Monsters, Monsters, Monsters! Podcast

[JeffB]

Since he's the guy that once said if you're not playing D&D in a particular manner, then you're doing it wrong....

Go read your Dragon articles again. Thats not what he said.

 

[JeffB]

MY BIG GRIPE (because there had to be one)
WotC is SPECIFICALLY excluding important monsters from the 1st MM because they want to place them in MM2, MM3, etc, to give those Monster Manuals more "core" impact. They mentioned frost giants in particular, but said there were multiple creatures held back just for this purpose. That's the marketing department dictating stuff to the gaming department, which pisses me off a bit. While I know they want to sell extra MM's, holding off important monsters to save them for later books just to insure people buy those later books is crap. IMO.

QFT. We get Tieflings in the PHB, but no Frost Giants (and lord knows what else) in the MM1??

I'm listening to the POD Cast now....and ugh..some cool things for sure, but I'm also one who's getting to the point where I wont even want to take a look at the new game..for every thing I like, there are 2 or 3 things that really rub me the wrong way

 

[thundershot]

Doesn't bother me. When I make an omelet, I use the ingredients I have at my disposal. When I make an adventure, I'll use the monsters in the book. It might even work out better, since I'll use some monsters that I don't normally use... Could be interesting.



Chris

 

[Thundershield]

I find it quite interesting that James Wyatt points out fairly early in the podcast (around 4 minutes or so into it) that all Player's Handbooks and Monster Manuals will be "core"..

So that they're "holding off" some stuff for later books doesn't really mean anything big. I mean, not like we're not getting something else instead of what they're holding off. We'll get our money's worth, no worries.

However, what I particularly like is that when we see a Player's Handbook 2 for 4E, it'll be just as "core" as the first one, by official statement. That'll give both players and DMs more options, even in those otherwise bland "core only" games.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't mind the idea that there be more than one core monster book. However, I do dislike the idea that they're forcing me to buy extra books in order to get all the basic D&D monsters. This, I could live without. I think, however, I could live with it better if instead of giving me fire giants but no frost giants, that they just skip giants altogether. I'll get by on trolls and ogres for a while, and then get all my giants in one book, so when I send my PCs Against The Giants, I might not need to carry around so many damn books.

Book ballast bloat was a real problem with 3E, where you needed a feat from this book, a spell from that book, and a PrC from the other book. I expect even more back pain in 4E if this is the way they're going to go.

 

[Korgoth]

Citation Needed:

Since he's the guy that once said if you're not playing D&D in a particular manner, then you're doing it wrong, that's nothing but a good thing in my eyes.

Did he say that on Earth 2? Because I haven't seen this text.

I await you quoting his exact words, along with a page reference.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Citation Needed:


Did he say that on Earth 2? Because I haven't seen this text.

I await you quoting his exact words, along with a page reference.

I know I've seen it somewhere. I think it was in someone's sig on these very boards. I remember thinking at the time, oh geez Gary, where did that come from? Perhaps it was misattributed, but someone certainly was attempting to assign it to EGG.

edit: I also seem to remember that the source was something old, like 1st edition era.

 

[Korgoth]

I know I've seen it somewhere. I think it was in someone's sig on these very boards. I remember thinking at the time, oh geez Gary, where did that come from? Perhaps it was misattributed, but someone certainly was attempting to assign it to EGG.

edit: I also seem to remember that the source was something old, like 1st edition era.

Gary's famous Preface to the 1E DMG addresses the topic over several paragraphs; sometimes only a small section of his discussion on the mutability of the rules is excerpted (thus rather out of context). In the Preface, he is explaining the concept of AD&D as a "framework" and "mutable system" (and this is a work designed for DMs, and is perhaps the first such work a person at that time would have read on the subject of how to run a role playing game).

Gary emphasizes multiple times in the early part of the 1E DMG that the game is open to and encourages elaboration and individual imagination, so that no two campaigns will be the same. He stresses that the rules are necessarily incomplete, require DM arbitration and have as a feature of their incompleteness the ability to be molded to suit the aims of the individual game. But he also says, and this is the controversial part, that if you change the game too far in certain directions, you won't really be playing AD&D anymore. He cites two pitfalls here: [1] either messing up the balance of the game so that is becomes too easy (what would later be called "Monty Haul" gaming) and thus falls apart (a practical point: Gary thinks if you run Monty Haul you won't be running a long-lived and ultimately enjoyable game), and [2] the game becoming so "alien" that it is no longer AD&D. He doesn't explain this in detail, but it seems aimed at rules concepts (like he mentions in the previous paragraph referring to Ability Scores and Magical Spells and Items having relatively similar effects)... it's clearly not aimed at "thematic purity" since Gary himself gives guidelines later in the book for mixing AD&D with Gamma World and Boot Hill. The Preface imagines that DMs who share in the common set of rules assumptions will even be able to meaningfully discuss their games with one another, and perhaps even tournament games would be a possibility (interesting that these things weren't a given when he was writing).

I think if one reads the entire Preface in context it appears as a sympathetic and useful document.

There also may be a text or two from Dragon that concern people, but I'd need a refresher on those.

 

[Reaper Steve]

On one hand, I doubt I'll need a 4E frost giant anytime soon, and if I do, I'm sure I could whip one up to get me by.

On the other... I am disturbed by the 'no frost giant in MM1' statement.
1) What other, possibly even more iconic, creatures will not be present?
2) Overheard in the future: 'Hey, which of these MMs has the frost giant?'
3) Is the 'collectability' mentality spilling into rulebooks now? 'Gotta' have 'em all!

On another hand (yep, I'm up to three)... there is something bold about shaking up the MM. Each edition has brought us a MM1 that has new stats for the same old creatures. If I can look at the 4E MM1 and identify X number of new creatures, and identify the absence of X number of iconic MM1 creatures, and determine that I'd rather have the new ones than the AWOL ones, then I'll be pleased.

Although, it nags me that the real motivation with this decision is $. That's the first time I've said that about 4E. I think the designers and developers are pouring their heart and soul into making 4E the best they can, making a product I WANT to buy. But I will not appreciate it if marketing then produces products I NEED to buy. I know, no one's making me. But really... the frost giant entry belongs right beside the fire giant in the same book. Either save both for a later book, or but them both in MM1. If they want to move some iconics out of MM1 to spread the 'core' into other books, then move individual entries, or whole sections... but don't divorce monsters that go together. If they do, then they'd be better off bringing back the Monstrous Compendium binder so I can put monsters back where they belong!

 

[CleverNickName]

3) Is the 'collectability' mentality spilling into rulebooks now? 'Gotta' have 'em all!

Great. Now I am too terrified to sleep.