Monsters: Fluff Versus Game Mechanics

[Quickleaf]

I don't need superfluous fluffy detail, really, but I do need more than stats.

I'll echo the sentiment. More fluff which helps me run encounters.

I'd like to see less "unusual" monsters in the MM to provide more room for this kind of fluff. So you'd still have multiple types of skeletons, goblins, dragons, wraiths, etc, but things like kruthik, foulspawn, grick, and swordwing would be replaced with pertinent fluff for more stereotyped monsters.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exactly, if you look at, for example, the demons in the MM the only information you have about their shapes is from the illustrations. There is zero description, not even information on whether the creature is a biped, a quadruped or something else entirely.

But there is that picture? Why do I need that written down again?
Unless maybe you're blind. Okay, that's certainly not barrier-free. :/

I think the fluff in the MM so far is sufficient to me. Maybe sometimes a little more , but usually I feel that it contains just the amount of fluff I need to be inspired to use the monster or its background. I like that much information is "coded" in the knowledge DCs, that gives me a good impression on how much people and the characters would know, while also containing vital information for the DM.