4e Has Less Raw Content: Fact!

[ExploderWizard]

So I have to fundamentally disagree with your second paragraph. The 4e Monster Manual has exactly what I need. It has a picture, a few paragraphs of text to explain the monster, and then some stat blocks to show how I can work this monster or groups of this type of monster into the action sections of my adventures. Everything else I just made up for myself anyways.

The 4E MM meets the needs of the type of games that you like to run/play. Thats perfectly fine but I still stand by my assessment.

 

[Henry]

The 4E MM meets the needs of the type of games that you like to run/play. Thats perfectly fine but I still stand by my assessment.

I have to ask though, 'Wizard, what any previous edition had that denoted a given monster race's world-place and interaction that isn't present in the 4e version. Some might have had some sparse text about names of one or two tribes, and maybe "all goblins hate elves" kinds of things, but it wasn't a substantial amount of flavoring in my opinion. I guess in my experience, I'm taking what I knew from previous editions and carrying it forward, rather than solely depending on what's in the books.

On the other hand, the 4e Monster Manual does give some info about creature interactions in the encounter suggestions themselves. The Gnoll Entry is a good example there -- Gnolls do keep and train hyenas as animal companions; In the Goblinoids entries, you have goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears parts of the same group (I think, I don't have the book currently). There are other examples where if the monsters are in the same group, then it stands to reason they typically interact together in the default D&D setting for this edition.

For me, I don't mind it, because I place them as I need to for the campaign world, and I think that such information would probably be better for the guide to each campaign setting to explain, rather than set it by default in the core books.

 

[Hammerhead]

Correction: The 4e MM meets his (and my) needs for a book of pre-statted, largely monstrous adversaries.

What use we may or may not find the Monster Manual has little correlation with the type of game we play.

 

[Benimoto]

The 4E MM meets the needs of the type of games that you like to run/play. Thats perfectly fine but I still stand by my assessment.

Sure, but I guess my point was that of a counterexample. I run campaigns in what I consider to be living and lifelike worlds full of a broad selection of creatures, and the 4e MM provides me with what I need for that.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Agreed. But, again, do you need the RULES to tell you the differences. Mechanically, a hippogriff would work perfectly well for an air elemental. It's got fly by attack, gets bonuses to attack when flying. What else does it need?

The fluff? Well, that's what the DM is for. I don't need anyone to tell me what an air elemental eats for breakfast. That's my job when I'm building my world.

Then why play D&D at all when Hero is designed specifically around this whole theme of an effect is an effect is an effect? The game is build around generic powers that can be highly modified to reflect different aspects of the game.

 

[Ourph]

Its win-win for the company, not so much for the gamer.

FWIW, I'm finding the 4e MM to be absolutely chockful of "win".

 

[Jack Colby]

Not only is it not a fatal flaw, it is not a flaw, period. My only regret on 4E content is that they chose to waste a lot of MM space with some very weird and/or silly monsters that will see little use, rather than include as many old D&D classics as possible.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Upon reflection, The MM seems like a perfect fit for the rest of the game. I was looking at the MM as an individual book and considering its possible use with other games. As a book full of adversary statistics with which to populate the game board there is a lot of variety and possible combinations.

 

[AllisterH]

Unique abilities for each monster do far more to define the creature for people actually playing the game than half a page telling me where they live and what they eat.

This is my point of view as well.

When it comes down to fluff, using the same six monsters I listed, a player character isn't going to notice the non-physical fluff difference between a kobold and a goblin.

Even if you consider the 4E MM just a collection of stats, the stats will play a MUCH larger part in making the creatures seem unique to the actual PLAYERS who interact with the creatures than fluff descriptions that frankly, most players never get to interact with.

 

[Imaro]

You know I'm starting to see a real disconnect as far as what makes 4e books good. I mean I'm seeing people praising the DMG as great because it goes through alot of the square one basics of DM'ing... yet I'm seeing the MM lauded because it leaves all the imagination and fluff up to the DM who of course knows how to do this already because he's played for years... but wait then why does he need all the extraneous stuff in the DMG???

I mean really I'm wiling to accept one or the other but IMO, that's bad design when two books that are suppose to complement each other and are part of the same game are praised for being almost opposite in their approach to the game. Really, I think with the new cosmology and breaking of traditions this could have been the perfect opportunity for WotC to throw down some original fluff and background for alot of their monsters, especially if they are truly trying to capture new gamers and broaden D&D's appeal.

IMO, the MM is totally uninspiring and without the wealth of my knowledge from previous editions of the game...Well I'd probably just be using them as pieces in a boardgame like playstyle. I remember when I was a kid and reading through the monster manual was, IMO, cooler than reading the actual game...but there's no way I'd say that about this MM. I guess it's different strokes for different folks, as I see how it could be great for certain people.