Coming to a MM near you- FLAVOR!

[Scribble]

Um, did anyone ask for fluff on why encounter groups were together? Anyone? Hello? Anyone?

It was probably more along the lines of people saying they didn't use them, because they didn't make any sense flavor wise.

I think it's a decent idea of how to introduce more flavor into the book. the 2e compendiums were fun to read, and they made the creature seem more, like libving things, but at the table? Oye that was a lot of useless info cluttering up the screen.

So the trick is how do you introduce more flavor, but do it in a way that doesn't work against the primary function of a D&D stat block, and the 4e ideal that the books should be able to be used at the table quickly and easily.

Doing it this way gives the DM something that makes the creatures seem more realistic (by giving the reader a view into how and why they interact with the world around them) and also gives them something they can immediately use (encounter groups that work well together mechanically.)

 

[avin]

I think I would only be disappointed in the fluff if it was like a lot of 4e fluff is already. "The VerbNoun NounVerber lurks in dungeons and likes to kill adventurers because it is angry/hungry/evil/bored/insane/constipated. It likes to hang out with NounVerb WildShadowWarDarknesses, because they're BFF's."

Well said.

If Wizards think that sustaining this style will appeal the people which feedback they are following, well, it's gonna be a miss.

 

[Rechan]

The one thing I want above all others in this MM is that the table of contents be Alphabetical to the monster's Group.

MM2 had individual monster names in the ToC, which were out of sync. Such as Herald of Hadar in the H area, but the Herald of Hadar is a Star Spawn, belonging under S.

Leave Individual Monster names out of the ToC. Do it like the MM1. Geez.

 

[avin]

Well, after Compendium and Monster Builder I can't say I used the table of contents, so either option is fine for me.

By now I assume the book is set in stone or there's still time for changes?

 

[Nebulous]

I'm on the wagon that the MM3 needs more fluff, or something, anything, to make it more fun to read and inspires ideas. The MM2 was an improvement over the MM1 which i thought was a fairly poor book. Adding some kind of ecology and habitat or interesting encounter group is a step in the right direction. Personally, i think the encounter groups are next to useless and i have never, ever used one. I wonder how much space could have been saved if they cut all the encounter group paragraphs out and replaced it with something else?

 

[MichaelSomething]

As I always do in threads that talk about flavor in RPGs, here's a link to my list of flavor-based products. If you want flavor, there are plenty of people besides WOTC who are willing to sell it to you.

 

[LostSoul]

Well said.

If Wizards think that sustaining this style will appeal the people which feedback they are following, well, it's gonna be a miss.

I think it's poorly said, since the MM doesn't do that sort of thing.

Here's a random page from the MM1:

Arcana DC 15: Long ago, all dwarves were slaves to the giants and titans. More than one variety of dwarf failed to escape during the initial revolution, including the galeb duhrs. However, unlike the azers that continue to serve their masters in the Elemental Chaos, many galeb duhrs have slipped away from their brutish masters into the world. On the other hand, some still serve their hill giant and earth titan overlords, both in the Elemental Chaos and in the natural world.

Arcana DC 15: Gargoyles prefer to nest on high rocky outcroppings and the rooftops of tall stone buildings; however, they can also be found in caverns deep below the earth. Rituals can summon gargoyles to serve as guardians of locations or prisons, or to hunt down people or items.​

 

[Primal]

If you have 90% market share, I doubt you care just how fragmented the remaining 10% is.

IIRC, in RPGs WoTC has about 43-45% market share, White Wolf is second with 22% and GURPS third with 5% -- these have been pretty consistent, at least for the first half of the decade (caveat: I think my most recent source is from 2005 or 2006, so I may be wrong).

 

[Primal]

It was probably more along the lines of people saying they didn't use them, because they didn't make any sense flavor wise.

I think it's a decent idea of how to introduce more flavor into the book. the 2e compendiums were fun to read, and they made the creature seem more, like libving things, but at the table? Oye that was a lot of useless info cluttering up the screen.

So the trick is how do you introduce more flavor, but do it in a way that doesn't work against the primary function of a D&D stat block, and the 4e ideal that the books should be able to be used at the table quickly and easily.

Doing it this way gives the DM something that makes the creatures seem more realistic (by giving the reader a view into how and why they interact with the world around them) and also gives them something they can immediately use (encounter groups that work well together mechanically.)

You can always ignore the fluff, if you don't want/like it... however, if you want it, writing it all yourself or referring to your old MMs/MCs is not easy (especially at the table). Besides, well-written fluff may even inspire adventure or campaign ideas -- it has happened to me many times.

 

[Nebulous]

As I always do in threads that talk about flavor in RPGs, here's a link to my list of flavor-based products. If you want flavor, there are plenty of people besides WOTC who are willing to sell it to you.

I have a lot of those books and i still want a 4e monster manual that is more fun to read.