Psion said:
Au contraire, Mike. How is providing information and hooks for a creature cutting down on the utility? It's not. IME, they bolster the utility by not only providing you with a creature, but context and ideas to make it easier to use, instead of relying on the often overtaxed GM to bridge the gap.
Right, there's a line between having enough creatures and having enough detail. If my monster book has 20 new creatures, but none are CR 5 or less and your characters are 2nd level, the book doesn't have as much use for you compared to a book with 40 creatures that cover all the CRs. Or if you need a monster that is immune to fire - if I have fewer creatures in my book, there's a lower chance that want you need is what I have.
The detailed approach requires two important design considerations - fantastic art to hook in the DM, and a flexible, interesting basic monster concept. If the basic monster concept doesn't hold you, all those words I spent on plot hooks, ecology, sociology, and so on are wasted.
So, if we look at utility in terms of "Will this book see use?" the more creatures we have in a book, the greater the chance that what you need is in there somewhere. On the other hand, you need enough detail on a creature to use it, so there's no clear answer.
I think part of the tendency lies in the sort of voices we hear on the Internet. I have a theory that people who spend time on the 'net talking about RPGs are also the sort who are likely to use their downtime - when no one else is around, and they need something to do - to work on their campaign worlds are read RPG books. I think that sort of DM is much more likely to want, need, and use detailed monsters. He puts a lot of thought into his game and probably spends a lot of time building a world or detailing part of a published setting.
(There's also the inactive or dysfunctional gamers who think themselves out of gaming, but that's a whole 'nother topic, and a hairy one at that...)
On the other hand, I think there's a big population of gamers who treat D&D as more of a game, with monsters playing pieces that serve as obstacles. This crowd doesn't care quite as much for detailed backgrounds and hooks. Instead, they just need cool, versatile monsters to throw at the players. For this sort of DM, more monsters is better.
I think the big problem facing d20 publishers is that this population is far less likely to post to message boards. If my definition is right, they'd rather do something else with their free time. They still play and love D&D, but they spend less time outside of the game session, or adventure prep time, working on their campaign worlds.
Some key questions for a designer are: Can you achieve a balance between those two populations? Is it even a viable model of the market? Is it worth trying to balance the two objectives, or is it better to go for one or the other?
A more pertinent question would be: Do you pick out the monsters you want to use and design and adventure using them, or do you design the adventure and then pick monsters to fit into it? That's the key when you look at how people use monster books, and I think it helps draw that line between volume and depth for monsters.
Personally, I think Legacy of the Dragons is pretty much what I as a DM want out of a monster book - I think we made a pretty good balance between enough detail and too much detail.
