Monster Manual: I miss the fluff.

[buzz]

Especially with the tons of humanoids, fluff that helps you differentiate them is useful. Otherwise tehy all just run together.

Even more useful, though, is actual mechanics that differentiate them, which is what we have in 4e.

This is D&D. If a compelling description/story hook for a monster can't be effectively conveyed in a paragraph or two, then that monster needs more development before being published.

Monster ecologies typically a) make my eyes glaze over, and 2) annoy me with excessive detail that often sucks all of the mystery out of a creature. I'd cite the passage on rakshasa babies from a Paizo-era Dragon article as a prime example of how too much fluff can ruin a creature for me.

Anyway, WotC can save this stuff for DDI, afaic.

 

[DylanCB]

Eh, I thought creativity was the DMs job. The monster manual gives combat stats and how they act in combat. Its simply a DM tool to give a variety of pre-made monsters. Ecology can get annoying when your making your own world. Creativity is what makes the game fun, so why should they constrain it?

 

[JesterOC]

I thought there was a lot of non stat block info on the monsters. Most entries have a lore section, they give tactics for the monster which helps you understand their "personality" and the encounter sections show the relationships between them and other monsters.

While they use a lot less fluffy words, this type of info is very fluff-like while being very helpful at the same time.

The 4E monster manual is so much better than the one monster per page from 2e. It is feels closer to 1st edition but with more depth per monsters and less breadth in monster selection.

 

[Zaukrie]

Where were you all when I was posting about the lack of fluff in the previews?

Without fluff, I'm not sure how a new DM builds a world and makes it interesting. I'm hopeful, though not holding my breath, that there will be lots of monster fluff on the DDI and that some of that is free. The most memorable monster books are those with great fluff. The lack of fluff is one of the more vidoe-gamey aspects of this edition. It is clear that the monsters only exist to be fought, not to be used to build a world.

I think it most likely that fluff is introduced in campaign books, and in books like the new dracomicon, which is unfortunate, as it is the fluff that makes classic monsters into classics. You may be tired of drow and githyanki, but they never would have risen to their level of popularity w/o the fluff. The kaorti are nothing w/o the fluff.

The lack of fluff in the MM is my biggest disappointment in the new game so far (not having played it yet....).

 

[Voadam]

I miss it too, missed in in the 3.x MM and it seems I will miss it in 4e too

Ditto. From looking at the zombie preview for example here is the description of the rotwing zombie in its entirety from the undead preview at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080528b :

A ZOMBIE IS THE ANIMATED CORPSE of a living creature.
Imbued with the barest semblance of life, this shambling
horror obeys the commands of its creator, heedless of its own
wellbeing.
A typical zombie is made of the corpse of a Medium or
Large creature.

. . .

Rotwing Zombie Level 4 Skirmisher
Medium natural animate (undead) XP 175
Initiative +6 Senses Perception +2; darkvision
HP 54; Bloodied 27; see also zombie weakness
AC 17; Fortitude 16, Refl ex 16, Will 14
Immune disease, poison; Resist 10 necrotic; Vulnerable 5 radiant
Speed 4, fl y 4 (clumsy)
mSlam (standard; at-will)
+9 vs. AC; 1d8 + 2 damage.
Flying Charge
When fl ying, the rotwing zombie deals an extra 2d6 damage on a
successful charge attack.
Zombie Weakness
Any critical hit to the rotwing zombie reduces it to 0 hit points
instantly.
Alignment Unaligned Languages —
Str 14 (+4) Dex 14 (+4) Wis 10 (+2)
Con 14 (+4) Int 1 (–3) Cha 3 (–2)
Rotwing Zombie Tactics
The rotwing zombie often perches silently on a ledge or precipice.
It swoops down and makes a flying charge against the
nearest enemy.

. . .

Zombie Lore
The following information can be obtained with a successful
Religion check.
DC 15: Most zombies are created using a foul ritual. Once
roused, a zombie obeys its creator and wants nothing more
than to kill and consume the living.
DC 20: Corpses left in places corrupted by supernatural
energy from the Shadowfell sometimes rise as zombies on
their own. These zombies have no master and generally attack
all living creatures they encounter.

