Coming to a MM near you- FLAVOR!

[avin]

WotC is not marketing to your group. They cannot make a book that is For Kamikaze Midget's game.

Wotc wasn't marketing MM to MOST DMs, period.

They figured that out, analysed feedback and decided that "one orc + one ooze" encounter is absolutely horrible metagaming nonsense that could only appeal to people playing "Tactical Combat With Minis and Dices", not D&D.

DM's who are happy with "flying monsters that attacked the party" can safely use Compendium and Monster Builder. Monster Manuals, on the other hand, need to make sense, or it's not D&D anymore, we're back to Chainmail.

Nothing personal but I would have fired the guy who created a "orc and ooze" encounter.

 

[avin]

Which is exciting for me, and I can't imagine it being harmful for the dude who just needs a statblock RIGHT NOW, either.

These dudes are already complaining that our fluff is wasting space of their lovely statblocks.

But, we could use the same argument. They say if we want fluff we should create? Cool, now, if they want more crunch than the tons we already have on Compendium they should create using Wotc's guidelines and MOnster Builder.

Monster Manuals were 4th editions biggest mistake, as a product, inferior to any of their former versions.

Wizards finally managed to perceive this and start correcting their mistake.

 

[Windjammer]

I think Kamikaze Midget is onto something. The background information on monsters in the MMs is really singularly geared to how the monsters behave once they are engaged in combat (or immediately prior to their being thus engaged). It's only when you look up 4E monster background material outside the MMs that you find information of a different sort at a level of detail that's worth talking about.* Best example: copper dragons, the jesters among the dragons. Write-up in MM2 reduces them to rather bland combat beasts with very little to separate them from other creatures (let alone, other dragons). But when you get to their background write-up in Draconomicon 2 there's all the emphasis on how to roleplay these fascinating creatures outside combat.

The question remains whether this division of content - combat-oriented MMs, supplemented by non-combat oriented background material in other sources - really was that unpopular to merit revision on WotC' part. Because apparently it did.


* Exceptions are there (write ups for Orcus in MM1 e.g.) but are few. As to the intelligence of the background DC entries, and the ease these can be mocked with, I'm surprised no one resurrected the old meme.

 

[Pour]

I think MMs should become the definitive source of fluff, ecology, habitat and all of that, devoting (dare I say) even MORE than one page to flavor, and let the Compendium be the source of all stats as they are for no-nonsense DMs. If you don't want the frills, use the monthly-updated, searchable database chalk full of stat blocks.

I think adding the meat back to the potatoes would also give new value to the books themselves and eliminate a little bit of the "I got DDI so I don't need to buy books" thing going on.

And come to think, I would actually consider purchasing fluff-filled versions of MM1 and MM2.

I suppose someone could counter that, ultimately, adding more fluff to the books, from which the Compendium stat blocks are drawn, would mean less monsters per book, but you know what, so what? I'd rather 100 fleshed-out monsters than 200 skimmed ones. Plus think of all the other sources for stats, including the magazines, supplements and Monster Builder.

 

[Dannager]

I suppose someone could counter that, ultimately, adding more fluff to the books, from which the Compendium stat blocks are drawn, would mean less monsters per book, but you know what, so what? I'd rather 100 fleshed-out monsters than 200 skimmed ones. Plus think of all the other sources for stats, including the magazines, supplements and Monster Builder.

I'd rather 200 skimmed ones than 100 fleshed-out monsters, and I know a lot of other people who would agree with me.

The other sources for stat blocks are less than ideal. The magazines put out far more player options than they do monster stat blocks, and stat blocks from Dungeon are often slightly modified versions of already-printed monsters. Supplements contain some stat blocks, but unless they're monster-oriented supplements (Open Grave, Draconomicon) they won't have many. The Monster Builder doesn't add any stat blocks. It just makes it easier to create your own and modify existing ones.

 

[Aeolius]

Did anyone else see "Coming to a MM near you- FLAVOR!" and expect a thread about a cookbook?

 

[Nifelhein]

Truth be told, the MM has left all the stats dominate it, it is now a purely mechanical supplement that I dread the thought of readin,g in 2e I would read every single monster entry in any monster book I purchased sometimes an entire adventure or campaign would revolve around ideas sprung from those readings!

This vision of the Monster Manual as a purely mechanical book is not present on the monster entry only, you can find it on the index, where each monster is presented separately, it is present when they give you the general categories of creatures in D&D4, since you don't get any fluff but mechanical descriptions of how those creatures work.

Furthermore the mechanics only vision of monsters is present on the entire layout and organization of the MM, they could organize them by theme, creature type, terrain / environment, and so many other ways, but of them all, the chosen one was the bland alphabetical order.

Somehow having forest living critters all in the same area of a book helps me visuzlie who are those monsters and how a forest would be inhabited. Having monsters be a group of stats separated by their first letter and organized with the mechanical side of the game is something I find stupid and lacking, at best.

With D&DI it only became worse, since I can find the mechanics that best fit my group's needs for opposition and theya re all in one place.

Anyone care to imagine how using D&D4 monster manuals would be in a computer free game preparation? I could have nightmares of that.

 

[S'mon]

BTW I voted 'more fluff' in the survey, but I have to say that I find the 4e MMs extremely useful in play; for my GMing style they are vastly, vastly superior to the 3e versions. The way they give me everything I need to run the monster is just great. I'm glad they avoid travesties like 3e's detailing all humanoids as 1st level warriors, so you ended up with published adventures full of War-1 Drow long range patrols who wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in the Underdark (in 1e all Drow encountered outside the cities were at least Fighter-2).

They don't have much less fluff than most of the entries in the 1e MM I grew up on; although the lack of descriptions can be annoying, and I'd prefer more core monsters ('earth elemental') and fewer exotics.

 

[Dannager]

Anyone care to imagine how using D&D4 monster manuals would be in a computer free game preparation? I could have nightmares of that.

It would still be awesome. Before I was using the Compendium, that was how I did it. Light years easier than using the 3.5 Monster Manuals.

 

[Chrono22]

It would still be awesome. Before I was using the Compendium, that was how I did it. Light years easier than using the 3.5 Monster Manuals.

Yeah I feel the same way about The Hypertext d20 SRD (v3.5 d20 System Reference Document) :: d20srd.org , and redblade.org . Fantasy Grounds :: The Virtual Tabletop for Pen & Paper Roleplaying Games and other internet tabletops also make great additional tools for a GM.
Referencing monsters, applying templates and advanced enemies becomes a breeze when the information is just a click away.
Digital support FTW.