MM II Identity Parade

[I'm A Banana]

The thing is, the Sphynx's riddle IS there, which is why that strikes me as a particularly poor example

"Consider maybe making up something" isn't good enough, I'm afraid, though I do enjoy the benefits listed there, and think that's further evidence that 4e certainly could go with this, if it had the cojones and the skill.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I would like to subscribe for deep ecology monsters in MMs.

It's my impression that MM4E pleases the kind of DMs who just put monsters by the sake of their strategies. A beholder in a door, a troll in the next, a dragon in another. Not saying this is wrong, it's just a playstlye that I don't really like.

"Monsters -- at least the good ones -- are more than just things to poke with swords, and the MM should reflect that."

The issue with me, is that I just look at the stats since that is what I have trouble making. As such fluff doesn't mean anything to me since it is likely to be something completely different in my game and only shares stats in common with the original MM monster.

 

[Nifft]

See, when I pop open the Monster Manual I want more than just stat blocks with no explanation, no soul, no reason to exist beyond "they are there for PCs to kill".

I want deep fluff. Variations, ideas, inspiration.

Are you wrong? Nah.
Am I wrong? Not really.

We just want different things

Sure, but if you take your things out of the Monster Manual, it's still a manual of monsters.

And honestly, I disliked about 5/6 of the old monster fluff. A lot of it was contrived or clashed with my setting's lore.

The worst, though, were the monsters who were "Star Trek aliens" - "They're just like humans, but they have this one-trick culture! And ... uh ... blue horns!" Those "yet another humanoid" races wasted quite a lot of pages in my old MMs.

With 4e's minimalist statblocks, it's really easy to re-skin monsters to suit my needs. I already have plenty of flavor -- the hard work, IMHO, is testing out the mechanical balance of these critters. That's the work I'm willing to pay someone else to do.

Cheers, -- N

 

[thatdarnedbob]

"Consider maybe making up something" isn't good enough, I'm afraid, though I do enjoy the benefits listed there, and think that's further evidence that 4e certainly could go with this, if it had the cojones and the skill.

Well, maybe you'd prefer it if the Monster Manual had a page of riddles for the sphinx, another page for their dietary habits and manners, and yet another detailing the culture and history of the proud sphinx heritage, but I would prefer it if the book left how the monsters behave to me, the DM. I'm quite capable of making my own plots, thank you.

 

[Jack99]

I would like to subscribe for deep ecology monsters in MMs.

It's my impression that MM4E pleases the kind of DMs who just put monsters by the sake of their strategies. A beholder in a door, a troll in the next, a dragon in another. Not saying this is wrong, it's just a playstlye that I don't really like.

"Monsters -- at least the good ones -- are more than just things to poke with swords, and the MM should reflect that."

Amen.

Or maybe the 4e MM is for DM's who like to *gasp* make up their own fluff! When that is said, I do not mind good fluff. I would even pay for it. I just do not mind the absence of fluff in the case of monsters.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Or maybe the 4e MM is for DM's who like to *gasp* make up their own fluff! When that is said, I do not mind good fluff. I would even pay for it. I just do not mind the absence of fluff in the case of monsters.

Really I think this is what people should view Ecology articles and Draconomicon-type books for to pay for fluff.

I view the MM as a book of stat books with beginning fluff to be either taken away or used as a starting point. Those other books/articles are if you wish to dive into the PoL fluff and view of those creatures.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I think that the ideal amount of fluff, is a paragraph of general description, lore entries and a paragraph on adventure hooks.

The 4e MM1 had too little in the way of fluff, and I think it made it the worst out of the corebooks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, maybe you'd prefer it if the Monster Manual had a page of riddles for the sphinx, another page for their dietary habits and manners, and yet another detailing the culture and history of the proud sphinx heritage, but I would prefer it if the book left how the monsters behave to me, the DM. I'm quite capable of making my own plots, thank you.

...I think I've made the point, over and over again, that I want what I can use in the game.

If I'm using a sphinx, and a riddle is likely to come up, a few rules on making and adjudicating rules for the spinx's riddle, right there with the spinx, are not too much to ask, especially if I'm going to be coming up with them ANYWAY.

That adds layers to the encounter, and a tremendous amount of playability to the game, and makes running the session easier, and all sorts of really good things that a simple list of stat blocks doesn't accomplish.

Making up your own plots is all well and good, but DMs can make their own monster stat blocks, too, and yet we've got more than 300 of them (more than most people will use in a year of D&D).

A sphinx's riddle isn't background fluff. It's stuff I will use in the game, when I'm using the sphinx. Why withhold it? So you can fit in another five statblocks for afterthought monsters like the next Ythrak? Am I truly such a heretic for suggesting that they can use their pagecount better? That people will want to do more to monsters than stab them? And that with the monster is the proper place to put stuff that might happen in an encounter with the monster?

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Neogis, great!! One of my fave little bunch of SOBs

 

[RefinedBean]

Ech. Any book on writing a screenplay or a short story would go a long way to disagreeing with you. The basic "three-act" story structure is present in everything from a Wu-Tang Clan song through an ancient Greek play up to 90% of romantic relationships.

Yeah, but this three-act story structure is ingrained in most of us from the beginning of formal education, to the point that when we're at the age we might pick up D&D for a spin, it's intuitive. Along with stuff like Sphynx's doing riddles and what-not. I don't need my MM or my DMG to go into crazy detail about all that, because I already know it. Why spend bunches of pages on it?

I don't know, maybe things have changed? I remember learning about the sphynx really early as a kid.

Now, the difference in damage between a Gray Render's claws and the stomach of a Purple Worm? That wasn't part of my elementary education. Sadly.

Also, fun thought: Let's get Wu-Tang to play a D&D campaign and then write an album about it. Have ODB be one of the gods.