So I'm wondering, is this a medium sized dragon zombie? A gargoyle one? A big bird or bat thing zombie? One of the new style winged but human looking devils turned into a zombie?

From the picture it looks like a person with big wings and claws on his hands, like the cambion from the daily art preview but without horns. Is it a person who through a special ritual was turned into a rotwing zombie with wings and claws? It doesn't have a claw attack.

I want to be able to use the monsters straight out of the book. I can make up stories about them to fill in the gaps but that is more work for me to do to use the monster in the game and I have to remember the details I make up for if they come up again later.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Where were you all when I was posting about the lack of fluff in the previews?

Without fluff, I'm not sure how a new DM builds a world and makes it interesting. I'm hopeful, though not holding my breath, that there will be lots of monster fluff on the DDI and that some of that is free. The most memorable monster books are those with great fluff. The lack of fluff is one of the more vidoe-gamey aspects of this edition. It is clear that the monsters only exist to be fought, not to be used to build a world.

Fluff is only important to make a monster memorable if you only read up on it.

If I use a monster, how much would my players actually know about its "fluff"? It can be a fascinating back story, but unless I make it a point in the adventure to learn this back story and propel the story forward, the players will just not notice.

4E is a role-playing game. It concentrates on things that make it good as a game. If a lot of fluff helps the game less then a lot of monster stat-blocks, then the fluff goes away.

And it's not as if 4E is entirely fluff-less. Maybe the PHB, DMG and MM will contain less fluff then the 2 preview books (I very much doubt that), but I can tell you that reading the books and the fluff mentioned there felt very "fresh" and inspiring to me.

So I'm wondering, is this a medium sized dragon zombie? A gargoyle one? A big bird or bat thing zombie? One of the new style winged but human looking devils turned into a zombie?

From the picture it looks like a person with big wings and claws on his hands, like the cambion from the daily art preview but without horns. Is it a person who through a special ritual was turned into a rotwing zombie with wings and claws? It doesn't have a claw attack.

I want to be able to use the monsters straight out of the book. I can make up stories about them to fill in the gaps but that is more work for me to do to use the monster in the game and I have to remember the details I make up for if they come up again later.

See, this is already a great example of "inspiring" fluff. You knew there was this winged Zombies and how Zombies are created, and you came up with ideas what this Zombie could be. It even inspired you how you could tweak the monster to fit a variant of it.

 

[The Little Raven]

The reports I'm hearing about the nearly fluff-free nature of the 4e books fills me with giddy delight.

Who are you, and what have you done with Lizard?

 

[shinmizu]

Yes, I know that each monster has its own picture now, but it's not the same to just hold up the book and say, "This is what you see".

I just hope the picture of the Invisible Stalker is as awesome as the pic in the 2nd edition Monster Manual.

 

[Grazzt]

I just hope the picture of the Invisible Stalker is as awesome as the pic in the 2nd edition Monster Manual.

Its way better actually. So much so, that even its stat block is invisible.

 

[Voadam]

See, this is already a great example of "inspiring" fluff. You knew there was this winged Zombies and how Zombies are created, and you came up with ideas what this Zombie could be. It even inspired you how you could tweak the monster to fit a variant of it.

No. This is an example of how the zombie entry fails to do part of its job IMO.

Say I'm using a dungeon adventure that involves an encounter with a rotwing zombie. I can't tell from the picture what exactly it is supposed to be. I can hold up the picture and say "you are attacked by the thing on the right" but I'm not sure which of the couple description variations I came up with I should be going with for describing it. I can come up with them, but I have to do that work myself, choose among them, and keep it consistent if I'm running an ongoing campaign.

An MM should be a toolbox of ready to use monsters out of the box at the game table.

A toolbox of ready to use monster stats is only half the function I want for using a monster at the table. A monster with unanswered questions and open fill in the blank descriptions is not ready to use out of the box for me.