D&D (2024) A slightly different take on the new Monster Manual

[Mercurius]

My personal context is important for what follows. I am not an active player - haven't played in a game in about five years, nor do I plan on playing within the foreseeable future. I will always love D&D, follow the game, and am not closed to playing at some point, but it just isn't a priority for me right now. I am a Gen Xer and generally prefer "older school" style of games, and have particularly felt less interested in the more recent aesthetic turns towards various tropes that just aren't to my liking. No big whoop, really, both because I'm not actively playing, but also because I've always taken the approach of the official rules as a toolbox, not as a prescribed style of play. If I were to start a game up, I'd probably go with one of Free League's wonderful games, which are more appealing to me for a variety of reasons. If I were to run a D&D campaign, though, I'd be fine with the 2024 books, with the caveat that I'd do what I've always done (and how I still think the game is "meant" to be played): take what I like, ignore what I don't - and create a world that fits my aesthetic preferences and/or serves the campaign I had in mind.

I picked up the Monster Manual today, approaching it from the perspective of "I know I'm not the main person WotC imagines pulling it off the shelf, but I'm curious about the latest iteration of the D&D monsterverse." In my view, the Monster Manual--perhaps more so than the PHB or DMG--has always been one of the best windows into the flavor of the game, each volume being a nice "taste" of the edition. So far I have only briefly skimmed it, but was pleasantly surprised. The art was generally to my liking and well done, without any obvious pictures that turned me off. I was impressed with the book as a whole - I really liked both covers, but got the alternate because it is really quite striking.

The general feeling of the book just feels very...fun. It does a great job, from what I can tell so far (admittedly, a cursory glance-through), of embodying D&D in a broad sense. It feels like D&D to me, and even carries a sense of that old wonder I felt when I would pore over the 1st edition Deities & Demigods during recess with friends back in the early 80s. I even loved the feeling of it just be packed full...it is a big book, and every corner seems filled.

Anyhow, after some of the recent talk I thought I'd share this. That one can appreciate new offerings, even if not part of the current "D&D flavor zeitgeist." I'm very far removed from being the target audience for WotC, but I still appreciate at least some of what they're bringing forth (and am looking forward to some of the future offerings). This book at least doesn't feel so specific to "nuD&D" that it excluses "auldD&D." It just feels like...D&D.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I wonder did the fact that you picked the book up without strong preconceptions make a difference? Given that you are not actively gaming means that you do not have a bailiwick to defend so to speak.

 

[Parmandur]

If you haven't checked out the new PHB amd DMG, they are pretty great, too. Esthetic DMG, which was rewritten pretty much entirely.

 

[Mercurius]

I wonder did the fact that you picked the book up without strong preconceptions make a difference? Given that you are not actively gaming means that you do not have a bailiwick to defend so to speak.

Well, I never really took the approach of having a "bailiwick to defend," so not sure it would have mattered much. Or rather, I've never been much of a RAWist, so always felt like the official rules were a toolkit to adapt to your own preference and group style.

Like everyone, I suppose, my aesthetic preferences developed early on, and then evolved as the game evolved. But each edition added cultural and media elements that weren't to my liking, but I never felt like I couldn't do what I want with the game. For instance, 4E was the first edition that felt like it was designed for a different generation of player than I was. This was furthered by the fact that I never really took to video games, so didn't have reference points of playing some of the games that influenced its design, nor did I like some of the new aesthetic qualities that were popular by then (e.g. dragonborn, tieflings, etc). But I could still mostly run the game I wanted to run, at least with the players I was playing with.

I think the same is true of 2024 D&D, although I suppose it would depend upon the group.

 

[Mercurius]

If you haven't checked out the new PHB amd DMG, they are pretty great, too. Esthetic DMG, which was rewritten pretty much entirely.

Yes, I have them as well - though haven't dived into them in any great depth yet.

 

[Voadam]

The general feeling of the book just feels very...fun. It does a great job, from what I can tell so far (admittedly, a cursory glance-through), of embodying D&D in a broad sense.

That’s good to hear. From the reveals about no humanoid entries and no group lore entries for things like demons as a category and reduced word counts for descriptions and the inconsistent alphabetization the negatives had been building up.

Art and descriptions, even if short descriptions, can be fun.

 

[Mercurius]

That’s good to hear. From the reveals about no humanoid entries and no group lore entries for things like demons as a category and reduced word counts for descriptions and the inconsistent alphabetization the negatives had been building up.

Art and descriptions, even if short descriptions, can be fun.

Yeah, I'm not super picky about stuff like iconsistencies and errata...I mean, I probably spent 10% of my childhood hours poring over Gygax's books, so have low baseline expectations for D&D professionalism .

