MM4 Table of Contents up

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I trust you'll get over it.

He doesn't get over anything.

He's still pissed that Cheers went off the air.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Early 20s, started D&D in 8th grade, with AD&D 2E and moved on to 3E/3.5E (at a painstaking loss of $2500+ from 2E books, though the FR stuff is useful still).

Well, I'm 40, started playing in 1979. I bought all that 2e stuff on top of the 1e stuff and some of the older D&D stuff. So my own "loss" (if it can be called that) when 3e came along was even greater.

The PrC format, for example. Designed to help the uninspired, confused, or the skeptical. Takes up quite a number of pages. Loss of more material is a result. Also, the quality of the PrC has been lost, now, thanks to it stifling creativity and I have noticed more and more disagree with the new format. Even those that like it believe it's a little too excessive.

Actually, as I said on the other thread about "putting the A back into D&D," I like having some context for prestige classes. It gives an indication of what the designer had in mind. Too many prestige classes are just tossed out there and often are concepts that could've been better covered by way of multiclassing and feat and skill selection. This format forces some thought be put into them. Doesn't mean all of the recent ones are great, but the ones I've seen have generally been a bit better thought-out.

That's just one example. Sticking adventures in a book that has nothing to do with a new adventure module is another, loss of room for something used only once. Why not post them on the web as an WE?

I don't like full-blown adventures in the hardbacks either, but many of the ones in the recent books seem like what could be used as "typical" dwellings for cretaures and classes, which could, therefore, be re-used as random encounters. In addition, they could help establish "styles" for certain creatures, which could either help or hinder players (and characters) when they come in sight of the lairs.

Mainly the amount of content within the books lately. And the fact that every book is becoming a "We've done the work for you" instead of "Here're the tools, a couple of examples, now go and make your game YOUR game."

Yeah, but as I was getting at earlier, if someone is that inclined to do things on their own, why would they even need good-sized books of new rules crunch? It's a paradoxical notion.

I have realized that, also. For every naysayer for the MM4, for example, there're those who absolutely love it. I still would like to voice out my disagreement with the new format, but then again my voice has no meaning if sales show otherwise.

And when people pipe-up in opposition to something I favor, I feel I should reply so as to make my position known, also.

Unearthed Arcana is for game mechanics. What I mean by tools are new spells, PrC, feats, monsters, new systems (that will be supported, btw).

Isn't there a ton of any of these elements already out there? I like choice, but there is so much choice now that I think there's plenty of room for WotC to switch things up now and then. I already have all the MMs, the three Tomes of Horror, the Monsternomicon, monster books from Bastion and any number of other companies...more monsters than I could ever use, especially with templates and classes. I'd rather have quality over quantity now, and I feel the format the MMIV is using is quality.

I mention mostly crunch material, but I agree with putting the fluff in side by side with it. I believe the greatest books were Player's Handbook 2, Monster Manual 3, Races of Stone, and Draconomicon, for example. The you have your mostly fluff books like Power of Faerun, that was great too. When WotC sets themselves on such a pedestal with such books, then when I see crappy books (made in comparison to those mentioned above, for example) it makes at least someone like me wonder "Why'd they stray from a good thing?" or "Didn't they know any better?"

I actually think all the books you list were really good. So I don't exactly see where the disconnect is occurring here.

I think what it is, they go too far with their "new toys". With the MM4, for example, most of the book is classed monsters from MM3.5 (and for others, it was already minis). Why use the Monster Manual 4 for this? It should've been a separate book or they should've gone in slowly with the new idea. But I assume they were looking for a strong reaction so they plugged half the book with it.

I haven't looked at the ToC closely, so I don't know if "most" of the MMIV is advanced/classed older critters. But, I will say that I'd liek to see a "Rogue's Gallery" product separate from the monster books, but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing here.

As for "quantity", well, like I have mentioned before. Less monsters now, it has a lower count than even Monsters of Faerun. It's a Monster Manual that should give people more new monsters (and more is better, because they can cover all creature types at least), it's always been that way. I feel like if I get MM4, I am not getting what I was expecting to get when purchasing a Monster Manual, a book on new monsters, and the price remains the same. An Enemies&Allies II would've been better for their classed NPCs type book.

Like I said above, there are tons of critters to choose from already. Doing something different in this book is preferrable, to me, than yet another collection of critters along the lines of the worst of TSR - the endless reams of half-baked critters in the various Spelljammer Monstrous Compendiums. As it is, there are examples of such stuff in the MMs and the Fiend Folio as it is.

 

[Razz]

You do realize there is no mythic guarantee to have a MM book come out every few years, right? That if the book had been called Enemies & Allies II, it would still be the same freaking book with the same cost? And then, of course, people would be complaining that it had too many new monsters that belonged in an MM product.

As far as I can tell, WotC didn't name the book in a way you like. Sorry. I trust you'll get over it.

You completely took my post the wrong way.

