Fluff: Paizo vs 4e Monster Manual

[Korgoth]

I .... wait! What was that creaking noise outside?

Bugbear.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I don't think we're ever going to be in danger of this being all there is. I just know that if this was all there is for my 4e games, I'd be pretty content. Any new monsters I need can be covered by 4e's decent monster creation engine. I don't need breadth, I need depth!

Others may need breadth. I counted over 5,000 monsters, personally, by the end of 3e. I used maybe 500-1,000 in 8 years. 10 monsters a year suits me fine.

I guess the other consideration is 10 monsters that I would use in a year would be fine. There's plenty of Ythraks in the world (and quite a few in 4e), after all.

 

[TomWhitbrook]

This kind of confuses me, because it would seem that good world information is largely setting-independent.

Here's where you and I differ. In my opinion, good world information is 100% setting dependent, and that's what I like in my monster fluff too. I don't care about goblins in general, I care about them in Greyhawk (or whatever the setting is), where they live, their customs, or whatever, in this very world, and what they're like in another has no impact for me.

That said, I see where you're coming from, and I'm not saying you're badwrongworldbuilding, or anything like that. I can see how you adapt a specific resource into a "generic", which is certainly of intrigue to me. But our respective mileages from an individual product would vary greatly, I think.

 

[MerricB]

This is a big win for the Monster Manual. It actually gives you monsters.

However, I think this would be an excellent supplement to the MM. It's really not a one or the other proposition. If you get one book, you get the Monster Manual. If you get a second book, this looks like an fine purchase for those who like more fluff.

Cheers!

 

[Ant]

While I am investing in Paizo's Golarian setting my players won't be journeying in it any time soon.

That makes not one iota's difference to how very useful the Classic Monsters Revisited book is to me in the current setting I'm running (Greyhawk).

 

[Nebulous]

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.

I can see this point of view, but i will be greatly disappointed if the entire run of 4e monsters manuals does not even attempt to add more descriptive text.