Did anyone like the old Monstrous Compendium ring-binder format?

[dead]

I wasn't too keen on the format because I have a fondness for books and also I found the individual pages would dog-ear and tear at the holes in the binder.

I'm glad they later came out with the Monstrous Manual tome.

Nevertheless, I've kept my Monstrous Compendium and all the Appendicies because I think it an interesting moment in the history of D&D.

Are there any other odd formats that people have come up with for RPG products?

 

[Crothian]

I sold mine when money got really tight a few years back. Sad days.

I liked them for a while since I could take the different compendiums and put them in one binder for easy use. Made it easier then looking thorugh a lot of differnet books. But they didn't last long. They did not take causual use well and the wear and tear caught up with them fast. If they would have been more durible, I would have liked them even more.

 

[Psion]

Having been an old Star Fleet Battles fan, I liked the idea beforehand.

After using them for a while... and seeing how poorly the pages actually "meshed"... I came to prefer the later Monstrous Manual format.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I liked the idea, and used several boxes of ring protectors (little paper rings that go over the holes to reinforce them.) on the pages.

But after a while they bollixed the system - they would have two monsters, one on each side of the page, which was fine. Until a critter came along that fell between those two monsters alphabetically.

I still like the idea, and prefer the 'one page, one critter' format to the 'how many monsters can we fit on the page?' approach of 3.0. (Fixed a bit in 3.5.) I was glad to see Sword & Sorcery using a similar format in Creature Collection. But these days I prefer my critters on PDF, where I can cut from the book to paste the stat block in my current project.

The Auld Grump

 

[Wolf72]

yeah ... but, what AG said (got really annoyed when the two monsters per page, back/front, got in the way alphabetically)

also they could get a bit bulky ...

 

[Piratecat]

"I hated it so... much... it... it... the... it... the... flames... flames... flames... on the side of my face... breathing... breathless... heaving breaths..."

Bonus points if you recognize the reference. And yeah, it lost its appeal about the point that they put monsters on either side of the same page that started with different letters of the alphabet.

 

[scipio]

"I hated it so... much... it... it... the... it... the... flames... flames... flames... on the side of my face... breathing... breathless... heaving breaths..."
QUOTE]

Clue. Mrs. White...

 

[Wormwood]

I. Loved. It.

I had TWO folders...full of monsters.

Good times. Good times.

 

[IronWolf]

I didn't really like it. The durability was an issue and I just like the feel of a book. Creative use of postit flags as bookmarks or index cards easily allows me to find the monsters I need in a real book quickly.

 

[der_kluge]

A friend of mine gave me MM I and II, which was great! I ended up acquiring many more, in fact I had most of them. Of course, I ended up borrowing some, gave them to Dad, and said, "photocopy these for me!" Which he did, kindly. So , I had copies of Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, and at least 1 or 2 others. I think I had all of them except for Spelljammer II and Kara Tur.

I even had the Al-Qadim one, which is apparently extremely rare, and highly sought after by fans of that CS.

edit:Oh, but as to the question - initially I really loved the concept. But, later on the pages ripped, and I just hated it. So, no, I didn't like it after a while.