Monster Fluff

[Nebulous]

Im looking for a nice mix of the two. Your right about MM1: it was extremely sparse on fluff, one might even say barren. MM2 was a step in the right direction (it did have a little more), but didnt go far enough imo. A good description of the monster, where it typically lives, its temperment, society (or lack thereof) are what im looking for. Doesent have to be 3/4 of a page in length, but I need something to get my imagination rolling.

But I agree with you: if I could get an amount of fluff comparable to 2e, I'd be in heaven. But I dont think thats realistic with WotC goals for 4e (and page count to, tbh).

I have to agree with Starsunder, i need some more fluff in the Monster Manuals. The MM1 was pretty abysmal as far as that goes, but the MM2 made some steps in the right direction and i think it is a WAY better book. I have high hopes for MM3. There is really no reason not to add a few more tidbits to each monster.

 

[Nebulous]

I'd also like to see rituals monsters might cast and other out-of-combat tactics they use, or special powers that have nothing to do with killing. For me, that would just make certain monsters richer.

 

[Greatfrito]

I was looking over my MM 1&2 today, and I got to thinking that one of the only things that I have a problem about 4e is the amount of monster fluff we have...or dont have actually.

Y'know, I know they have less fluff (well, MM1 specifically - I've not really sat down and sorted through 2 in much detail), but for some reason it's not bothered me. And I love monster-fluff.

I think, like others, I like the current format for at-table use (especially that the "fluff" is organized into Knowledge-check tables).

And I can't think of any monsters that I've really needed additional fluff for. For me, the essentials are covered (yes, even with a 1-2 sentence "blub"/introduction, and a few Knowledge entries).

1. Environment. Where they normally hang out.

See, I thought the entries provided adequate (if sparse) "where it's found" information - usually in that intro/blurb. But looking at some random entries, it seems that it's often either implied, or vague.

2. Some numbers that tell you how many normally live in a lair, and what they're made up of.

eg. A typical goblin lair is made up of 1d6x10 combat-ready goblins and that same number of cutters. Half this number is made up of goblin warriors; the rest is split evenly between sharpshooters, blackblades, and acolytes of Maglubiyet. For every 10 combat-ready goblins there is a hexer with two bodyguards (skullcleavers) and an underboss. Larger tribes may be ruled by hobgoblins, bugbears, or other creatures.

Oh, yeesh, no, I must admit, I'd not want that. Personally, I find the sample encounters to be adequate in that regard (plus, I don't find random-population-generation to actually serve any use for me).

It's all vague - at best - yes, but I think I prefer it that way.

 

[the8bitdeity]

One thing I would really like on all monsters is natural life span. Does the Basilisk I want to put outside the town live for 100 years? 500 years? It's handy when you want to have some folklorish type settings. (EG "Sweetheart terrorized these rivers for nearly 20 years!")

I realize I can do it to my own DM's discretion, but at least give me a general life span on things, so I have some context. For example in Eberron they say the Lhesh Haruuc is aging and needs a replacement soon, but never say how long Hobgoblins naturally live.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ok, I needed to say that. Sorry if it was rant-like, I didnt really mean for it to be; I love me some 4e.

Heh, dude, you are very diplomatic about this. I've been pretty loud about my own severe dislike of the way that the Monster Manuals have been conceived and released, and I pretty much stand by the statement that "300 pages of stat blocks and art" is really pretty useless for a lot of DMs out there. I do feel that the MMs are the worst of the D&D "core" books, mostly for this reason.

There's other aspects to it, too (every monster is there to be killed, everything is geared toward a combat encounter, the system assumes a certain bias in the way I run monsters, etc.), but a lot of it boils down to "I need more noncombat information."

I don't think this is a uniquely 4e problem. If anything, it's kind of a problem of them not slaying the sacred cow of a "monster manual" that just contains a bunch of critters. 3e didn't have much fluff, except in some of the later books, either (2e had a lot -- probably too much in a lot of cases, but it had a lot). I do think 4e has a unique opportunity to solve this problem.

I think it's very important to have a lot of stat blocks.

But I think it's equally important to have a lot of things that are not stat blocks.

And it is the most important to have a Monster Manual suitable for pitting a wide variety of challenges against my players.

Currently, the MMs fail on everything except the "lots of stat blocks." And I am VERY unhappy with it.

GRUMPY FACE

We can build a better bestiary, guys.

 

[Greatfrito]

One thing I would really like on all monsters is natural life span. Does the Basilisk I want to put outside the town live for 100 years? 500 years? It's handy when you want to have some folklorish type settings. (EG "Sweetheart terrorized these rivers for nearly 20 years!")

I realize I can do it to my own DM's discretion, but at least give me a general life span on things, so I have some context. For example in Eberron they say the Lhesh Haruuc is aging and needs a replacement soon, but never say how long Hobgoblins naturally live.

I'd actually like this type of information more than any other, really.

 

[Shemeska]

We can build a better bestiary, guys.

I would suggest folks take a look at the current monster entries in the various Pathfinder supplements, which include an initial description, and then sections on 'Ecology' and 'Habitat & Society'. They aren't as lengthy as the 2e model, but I think they provide a real nice model for a healthy balance between crunch and fluff that should please most folks.

And even if you aren't playing Pathfinder itself, the Pathfinder monster entries are awesome and WotC would be doing themselves a favor (and combating a major point of 4e criticism) by taking a long, hard look at the way it handles monster fluff and detail.

 

[Scribble]

One thing I would really like on all monsters is natural life span. Does the Basilisk I want to put outside the town live for 100 years? 500 years? It's handy when you want to have some folklorish type settings. (EG "Sweetheart terrorized these rivers for nearly 20 years!")

I realize I can do it to my own DM's discretion, but at least give me a general life span on things, so I have some context. For example in Eberron they say the Lhesh Haruuc is aging and needs a replacement soon, but never say how long Hobgoblins naturally live.

I'm of two minds on this really...

Generally I like reading flavor that has info in it like this because it gives me ideas. AKA if the author states that Hobgoblins live 150 years, it might inspire in me an adventure involving an aging hobgoblin...

But if it's not something that specifically interacts with the balance of the rules (aka this spell effects any creature that has a lifespan of 150 years) then I don't need it to be "assumed" as part of the rules.

IE I'd preffer they didn't establish how long Hobgoblins actually live in the rues, because then the Lhesh Haruuc is as old as is most entertaining for my campaign.

 

[fba827]

Yeah, for the record, I think the MM and MM2 hit the right balance. I like the tactical advice especially, since tactics are a weak spot for me. More background fluff, at the expense of more monsters, would diminish the value of the book for me.

Barcode said what I was going to.
I don't particularly need fluff (If there is a good picture, I can make up my own as necessary - as it is, half the time I reskin monsters and call them something else so the fluff would get wasted in those situations... but stats and tatics are good).



Someone mentioned environments. While I don't need them in the stat blocks themselves (since I am used to making stuff up to fit whatever I am doing), an index listed different terrains and monster types usually found in those terrains (broken down by level and monster role) would actually be the awesome.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'd actually like this type of information more than any other, really.

And I wouldn't care about _that_ kind of information at all. That's something _I_ want to decide on.

I DO think, 4E monsters don't have sufficient fluff which is why I'm glad to still own the 2E MM folders. I'd rather have separate ecology-style books to provide the fluff, though, rather than it being included in the MM itself.