What do you want from the Monster Manual?

[Grimmjow]

i think we can figure out how to turn a goblin into a kolbold or vise-vera so don't give us both

 

[Arlough]

I seem to remember, from my AD&D days, that it was in a binder format. You got a basic set of monsters, and then you would buy and add packs of monsters to it. You also had monster sheets "like character sheets" where you could build your own monsters and have them in your book.
I would like something like that, but with a page for combat material (statblock, necessary info for running in combat, etc), and a page for out of combat material (ecology, market value, etc).
That way, I could pull the monsters I need for my game and have them in front of me without having to photocopy or flip between tabs.

You could get setting specific monsters as part of your "X Campaign Setting" book, as well as with adventure packs. I think there should also be symbols or tabs that indicate setting or lack there of.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

If the origin of the disagreement is basically labeling, then it's really about the goals of a book called "Monster Manual." That's something that reasonable people can probably disagree about, but I've got a case I'm gonna lay out.

1. D&D is a game that one can learn how to play from books.
2. The books that teach people to play D&D are the Player's Handbook (which gives you instructions for making and playing your character) and the Dungeon Master's Guide (which gives you instructions for making your world and running the game -- including instructions on how to make a "monster.").
3. A third "core" book is released to give the DM additional help in making a game by providing material they can use in their game right away -- it takes the advice in the DMG and shows you how it works in a way that you can use it right away.
4. My design meets that goal for the third book better than the classic MM design does.

If we don't call that book "The Monster Manual," (Maybe, I dunno, call it "The Adventure Guide") is that a problem? Lets say 5e was released without a Monster Manual, but with an "Adventure Guide," is that an idea you can get behind?

Because basically the idea behind my format is to make the third "core" book serve the needs that a third core book has.

 

[jshaft37]

If the origin of the disagreement is basically labeling, then it's really about the goals of a book called "Monster Manual." That's something that reasonable people can probably disagree about, but I've got a case I'm gonna lay out.

1. D&D is a game that one can learn how to play from books.
2. The books that teach people to play D&D are the Player's Handbook (which gives you instructions for making and playing your character) and the Dungeon Master's Guide (which gives you instructions for making your world and running the game -- including instructions on how to make a "monster.").
3. A third "core" book is released to give the DM additional help in making a game by providing material they can use in their game right away -- it takes the advice in the DMG and shows you how it works in a way that you can use it right away.
4. My design meets that goal for the third book better than the classic MM design does.

If we don't call that book "The Monster Manual," (Maybe, I dunno, call it "The Adventure Guide") is that a problem? Lets say 5e was released without a Monster Manual, but with an "Adventure Guide," is that an idea you can get behind?

Because basically the idea behind my format is to make the third "core" book serve the needs that a third core book has.

Yes, I think the 3rd book (or at the very least, a group of early supplements) should be guides to adventuring (exploration/roleplay) in a fantasy setting with D&DNext rules. If Next is designed to be able to accomplish on-the-fly sandbox gaming (in an interesting way, of course) then it will be a success in all gaming styles. Anyone with additional prep time will still be able to run the game they want to run. In fact, this will be a boon to them, because they can take more opportunities to improvise because those tools will be available to them.

 

[Shemeska]

Replace the ... Rast, ... and I'll agree.

You take that back!


Don't worry cute little Rast, you just stay there on the quasielemental plane of ash and the mean people on the internet won't hurt you.

 

[steeldragons]

If the origin of the disagreement is basically labeling, then it's really about the goals of a book called "Monster Manual." That's something that reasonable people can probably disagree about, but I've got a case I'm gonna lay out.

1. D&D is a game that one can learn how to play from books.
2. The books that teach people to play D&D are the Player's Handbook (which gives you instructions for making and playing your character) and the Dungeon Master's Guide (which gives you instructions for making your world and running the game -- including instructions on how to make a "monster.").
3. A third "core" book is released to give the DM additional help in making a game by providing material they can use in their game right away -- it takes the advice in the DMG and shows you how it works in a way that you can use it right away.
4. My design meets that goal for the third book better than the classic MM design does.

