MONSTER MANUAL 4: More Monsters/Less Fluff or Vice Versa?

[Razz]

Ok, after seeing the preview of MMIV on the website, I have to state my preference.

I like MM3 better.

Sorry, but the new stat block and the numerous amount of info on a creature is just too much information. I'd rather have more monsters than more fluff. Some of it is useful, Ecology for instance.

But others need to seriously go: Typical Treasure (um, define TYPICAL TREASURE in a D&D campaign? Everyone's game is different), Knowledge checks (DMs are now too lazy to be a little creative in assigning a DCs and information on the fly?), and Sample Encounters?

Which leads to the course WotC has been taking with its books lately: They're writing more and more material for lazy people. Adventures, Knowledge checks, Sample NPCs, and now Sample Encounters and Typical Treasure? Or is this something to make the D&D Minis game easier?

But let's not go off topic. I'm curious as to how others think of the new monster format. Obviously, we're going to have 3-4 pages per monster, which leaves us with, what, 50 new monsters? Blech, my money can be better spent elsewhere. I'd rather have more monsters, less crappy material I won't ever use than vice versa.

 

[Pants]

I like MM3 better.

After one preview and you think you have enough info to make this opinion?

But others need to seriously go: Typical Treasure (um, define TYPICAL TREASURE in a D&D campaign? Everyone's game is different),

Not to pull this thread off topic, but everyone in the Hoards of the Abyss argument/thread should read this statement, think about it, and stop arguing.

Knowledge checks (DMs are now too lazy to be a little creative in assigning a DCs and information on the fly?),

DM's are too lazy to create their own monsters...

and Sample Encounters?

Okay, I'm not really enamoured with these yet... we'll see how they're handled.

Which leads to the course WotC has been taking with its books lately: They're writing more and more material for lazy people. Adventures, Knowledge checks, Sample NPCs, and now Sample Encounters and Typical Treasure? Or is this something to make the D&D Minis game easier?

Ah, baseless generalizations to get people to agree with your opinions. 'Lazy people' indeed.

But let's not go off topic. I'm curious as to how others think of the new monster format. Obviously, we're going to have 3-4 pages per monster, which leaves us with, what, 50 new monsters? Blech, my money can be better spent elsewhere. I'd rather have more monsters, less crappy material I won't ever use than vice versa.

Considering that I cite the 2e Monstrous Manual and the Monsternomicon as two of my favorite monster books, I quite like the movement towards more fluff. I don't like the new stat-block that much, but it won't kill my game or kick my dog. It's a little too cluttered and I thought the 3.5 MM3 had the best layout of a WotC monster book. I'd much prefer that to what it looks like we're getting in the MMIV.

But then again, I don't have the book, so I can't accuretly judge it yet.

 

[Shemeska]

Generally speaking, well written fluff and ecology material is a good thing, even if we get slightly fewer monsters in a book. However that 'well written' portion is the key thing, and I'll have to see the MMIV before I can really offer an opinion of the new format being a great thing or a good idea that ultimately doesn't work.

The extended ecology and flavor text in the various 2e Monstrous Manuals/Compendiums is the gold standard for this sort of thing in a monster book. Whether the MMIV format turns out to come up to those standards remains to be seen I think, but the format in and of itself is promising given the way expanded ecology details have turned out in the past.

Suffice to say, we'll see how it turns out.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I grew-up on 2e, and I say that having the Ecology and Habitat/Society section return is most definately a good idea. In D&D there's thousands of monsters, and many of them are forgotten and neglected now. Having good fluff is something that got monsters from previous editions to return again.

 

[Jdvn1]

Which leads to the course WotC has been taking with its books lately: They're writing more and more material for lazy people.

Lazy people? How about people with lives, and not enough time to devote to rolling up treasure for high ECL parties, create their own monsters, or plan in-depth encounters?

Sure, I wouldn't use all the information they give, but some people would. I'd use some of it, certainly, and if I were caught in a pinch with not enough time to prepare for a game, I'd certainly be overjoyed for a useful tool like an encounter already made for me.

