4e Has Less Raw Content: Fact!

[Khuxan]

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.

I'm not Wizard, but what I've found from my read-through of the 4E MM alongside the 3.0 MM is the 3.0 MM has a lot of wasted space with a few absolute gems that the 4E MM is lacking. Aboleths "know many ancient and terrible secrets, for they inherit their parents' knowledge at birth and assimilate the memories of all they consume", the young "remain with their parent for some ten years, obeying the older creature utterly" and "[hope] their prey will enter the water, which they ften make appear cool, clear and refreshing with their powers of illusion". Azers "maintain a tightly regimented society in which every member has a specific place". "When not hunting, basilisks are usually sleeping off their meal", "a basilisk's lair is sometimes distinguished by lifelike stone statues". These are tiny, flavourful snippets that could be included in the 4E MM, but weren't. I think that was a huge mistake.

For what I consider an excellent 4E entry, take a look at the cyclopses. They have this great backstory, an excellent connection to their masters, the formorians, and an out-of-combat role as master craftspeople.

I think if I were writing a 4E MM, I would insist that the entries include:
a) What the monster does, when it's not fighting.
b) How to detect the creature when it's not at home (e.g. piles of brains, which chuul don't eat)
c) Replace the encounter groups prose with details on HOW they interact with other creatures, not just a list of the creatures they interact with.

That said, the 4E MM is still my favourite MM - in fact, it's also my favourite 4E book.

 

[Ourph]

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???

You don't need to be an experienced DM to reskin, modify or create new monsters if you follow the guidelines in the DMG. And for experienced DMs, the guidelines in the DMG are a solid platform that explains the nuts and bolts and then allows the DM to apply their own creativity and inspiration derived from years of gaming.

 

[Imaro]

You don't need to be an experienced DM to reskin, modify or create new monsters if you follow the guidelines in the DMG. And for experienced DMs, the guidelines in the DMG are a solid platform that explains the nuts and bolts and then allows the DM to apply their own creativity and inspiration derived from years of gaming.

I wasn't talking about reskinning...I was talking about using the monsters outside of combat in world creation.

 

[TheSleepyKing]

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.

That's my view exactly. The fluff descriptions aren't about being directly useful -- they're about inspiration. It's why Paizo's Classic Monsters Revisited is such a great book -- it helps you find creative ways to use the monsters to enhance your storytelling. I'm really not a fan of boiling monsters down to their function on the battlemat. D&D, to me, is about storytelling as much as just killing stuff.

Getting back onto the topic of this thread, it's pretty clear to me that the 4e MM has less of this kind of content than 3e (and much, much less than 2e). More statblocks, maybe, but less information about the monsters. Some people seem to be arguing that's a good thing, but I always feel like the more stuff you get the better. It's easier to discard something than to add it.

 

[justanobody]

It's easier to discard something than to add it.

Unless you are cooking, then I agree.

Note: 6 TBS is 18 (24 in Australia) TSP so be very careful when adding that salt.

 

[Ourph]

I wasn't talking about reskinning...I was talking about using the monsters outside of combat in world creation.

I'm not sure it's the place of an RPG rulebook to teach someone how to use their imagination. In my experience, that's something that most people can do by the time they are able to talk, let alone play a pen & paper RPG.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

With the DMG though it gives one the tools to build their own world and understand how to use monsters and NPCs outside of combat. Thus there isn't a need for forced fluff in the MM.

I personally prefer a very-low fluff MM. I say give enough to help generate some ideas, but keep it short and sweet. A paragraph or two at the most.

 

[Hussar]

Ok bolded text done by me to illustrate my point. As pure collections of combat statistics used in running tabletop battles the 4E MM has a lot.

For broad selection of creatures to inhabit a living and lifelike campaign world the 4E MM has next to nothing.

But, again, why is WOTC telling you what your campaign world looks like? Isn't deciding all that stuff the fun part of DMing?

Creating campaigns is your job as a DM. I'm tired of having to arm wrestle with the rules to get the world that I want.

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.

Because the two books serve entirely different purposes? You have the DMG which tells you, "Ok, if you want to make your campaign, do X, Y, and Z". And you have a monster manual that gives you very basic building blocks from which you can then construct X, Y, and Z.

Why do I need a monster manual to inspire me with fluff? There's far more fantasy out there than I could possibly digest in my lifetime to draw inspiration from. I want my world to be Bas Lag. Then I want my next world to be Narnia. Then I want my next world to be Eberron. What I don't want is to have to take a giant bottle of whiteout to the MM every time I start a new campaign, rewriting fluff that doesn't fit because my game and the game that WOTC plays is totally different.

Why do all these purported world builders insist on feeding from the WOTC nipple of world fluff? The DMG tells you how to do it. The MM gives you all the basics. Get out and do it. Why do I need two books that argue with each other? One book says, "Make your world your own" and the next book dictates every bloody monster's place in the world.

 

[Fenes]

As a sort of tangent, I miss the design principles or method to create and modify classes. 4E would feel much more complete if we had a robust system to create the classes we want.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But, again, why is WOTC telling you what your campaign world looks like? Isn't deciding all that stuff the fun part of DMing?

Creating campaigns is your job as a DM. I'm tired of having to arm wrestle with the rules to get the world that I want.

Why do I need a monster manual to inspire me with fluff? There's far more fantasy out there than I could possibly digest in my lifetime to draw inspiration from. I want my world to be Bas Lag. Then I want my next world to be Narnia. Then I want my next world to be Eberron. What I don't want is to have to take a giant bottle of whiteout to the MM every time I start a new campaign, rewriting fluff that doesn't fit because my game and the game that WOTC plays is totally different.

Why do all these purported world builders insist on feeding from the WOTC nipple of world fluff? The DMG tells you how to do it. The MM gives you all the basics. Get out and do it. Why do I need two books that argue with each other? One book says, "Make your world your own" and the next book dictates every bloody monster's place in the world.

Fair enough. Why does WOTC tell me that all these creatures are only good for combat? How much use is the 4E MM to those who do not run combat intensive games? I have not seen the FR 4E supplement and can't comment on its contents but my best guess is that all the fluff that was left out of the MM isn't here either where it "should" be. Can anyone with the supplement shed some light on this?