D&D 5E Repeating information for easier reference VS Shared description to save space

[Li Shenron]

This is a little bit of a blunt question... which of the two general principles for editing and organizing rulebooks do you prefer, and would like 5e books to follow?

#1 - Repeating information for ease of reference

Examples:
- every monster in MM has complete info, even if that means that you have to repeat 50 times for each undead the text about all their immunities
- every monster special ability completely described each time even if 100 monsters share the same
- common class features such as spells and energy channeling have their basic (not all) rules repeated under each class description

#2 - Reference one common description to save space

Examples:
- a chapter describing features common to all monsters of the same type
- a chapter describing recurring (non-unique) special monsters abilities (e.g. constrict)
- shared class features described in combat or magic (or another) chapter of the PHB

You can express your preference for either principle, or explain what things would you like repeated and what others would you like shared.

------------------

I tend to prefer #2, but it does require some good planning on book layout. It's not good especially for monsters to have to go back and forth more than 2 places to check rules, but when some features are really common, they really waste a lot of space (think e.g. how much space would be wasted if you had a monster who casts spells as a class and you would reprint the full spells description for all of them).

For character stuff I am much more strongly in favor of avoiding repetitions, because while you may use some monsters only once, each character is played for a long time so players get to learn the class mechanics by using them over and over. Some class stuff repetitions in 3e were truly insane, such as the blob about armor affecting skills... sometimes idiotically repeated also by 3rd-party publisher for each class or prestige class.

 

[delericho]

I went for 'mixed bag', because I want both every monster to repeat the "undead traits" information and I want a central compendium of everything for when I'm creating my own monsters. Though the latter could be confined to an online tool; that would be fine.

Simply put, I want the books to be as useful as possible to reference while running the game. That being the case, I want to look up one page and see everything that I need to know to run the monster, which means it should have full text on one page. (In fact, it also means that a single monster write-up could cover a two-page spread but should not cover the front and back of a single piece of paper.) Even more than that, I don't really want adventures referring me to the MM for the monsters it uses - they should ideally reprint everything relevant about the monster right there in the book (potentially with the subset of abilities it uses in the adventure and a reference to the MM for more information). This is especially the case when an encounter makes use of two different monsters, and so would require page flipping within the MM to run the encounter.

Every time I have to look up a book while running the game, it's a slow-down in the game. A minor one, to be sure, but they do add up. If there are reasonable things that WotC can do to reduce the amount of page-flipping required, they should aim to do so.

 

[Nagol]

Although I appreciate having the information where I'm using it, I find the failures to edit *every stinking copy* when a revision is made to be far more bothersome. In the end, I prefer a single-copy that is referenced so the game engine is consistent.

Now the best of both worlds -- a single copy for editing and that the revision-control/document-control system replicates to every place that it is referenced would be superb!

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

How about we organise the Monster Manual by groups or types of monster, rather than alphabetically? That way all the undead information can appear before the undead themselves.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I voted for a mixed bag because I think rules should be repeated where reasonable, but not at the expense of exploding page count.

As for monster abilities, stat blocks are supposed to be self contained references. I definitely want them to be expansive.

 

[Li Shenron]

Every time I have to look up a book while running the game, it's a slow-down in the game.

Definitely.

I've always handled that problem with photocopies + SRD on a laptop, also because I generally dislike to take any book at the gaming table. It's a pet peeve of mine, but it's either books OR food at the gaming table

The book format just isn't cut to be used at the gaming table IMHO, even with a MM designed like you suggest, it would be a constant page-flipping if you have monsters in 3-4 different pages. Having one monster per page (or multiple pages) is definitely something that helps a lot! But I am otherwise not convinced about reprinting every monster in an adventure... someone who buys a lot of adventures could soon buy an extra MM with the money saved from not reprinting monsters, and then cut the pages into "cards". I almost buy no published adventure at all tho, so it doesn't matter that much to me.

Anyway as I say, DM's material and player's material are very much different with this regard...

 

[steeldragons]

Yes. Check off another "Mixed Bag."

Not solely for what Jeff Carlsen said above. But also because certain places repetition is convenient and appropriate and other places it might not be as necessary.

For the example of Undead immunities, it could be easily explained (a single sentence, even) in each entry for convenience OR all Undead are listed in the MM under "Undead" where all of their common traits are explained once before going into separate individual creatures. So that could be good either way, imho.

I certainly don't want to have to read through how spells are cast or special attack forms are made or fluffed in every monster that has spells/a spell like ability. Anyone should clearly understand that info is in the PHB. Or be directed there in a "Using this book" section at the beginning of the MM or something like that.

But, yeah...sometimes it should be repeated and sometimes it's not necessary...just depends on what the "it" is.

 

[barbiomalefico]

I really like, during session, to have a reference to any information. however i voted for shared 'cause it's the fastest way to store in memory a common rule (you copy it to your paper sheet for a while and automatically you memorize it).

 

[Li Shenron]

How about we organise the Monster Manual by groups or types of monster, rather than alphabetically? That way all the undead information can appear before the undead themselves.

I would like very much the same for the first MM, it's a middle ground, but it still means not to have all info in one place (thus page-flipping still needed) for those who object against that.

To me it would be a nice improvement over having all abilities jumbled in the MM introduction, but also still something will be reprinted in that case.

 

[1of3]

Put stuff where you need it. Class spell lists belong with their classes. Specialties were much better with their feats underneath. (Of course that requires that all feats only belong to one speciality.) Specific abilities like Track should be listed with their class. If there is a feat, that grants this ability make it "Gain the Ranger's Track feature."

Monster abilities need to be referenced with a specific key word at least. So if a monster can constrict, it must have the Constrict key word. Even if all Yuan-ti do constrict, "Yuan-ti traits" is not enough. Also there must be a significant number of constricting monsters, before Constrict becomes are general ability. Otherwise repeat it. My take would be between 5% and 10% of the monsters.