I said the classed monsters should've been in a book titled Enemies&Allies II and the Monster Manual 4 should've stayed just that, a book of "monsters". Not mix the two in one book and market it as Monster Manual 4. It's half the book being nothing but classed "classical" monsters that most people are peeved about (that and the numerous amount of spawns of Tiamat, also)

 

[Henry]

Folks, I really would like to hear what more we're supposed to see from MM4? We've seen previews and the ToC, I don't believe there's anything much else to point out.

The Book.

 

[Razz]

Well, I'm 40, started playing in 1979. I bought all that 2e stuff on top of the 1e stuff and some of the older D&D stuff. So my own "loss" (if it can be called that) when 3e came along was even greater.

I see it only as a loss because I don't remember the last time I looked back on a 2E book I own that wasn't Forgotten Realms. They're just sitting there taking up space in my home. My friends, who've helped me purchase many of the books as well, are peeved at the loss of their cash, too, seeing it sit unused on a shelf in some dank storage area. They got over it, but it leaves a bad taste about D&D still.

Actually, as I said on the other thread about "putting the A back into D&D," I like having some context for prestige classes. It gives an indication of what the designer had in mind. Too many prestige classes are just tossed out there and often are concepts that could've been better covered by way of multiclassing and feat and skill selection. This format forces some thought be put into them. Doesn't mean all of the recent ones are great, but the ones I've seen have generally been a bit better thought-out.

Problem is, it's too much text and it's text none of my players find inspiring in the least. Mainly because the text entails a "This is how you shoud play one" instead of "You can play it like this, or this, or this". I had a veteran player of mine look over a few of them, he came up with concepts for the way he'd play those PrC totally different than what was suggested. But, then again he's a veteran, and the text was geared towards newbies mostly. I believe that is the trend we are seeing in D&D, more stuff for brand new people. Is it a bad thing? Not entirely, but you can get similar information for free on message boards like this.

I don't like full-blown adventures in the hardbacks either, but many of the ones in the recent books seem like what could be used as "typical" dwellings for cretaures and classes, which could, therefore, be re-used as random encounters. In addition, they could help establish "styles" for certain creatures, which could either help or hinder players (and characters) when they come in sight of the lairs.

A couple of dwellings and such work out fine, I can see it's reasoning in Draconomicon for example, but don't stick more than one mini-adventure in a book that isn't an adventure book. Stormwrack was a good example of that, I believe they stuck 3 adventures in it.

Yeah, but as I was getting at earlier, if someone is that inclined to do things on their own, why would they even need good-sized books of new rules crunch? It's a paradoxical notion.

Crafting crunch is way harder than the fluff. There was a poster on the D&D message boards that explained it very well, in fact. WotC actually has an R&D team to do just that, balance out and test such material and then allow it to be released to the public. Same concept as "It's easier to upgrade a monster than to downgrade one" from FCI, so they gave us a "base" stat for the demon lords.

Isn't there a ton of any of these elements already out there? I like choice, but there is so much choice now that I think there's plenty of room for WotC to switch things up now and then. I already have all the MMs, the three Tomes of Horror, the Monsternomicon, monster books from Bastion and any number of other companies...more monsters than I could ever use, especially with templates and classes. I'd rather have quality over quantity now, and I feel the format the MMIV is using is quality.

There's choice, but there's simply always the fact that one of my players asks for something not covered by WotC. 5 years I've had one player eagerly wait for me to come to him and say "They released a lightning-element monk PrC finally" and then he can finally play the character he wants. He's going to be waiting a long time, unfortunately. Should I craft the PrC on my own? Some do, but I don't. I don't believe my job is to do that and I can't make a balanced PrC for the life of me anyway. Plus it has that "unofficial" feel to it that my players don't like either. As for 3rd party products, we really don't use any for the same reason. Sounds silly, but it's just the type of games we prefer.

I actually think all the books you list were really good. So I don't exactly see where the disconnect is occurring here.

They are good, but now why did Races of Destiny turn out horrible? If they based it on Races of Stone's workmanship, it wouldn't have been bashed the way it was. Same goes for Libris Mortis, but fortunately they took a step back up with Lords of Madness instead of down as they usually do. Give Libris Mortis the same page count as Draconomicon and quality, it would've had better reponses.

I haven't looked at the ToC closely, so I don't know if "most" of the MMIV is advanced/classed older critters. But, I will say that I'd liek to see a "Rogue's Gallery" product separate from the monster books, but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing here.

The ToC was a big disappointment, to me at least. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that such creatures should've been presented in a "Rogues' Gallery" type book.

Like I said above, there are tons of critters to choose from already. Doing something different in this book is preferrable, to me, than yet another collection of critters along the lines of the worst of TSR - the endless reams of half-baked critters in the various Spelljammer Monstrous Compendiums. As it is, there are examples of such stuff in the MMs and the Fiend Folio as it is.

