Monster Manuals: Things You Don't Kill

[mearls]

So I asked myself: Why were they stuck in a Monster Manual and given stats? What gameplay purpose might they have served? What were you supposed to do with these things at the table? Why did someone go through the effort of writing up a whole page of fluff about singing dancing mushrooms?

And here's the answer I came up with: Monster Manuals aren't just lists of things to fight. Or at least, they weren't, up until 4e's MM's. They are lists of interesting things to interact with.

I think you might be giving whoever put the campestri in a Monster Manual too much credit. They originally appeared in "Old Man Katan and the Incredible, Edible, Dancing Mushroom Band", from Dungeon magazine back in the day. They were comic relief in the adventure.

There's a very good chance that whoever put them in the book did so because they were told to draft all the new monsters from Dungeon for the book, not because of any greater philosophical statement. That's also why some of the monsters from Fiend Folio seem so bizarre. They originally appeared in adventures where they made sense, but are fairly pointless outside of that context.

Now, all that said, I think there's plenty of space in the game for monsters that are interesting outside of a fight. One of the things we tried to do in MM 3 was give more reasons for PCs to interact with some of the monsters, such as the chitines, outside of combat.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

The A&D monster format, which would fit on a notecard, lent itself well to giving basic stats to everything.

Agreed. In the older editions, when stats fit on a line or three, it just wasn't all that much effort to give stats to everything and its dog.

Personally, I like it (at least minimal stats) because it unifies everything and provides the basic info a DM needs to handle the mechanical things a player is likely to do: namely smash it to bits. Fact is, you never know when a PC is going to get a hankerin' for campestri soup.

That said, I definitely appreciate this notion of and encyclopedic collection of "encounterables". The more fluff and (most especially) advice for handling different kinds of encounters, the better.

 

[Lord Zack]

I definitely agree with the idea that not all creatures in the game need to be combat challenges. I like to play D&D as a game of exploration, not as a mere hack & slash fest. There are other ways to take thing's stuff than killing them and somethings need not be interacted with with larceny in mind either.

In some cases things don't need a full stat block, though. They might have an abbreviated stat block and a note of any significant abilities. For that matter the stat block is often treated as the most important part of a creature when I at least could care less about a stat block if I have no idea what that creature is actually supposed to do. What is this creature? What does it do when it's not trying to kill my players? What does it prey upon and what preys upon it? Does it have any traditional allies or enemies? Does it have any useful characteristics? What make it special and what reasons do I have for putting it in my world over some other creature?

 

[Shemeska]

Now, all that said, I think there's plenty of space in the game for monsters that are interesting outside of a fight. One of the things we tried to do in MM 3 was give more reasons for PCs to interact with some of the monsters, such as the chitines, outside of combat.

I'm of the opinion that all monsters should be interesting outside of a combat context. Some obviously more than others, but I'm really loathe to the notion that some creatures in D&D are simply "monsters" and others not, with the former being there simply to fight the moment that they notice the PCs.

Given the proper context and depending on the PCs, any creature in the game should be ripe for interaction outside of combat, from goblins to mind flayers to balors to faerie dragons. Nothing should be limited to just being a "monster". Flavor and depth even in things likely to be antagonistic is only a good thing.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm of the opinion that all monsters should be interesting outside of a combat context.

It's a strange world that has no brutal thugs. Or zombies, golems, and the like.

Strahd-type masterminds? Yeah, sure. But not all monsters should be like that. The world should have some brutes in it than just want to kill you. Y'know, for when the GM wants that.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I think that the monster manual as the third of the big three books for D&D is an outdated and ultimately problematic template. What is needed is an encounter manual, including in one place encounters with archetypical monsters, traps and terrain effects, skill challenges or in non-4E systems examples of adjucidating non-combat encounters, and why not a bit of fluff as well. The monster manual as a title forces the book to be a bestiary while what is needed from the third core book imho is what I described.

No, creating and running encounters is the purview of the DMG if you ask me. Monsters (and "normal" or inoffensive critters as well) still belong in a book dedicated to describing them in game-mechanical terms. If a creature genuinely is inoffensive enough, or unusual enough in how it functions that providing stat blocks is pointless then a MM should simply not bother attempting to provide stat blocks for it - but that still leaves the need for descriptive text to indicate how and why one WOULD be expected to interact with it, even if it's not through combat.

 

[mearls]

I'm of the opinion that all monsters should be interesting outside of a combat context. Some obviously more than others, but I'm really loathe to the notion that some creatures in D&D are simply "monsters" and others not, with the former being there simply to fight the moment that they notice the PCs.

Given the proper context and depending on the PCs, any creature in the game should be ripe for interaction outside of combat, from goblins to mind flayers to balors to faerie dragons. Nothing should be limited to just being a "monster". Flavor and depth even in things likely to be antagonistic is only a good thing.

