Monster Manual Layout/Organization: What do you prefer...

[steeldragons]

---

The Poll pretty much says it all.

A Monster Manual with listings/content pages that say:
"Undead: See Zombie, Ghoul, Vampire,..." and then the stats/information/entry is under its individual entry under "Z" or "G" or "V"
OR
Listings under "G" (for example) that say "Ghoul: See Undead." with the detailed stats/info in an "Undead" section listed under "U."

Which do you prefer?

or neither, just make everything its own entry without grouping any common creatures. This seems unlikely and problematic as stuff like dragons, giants, elementals, demons, devils and probably a few more sort of demand being listed together...if for no other reason than to easily present the common info/traits/powers that all sorts of those creatures have without having to repeat the same thing a thousand times.

Wut sez yoos?

 

[BriarMonkey]

But... There's no poll to be seen? Did it get omitted? Or is your text the poll?

 

[steeldragons]

But... There's no poll to be seen? Did it get omitted? Or is your text the poll?

You have to post the thread before you can plug in the poll options/info. So...it's here now.

 

[BriarMonkey]

Doh! Too quick for my own good...

As to the actual points at hand, I have to say I have mixed opinions (though I chose the third option). There are times, especially when I am rushed, where I just want all the bits for the zombie - I don't want to have to also look up undead. When I have time though, how dragons, demons, etc., have been handled - with a group description outlining all the common elements - then the individual descriptions and details serves well.

I guess if I had to take my bestest pick, I'd want each entry to stand completely on its own. Being realistic, only group those entities that it makes sense to group, but if you do so, don't have me go looking elsewhere too. (Here then, the index and table of contents become very valuable tools.)

(I hope that made sense...)

 

[LittleMonkeyMojo]

My Answer is really "combo". There are times I'll look for something ("undead") when what I really want is something else ("zombie") and there are other times where it's reversed. I certainly agree that groups of characters should be grouped by type rather than full name (i.e. Dragons - "Dragon, Blue", "Dragon, Red", "Dragon, Fire", etc. rather than "B - Blue Dragon", "R - Red Dragon", "F - Fire Dragon"). I don't think there's a need to cross-list/mention characters where what you're looking for is part of the name. For example, if there are different stats for Juvenile Kobold and Adult Kobold, there's no need to put a mention in the Js and As pointing to "K - Kobold", but when you have numerous creatures which are all related by don't have their "family" name as part of their own, then I can see having the reference, (i.e. Arabian Genie, Djenie, etc.).

 

[GX.Sigma]

I like the idea of grouping things. Assuming it has an index, it shouldn't be difficult to find monsters alphabetically. So, go ahead and group things that should belong together. Not just stuff like dragons and genies, either. Orcs, kobolds, and goblinoids should appear near each other, for example.

None of those poll options really describe what I'm talking about here.

 

[delericho]

Honestly, the encyclopedia-format book of monsters is the worst possible method of presenting them. Ideally, what's wanted is a fully-indexed and searchable database of monsters that gets updated invisibly every time a bunch of new monsters is released. And if it could include tools for advancing monsters, applying templates, and creating your own, all the better.

Failing that, the monsters would be better presented on cards, provided all the information can be given on a single card. Failing that, the idea behind the 2nd Edition "Monstrous Compendium" is the way to go (but, note, the 2nd Ed MC was implemented in a truly abysmal manner).

If we absolutely must have a book-format Monster Manual, then I felt the 3e version got it about right (and, actually, so did the 1st Ed one - it's just that I came to that significantly later). That is, some monsters (demons, devils, true dragons) were grouped by type, while most (humanoids, undead) were listed alphabetically. As far as I can see, the reasoning behind the distinction was based on what a person first thought of when he thought about the monster. It takes a bit of judgement, but I think those books did get it just about spot-on.

 

[steeldragons]

I like the idea of grouping things. Assuming it has an index, it shouldn't be difficult to find monsters alphabetically. So, go ahead and group things that should belong together. Not just stuff like dragons and genies, either. Orcs, kobolds, and goblinoids should appear near each other, for example.

None of those poll options really describe what I'm talking about here.

By all means, explicate what you're looking for/talking about. Please! Or tell me if I'm getting it...

So, IN the book, you're paging through the book: under "B", there's a listing that says "Brownie: See Faeries p. xx" [or fayekin or fey or whatever they call them this time around]

You turn to "F" and there is the "Faerie" entry that talks about general traits of faye creatures, then goes into individual stat blocks and descriptions of "Brownie: xyz." followed by, for example, "Dryad: xyz.", "Nixie: xyz" etc... until the faye creatures are finished. After these are all done, the book moves on to the next "F" creature...

Going to the index, if you look under "B" there will be an entry that says "Brownie: see Faerie, p xx." Going to "F", in the index, might be something like this:

Faerie...pp. xx-yy
--Brownie p. xx
--Dryad p. xx
--Nixie p. xy
--Pixie p. xy
--Sprite p. yy
Firebat p. yz
Firesnake p. zz
Fungi pp. zz-za.
--Shrieker p. zz
--Violet p. za
etc.
etc.
etc.

