MM II Identity Parade

[Dice4Hire]

I would have to fall into the I-want-statblocks-and-no-fluff part of the MMII argument.

When I started 4E, and was on the steep learning curve, I had no energy or concentration left for the fluff side, and the game felt dry and very mechanical. But, as I learned the rules, there became a lot more room for the fluff side. I find the MM and MMII to be very inspirational, and I like the fact there is little or no fluff for the monsters. I can do fluff. What I want to do when I go to the MM is to see a statblock, a picture, and nothing else because the fluff and such is done in a more freeform way, and once I open the book it is time for the crunch of combat.

 

[doctorhook]

Those are the only three listed in the back of the MMII book.

Yes, living in Japan, I just got my copy of the book.

Thanks for the response! It's a bit of a disappointing answer, but I'm still excited about this book nonetheless. I'd still like to see Lizardfolk NPC stats someday, but I suppose some bastardization of Dragonborn will have to suffice for now.

 

[The_Fan]

Those are the only three listed in the back of the MMII book.

Yes, living in Japan, I just got my copy of the book.

Dammit, how come Japan gets stuff so soon while Korea has to wait an extra week? It's not fair!

 

[Jack99]

I want to fight monsters that think, not mindless berserkers. Monsters and villains that pose a strategic threat.

I also like to be in a party that thinks, without mindless berserkers.

Unfortunately I see a higher percentage of younger players who don't want to think, and by coincidence they are also usually WoW players.

Yes, because hack'n slash is a totally new concept due to 4e and WoW..

><

Those are the only three listed in the back of the MMII book.

Yes, living in Japan, I just got my copy of the book.

That's it, I am moving to Japan!

 

[Fallen Seraph]

That's it, I am moving to Japan!

My brother is in Japan right now so this is doubly annoying, *grumbles, grumbles*

 

[Derren]

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.

I guess those people are completely incapable to ignore what the book says then?
Its strange that 4E is so much based around the idea of reflavouring etc. but as soon as the question of fluff comes up there seems to be a secret police who will storm your house as soon as you ignore a tiny little bit of fluff.

 

[Jack99]

I guess those people are completely incapable to ignore what the book says then?
Its strange that 4E is so much based around the idea of reflavouring etc. but as soon as the question of fluff comes up there seems to be a secret police who will storm your house as soon as you ignore a tiny little bit of fluff.

Nah. You can of course. As I said, I do not mind fluff for monsters, I even like it at times, for inspiration (I loved the 2e MM). But I do not see the need for page after page of it either. Of course, YMMV. My comment was a hyperpole in response to the rather ridiculous statement I quoted.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

...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?

The toolkits for the DM are the DMG and the MM. Why should the rules for riddles - that don't just apply to Sphinx, but to various situations, be included in the Sphinx stat block? That sounds just wrong to me. I would want that advice in the DMG. And there is such advice in the DMG! If I'd want to use a riddle in game, but don't want a Sphinx, I shouldn't have to look up suggestions on how to handle riddles in the MM entry for the Sphinx, I should find such advice in the DMG.

If you really want to put all those "monster non-combat situation special rules" in the MM, it will contain a lot less monsters, which restricts what kid of creatures I can use. Maybe my campaign doesn't even have room for a Sphinx, I'd rather have another, equal level monster that fits my Arctic Expedition adventure a lot better.

 

[Belphanior]

I like fluff in the critter compendium, provided it's limited to setting-specific books. I like the Monsternomicon books for the Iron Kingdoms campaign setting, for example. As they're part of an established setting they're an important facet in fleshing it out.

But default D&D only has an implied PoL setting. And the monsters only have an implied PoL backstory to them. Little bit of description, little bit of lore. And that's good enough for me. In fact, I'd be almost insulted if they gave much more fluff in the MM. It would be a waste of paper and my money. I make my own setting, thank you very much. When I play Eberron or the Realms, I'll take a look at their sphinxes. But until then the designers had better not waste pages on crap I'm going to have to weed out in the corebooks.

 

[Nightson]

I like the 4e monster books just the way they are. Nice statblocks with little nuggets of lore. The MM gives the interesting info, it doesn't give us useless, boring info. And when you try to make up that many ecologies then a lot of boring and useless info is going to slip through.