Fluff: Paizo vs 4e Monster Manual

[Ruin Explorer]

As it's available in PDF, this is a sure purchase for me. I hope WotC can put out some similar fluff-heavy stuff. I know they can come up with it MM4, as Doug snarkily points out, is an example. I'd happily pay for books which really fleshed out (with SOME stat blocks but not the focus) the sort of monsters that are in MM1.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I will buy $30 worth of this much faster than I will buy another Monster Manual like the one that WotC gave to us. I will buy $100 worth of this, over and over again. This is exponentially more useful to me.

A winnar is Paizo.

It limits the number of monsters it looks at, and specifically sets out to make them interesting and SCARY again.

YES! One thing that 3e's massive quantity of monster manuals (of which I bought many, many) tells me is that I do not need MORE monsters. I need BETTER monsters.

 

[IanB]

I will buy $30 worth of this much faster than I will buy another Monster Manual like the one that WotC gave to us. I will buy $100 worth of this, over and over again. This is exponentially more useful to me.

A winnar is Paizo.

While I wish the MM had more fluff than it does, a 75%/25% fluff:crunch ratio is a bad thing from my perspective.

The main thing I want from a MM is stat blocks. I can fill in and create my own fluff, but even in 4e, stat blocks take time and the more of those I have ready to go, the better.

The current MM feels like it is at about 20% fluff/80% crunch at best, which is a little too far the other way I think; in particular I miss the text descriptions of what monsters actually look like. I think something like a 33%/66% split would suit my needs best.

 

[Filcher]

I will buy $30 worth of this much faster than I will buy another Monster Manual like the one that WotC gave to us. I will buy $100 worth of this, over and over again. This is exponentially more useful to me.

I respectfully disagree. There is certainly room in the market for Paizo's product, but if I bought the MM and ended up with 10 monsters I would be pissed.

 

[JVisgaitis]

While I wish the MM had more fluff than it does, a 75%/25% fluff:crunch ratio is a bad thing from my perspective.

I think 75%/25% is pretty generous. I'd say it looks like more like 90%/10%, but I haven't done an actual word count.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Another huge fan of Classic Monsters Revisited.

Strangely though, I also like the fluffless presentation of the 4E MM. I think the reason is that Classic Monsters describes monsters set in a specific campaign setting and so all that fluff is fantastic to make them a part of that world. The 4E MM doesn't have a default world and I appreciate not having to shoehorn in any fluff to a world that I'll be creating.

 

[TomWhitbrook]

I am something of a monster manual extremist. For a generic game, which the D&D core set is, the 4E MM is absolutely what I want to see: Lots of crunch, lots of monsters, but empty vessels who I can fill up with the personalities of my own worlds.
For something that is setting specific, though, I am absolutely 100% the other way. My ideal setting specific book o' monsters is WHFRP's Old World Bestiary. It's the bible by which I judge other manuals that claim to be fluff rich.
Paizo's monster compilation is another example of their high quality creative work, but for me, who doesn't run pathfinder, it's a bit of a non starter. That's the double edged sword of a fluff heavy approach- great if it's the setting you want, worthless to anyone else.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I respectfully disagree. There is certainly room in the market for Paizo's product, but if I bought the MM and ended up with 10 monsters I would be pissed.

It's better for my games to have 10 monsters that tell me everything I need to know to play their roles in my game than it is for me to have 100 monsters that only give me combat information.

I'm probably a deviant, but I've got a greater need to create a cohesive adventure than I have a need to run combats.

I do need some combat information, absolutely. Couldn't do without it. But attack bonuses and hit points don't tell me enough about how to use them to craft an adventure. I need motives, habits, characters, interactions, resources, role-playing aids, and stat blocks. The 4e MM gives me stat blocks and about 200 variations on "kills the PC's because it wants to kill the PC's." It has some good stuff, but they are oases in the desert and they need some more development.

That's the double edged sword of a fluff heavy approach- great if it's the setting you want, worthless to anyone else.

This kind of confuses me, because it would seem that good world information is largely setting-independent. If you don't play pathfinder, whatever, wouldn't the character info help you run ANY goblin -- or any creature that you kind of wanted to run like those goblins -- better?

 

[Filcher]

It's better for my games to have 10 monsters that tell me everything I need to know to play their roles in my game than it is for me to have 100 monsters that only give me combat information.

Fair enough. But imagine if this sort of product was the only source for monsters and came out once a year.

"Bugbears again? They were spooky the first dozen times ..."

Again, there is certainly room in the market for this sort of product. But if it was all there was, I would be sorely disappointed.

 

[Agamon]

It looked good, and I liked their takes on certain monsters in the first PFAP, but those monsters wouldn't really fit into my 4e setting. I'm pretty good at fluffing my setting myself, so no sale here. Maybe if I someday decide to run a game in Golorian (is the setting book still going to be system neutral?)