 

[Hussar]

Frequently we hear how DnD is far too difficult to DM. "It's the game everyone wants to play but no one wants to run" is a fairly common refrain. And, considering a number of people HAVE stated that DMing is very laborious and time intensive, why not market books that are specifically for DM's as being time saving?

Monster Manuals are different from any other book other than maybe the DMG in that the only people who generally buy them are DM's. There's little or nothing for players in the book. If DMing is a chore, why not give DM's a break? It's nothing to do with lazy DM's or DND Minis and everything to do with actually making a book useful.

I'm actually rather tired of book after book of raw stats for critters. I have four or five of those already. More creatures than I could every realistically use. To actually pick up a book designed for DM's that makes prep time easier is, IMO, a very, very good thing.

 

[jdrakeh]

I dunno. For me, well-written descriptive text (not page padding fluff) makes reading a game book much more bearable. Densely packed blocks of numbers may be practical, but for me, that's a recipe for sheer boredom. I really miss the sometimes lengthy and entertaining descriptive text of the AD&D monster manuals (both 1e and 2e). Reading books that lack that kind of description is about as much fun for me as reading algebra text books.

Ironically, that lack of text doesn't bother me where straight-up war games (e.g., Warlord, Warhammer, etc) are concerned, as description doesn't play as large a role in said games during actual play. In RPGs, however, description plays a huge role and is a large part of what separates RPGs from simple wargames. Without that description, I might as well be playing Warhammer Fantasy Battles and, truth bre told, if it comes to that, I'd rather be playing Warhammer (D&D is pretty crappy wargame by comparison).

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Ok, after seeing the preview of MMIV on the website, I have to state my preference.

Emphasis mine. Colour me that delicate shade of yellow known as "ing shocked".

My own opinion coincides with Shemeska's, except without the "they've got some big shoes to fill" tone. I like ideas about where creatures live and what they do, even if I wouldn't necessarily use them as written.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Which leads to the course WotC has been taking with its books lately: They're writing more and more material for lazy people. Adventures, Knowledge checks, Sample NPCs, and now Sample Encounters and Typical Treasure? Or is this something to make the D&D Minis game easier?

For crying out loud, what on the list has anything to do with DDM? Enough with the conspiracy theories, guys.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'll be the first to admit that I'd rather have a few really good monsters with interesting fluff than a lot of monsters half of which are lackluster. I'm running a campaign right now spawned by the flavor text of a monster, after all. An entire campaign that I plan to take to epic levels. It's really good flavor text. (The gautiere from the Monstrous Supplement to the Planes of Conflict Boxed Set.)

But, this goes beyond that.

The Strategies and Tactics for the wizened elder is pointless. They entangle things, they try to flank the enemy, taking out the ones who pose the most threat first, and they run away if they think they're going to die. That's a total waste of space. It's a lot of useless text that is basic tactics most creatures would use (flanking and running if they're going to die) and tells the DM to remember to use the special ability, the one in that nice bolded: Special Actions line.

A portion of the MM IV discussing tactics in general, maybe calling out how to use specific abilities as examples, I'd be behind. But, keep the generic tactics generic, huh? We don't need every monster saying "Don't forget to use its special ability, oh yeah and flanking is good!" *sigh*

The Sample Encounter I can live with so long as it is kept as short as it is in the example for most monsters, maybe a bit longer for the more interesting ones. I would much rather see a Plot Hooks section instead of a Sample Encounter, but its sorta-kinda-almost similar enough that I'll overlook it so long as its interesting.

My second biggest gripe is the Typical Treasure. I'm not going off the wizened elder with this one, but I think it was the aspect of tiamat or something like that buried in another one. The treasure was taken into account in the stat block meaning that every one of their kind has to have the same equipment or I have to recalculate stats twice per use. But, I've already gone into that one in another thread.

My biggest gripe goes back to my caveat above. I said "I'd rather have a few really good monsters with interesting fluff than a lot of monsters half of which are lackluster." The wizened elder, to me, is lackluster. If the MM IV holds just more of this, then I'll pass on it.