Ok, just tell me Why

[noretoc]

I know exactly how the op feels. When it comes to Monsters I don't understand the whole concept of "give me stats I'll fit it in". If all I wanted was a bunch of stats, I don't need a book for that. I have put together a monster where I write down an AC and HP and fudge the rest, making it up every turn. Putting together stats is easy. If it is too hard, ease up. To easy, add more. That is what a DM does (er did, 4th take out the dm almosT). What I want from my MM is a collection of ideas that I can use to build a story around. The Tarrasque is in my game now. My players are lvl 6. There were lvl 3 when it showed up. It wasn't there to be the cool battle, it is there as a backdrop. Summoned by a God to destroy a city that turned its back on the God, the tarrasque destroyed anything that could not get away. Then it went to sleep. It is not in the center of the rebuilding city. Everyone believes that is has turned to stone, and will never come back. (Course anyone knowing its history knows it is just in its sleeping phase). That is what makes a good game for me and every player I have played with. The story behind the action.

When I look through a MM I want to see the monster's Fluff and build a story around it. When the story unfolds, they should look at the monster and go "That why a happened, and b followed, etc.".

4th reminds me of when I played Marvel super hero game I used to play in with a bad GM. We we start off the night and he would open a hero book and say "Who am I going to put against you tonight"

Now, could I pick a monster from the MM and design a reason for it being in my game, and then a story around it. Yes, but if I am going to design the fluff, and the story, then what do I need the book for. I might as well make the monster from scratch too, so it fits better. It is the culture and habitat and orgin that I want from a source book. Something to give me ideas to work with.

 

[Brilbadr]

Unfeasible when there's a wizard in the party. His whole job description entails knowing magic. The spells he casts aren't mysterious, until 4e some of them didn't even require a roll, they worked every single time. Why would the wizard not understand something he himself can create?

Some magic items are unknowable. High end stuff like artefacts. Not +1 swords.

I didn't realise how much people would be vehemntly opposed to what I said.. and I considered not responding lest I become a troll but.. we are all adults here right? (? hmm, mature in approach maybe? ehh)
So I am going to respond point by point


So Magic and Powers.. vs mystery
There other systems that I have used in the past that required rolls, and emphasis the mystery of magic a little more- not 3rd ed of course. I played 3rd ed becasue it was the common denominator, but didn't like magic. Now I like magic less. It seems gimmicky. It doesn't even appeal to the simulationist side of my brain.

Why have the +1 sword. Really. What story point does it play?
If it just gives a machanical advantage, that's just number that has to be crunched.
If it signfies something then that is special- "It's my mother's sword"
Fair enough some morale bonus perhaps. But Don't build a system that expects that. Penalises you for not getting +4 gloves of dexterity.. (etc)
Now Iron Heroes went a way I liked- and I expected more of 4th ed- a refinement of Iron Heroes that didn't need to buff the players to make them compatabile with the existing mechanics of monsters. A clean break and no mechanical stacking.
But much to my dismay, it didn't.
The only arguement I can think of in favour of the "+1 sword/gloves of stat bonus X" is that people like getting "stuff" and the getting stuff is part is important to the game. Hmmm. Personally I'd prefer a pile of gold as stuff- I can spend it on wine and song, castles and minions- whatever floats your boat.
If you want to give cultural texture use the 2nd ed Forgotten realms trick of generating art objects, coins of differing value "wow, pre-dynasty thayan pieces of 8- they are stamped with the face of the first zulkir from a milenia ago and worth 50 gold each"
or not

...

 

[Brilbadr]

Same here. I hate it when a player assumes the book's flavor text is valid when it's something I've changed (and something I hope the players discover). "Flavor lawyers" exist, and they can be frustrating.

Cheers, -- N

lol.
Flavour lawyers. love it.
I double dare someone to "flavour lawyer" in one of my games!
The result will be funny, I assure you. I GM'ed merp and rolemaster set in Middle-earth quite a bit, (where everyone has an opinion), so that is a beast I've slain.
On not liking being told how to use a monster, Fair enough, different strokes I guess. I use the context (etc) as inspiration- I'm not a slave to it. But I want something to fire me- not just stats. I can randomly generate those if I want stat inspiration. I'll likely go off on some bizarre socio-tangent anyway (what does the most repressed beholder in a hive do if adventurs slay the rest of a hive?)

 

[tomBitonti]

So ... about the count of creatures in the book ... it's not as high as it seams. There is a lot of overlap between monsters at different levels, which could be removed by adding a *real* advancement section.

For example, take a look at the white dragon. How hard would it have been to give *one* dragon, and provide an advancement section?

Reading through the book, I am struck how much better this would be as a set of 3x6 cards with the monster stat blocks and a book with, per monster, a single stat block and with information about how the monster advances. That would make the stat blocks eminently usable as a table-side resource, and would provide a whole lot more information on the monster background and ecology.

(Also, note that the monsters in the book are using more of a 3.5E style advancement. I don't think the book designers used the same rules as are described in the "how to level monsters" guidelines.)

 

[Brilbadr]

Why? Maybe because WoTC doesn't want to see D&D go the way of comics: an industry dominated by an aging entrenched fanbase who want to relive the same period of their lives over and over again. They don't want the tail to wag the dog.

Well, at some point, things have to change. They may not change in the way you like, but looking backwards is never the way to go. You may like the old MM and such, but the rest of the world has left you behind.

