Monsters: Fluff Versus Game Mechanics

[JoeGKushner]

So the ole thread on Monster Manual 2 kept bringing up the amount of fluff versus the amount of crunch in the book.

For me, if the monster book is a specific setting book, I enjoy the extra details (fluff). For example, the Iron Kingdoms Monsternomicon's are some great books. Some fantastic background bits there.

If it's a generic all purpose book... like the Monster Manual, I don't mind a little but overall, I'm happier with more monsters. I think third parties, such as Paizo and the excellent Classic Monsters Revisited, can fill out the fluff. Heck, Goodman and Mongoose made a lot of money with the various Slayer's Guides and Complete Guides.

And I expect that WoTC, may follow Paizo's example and do some compilations of the various Ecology of articles. Some good stuff there.

 

[mach1.9pants]

For me, if the monster book is a specific setting book, I enjoy the extra crunch. For example, the Iron Kingdoms Monsternomicon's are some great books. Some fantastic background bits there.

Do you mean extra fluff? And I am confused by your poll options. I think you need to be more specfic about whether you are talking about crunch or fluff in the options like: 'less then current but not 2Es overabundnce' Do you mean less crunch or less fluff, I am confused

 

[JoeGKushner]

Do you mean extra fluff? And I am confused by your poll options. I think you need to be more specfic about whether you are talking about crunch or fluff in the options like: 'less then current but not 2Es overabundnce' Do you mean less crunch or less fluff, I am confused

One of the things 2e often gets dinged on with the original trapped keeper style books was too much description and not enough monsters in order to 'fluff' out the pages to fit the binders.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

It's a little bit monster dependent, wot?

I think everyone gets the idea behind a goblin or an orc, and a sentence or so is probably enough. But D&D is still (even more so than before) a way into the hobby, so some of the weirder critters probably need a tad more explanation of their place in the ecology, so to speak.

Still and all, K.I.S.S. Better to let the newbie and the experienced DM alike fill in the details with what is evocative to them, rather than nailing everything down. No need to ossify ideas right out of the gate.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I voted for; If it's a specific monster book, fluff away otherwise no.

I buy my Monster Manual books to have a ton of crunch since it is harder to make balanced crunch then it is to come up with fluff. It also means less likely for mechanics to be based around specific fluff so easier to refluff as you wish, or to have mechanics tied into/balanced by fluff.

Now if one wishes to buy a book on a specific monster, it is more likely to have fluff since they wish to seek out concepts for that monster. I would personally prefer not just one fluff though, but instead a bunch of varied concepts none of which are "more true".

 

[mach1.9pants]

I think I am on less than current then, if you mean less MONSTERs but a bit more fluff (I must be being dense today, I just cannot get me head around the options!).

So I think the 4E MM are missing on fluff, I'd like just a little more for inspiration I must say.

 

[LostSoul]

One thing I've found that I've missed - and this is a reversal of my previous position - is basic organization for monster lairs. How many goblins are in a typical lair?

4E answers, I think, with its adventure design guidelines, but I'm not sure that is what I want.

The reason why is because I want the players to be able to learn how many goblins (for example) are in a typical goblin lair and to use that information to make decisions. If that info does not exist in the MM, the DM can come up with it, but it would have been nice to have it there.

edit: Otherwise I think there's a really good amount of fluff. There's a lot of stuff in the MM that can lead to interesting adventure creation.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I voted all crunch (though the choice was worded oddly)

Making up a new monster's crunch takes a great deal of time, time I don't want to spend.

Making up fluff takes seconds, time I am delighted to spend.

 

[Nikosandros]

I can see how "extra fluff" can be seen as something that's highly specific ti each single campaign or at least setting, but the MM1 for 4e doesn't even have basic descriptions for the monsters...

 

[lutecius]

One of the things 2e often gets dinged on with the original trapped keeper style books was too much description and not enough monsters in order to 'fluff' out the pages to fit the binders.

So shouldn't option 4 be "More than current but not 2e's overabundance"?