If we don't call that book "The Monster Manual," (Maybe, I dunno, call it "The Adventure Guide") is that a problem? Lets say 5e was released without a Monster Manual, but with an "Adventure Guide," is that an idea you can get behind?

Because basically the idea behind my format is to make the third "core" book serve the needs that a third core book has.

Yes. As I've been saying throughout, I could get behind that. Does that necessitate that there be no encyclopedic manual of monsters, stripped out of their individually built/pre-combined habitats? I do not think so.

As I said, it would be a great supplemental. If you want to say "this other work/Adventure Guide" is the more important/better "3rd core book" while I say it is a "really cool supplement that any DM would like to have" then it sounds like we have some agreement. I still need/want a Monster Manual, though.

Now...what monsters go in/lairs get made? How many pages each? How many creatures are balled into each preset environment?

And there's the question of fluff...which many posters here, at least, seem to want as minimized or generalized as possible. Are we going to have a kobold warren of dozens of little dragon-worshippers and half-dragon-kobold sorcerers with a "young" blue dragon at the end...or red...or green dragon? Or a warren of little scaly dog-men? Either presenting with their traps and, seemingly all important vermin. And how are you going to argue/survive the backlash of one preference or the other? Are goblins automatically "wolf/worg-riders"? What about giant bats or giant lizards? Or are we going to have "Forest Goblin", "Subterranean Goblin", "Dessert Goblin" "Tundra Goblin" entries...spread willy nilly throughout the book with fifteen entires in the, extraordinarily important for this work, "Index"?

Are there going to be entries for Goblin Camp, Hobgoblin Camp, Orc Camp, Bugbear Camp...or doing one with some DM's Note that you can swap out the creatures as desired? All of those "cultures" are to be expected, by players, to be one and the same? Or, Orcs and Hobgoblins can be swapped...Bugbears and Ogres can be swapped...and where are the stats for those that don't have their own lairs presented?

How do we defend from the point I've made repeatedly that once you've used one of these little scenarios/environments your players now have a map (mental or literal) of what any encounter with a camp of goblins or orcs is set up like...i.e. using each piece of this adventure guide more than once.

Does the "Crypt of the Undead", filled with skeletons, zombies, and a few wights, include expanded listings for vampires, liches, ghosts, spectres? A human Necromancer or Undeath Domain clerics/cultists? Or will we have "The Cemetery of the [mindless] Undead", "The Vampire's Mansion" and "The Forgotten Tomb of the Lich-King"?

In the "Perils of the Swamplands" lair -which I would presume to be populated by any number of poisonous insects, reptiles and deadly plants and other environmental traps (quicksand/sinking mudholes, flaming gases/boiling pools, etc.)- is the tribal set up of Lizardmen supposed to be swapped/the same as for Bullywugs?...Trolls? or just swamp-living goblins?

Don't even get me started on how/where to build an encounter/lair/adventure that incorporates the width and breadth of Demons or Devils...Elementals...Giants...One entry for Hill Giant Steading, one Frost Giant Glacier, and one Fire Giant Volcano, perhaps? What about the others? Should Treants be listed/treated as "Wood Giants" or have their own place in some "The Ancient Forbidden Forest of the Faeries" setting?

How many places...the "anchor monsters" I think you've called them, are we presenting in this "Adventure Guide"? And how big are we talking? 3 or 5 or 10 pages per "entry"? A simple 150 pages? 200? 400? (at an average 5 pages per entry, with each individual monster's stats, ecologic/interactive fluff, maps, traps, etc. doesn't sound unreasonable, 150 pages gives us 30 "encounter/lair/mini-adventures."

