What's The Best Monster Book?

[Neonchameleon]

There is more to a game than simple boiled down rules. A game shouldnt be "see how much we can boil this system down" textwise.

Sure, They could replace the section on Dog Mauling Rules with a very simple algorithm. Sure they could. But why?

You read Math books to learn Math Formulae. If you wish to read player manuals and monster books, solely for the hard math crunch, that's all good and well. As for me, I want to read stories. I want to delve into a book and read adventures about adventures.

This monster book does that. It starts off each monster with a first-hand account, then adds in the crunchy math for you. Yeah, they also include stories into the math as well. That's what KenzerCo are. Storytellers.

Naturally, you have your opinion, as I have mine. Neither of us are wrong.

And this is a perfect example of a major difference in how we read books. I have an entire bookshelf full of good fiction books. Compared to most of them, Kenzer and Co (or WotC or just about any other game company) are half-baked. And the stories I'm interested in at the table are the stories we are telling as we play; I don't want to have to read through fifty lines of Kenzer & Co's fiction and obfuscated rules so I can work out what the dog does next. I want things to resolve at the tabletop so we can play our game, not read Kenzer's fiction and spend a minute or two distracted from the game in front of us.

If the purpose of a rulebook is to sit on the shelf and be read as bedtime reading, I've better. Booker winners. Hugo winners. If it's to be played, I want to be able to figure out the mechanics at a glance.

If the fiction gets in the way of actually playing the game then it shouldn't be there. Fifty lines to do what should be done in five does get in the way of actually playing the game.

That's why. The "fluff" in this case gets in the way of playing the game and telling the actually important story at the tabletop - i.e. that concerning the PCs.

Finally you seem to have not been reading the thread. In terms of fiction, fluff, and inspiration, many of us have been demonstrating how Monster Vault blows away the competition from the 2e Monstrous Manual and is far more inspiring. It does this in addtion to making rules like the dog pack mauling rules look like childish finger paintings. So talking about "solely for the hard math crunch" is irrelevant, and shows you haven't been reading the thread.

 

[griffonwing]

Hrmm. I actually have been reading the thread. But, as you say, we have our own differences. You seem to like tell me what I am doing wrong, or what I'm not doing at all, or what I am not reading. Ive not said the same about you.

I am letting this drop.

 

[Evenglare]

What is the best monster book?

Easily Tomb of Horrors compilation hands down.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hrmm. I actually have been reading the thread. But, as you say, we have our own differences. You seem to like tell me what I am doing wrong, or what I'm not doing at all, or what I am not reading. Ive not said the same about you.

"If you wish to read player manuals and monster books, solely for the hard math crunch, that's all good and well." - either you were saying what I am doing or that sentence was an intentional strawman. If you were to have said that you like a different style of story and narrative from the one I've been advocating that would have been a different matter.

And I'm not telling you what you are doing wrong in most of my posts. I'm saying what Kenzer & Co. are doing wrong in their writing. The only times I've said something about what you are doing are about reading monster manuals for the story - something you have said you are doing and where you have made a claim about what I do that is objectively refuted by the thread.

I am letting this drop.

Probably wise.

 

[Starfox]

Midpoint between 3E and 4E monster books. The game should not be so complex that you really need more than a quarter-page even for a complex monster. One quarter of a page is a picture. The rest of the page gets to be background and fluff. More than one page per monster, and it risks becoming a wall of text and restrictive rather than inspirational. Important monsters get as much as a 2-page spread. with a stat block of perhaps half a page.

I used to be less fluff-oriented, and then more fluff-oriented, but as I matured I realized this is the balance I like best.

About half the 1E stat block was superfluous; I agree % in lair was not very interesting. The 3E stat block (as well as Pathfinder) really is too complex for my liking - because the rules they are used with are too complex. I kind of liked the 4E monster format, but the fluff got pushed too far into a corner. A complex monster needs minor abilities and fluff beside its heavy-hitter combat powers to make it interesting, even if these minor abilities are only hinted at.

 

[Shemeska]

Finally you seem to have not been reading the thread. In terms of fiction, fluff, and inspiration, many of us have been demonstrating how Monster Vault blows away the competition from the 2e Monstrous Manual and is far more inspiring.

It demonstrates it for you perhaps. But different people are obviously finding inspiration and appreciation in different approaches.

I've read both and I find the 2e MM the best overall, though I'm sure that by cherry-picking and comparing you could advocate any of the various editions' MM to be better than another on one element or another. The 4e Monster Vault is pretty good in amount of flavor text (a massive improvement from the original 4e MM) but lot of the 4e flavor simply doesn't speak to me compared to previous editions' takes*, and the initial 4e MM had in general IMO a horrific lack of descriptive text and flavor (buried in the mechanics text may work for others, but it's not how I would favor it).

*I would probably appreciate various bits of its flavor and monsters much much more if it hadn't attempted to rewrite or retcon various things en masse, use classic names for completely different monsters, etc.

 

[pemerton]

If you wish to read player manuals and monster books, solely for the hard math crunch, that's all good and well. As for me, I want to read stories. I want to delve into a book and read adventures about adventures.

I don't understand what the "story" is in the dog pack mauling rules that you lauded and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] quoted. To me, they just look like clunky mechanics.

I also noticed this bit in the rules:

Further, the defender suffers a 2-point penalty to all rolls and cannot use the ensnared
limb for any action other than spending 5 seconds attempting to free it of the canine’s hold​

What happens if the half-ogre fighter who has a dog latched onto his/her arm wants to start using the dog as a battering ram? Or to fling it through the air as a missile weapon? These look to me like not just clunky but bad, because overly prescriptive, mechanics.

I find the 2e MM the best overall, though I'm sure that by cherry-picking and comparing you could advocate any of the various editions' MM to be better than another on one element or another. The 4e Monster Vault is pretty good in amount of flavor text (a massive improvement from the original 4e MM) but lot of the 4e flavor simply doesn't speak to me compared to previous editions' takes*, and the initial 4e MM had in general IMO a horrific lack of descriptive text and flavor (buried in the mechanics text may work for others, but it's not how I would favor it).

You didn't reply to my post 40 upthread. Can you please provide an example from the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual which has more flavour text than the same monster in the 4e MM?

I discussed goblins, spiders, azers, galeb duhr and zombies upthread. I also pointed out the entries for Demons and Devils, which have more information than any comparable entry in a 1st ed AD&D MM (I believe these monsters are not present in the Monstrous Manual).

I may well have been cherry-picking examples - which ones should I be looking at?

 

[Shemeska]

Can you please provide an example from the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual which has more flavour text than the same monster in the 4e MM?

It's going to be hard, given that I don't own a 4e MM.

 

[pemerton]

It's going to be hard, given that I don't own a 4e MM.

Ah, I'd assumed that you were familiar with it, given that you have posted extensively about its contents.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's going to be hard, given that I don't own a 4e MM.

OK. Care to name three highlights from the 2e Monstrous Manual then?

For what it's worth, the examples I've made haven't been cherry picked - although opening a book randomly may get to a commonly used page.