Let's Talk About WotC DM Supplements.

[ourchair]

One of the things I've noticed about the supplements that have come out in the 4E product line is that as the years pass, everyone begins to start pooh-poohing the old stuff and most of the new stuff is celebrated as more refined in terms of content and focus.

Now, I'm not here to debate on WHAT direction, focus or content they should be putting in their supplements, but rather, I wanted to ask your opinions about the products so far. What are your thoughts on them?

As in, how do you compare Draconomicon I to Draconomicon II? What do you like most about the planar manuals (Plane Above, Plane Below, MotP)? What would make Underdark better? Is the introduction of adventure sites a good thing?

I'll be honest: I'm considering buying more DM supplements since we're really stepping up the number of campaigns we run, but I have no idea whether I should get some of the new hotness like Underdark, or whether material like Open Grave isn't like useless because monster design has improved.

Enough talk, let's discuss!

 

[Riastlin]

For me, I like the fluff that comes in the supplements. Tell me about Sigil or the City of Brass. What about those cities lets your players feel like they are in one as opposed to the other.

It was the fluff that made me like Open Grave and Manual of the Planes for instance. The fluff gives me ideas for future adventures, campaigns, encounters, etc. If you can throw some crunch (like terrain powers/effects) etc. in there as well, then all the better.

I don't though buy a book like Open Grave or Underdark for the monsters. For me, if I'm just looking for monsters, I'll grab a Monster Manual instead. Having monsters included is nice, but its not the point of the book to me. I'm much more about stoking the creative fires so to speak.

I will say though that I do like the idea of the adventure site books. I figure that worst case scenario, they give me a map I can use later when I'm stuck for ideas.

Unfortunately, I haven't had the finances to purchases any of the more recent books in order to compare them to some of the earlier ones. However, I think that there will always be a tendency to be excited about the newer material simply because it is new. The older a book gets, the less exciting it is because you've had plenty of time to experience it.

 

[Solvarn]

Seed your imagination

I think that the Vor Rukoth supplement is a step in the right direction from a development standpoint. It focuses on the site itself rather than the monsters. It seeds the DM's imagination and lets them fill in the blanks with the resources already out there.

Great product, easily insertable into any campaign world.

 

[giant.robot]

For me, I like the fluff that comes in the supplements. Tell me about Sigil or the City of Brass. What about those cities lets your players feel like they are in one as opposed to the other.

It was the fluff that made me like Open Grave and Manual of the Planes for instance. The fluff gives me ideas for future adventures, campaigns, encounters, etc. If you can throw some crunch (like terrain powers/effects) etc. in there as well, then all the better.

I don't though buy a book like Open Grave or Underdark for the monsters. For me, if I'm just looking for monsters, I'll grab a Monster Manual instead. Having monsters included is nice, but its not the point of the book to me. I'm much more about stoking the creative fires so to speak.

I will say though that I do like the idea of the adventure site books. I figure that worst case scenario, they give me a map I can use later when I'm stuck for ideas.

Unfortunately, I haven't had the finances to purchases any of the more recent books in order to compare them to some of the earlier ones. However, I think that there will always be a tendency to be excited about the newer material simply because it is new. The older a book gets, the less exciting it is because you've had plenty of time to experience it.

I was going to say the same thing. I like the DM supplements because they give me ideas and let me liberally steal details when I'm trying to flesh out something of my own. Rename a couple of NPCs and change a few details of a town and voila you've got yourself a location with a lot of back story for players to chew on. You need to have something to tell them when they make that high Knowledge, History, or Streetwise check.

As far as the quality of subsequent books goes I think anyone something for a while will get better at it. The latest splat books Aren't necessarily written better but they do have updated stat blocks and conform to errata that didn't exist when earlier books were written. They also don't have to cover more basic elements since previous books already did that. The Dark Sun Creature Catalogue had a couple pages worth of traps and hazards related to the Dark Sun setting but didn't have to cover more traditional traps and hazards because other books already have that information.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I actually think that overall the fluff is a little worse in 4e than it was in the equivalent 3e books.

Compare the 3e Manual of the Planes to the 4e. Both are good, and have cool ideas, but the 3e MotP is absolutely bursting with adventure and campaign ideas, one after another.

The 3e Draconomicon was a an excellent fusion of fluff and crunch. So are the 4e Draconomicons, but... the fluff just feels a little limp.

Perhaps it is merely a matter of taste... I simply prefer the older books.

I am actually more pleased with the 4e "DM books" that give practical advice for how to manage the game -- the two 4e DMGs are excellent at this, and there is advice scattered in other places.

I also really like the 4e books that have campaign outlines. Those are very helpful to me in coming up with a rough idea of what the PCs will be doing when, and they often spark specific adventure or even encounter idea. (So, they work at the highest level -- campaign -- all the way down to the most granular level -- encounter.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think they can be fun to read. It's hard to say if they've gotten better or not, but I think the newer books are generally at least as good as the older ones. The crunch has definitely improved. Demonomicon has both awesome fluff and crunch. I think it is the best book they've done so far. I'd rate all the other generic supplements about equally. MotP's crunch was a bit on the low side of the scale, but it was the first supplement.

Mostly I agree with Riastlin, for pure monster stuff you don't need supplements, but they do tend to have good fluff to go with the monsters. You can get the stat blocks from DDI but it is nice to get some good story with your monsters. MM3 is good for that too, but the supplements can put a lot more into it than a monster book can. I've gotten a lot of use out of the Draconomicons, Demonomicon, and Open Grave. The other planar books not quite so much but then again we haven't played a ton of high level stuff where they really come into play more. Underdark is fairly cool and if I ever manage to get the players into going deep in the earth I'll get some good use out of it.

Basically I'd say they are all good. If you are going to want to focus on a given environment or theme that a book covers it is well worth getting that book. Hopefully they'll do a Shadowfell and a Feywild book at some point as those really would be pretty interesting and useful. Beyond that though it seems like they've rather mined out the "Book about this or that location" thing. I guess we'll have to see what sorts of stuff come next.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Enough talk, let's discuss!

You sir, have successfully cast confusion.

 

[webrunner]

I take my DM supplement every day with water, as directed on the package.

Enough talk, let's discuss!

What is a DM? A miserable little pile of sourcebooks.

 

[the Jester]

Well, while the mechanics are better in later books (and that's pretty much the case in any edition- look at the mechanical improvements in monsters over the lifespan of 3e), 4e's early stuff is both adequate mechanically and in terms of its flavor. Some of the later stuff is better, but that's not always true.

Personally, I'd arrange my 4e DM supplements, from best-at-top to worst-at-bottom (with ties on the same line), about like this:

Monster Manual 3 -- Adventurer's Vault -- Tomb of Horrors
Open Grave
Dungeon Master's Guide 2
Dungeon Master' Guide
Manual of the Planes
Monster Manual 2 --- Draconomicon I --- Underdark
Monster Manual
The Plane Above -- Dungeon Delve

That's not quite the order I would recommend buying them in, though- that would really depend on whether you were running something in particular (if you're running ToH, OG moves up the list, while if you're doing a homebrewed campaign focused on lizard folk Draconomicon moves up).

Also, there are a number of DM books I don't own (AV2, Drac2, etc).

 

[Riastlin]

I actually think that overall the fluff is a little worse in 4e than it was in the equivalent 3e books.

I agree with this statement. My biggest complaint with 4th Ed. is that it is relatively fluff-light. This is particularly true in the PHBs and MMs for instance (though I have not picked up MM3 yet).

I guess this is why I like the books like Open Grave and Manual of the Planes so much because they give me my fluff.