Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5944221" data-attributes="member: 42582">You're right about the hubbub around the 4e MM. It was big enough that WotC changed the format for MM3 and the MVs! (I generally don't like the new format. It makes the information harder to get out, and doesn't have lore DCs. One of the few exceptions is the Wandering Tower in MV2 - its flavour is inspiring in the narrative form in which it's presented.)BUt I've always been in a minority in arguing that the MM has about the right amount of lore to make monsters significant story elements (with hydras, what I remember without going back to the book is that they come from the primordial Bryakhus (sp?)). I acknowledge that there are mechanical weaknesses in many of the MM monsters (and I always update to MM3 damage, and am careful with solos and elites) but its still one of my favourite ever monster books (up there with Rolemaster Creature and Treasures) for it mix of lore, myth and mechanics that deliver what is promised.Anyway, I think that you're right about the "bedtime story" thing. If you look at how I resequenced the hook horror information, I made it flow better as a narrative, rather than the discrete bundles of factoids found in the entry itself.This doesn't bother me, because I don't read the books as "stories". I read them to give me ideas for how to use monsters in my game. But I know the "story" approach is very popular (and not just in MMs - I get the impression it's a big part of the appeal of Paizo's adventure and campaign material). I see this as part of the overall 4e vibe of being upfront about being a game. I find it hard to put my finger on the exact point, because the 1st ed DMG is hugely popular and yet is also upfront about the game being a game. But somehow the way 4e did it seemed to be really unpopular. And in reaction we get more narrative monster flavour text, the narrative spell descriptions in the playtest, etc.Thanks - you're very kind (especially for a messageboard poster!). I don't disagree with any of this. But I think we might look to the rules in different ways. So for me, the fact that the kobold description says "Natural humanoid" and gives a reasonable INT stat and doesn't have the undead subtype, and then lists a range of different kobolds filling obviously different cultural roles, already does the job of telling me that they're not automata.Or look at a different monster, the Deathlock Wight. The fact that it has a power called Horrific Visage, that has the [fear] descriptor, attacks Will and causes psychic damage and a push on a hit already tells me that this thing can suddenly reveal it's true, rotting-corpse visage and this will make its foes flee in fear (that clearly being what the push represents here - and the power is a close blast, meaning that it has a "facing" aspect just as one would expect in this sort of case).That's part of why I found the 4e MM so inspiring. More than any other monster book I've read or used, the mechanics are incredibly tightly integrated into the presentation and exposition of the creatures.For those who don't think of the game in such mechanically-informed terms - as in, "How will this play at the table, given the action resolution rules" - I can see that they would find the Wight entry much more sparse than I do.I also think this ties back to the "bedtime story" thing. Whatever I'm getting out of the book when I read those statblock, it's not like reading a story. It's much more like imagining and preparing a game. For me, the MM is a reference work - but like a good reference work, a useful and inspiring one!</blockquote>

Verification