You're new here, so you might want to consider getting a Community Supporter account just so you can use the Search feature - you'll see that every single point you've made has been brought up over and over again since 4E was announced. And even before, with regards to 3E.

Not new here. Not got a community account because I had an account before that and haven't changed it. I've posted a review or 2 but mostly I lurk. Annoyed about not beaing able to search? Not really.
If someone said something before can I not post my version of it? I thought the "netequitte" around not posting on previous topics more related to "help" and "instuction" type forums where there is a concerted attempt to consolidate knowledge, not just have a discussion
I didn't realise so many people had picked on the tarrasque. I probably would have used a different example if I had thought to look 1st, but like other's it stuck out to me.

And very occassionaly when a cumulative series of events finally gets my goat, I might post.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Anyway. I think not 4th ed DnD. I got a tiny urge to try it. And then I read the MM. And I’m cured.
Well done Wizards, it took you over a decade but you finally got me to lay down the DnD books.

We recalcitrant 3e partisans would welcome you.

 

[Brilbadr]

Well, at some point, things have to change. They may not change in the way you like, but looking backwards is never the way to go. You may like the old MM and such, but the rest of the world has left you behind.

I think about the change between 3rd and 4th edition and where I want my game to be as a venn diagram.
The problem is, that although what I wanted and what 3rd ed provided over-lapped quite a bit, 4th ed overlaps even less.
Some of the stuff that is no longer in DnD I agree with, but alot of the new stuff isn't the change I would have made. I'm open to change, I just think they went in the wrong direction. Some of the stuff they have done that is outside 3rd ed I agree with- just not as much I'd hoped. Not enough to get me to stick with the brand.

Why not continue to play 3rd ed? because if I'm going to have to generate all my own new content I'm going to be a LOT more picky with my rules system. Why not just play with the content that is there?
Done it, (2 home campains+ conan + age of worms) seen the flaws, had enough for the moment.

Edit:
You see, I would have thought that folks with disposable income might have been a worthy target for this release. I didn't impulse buy 3.x edition, I bought ALL the offical material up until 4th ed was announced. Not novels, but splatbooks, forgotten realms, greyhawk, hardcovers. Now I don't even visit my local gaming stores- because there is no dungeon or dragon mag to pickup religiously... and I've been waiting on 4th ed.

 

[Brilbadr]

Did you get this from the AD&D 1st ed MM? I can't really remember at the moment, but "socio/anthro" hooks are not the first thing that comes to mind concerning the monsters in the original MM either. Nor any greater meaning to their existence.

/M

Fiend Folio and MM 2 were probably the best of these- ok it wasn't great in the 1st core MM, picked up in 2nd ed. I was just expecting more consistent good stuff in 4th ed I guess. There is some really plain "soft fluff" not attached to mechanics thatr makes me go yech. But that wouldn't break me off the system.

My criticism of the MM has also got to do with learning what all those magic-the-gathering-like icons mean. Even if they do work better than saying "melee Attack bonus"- (yes I like the written word over bizarre tribal tattoo symbols) I need a reason to learn them. Can't find it at the moment. For me actually naming things would have worked better.

 

[Foundry of Decay]

As admittedly tired as I'm getting at the veritable complaint-fest (I had another name for it, but I try to be civil when possible) that seems to be creeping up not by players on the boards, but by people who have done little more than skim a book, I have to interject here that art is subject to tastes of the individuals viewing it.

As unpopular as this might be to say, I honestly find Erol Otus's art juvenile. It lacks depth, dynamic and proportions. Part of this of course is due to the old mediums not allowing for tight in-depth colours that today's digital art does. And part of it is that styles change over the course of time. In the old days of D&D (I'm a grognard, believe me) simplistic artwork of a fantasy nature was the norm. Boris Vallejo for instance was regarded as one of the kings of fantasy art back then. And I enjoyed all of the old masters..

However, just like old TV shows that I used to adore as a child/teenager, my tastes have changed quite a bit over the years. I couldn't watch those horrible old cartoons these days, and I certainly get more inspiration from the lush art in the new manual as well.

As to flavour text in the MM, this is subjective as well. If you have little problem adapting on the fly, the lack of detailed chatter on monsters and where they live is of little consequence. If you would prefer to just go by whatever the book says and not add your own spin to things, then yes, you will be disappointed to a varying degree.

For the record I've never used the 'descriptive text' or 'social text' of a monster in my 21 years of playing. This doesn't mean I'm 'right' in this instance, just that I'm utterly ambivalent to the lack of descriptive and social text.

Its times like these that I'm happy to be blessed with very adaptive players. They're just happy to play and adapt as they go, so 4e is one hell of a ramp up for us. I wish those who've dropped the game the best in whatever they do end up playing though.

 

[Brilbadr]

As admittedly tired as I'm getting at the veritable complaint-fest (I had another name for it, but I try to be civil when possible) that seems to be creeping up not by players on the boards, but by people who have done little more than skim a book, I have to interject here that art is subject to tastes of the individuals viewing it.

You're right of course.
If it turns out that 4th ed is as easy to play as Warhammer Quest for example, then it will probalby get used for one shots in those "beer and pretzel" moments. Otherwise I will probably never get more qualifed to comment than having read the books twice, cover to cover.

I've gone back and hunted down a couple of artists work from the "rogues gallery" and "slaves to darkness" just in case this art disappears for ever when my copies disintergrate. And unlike the cartoons of my youth it doesn't make me cringe. And yes it is a matter of taste.

I put Frank F's "death dealer" ahead of Boris V's work.
or is that just being arguementative ?