Absolutes are tricky things in game design, though. I think that works as an ideal, but forcing every monster to conform to a set of goals leads to bland or overwrought design.

In monster books I've worked on there's been a tendency for goals like that to fall flat. For instance, if a Monster Manual format requires a society section in every creature entry, you end up with a lot of unnecessary writing. Some creatures have interesting cultures, but others are interesting in other ways.

The key is to find what's really compelling about a creature, and then highlight that. When you try to force it, you end up with bland detail that doesn't really serve anyone.

A wolf entry might talk about how wolves are sensitive to natural magic. Packs gather around places of power, like ley lines or druidic circles.

A zombie entry might mention that some zombies retain memories of their former lives and can try to act out different tasks they undertook in life.

The goblin entry could talk about how hobgoblins force them into service, but they resent it and betray the hobgoblins whenever they can.

All three add depth, but they add it in different directions. The wolves point to world building and bigger story issues (the forest rife with gates to the fey realm is overrun with wolves). The zombie piece could provide a clue in an adventure (the animated guard pantomimes opening a secret door he used to guard). The goblin one is the most direct roleplay opportunity.

 

[cdrcjsn]

That may be true for the mushrooms. But what about the Giant Stone Face of Qualzidum (which I just made up)? The thing's living, but part of the side of a mountain, taller than the Tarrasque. It is immobile, so not "intended' as a combat encounter. But what happens when the party kobold gets fed up with the riddle game and takes a pickaxe to it?

"No stats" does not equate to "easy win".

Can it fight back? Shoot laser beams or something? If so, then it's a monster and should belong to the MM.

If it just sits there taking damage, then it's a terrain or trap effect and belongs to the DMG. Destroying it can involve dealing damage (you can damage objects in the game) or skill checks. Up to the DMG.

 

[Verdande]

Absolutes are tricky things in game design, though. I think that works as an ideal, but forcing every monster to conform to a set of goals leads to bland or overwrought design.

Which is one of the reasons that we have so many bland and overwrought monsters and, more directly, games. Absolutes are easy to digest and communicate, and therefore produce, but subjectives are what makes the game interesting. Like you mentioned about culture- wolves don't have an interesting culture, and neither do zombies, but they are certainly interesting.

Can it fight back? Shoot laser beams or something? If so, then it's a monster and should belong to the MM.

If it just sits there taking damage, then it's a terrain or trap effect and belongs to the DMG. Destroying it can involve dealing damage (you can damage objects in the game) or skill checks. Up to the DMG.

That's awfully circular. Stating that monsters deal damage and therefore belong in the monster manual isn't particularly helpful. I'd hazard to say that, as mentioned, some monsters aren't meant to be fought, but encountered. Imagine, if you will, an ancient 16th level dragon. The thing's smarter than you are, and is made of deadly natural weaponry. Taking it on is folly. But you can still encounter it by stealing its treasure or making deals with it or offering it your service. But if you mess up and enter combat with it, game over.

It's still a monster, but an interesting encounter as well, and a book that provides both combat fodder and roleplaying ideas is more valuable than one that just does the math for you.

 

[Imaro]

Absolutes are tricky things in game design, though. I think that works as an ideal, but forcing every monster to conform to a set of goals leads to bland or overwrought design.

In monster books I've worked on there's been a tendency for goals like that to fall flat. For instance, if a Monster Manual format requires a society section in every creature entry, you end up with a lot of unnecessary writing. Some creatures have interesting cultures, but others are interesting in other ways.

The key is to find what's really compelling about a creature, and then highlight that. When you try to force it, you end up with bland detail that doesn't really serve anyone.

A wolf entry might talk about how wolves are sensitive to natural magic. Packs gather around places of power, like ley lines or druidic circles.

A zombie entry might mention that some zombies retain memories of their former lives and can try to act out different tasks they undertook in life.

The goblin entry could talk about how hobgoblins force them into service, but they resent it and betray the hobgoblins whenever they can.

All three add depth, but they add it in different directions. The wolves point to world building and bigger story issues (the forest rife with gates to the fey realm is overrun with wolves). The zombie piece could provide a clue in an adventure (the animated guard pantomimes opening a secret door he used to guard). The goblin one is the most direct roleplay opportunity.

I honestly don't see a difference between your example and what Shemeska is saying. The examples above are all about making a creature interesting outside of combat, (Something I felt was sorely lacking in MM1 and caused me to skip MM2, though I hear MM3 is better with this and I am going to purchase it for this reason alone.). In the end though, I think you two are basically saying the same thing.

IMO, it is a creatures mythology, connection and interaction (even if only in little ways) to the world around it that make it interesting beyond 3-5 rnds. I almost feel like in creating creatures with a primary focus of lasting 3-5 rnds in combat... you can miss out on some of the imaginative, weird, wacky and well... fantastic stuff that endeared me to D&D when I was younger. YMMV of course but I use to read the MM as a kid because it inspired my imagination... not because I wanted to go over stat blocks.