Monster Manual or Monstrous Compendium

[JacktheRabbit]

So which do you prefer? I have to personally say that I much prefer the 2E Compendium idea of a large 3 ring binder with each monster taking up a full 2 sided sheet. It allowed for easy addition of monsters and when I had certain monsters planned for an adventure I could pull their sheets out and not have to lug the entire book around.

So what do you prefer and why?

 

[bwgwl]

if i'm going to use a monster in an adventure, i'll write 'em up in stat block format as part of my adventure notes or on an index card.

i don't usually ever need to refer to the monster book during the game itself.

that being said, i prefer the layout of the 3e MM to the 2e 3-ring binder system. there's just something about cracking open a hardcover book... i don't get that same feeling from a binder. besides, i don't think every monster deserves an entire full-page spread. save the trees, man!

 

[Psychotic Dreamer]

I hated the huge freaking binder that was the Monstrous Compendium. The pages often ripped out of it and it just looked odd sitting on the same shelf as all my other gaming stuff. I much prefer a nice hardcover book.

 

[SableWyvern]

I prefer the book to the folder.

However, I think the 3e layout sucks. Columns split between pages, descriptions/headings that are hard to find and place together...very annoying to reference for some critters.

 

[JeffB]

The layout of the 3E MM is really bad...The original Monster Manual is much better...

That being said I'd vote for something you don't have on the list...

the 2E monstrous manual...Which is the MC type entries in a huge hardbound that replaced the binders..

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I don't think I ever saw that. Was it put out towards the end of 2E?

The layout of the 3E MM is really bad...The original Monster Manual is much better...

That being said I'd vote for something you don't have on the list...

the 2E monstrous manual...Which is the MC type entries in a huge hardbound that replaced the binders..

 

[Holy Bovine]

I actually hated the 2e binder. Pages lost, the 3 ring refused to lock about 3 months after I bought it (resulting in more lost pages and having to move all those sheets into another binder for a time).

The only good thing about it was the 'tabbed' cardstock pages that were supposed to be used to divide up your monsters alphabetically. I took them out and used the really good looking ones to divide up my DM's binder for easy reference. I put them into plastic sheet protectors and cut a small slit to allow the tab to stick out. Very handy!

I hope to never see the mess that was the 2E Compendium again /blech!

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Interesting. I have the 2E Compendium still with 2 or 3 of the add-ons included in it. In addition I had several monsters created by me on pages in there as well.

I never had a monster sheet tear out and my 3-ring binder still functions to this day. Then again most things I own last a lot longer than most other peoples copies. I guess I just know how to take care of my stuff.

 

[Holy Bovine]

The layout of the 3E MM is really bad...The original Monster Manual is much better...

That being said I'd vote for something you don't have on the list...

the 2E monstrous manual...Which is the MC type entries in a huge hardbound that replaced the binders..

That was a beautiful book. I still have mine. The only complaint I had was that some of the monster entries have an awful lot of white space as they didn't have enough to say about them in the text to fill it up. Some extra art or something would have been perfect.

DocM - it was published in 1995 along with the reprints of the PHB and DMG (this was about the time of Skills& Powers too I beleive).