Like I've stated, I believe that 2006 must be the Year of Testing the Waters or something, because they've been doing many different things lately. I just hope it all changes for the better in 2007, sucks I have to miss out on MM4 and Mysteries of the Moonsea, 2 books I was looking forward to and I am now not purchasing just so I can hope the sales are low enough not to do something similar again.

 

[gizmo33]

And I hope most of you (that play D&D) are smart enough not to make such a decision until you see a copy and flip through it. Because doing anything else is either stupidity, or mean-spiritedness. Period. Form all the early opinions you want, but the final decision should wait until you SEE THE BOOK.

That "stupidity" is selling books though. My guess is that a good percentage of people are buying the book with minimal review or less, probably over the internet. It seems unlikely that folks would have changed the name to "Allies and Enemies II" for that reason alone. It seems reasonable that WotC is well aware of the name recognition it gets from "Monster Manual". The title would be unimportant if they thought all of their customers were going to based their decisions off of a thorough review of the contents only.

I think it's also unfair to think that forming an opinion based on what you see of the ToC (supposedly released for that purpose!?) is stupid. I guess it's only stupid if your opinion is negative. I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm somehow too stupid to know what "githyanki soldier" means in rough terms. I'll flip through it when it's released if for no other reason than to feel like a genius for a brief moment.

Also, though I'm not an expert on the business, I would caution against assuming that MM IV sales indicate that the MM IV approach was correct. It's likely that the MM III's quality contributes as much to the MM IV's sales. What I remember from 2E is that people tend to give the products a chance, and then at some point stop buying - even though the mistakes were probably made several products prior. But that's my own narrow experience based on my friend's purchasing habits. I imagine (hope) that the business people have a handle on that.

 

[BryonD]

Most DMs are casual gamers at best. Most -gamers- are casual gamers. A lot of them if asked to write up a half-red-dragon-lizardman-sorcerer are going to go play WoW instead.

Agreed completely.

But this seems to be a poor approach to solving the problem.
Wouldn't a full collection with a range of levels serve casual gamers better than here is the one and only half-red-dragon-lizardman-sorcerer we have to offer?

Not interested? Fine the book isn't for you. Most books aren't. They're for run-of-the-mill gamers who just want to A: Kill something and B: Take its stuff.

Certainly fair enough.

But is it ok to be dissapointed that the book appears to be half and half?
I'm interested in a Monster Manual. I don't know if I'm interested in an Enemies and Allies book or not. I know I'm not particularly interested in and Enemies and Allies book where the levels are constrained on me.

So, what do I do when half the book is for me and half is not for me?
Pay full price for half a book?
Or know that there is half a book out there that is probably pretty decent, but overpriced by a factor of 2?
And if you're WotC, why sell one title when you could have done two?
And I don't mean that as an "Gee, I could run D&D a lot better than WotC does" comment. Just this one specific questions seems glaring.

Drow Ninja 4 is fine. No complaints.
Its the whole half and half thing.

If you aren't one of them just be aware they're out there, they outnumber you, as a whole they have more money than you, and they need help.

So your advice to me, as a contributor, is "Don't buy this book"?
No snark intended. That is what I'm hearing and I'd like to be clear.

 

[BryonD]

You do realize there is no mythic guarantee to have a MM book come out every few years, right? That if the book had been called Enemies & Allies II, it would still be the same freaking book with the same cost? And then, of course, people would be complaining that it had too many new monsters that belonged in an MM product.

And they would be correct.
IMO, two different ideas have been blended and trying to put both under one umbrella will meet with false expectations no matter which title you use.
Do more monsters, such as the ones you said got dropped, AND more enemies and do a book of EACH.

As far as I can tell, WotC didn't name the book in a way you like. Sorry. I trust you'll get over it.

eh, No moreso than if Spell Compendium was 50% spells and 50% feats.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I see it only as a loss because I don't remember the last time I looked back on a 2E book I own that wasn't Forgotten Realms. They're just sitting there taking up space in my home. My friends, who've helped me purchase many of the books as well, are peeved at the loss of their cash, too, seeing it sit unused on a shelf in some dank storage area. They got over it, but it leaves a bad taste about D&D still.

Uhm...if it bothers you and your players that much, why switch to 3E? Not trying to be an ass, I'm just curious.

 

[Razz]

I am starting to think the whole "Don't buy the book" thing is I guess their way of subtely saying "If you help the sales be lower than expected, you won't see something like this again." At least those are my high hopes, anyway.

I've made my point enough here, MM4 I believe is the wrong direction for them to take, I won't contribute to its sales, and I hope I never see something similiar again.

There's always next year, and I am looking forward to Complete Mage, Castle Ravenloft, Dragon Magic, and FC2. I haven't lost ALL hope for WotC.....yet.

And if you see MM5 with stuff like "Goblin Fisherman" "Goblin Charger" and about 50 other versions of the goblin, don't say I didn't tell you so.

Out.