Do we really need monster books?

[RSKennan]

Monster books are second only to settings in my hierarchy of favorite type of books. I love the wierd implied ecologies, the pictures, the special abilities that evoke cool images. I love monster books.

That said, I don't think they're necessary but if done right they add a dimension to the game.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have DM-ed for a few years by using only the MM I plus some creatures from MotP and adventures. I haven't bought other monster books, but if I needed more monsters I would definitely prefer not to have to write them up myself (it's a fun part of the game, but for the DM only, and it takes time). Anyway, I still have to use many from the first MM, and with all the templates, HD advancement and class levels, I don't currently feel the need for new books.

One important thing for me is to re-use existing monsters by just changing the appearance, and it looks like you've done just the same! I think a DM can take even a popular creature with distinctive abilities, such as the Mummy for example, change how it looks like and how those abilities look like (such as changing mummy rot to a of spiritual drain, and drop undead type while keeping the same immunities - but say they are unique abilities of the monster) and very few if none of the players will notice it works just like a mummy...

OTOH, I'd like to have a wider arrange of creatures. My problem with monsters books has been that every time I see a new one, I find it full of oddities which I don't like, and only a few of the monsters seem attractive for my tastes

As a further point, I want to ask you fine people this: do you decide on the monsters first, then generate a story for them? Or do you generate a story and then try find monsters that fit it?

Both. Sometimes the story screams "harpies!" and other times I want to try a monster and then I find a story coming from reading its abilities (or even just the picture).

 

[Abstraction]

The reason I am asking is that I can't decide if I want to put a monster book or two on my "to buy" list. Especially because there are so many monsters in a book that I simply would never use, even in the plain old Monster Manual. Not to mention the fact that I feel like I have to rewrite even the monsters I do use because I have a very definite idea of what my game world is like. Heck, I reworked the goblins, orcs and dark elves in my world!

A few people have said that visuals are key. Would you buy a product of just pictures, you supply your own stats? Is there already such a product? I would probably buy it. In fact, include a bunch of pictures for treasure while you're at it!

 

[Arnwyn]

No, we don't need them. But lots of people like them.

As a further point, I want to ask you fine people this: do you decide on the monsters first, then generate a story for them? Or do you generate a story and then try find monsters that fit it?

Both.

 

[Wombat]

I have three monster books -- MM, Creature Collection I, and Creature Collection II.

I also have monsters floating around in dozens of other supplements that are not specifically monster-based.

So far, I have found this to be way too many. But I also know that, amongst GMs, I am in the minority on this one. I have a handful of "workhorse monsters" -- skeletons, zombies, goblins, etc. Pretty common types, since I figure they make up the majority of enemy critters in any given world. A lot of the others are "one-offs" -- a creature that appears a single time. Then again, I'd say around 50% of "monster" encounters are NPCs. I like the idea of character classes vs. character classes.

As to the question of "monster-or-scenario-first", for me, about 80% of the time, it is scenario first, with monsters added in as appropriate to the scenario I am trying to create. About one adventure in five, however, is based around a specific type of monster: "Gee, I'd really like to see what the group could do against a well-defended vampire and its minions."

 

[Gez]

Yes. I've made up a few monsters of my own, but my favorite monsters aren't homemade, they're critters with a supernifty illo or very interesting background that I just have to use once I see them.

There are some in the MM1 (the Dragonne, for example), but also others from monster books (savant hydra from CC1, kaorti from FF, etc.).

 

[Crothian]

Monster books are about saving time. Sure I can take the time to create the monsters that I use in my game, or I can use the premade ones that someone else created.

 

[Narfellus]

I LOVE monster books. And yes, in a sense, i have "wasted" hundreds of dollars on them because i don't use them that much. But I collect them because the art and creativity is inspiring. Template books are great, and in the past i've made up monsters on my own just by mashing some stats together. I balance those sorts of monsters against how much damage each side dishes out versus how much they can handle.

 

[IronWolf]

I certainly appreciate the Monster books. They are often a source of ideas or plans on how I can work a particular one into a campaign. Sometimes I have something in mind and just want plenty of options to look at when trying to find one that fits my idea, even this looking it is still faster than me creating one from scratch.

As others have already said, I find them a timesaver. With an already busy life, the more tools and game aids that save me time and help keep things interesting are important to me.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

To paraphrase Sir McCartney,

You'd think that people
Would have had enough
Of more monster books
I look around me and I see it isn't so
Some people wanna fill the world
With more monster books
And what's wrong with that?
I'd like to know
'cause here I go again

Seriously, no one ever needs anything to roleplay but imagination and communication. Rules are an extra, dice are an extra, etc.

But a good monster book is both an inspiration and a time-saver; not necessary but often very valuable, in my biased opinion.