel, it should be).

hmm....
Should DM's be able to customize their NPCs/Monsters/campaigns?...yes.

Should this take a single calorie more than necessary, just so they feel the "onus to take some time and make them their own."...no. No. and still No.

Should a DM be able to take a lot of time to make a truly detailed "delicate snowflake" of an NPC/monster that will be a feature of the campaign for many sessions?...yes.

This should be a game (i.e. pleasurable experience) for the DM, too. While there may be artistic and creative elements to the DM job, the effort necessary should be minimal. There is no virtue in a system that puts unnecessary effort in the DM's way. Monsters and NPCs that follow all those rules, and require all that work, just to die in a few rounds, are unnecessary.

Now, that said. I think the system should be set up so that a DM could make a custom NPC/monster of whatever level in multiple ways. That is, do a 4e-style super-simple npc, or detail out every bit of that NPC a la 3.x. If they are both level x, they should be able to pose a similar amount of threat. So, frex. Two DMs want to have a level 5 goblin necromancer running around causing havoc:

DM-A picks up the MM and discovers that, while there is a goblin shaman, there is no goblin necromancer. He takes 5 minutes to trade for some necromantic powers and spells from other monsters and ups the level to 5 by adding some hp. He's good to go.

DM-B picks up the DMG and PHB, picks appropriate race (possibly an MM appendix), class, theme, background, makes all the choices for each level up to 5, including a complete spell list and magic items. 20 minutes later, he's good to go.

If the PC "barbarian" who has the berserker theme can do XYZ, then why shouldn't an orc with the same theme? You don't have to give me a separate stat block for "Orc Berserker."
<snippage>

Happy Thursday, all.
--SD

You need to give me one. Honestly, why would the DM want to spend more than a few seconds on developing an "Orc Beserker"? They aren't going to live long enough to make it worth the effort. If you've got some big special NPC, maybe, but only if he's going to feature in more than one session, IMO.

I can live with the basic concept as an option, but it needs (for me, anyway) to be a super fast implementation. I mean way less than 5 min. If I can't whip open an MM page and find or generate 5 types of goblin to make an encounter in 10 minutes, then my goblin encounters are going to get really boring. However, I don't see a need for identical mechanics between PCs and NPCs monsters. There's just too many monsters (and even categories of monster) for which that's just not a relevant thing.

 

[Ratskinner]

No. I mean, yes, I know this is your view. But no. That is not so. Your latter is for people who need their dungeons/lairs/encounters all worked out for them in a neat little package. That is not "how" the game has ever been nor should be learned to play.

You're joking here, right? I'm gaming with guys right now who've been playing since the 70's and get upset at Orcs that don't have the "right" HD, etc. I'm not saying you're view is wrong. Heck, I tend to DM from that perspective myself, but there are many...far more than I would have thought even a year ago...many people who play and believe that D&D is "just so". I don't think we'll win any hearts and minds by forcing them to work out stats for an orc berserker before play. I know it may sound weird, but a lot of people out there want pre-fab monsters to put into maps/situations of their own device, and not much else.

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

hunh? There was precious little advice or rules for devising your own monsters in the earlier editions of the game. As far as I remember, 3e was the first edition that actually codified the process at all. Certainly nothing about the earlier edition MMs made it any easier.

No argument there. Handing the new player fully "built" combinations of monsters as the developers see fit to combine them in the book is not the way for a new player to learn and learn to ENJOY D&D.

You appear to be in a tunnel...trust me, the number of ways to play D&D is quite large. Seriously, SD, I don't know if you're intending to be, but you're kinda reading as "One True Wayist" with some of this.

The 'new player" more likely than not, might not have any books. They're being brought into the game by a more experienced player or DM that they know.

While I agree that new players often don't have many books, I disagree that they are likely to have a mentor. I know some do, but I also know many kids who pick up the books on their own and try it all by themselves, never realizing that there are others around who play the game. The game needs to take their total lack of experience into account, as well.

How is that "better", more intuitive or easier than saying here's the ingredients...just assemble and season to taste as you want? You're adding, as a necessity, another level of work...another step to pull apart the pre-made package, which, it seems to be by everything I've read, is NOT what people, new or old, want. "Ease of use" does not equate to "Do it all for me."

The MM must be more than a bag of groceries. Two groups of people; DMs who don't have the time or concern to do everything from scratch and younger DMs who don't know better, need it to be more. That being said, there should be groceries available for those who don't like frozen dinners.

 

[Hussar]

If I just want a pack of wolves in the wild...I just go to "W". Why do I need to know/remember/flip to the index for "Wolf, Dire...See under Goblin." How many wolves are in a pack? Are Winter Wolves listed under Goblins, also? So we're going to have dire wolves/worgs under "Goblin"...but "Winter Wolves" have their own entry? Or they're under "Giant, Frost"?

The organization just BEGS headaches, anti-intuitive looking up and "extra work" to find what you want.

Given the state of RPG's and indexes, I'd actually have to agree with you. If there could actually be a decent index in ANY RPG book, I think your problems would vanish.

A decently indexed MM would have wolf referenced five or six times in different places in the index (once under W, once under the specific name (dire wolf, winter wolf, bizarrodonkeywolfhorse, and again in a longer entry under goblin).

But, this is probably wishful thinking. There's never been a decently indexed RPG book yet, so, it probably won't start now.

 

[Wiseblood]

150-200 of the most iconic and USEABLE monsters ever to grace the pages of a monster manual.

*This means no Flumphs, Giffs, Tarasques Arch Fiends, or assorted trash mobs like the runehound.

*It has detail where detail is warranted. Intelligent groups should get the most info Orcs , Goblins and Dragons etc.

*No more than ten undead.

* Some ecology info, Where do they live, who do they eat, when are they active.

* Small stat blocks please.

* Treasure, carried or in the lair.

*The monster's market value whole or in pieces.

*Organization solitary, tribe, flock whatever.

* No setting specific critters no Muls, Bozaks, Gibberlings, Space hamsters and so on.

I doubt that is all but I think I got the important parts.

 

[Hussar]

I particularly like the idea of "Monsters market value whole or in pieces" and also possibly, "alive or dead" as well.

Makes the whole "monsters drop treasure" thing unnecessary. Make the monster itself the treasure.

 

[GX.Sigma]

150-200 of the most iconic and USEABLE monsters ever to grace the pages of a monster manual.

*This means no Flumphs, Giffs, Tarasques Arch Fiends, or assorted trash mobs like the runehound.

*It has detail where detail is warranted. Intelligent groups should get the most info Orcs , Goblins and Dragons etc.

*No more than ten undead.

* Some ecology info, Where do they live, who do they eat, when are they active.

* Small stat blocks please.

* Treasure, carried or in the lair.

*The monster's market value whole or in pieces.

*Organization solitary, tribe, flock whatever.

* No setting specific critters no Muls, Bozaks, Gibberlings, Space hamsters and so on.

I doubt that is all but I think I got the important parts.

I want all of this... and all the archfiends and tarrasques, all kinds of undead, all of the setting-specific creatures, all kinds of mundane and extraordinary real-world creatures (giant squids and dinosaurs, please), and monster-as-character stats for all monsters that could conceivably be PCs.

3.x's Monster Manual is the gold standard as far as I'm concerned. They did it, so why can't D&DN?

 

[Stormonu]

3.x's Monster Manual is the gold standard as far as I'm concerned. They did it, so why can't D&DN?

Replace the Ythrak, Rast, Phasm and Tojanida and I'll agree.

Actually, thinking about it further, the 2E Monstrous Manual was better in many ways; if the combat sections could just be cleaned up that's the true gold standard.