"Core" and Business Models

[Keldryn]

The whole leaving frost giants, etc. out thing reminds me of the early days of 2nd edition AD&D. The first volume of the Monstrous Compendium was drastically incomplete, to the point that the DM's Guide assumed that you owned the first two volumes (and the Fiend Folio, IIRC).

I'm fairly certain that the first two volumes of the Monstrous Compendium were intended to be "core." Volume 3 was labeled "Forgotten Realms Appendix" -- although it did include some non-FR monsters. I always saw Vol. 1 & 2 together as the complete product, and at the age of 15 it didn't really bother me that much that I had to buy the binder with half of the pages as one product and the other half of the pages as the second. Pretty much every MC appendix released after Vol. 2 had problems fitting alphabetically into the bind of Vol. 1 & 2 monsters, due to one monster being printed on each side of the page. I think that Vol. 3 might have been planned well enough that it didn't have this problem, but I can't remember anymore. The "Fiend Folio" MC Appendix was fairly late in the line, IIRC (MC 12?), and I don't recall any other books assuming that you owned it -- definitely not the DMG.

The silver lining to the cloud is the fact that TSR eventually realized the mistake and came out with the Monstrous Manual, which is probably the most complete collection of monsters the D&D game has ever had in one place.

I think this was less to do with the Monstrous Compendiums being "incomplete" books of monsters, but because the whole "Binder" idea sounded good at first but ended up being a clunky, oversized mess full of pages that kept tearing out. The Hardcover book was more durable and could fit as much content into a much smaller size.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I'm fairly certain that the first two volumes of the Monstrous Compendium were intended to be "core." Volume 3 was labeled "Forgotten Realms Appendix" -- although it did include some non-FR monsters.

If WoTC is using 2nd Edition business practices as their model, they're in big trouble. In business, you generally want to do what works, and discard the rest. Not try failed strategies again a decade later, and hope human nature has changed.

I'm hoping this isn't a concern, and a simpler ruleset will make it easier to work around issues. I'm not averse to kit-bashing my own stuff either - heck it took years for WoTC to come out with a Death Knight.

This will also give 3rd party publishers a chance to jump in. I'll bet the first 4E Tome of Horros will have a Frost Giant.

 

[HatWearingFool]

Well if nothing else at least this change should put an end to the compliants some people have of the players looking in the MM during game time. I mean are metagaming players going to go and buy every MM just to cover the iconics? Probably not.

And I have to admit I can't remember the last time a frost giant was used in one of our games.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

They're leaving out Druids, Gnomes, Bards and Monks though. Of those mentioned, I'm really going to miss the Bard and the Druid. They're key to my campaign setting.

same. Lets hope this expansion of core means an expansion of the srd.

 

[Riley]

I don't care too much if there are no frost giants in the MM I, as long as about 2/3rds of it is familiar iconic monsters, and the other 1/3 is incredibly cool monsters that are either entirely new, or were incredibly lame in their previous incarnations.

Oh, and the MM1's gotta have the 5 chromatic dragons, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, kobolds, ogres, and trolls. Bugbears would be a plus.

 

[Paraxis]

I think a good tag line for the 4E Tome of Horrors would be "Now with extra Frost Giants!" ..I like the open game license so much.

I hope the SRD stays about nine months behind the book releases so they sell more hard copies and let WoTC get money out of the deal.

 

[HatWearingFool]

I'm pretty sure the only monster I would miss would be the dragons. As long as dragons are in I should be okay. They are pretty much the only monster that I find to be a requirement for a D&D campagin. All the others I can live with out.

Actually I'm not really sure what the problem is here. If you make your own adventures just use what's in the book. If you buy adventures I'm guessing they will only use monsters in the book or list the stats of custom creatures.

At the risk of throwing some gas on this puppy....

Has anyone thought that maybe they want to force you to buy multiple MM's by creating adventures with multiple Iconics, so you'll have to reference multiple books?

burn baby burn

 

[Jhaelen]

Just two things:
- the definition of 'Core' as used by WotC employees is 'not setting-specific'. I.e. the 3E FF and MM2-5 were 'Core', as well, just like the PHB2 and DMG2. This is not something new and doesn't by itself indicate a change in their business model.

- why is everyone suddenly so excited about frost giants? Heck, I'm playing a campaign in an arctic setting and still haven't used them a single time. And how many different types of giants do you need in your game? How many of them need to be in the first MM? I'd rather they make sure all combat roles are covered equally well for the whole level range first. I'm happy to substitute a different biggie and maybe slap a template on if I should happen to absolutely need a 'frost giant'.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I hope the SRD stays about nine months behind the book releases so they sell more hard copies and let WoTC get money out of the deal.

i for one will not wait 2 years for the druid to come out in srd form so i can use it in my published setting. If that happens, I'm done with 4e.

don't get me wrong, 4 sounds so cool, but i really am getting annoyed at how they are dividing things up.

 

[Zaukrie]

that is my concern also. Why should I wait 2 years (or even 1) for classes to come out that everyone wants to use, and they've written the rules for already? I don't want to retcon my game when Psionics comes out, or when swashbucklers come out, or when druids or gnomes or whatever comes out. I don't want to wait 1-2 years to get monsters that appear in modules and minis packages. I don't want to wait 1-2 years for things that we all know are coming, and have been part of our games. Are they going to retcon FR every year, as psionics, or some other new version of magic comes out? If not, why retcon it for the new edition? Is the new FR built with the classes and monsters that are coming out in year 2 and 3 in mind?