Where's the Rust Monster go? Displacer Beasts? The Mindflayers? The Beholders and Black Puddings? If this is to be the 3rd core book, then the D&D iconic monsters need to be there (at least a good chunk of them)...what's that list look like? Is that doable in 30 entries? 50? 100?

Or are there 15-20 mini adventures of 10-12ish pages each and trying to cram in everything possible (that the designers decide "goes together") into individual "monster den hack-n'-slashes" to cover as many of the bases/basics as they can?

--SD

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I just want the tools because I've got the talent!

 

[Ferghis]

My first thought has been already stated by others on the first page, and I haven't read the intervening six pages of comments.

In addition to a good pic, some solid fluff a la 2e, and a succinct statblock like 4e, I'd like to see some information describing:
1) other creatures that are well paired with that one.
2) terrain/traps/hazards that are paired well with that one.
3) what kind of extra resources or reinforcements (in terms of numbers, kind, and tactics) the monster can call on if given some time to prepare.

 

[Zustiur]

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.

That's just the point though. Steeldragon's MM IS the recipe book. Statblocks are more like pre-packaged meals.

I feel the Monster Manual should be a recipe book for monsters. Not a recipe book for adventures.

I can see other books being recipe books for adventures (Dungeon Delve? Adventure Guide?)
In fact, I'd like to take those two ideas together.

Fill out the monster manual exactly as Steeldragons described. Then put the billion other stat blocks into DDI under the... let's call it the Monster Vault.
WotC could then publish periodical issues of the Monster Vault for those who object to online subscriptions. This could be done in many different ways, be it 'complete kobold' or 'dungeon delve' or 'Adventure Recipe Book'.

I see this version of the Monster Manual as a book for experienced DMs who have a reasonable amount of prep time. If you don't have prep time, you should be using the Monster Vault and/or pre-packaged adventures.
The Monster Manual that Kamakaze Midget describes is what I would expect to see for novice DMs in the DnD starter kits.

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] I don't want to be all Negative-Nancy about this. I actually support your idea. I think it's brilliant. I just don't think the book you're describing is a Monster Manual.
I'd rather see it as an alternate line of books that DMs can opt to buy.
2E style DMs will buy the MM. 4E style DMs will buy your idea. And many DMs will buy both. It's a playstyle thing.


The more I ponder this idea, the more I like it. I've never purchased a published module. They just don't appeal to me. However, an Adventure-Recipe-Book appeals to me a great deal. Push the published adventures back into Dungeon Mag and give me a whole new series of books filled with partial adventures and stat blocks. Let me take the ideas presented in the book and flesh them out. Don't give me the whole story.

If we don't call that book "The Monster Manual," (Maybe, I dunno, call it "The Adventure Guide") is that a problem? Lets say 5e was released without a Monster Manual, but with an "Adventure Guide," is that an idea you can get behind?

Absa-fracking-lutely.

I'd be very happy to drop the idea of the 'Core-Three', and indeed of Core in general.
At most I'd want to see it as core-three-ish where the guideline is:
For new DMs: Pick PHB+DMG+AdventureGuide
For experienced DMs: Pick PHB+DMG+MM
From that point onward, buy whatever you damn well please.

 

[GX.Sigma]

This question is very interesting. What should the core books be, or what should be in the core books? It is a bit strange that, in order to play D&D, you need more than the PHB, DMG, and MM--you need an adventure. Generally it has gone like this:

PHB: Character creation rules, rules for playing the game
DMG: Adventure creation guidelines, guidelines for running the game
MM: A bunch of monsters

Does "a bunch of monsters" deserve an entire book? Maybe, if you have a lot of monsters (which you should).

Does "adventure creation guidelines" deserve an entire book? Maybe, if you have a lot of guidelines, examples, etc. (which you might?).

Could those two books be the same book? Maybe, if you do it without compromising the quality of either.

Could those two books each be separate from the PHB and DMG? Maybe, if you can expect players to buy that many core books.