OR, are you suggesting, something like I said about "everything" going into a group...So, while still alphabetical, the book has it's listings:

Celestials: Celestial creature 1, Celestial creature 2, Celestial creature 3
Demon: Demon 1, Demon 2, Demon 3
...
Faerie: 1, 2, 3
Giants 1, 2, 3
Goblinoids: 1, 2, 3
Humanoids, Monstrous: 1, 2, 3...

The index, basically would be the same as above, so going to find an Orc, under "O" would redirect you, "Orc: See Humanoid, Monstrous: pp. xx-yy."

Am I close?

 

[steeldragons]

Honestly, the encyclopedia-format book of monsters is the worst possible method of presenting them. Ideally, what's wanted is a fully-indexed and searchable database of monsters that gets updated invisibly every time a bunch of new monsters is released. And if it could include tools for advancing monsters, applying templates, and creating your own, all the better.

Sooooo...NO Monster Manual?! That's "what's wanted"?

I dunno if I'd really think of it as "&D" if there's no MM...not saying they couldn't do that, in today's day and age...but, might be my grognard showing again [checks zipper], but I want a book. Is that just me?

Failing that, the monsters would be better presented on cards, provided all the information can be given on a single card. Failing that, the idea behind the 2nd Edition "Monstrous Compendium" is the way to go (but, note, the 2nd Ed MC was implemented in a truly abysmal manner).

Yes, I recall (and have heard for decades since) about the 2e Monstrous Compendium. The "cards" idea is just so...bleck to me. You don't want to tote around a M but a card album or stuffed "recipe card box" is preferable?

If we absolutely must have a book-format Monster Manual, then I felt the 3e version got it about right (and, actually, so did the 1st Ed one - it's just that I came to that significantly later). That is, some monsters (demons, devils, true dragons) were grouped by type, while most (humanoids, undead) were listed alphabetically. As far as I can see, the reasoning behind the distinction was based on what a person first thought of when he thought about the monster. It takes a bit of judgement, but I think those books did get it just about spot-on.

Right. Yeah, distinctions were rather "cuz I sed so". Dragons: 1-36 under "D", but Djinni under "D", Efreeti under "E", Marids under "M"...not a single member of genie-kind, or even some generic "Genie", listed under "G." Giants: 1-10 under "G" but Brownie, Pixie, Sprite scattered all over the place.

Which is kinda what I'm asking about...does that sort of "intuitive" thing work (and we've got 30+ years that seem to say "yeah, it's fine"), "I want a Giant, I'm turning to G. I want a Demon, I'm turning to D." Or are more individual things or more groupings preferable?

the way I'm thinking of it, all Dragons, Demons, etc... would be under D still, but, in the "complete individuality" model, instead of having:
"Dragon:
Common dragon stuff for all dragons.
Black Dragon
Blue Dragon
Brass Dragon..."

You'd have:
"Dragon, Black: all info on black dragons, including the common to all dragons stuff.
Dragon, Blue: ditto blue dragons.
Dragon, Brass: ditto brass dragons.
...
Dragon, White: all things white dragon and common to all dragons stuff.
Dragon Turtle: blah blah blah
Dragonne: blah blah blah
Duegar: blah blah blah."

This would mean Brownies are listed under B, Dryads under D, there would be no "Faerie" section under F.

Demons, Devils, Giants, etc.. would all still appear close together IN the book, as well as being listed identically in the index, since every entry would be:
"Demon, Type I:
Demon, Type II
...
Demon, Lord: Demogorgon
Demon, Lord: Grazzt
Demon, Lord: Orcus..."

Giants, for example, would all be listed,
"Giants, Fire
Giants, Frost
Giants, Hill
...
Giants, Storm
Gnome
Goblin..."

With no "Giants" section, per se.

 

[delericho]

Sooooo...NO Monster Manual?! That's "what's wanted"?

Well, I wasn't being entirely serious.

But, yes, I do think that D&D should at least offer the electronic tools as an alternative option, and in the case of the MM it's likely to be the preferred option for everything except actual at-the-table use.

Yes, I recall (and have heard for decades since) about the 2e Monstrous Compendium. The "cards" idea is just so...bleck to me. You don't want to tote around a M but a card album or stuffed "recipe card box" is preferable?

Neither is ideal, but the key advantage of both (if actually implemented correctly, which wasn't the case in 2nd Ed) is that it allows the user to arrange the entries as he wishes, it allows him to take a subset out to the game with him (no need to carry MM4 for that one monster...), and it makes it easy to have p.50 and p.500 both open in front of him at the same time.

Even so, it's yesterday's solution now we're in the age of the iPad (and equivalents).

Right. Yeah, distinctions were rather "cuz I sed so". Dragons: 1-36 under "D", but Djinni under "D", Efreeti under "E", Marids under "M"...not a single member of genie-kind, or even some generic "Genie", listed under "G." Giants: 1-10 under "G" but Brownie, Pixie, Sprite scattered all over the place.

To be fair, my 3.5e MM (which was the one I originally cited) groups both "Giants" and "Genies". Didn't group fey, though, which might have been a mistake.

But something I most definitely should have mentioned in my previous post: whatever format is chosen, the designers really need to include one or more really good indices. Indeed, for monster books beyond the first, they should really include both an index to that specific book and a master index of all monster books to date.