I want WOTC to make...another "Illithiad" series

[Silverblade The Ench]

Remember the "Illtihiad"?
Absolutely fantastic softback from TSR about our old friends, the illithids

It's amazing, get a copy to check if you can.
TSR also produced another 2 in the series about monsters, one for beholders next for Sahuagin.

The 3rd ed "Lords of Madness" was good, but it wasn't near as much fun as the Illithiad, IMHO.

I know WOTC is releasing a book on the undead next year, and I hope it's good, but I'd love to see really in depth stuff inside it, not small entries, with BIG HUGE FONTS AND ALMOST NO DAMNED SUBSTANCE.

Jeesh, sorry 4th ed is annoying me with that: huge fonts are good for game mechanic stuff you need to scan over quick at the game table, but NOT for "fluff".
I want lots and lots of "fluff"!

Mongoose's "Slayer" series were nice, but they couldn't go into gods and other stuff for copyright reasons I guess, which was a shame, but I'd want books at least twice as thick as those for 4th ed.

Books like that on our fave beasties: illithids; kobolds; orcs; FLUMPHS! ...mmm....sexy, crunchy fluffy fun!

Well, a DM can dream?

 

[Aeolius]

I made flumphs relatives of both mind flayers and aboleth.

I own very few 2e books or supplements. "The Sea Devils", however, remains a personal favorite.

 

[Treebore]

It would be good to let people who missed out on such awesomeness have a chance to get it now. Plus it would likely be hard cover too, which would be extra good. Heck, I might buy such books, depending on how many pages are devoted to monster stat blocks. I don't need those.

 

[Shemeska]

I really don't see WotC putting out anything remotely close in 4e to the level of flavor text in those 2e books. They only had a few 3.x books that came close to that bar, and with the design focus in 4e I just don't see it happening.

We're going to see crunch with minimal flavor text in most books if what we've seen thus far is any indication, and I strongly suspect that they'll try to put anything fluffy into the e-zines for the DDI (but even then I don't see them even approaching what 2e provided).

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Aeolius,
aye, those boosk are gorgeous! love the anatomy artwork etc, too

Treebore & Shemeska,
I do love the mechanics of 4th ed, I'm VERY unhappy about the terrible lack of "fluff", that I've seen so far.
Fluff is absolutely 100% vital for D&D's health.

I'm going ot be crass, sorry: cards games and WOW suck ASS, versus a deep fantasy world that pulls you in.
it's like a bloody cheap snack versus a gorgeous meal.
Doesn't mean the snack's not good, just you don't care for it that much, you will chop and change it, no biggie...but yer favourite meal...mmm!

I didn't start playing "wargames with a fantasy feel", I started playing AD&D cause it felt GREAT!
See the original FIend Folio. Oh wow, what a beaut!
Now, the 4thd ed Monster Manual is superb for mechanics/useablility, that's improved, but it's fluff sucks goblin nuts by comparison !!

D&D is a hell of a lot more than just a game mechanic. IMHO, the baby is sliding out with the bath water, at present...

 

[Treebore]

I do agree that it seems like they are forgetting there is supposed to be story telling going on with that dice rolling. Fluff definitely helps with that.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I do agree that it seems like they are forgetting there is supposed to be story telling going on with that dice rolling. Fluff definitely helps with that.

While fluff helps for some-people I don't think having a lack of fluff is necessarily bad for storytelling. For some people it is easier to storytell when they have a clean canvas to build on and lack of fluff can help with this.

For myself personally, I prefer a lack of concrete fluff. I would much prefer simply "rumour" stuff. Where they simply give a list of different fluff ideas for that particular thing. Thus, have different things you can build on.

Note: This is for setting-free games like D&D. For setting-specific games like WoD, having fluff is EXTREMELY important, though should still be loose or separated from more concrete stuff, ie: having separate books for say a metaplot while corebooks don't include it.

Edit: Probably the closest thing right now for Aberrations will be when the Manual of The Planes comes out. If they do books for each main plane then obviously a Far Realms book would have more too.

 

[Treebore]

While fluff helps for some-people I don't think having a lack of fluff is necessarily bad for storytelling. For some people it is easier to storytell when they have a clean canvas to build on and lack of fluff can help with this.

For myself personally, I prefer a lack of concrete fluff. I would much prefer simply "rumour" stuff. Where they simply give a list of different fluff ideas for that particular thing. Thus, have different things you can build on.

Note: This is for setting-free games like D&D. For setting-specific games like WoD, having fluff is EXTREMELY important, though should still be loose or separated from more concrete stuff, ie: having separate books for say a metaplot while corebooks don't include it.

Edit: Probably the closest thing right now for Aberrations will be when the Manual of The Planes comes out. If they do books for each main plane then obviously a Far Realms book would have more too.

Well, 4E's goal is to pull in new and younger players, right? How good will they be at story telling? I think they would find fluff very helpful in showing them how they could go about that story telling.

Plus I sure didn't take the time to write up such back ground for illithids, Beholders, etc... so I found it to be great stuff to steal and use in my campaign, especially since I loved using Illithids and Beholders.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yes and no, again it depends on the person. I know new players who are off-put by having fluff, and thus are quite relieved when they find out I personally don't use fluff and instead create fluff along with the players together.

The same was true when I got into D&D, we made a point of only reading the rules so we would make up our own fluff and not have pre-determined fluff influence our storytelling.

So yeah, it really is an individual thing and it isn't a universal benefit for storytelling.

 

[Shemeska]

For myself personally, I prefer a lack of concrete fluff. I would much prefer simply "rumour" stuff. Where they simply give a list of different fluff ideas for that particular thing. Thus, have different things you can build on.

Then WotC still isn't giving you what you want, because while they aren't giving much fluff to speak of, what they do present tends to pin things down, precluding alternatives. A distinct monolithic origin story for 4e tieflings for instance, versus the wild and open variety that existed previously. Restrictive change while at the same time gimping on the flavor text. :/