D&D (2024) Monster Manual Organisation

[Zaukrie]

I do not disagree with the lists. I just think they are not as accessible as better organization that also promotes a tighter TOC.

It feels like they did not care because people will use an e-version.

I have no idea how you come to that last conclusion. These are the best indices we've ever had. It's also very judgmentally negative.

 

[dave2008]

It feels like they did not care because people will use an e-version.

I don' think that is the issue. It is clear to me a lot of care and thought was put into making a physical book as opposed to a PDF, online, or e-book. I just think that they made a mistake on this organization method.

 

[Belen]

I have no idea how you come to that last conclusion. These are the best indices we've ever had. It's also very judgmentally negative.

I do not care for indices. I rarely use them unless I am frustrated that I cannot find what I need in the book. If I have to use the index, then the book has already failed.

I find a lot of accessibility issues with the print organization. I work on accessibility in publishing tech as one of my jobs.

For me, the print organization fails on several levels.

I am happy there is a cool index for those who like them and I get it. Indices have been a gamer passion for years but I have never been one to heavily use one.

 

[dave2008]

I do not care for indices. I rarely use them unless I am frustrated that I cannot find what I need in the book. If I have to use the index, then the book has already failed.

I find a lot of accessibility issues with the print organization. I work on accessibility in publishing tech as one of my jobs.

For me, the print organization fails on several levels.

I am happy there is a cool index for those who like them and I get it. Indices have been a gamer passion for years but I have never been one to heavily use one.

IDK, I hail from the era before online was a thing. Without proper glossaries and indices I encyclopedic book is just a failure IMO. However, I am not excusing WotC's choice of organization methodology here, I think it is wrong. However, if I had to chose one over the other (which we shouldn't have to) for a print book, I would go with the improved indices.

 

[Reynard]

I do not care for indices. I rarely use them unless I am frustrated that I cannot find what I need in the book. If I have to use the index, then the book has already failed.

That is a very narrow view and seems strange in a world rife with complex material found in book form. Are you sure that the book has failed if you can't find your way around it without an index?

 

[Belen]

That is a very narrow view and seems strange in a world rife with complex material found in book form. Are you sure that the book has failed if you can't find your way around it without an index?

Yes.

 

[Parmandur]

I have no idea how you come to that last conclusion. These are the best indices we've ever had. It's also very judgmentally negative.

Yeah, I can see preferring a different method of alphabetical organization (like, maybe 14 chapters, for each Creature Type, would make sense). But the Indices are clearly q win for prep work, and fix a glaring issue with the 2014 MM.

 

[Zaukrie]

That is a very narrow view and seems strange in a world rife with complex material found in book form. Are you sure that the book has failed if you can't find your way around it without an index?

Some people must not look at other textbooks much......if they think indices are a gamer thing....

 

[Demetrios1453]

While I agree "Devil, Vrock" would solve that particular issue, I still think the monster lists in the index are good to have.

You would never find "Devil, Vrock" anyway, as vrocks are demons.

 

[Distracted DM]

Going against the grain to say that I like the organization. There are a few indices in the back if I need some extra navigation aid.

Well at least it's good to hear that it works for some people's brains.