I personally don't like the lack of humanoid entries - it just seemed too obvious and easy to take a "why can't we have both?" approach. But it also makes me wonder if they'll be doing a "Humanoids Manual" at some point.

 

[dave2008]

Art and descriptions, even if short descriptions, can be fun.

To be honest there is a lot of great descriptions and lore in the 2024 MM. The tables and charts in most entries are great. A lot of the lore is similar or more in 2024 compared to 2014. The big difference is with monster groups (dragons, demons, devils, hags, etc.) which don't get any group lore. I miss that. However, individual monster lore is very similar. Heck the tarrasuw has about 2x the lore in 2024 compared to 2014.

Spoiler: 2014 Tarrasque lore

The legendary tarrasque is possibly the most dreaded monster of the Material Plane. It is widely believed that only one of these creatures exists, though no one can predict where and when it will strike.

A scaly biped, the tarrasque is fifty feet tall and seventy feet long, weighing hundreds of tons. It carries itself like a bird of prey, leaning forward and using its powerful lashing tail for balance. Its cavernous maw yawns wide enough to swallow all but the largest creatures, and so great is its hunger that it can devour the populations of whole towns.

Legendary Destruction. The destructive potential of the tarrasque is so vast that some cultures incorporate the monster into religious doctrine, weaving its sporadic appearance into stories of divine judgment and wrath. Legends tell how the tarrasque slumbers in its secret lair beneath the earth, remaining in a dormant state for decades or centuries. When it awakens in answer to some inscrutable cosmic call, it rises from the depths to obliterate everything in its path.

Spoiler: 2024 Tarrasque lore

Among the most devastating creatures in existence, the tarrasque is an engine of catastrophe and a ruiner of nations. A terror of massive size and overwhelming might, this primeval destroyer survives from the earliest epochs of the Material Plane, when it served as a weapon of immortal forces. Since then, the tarrasque has slumbered in secret, rising every few ages to usher in eras of destruction.

The tarrasque is a bipedal, prehistoric Monstrosity that stands over seventy feet tall. Bristling with horns and spikes, its spiny carapace deflects harm and can reflect magical attacks.

The tarrasque is a creature of tireless rage. It lashes out at any creature that catches its attention, thrashing with claws and its mighty tail while swallowing smaller beings whole. It seems to take instinctual offense at the works of lesser beings, venting its rage at buildings, bridges, ships, and monuments. The larger a structure or foe is, the greater the tarrasque’s wrath.

It is a mystery what—if anything—calms the tarrasque, but eventually it returns to its slumber, leaving the world irrevocably changed. While the tarrasque might be halted by incredible opposition, its threat can never be wiped from the multiverse. Whenever the tarrasque is defeated, another tarrasque awakes somewhere else on the Material Plane.
Few things survive the tarrasque’s rampages, and reports of the monster’s devastation are often contradictory, incomplete, or beyond belief. In cases where it leaves no survivors, its calamities might initially be blamed on evil dragons or magical disasters, but the tarrasque frequently leaves behind some unmistakable indication of its passage. Roll on or choose a result from the Tarrasque Evidence table to inspire what marks the monster’s rampages.

Tarrasque Evidence

1d4	Amid Destruction, the Tarrasque leaves...
1	Evidence of a magic spell reflected back on its caster, like Ice Knife or Melf’s Acid Arrow.
2	Massive footprints or claw marks.
3	A russet scale the size of a knight’s shield.
4	A shattered mountain or diverted river.

​

 

[Chaltab]

Even though there's aspects of the new Monster Manual (and all the revised core books) I've been critical of, I really do like the art direction for the most part. Even though the lore entries have been shortened, the lore that is there is really solid. And some of the monsters I can definitely see myself using. It's easy to get bogged down in criticizing the things we don't like so it's nice to appreciate what is good about it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well, I never really took the approach of having a "bailiwick to defend," so not sure it would have mattered much. Or rather, I've never been much of a RAWist, so always felt like the official rules were a toolkit to adapt to your own preference and group style.

Like everyone, I suppose, my aesthetic preferences developed early on, and then evolved as the game evolved. But each edition added cultural and media elements that weren't to my liking, but I never felt like I couldn't do what I want with the game. For instance, 4E was the first edition that felt like it was designed for a different generation of player than I was. This was furthered by the fact that I never really took to video games, so didn't have reference points of playing some of the games that influenced its design, nor did I like some of the new aesthetic qualities that were popular by then (e.g. dragonborn, tieflings, etc). But I could still mostly run the game I wanted to run, at least with the players I was playing with.

I think the same is true of 2024 D&D, although I suppose it would depend upon the group.

Feeling that you do not have a baliwick to defend, immediately take you of about 90% of the drama.