[two pages display] Yum ! Fluff !

[Aloïsius]

You know what ? I'm happy. There has been a slow improvement during 3e evolution, but the MM was just a collection of unrelated monsters, often without informations about the "why does this ****ing monstruosity exist ?".

The two page display posted here http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220268 and "translated" into something readable by jeremy_dnd is what the MM should have been from the start.

Lets ignore the crunch (I'm oversatured with crunch anyway) and look how much fluufy usefull goodness they have been able to pack in so little space :

Creature Type
Medium shadow humanoid (undead) for Bodak VS Large shadow animate (undead) for Boneclaw : the creature type already says a lot about the story of the beast.

Monster tactics not a mere "how to mop the PC" but a way to create different favors for similar but differente monsters : look bodak skulk VS bodak reaver.

monster lore
Ok, we have already see this kind of stuff in various books. But I realy like what we have here : DC for info about the beasts power, DC for info about the beast background, inspiring stuff for the DM, links with other creatures/NPC (Bodak >> Nightwalker ; boneclaw >> NPC hag...). The "story department seems to have made a good work.


Encounter Groups
More fluffy goodness : what creatures often work with the beast, how do they relate, what is their role... in 4 or 5 short lines. Plus advices for running them. Nice !


I know a lot of experienced or homebrewing DM/grognards were sceptical about flavour changes in particular and the "story team"'s work in general, labelled either as useless or annoying. But for me, countless pages of soulless monsters don't do the trick. It seems that the developers have created a sort of "monster ecology", were no monster stands alone in its corner of the DM. I hope they are all done that way. Sure, such or such aspect may not fit in your campaign world, but it's easier to adjust the flavour of a monster when there is one than to create it from scratch.

So, in all the mad crunch orgy, don't forget the fluff !

 

[Knight Otu]

So, in all the mad crunch orgy, don't forget the fluff !

Funny, I found the fluff on the monster spread to be horribly sparse. There is some, yes, but so little...

 

[Aloïsius]

Funny, I found the fluff on the monster spread to be horribly sparse. There is some, yes, but so little...

Let's use Boneclaw's example :

creature type
3e : undead
4e : shadow animate undead
4e is more specific >>> 4e win
monster tactic
3e and 4e : same info (use reach to make AO), but with less words in 4e >> >4e win.

Boneclaw in...
3e MM3 has fluff for Eberron and FR. In both cases, a hag of some sort seems to have been the creator/inspirator of the boneclaw.
4e MM use another hag. use the eberron variant of "boneclaw are made with ogre" but add more details to the ritual : it uses an Oni soul too.

So, in the end, you have the same info, maybe even more in 4e, but just less setting specific. For DM not running FR or Eberron >>> 4e win. For DM runing FR or Eberron, tie.

encounters group
No info in 3e, where monsters were usualy stand alone >>>> 4e win.

monster lore
No info in 3e : it was impossible to know how secret was the secret of boneclaw creation.
4e gives you enough stuff to imagine a scenario involving boneclaw creation, complete with multiple factions, "necrosmuggler" network selling ogre's body part, quests for the trapped soul of an oni, manipulative hags using ally etc... 4e win, despite 3e use of more campaign specific stuff, but less inspiring IMHO.

 

[Knight Otu]

Yeah, my criticism applies to 3E as well. I was hoping that we'd see more fluff. I suppose, though, that undead need little fluff, so there may be a chance to see more fluff for other creatures.

 

[Aloïsius]

Yeah, my criticism applies to 3E as well.

So you agree that more is better
Of course, it could hardly be worse than 3e MM (look the nighwalker fluff... abyssal...).

But the 4e fluff seems to have an advantage : it is consistent. There are relations between the various monsters, they do not exist in a vacuum.

 

[Wolfspider]

So, in the end, you have the same info, maybe even more in 4e, but just less setting specific. For DM not running FR or Eberron >>> 4e win. For DM runing FR or Eberron, tie.

How do you figure that less setting specific information equals a tie for FR or Eberron DMs? I figure that less would equal, well, less.

encounters group
No info in 3e, where monsters were usualy stand alone >>>> 4e win.

I don't see this as an improvment, merely a difference. As you yourself say, in 3e monsters are designed to stand alone, so why give information that isn't going to be used by the DM? That would be a waste of space and not make any sense in light of the system design.

In any case, you can stop beating up on poor v3.5 now. It's already lying on the ground with a bloody nose, crying, "Uncle!"

My reaction to the sample spread from MM: It does seem sparse to me, but very useful. I doubt I will have any problems coming up with ideas on how to use these beasties and the others described in the book.

 

[Aloïsius]

How do you figure that less setting specific information equals a tie for FR or Eberron DMs? I figure that less would equal, well, less.

Because there is more of it, so a "+" and a "-" give an "=".

I don't see this as an improvement, merely a difference. As you yourself say, in 3e monsters are designed to stand alone, so why give information that isn't going to be used by the DM? That would be a waste of space and not make any sense in light of the system design.

system wise, it's merely a difference. But story wise, it's a "+" : most DM already use multiple monsters together anyway. And even when they don't, Dungeon are a succession of story-related monsters. With this info, you know which monster works with another one.

In any case, you can stop beating up on poor v3.5 now. It's already lying on the ground with a bloody nose, crying, "Uncle!"

Oh, I'm sure there will be thing I will miss from 3.5 (and 3.0). But the MM's content is not one of them. I made this thread because I would like to emphasis the work that has been done on the fluff, and the way it seamlessly integrate in the books.

My reaction to the sample spread from MM: It does seem sparse to me, but very useful. I doubt I will have any problems coming up with ideas on how to use these beasties and the others described in the book.

My thought exactly. Short, useful, inspiring stuff right in the MM. I hope reading the MM can give me instant idea of "how to use them" in my plots.

 

[Shemeska]

Funny, I found the fluff on the monster spread to be horribly sparse. There is some, yes, but so little...

Agreed. The flavor text there left much to be desired.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Specifically, I'm a little bummed about the Bodak missing their "killed by the touch of absolute evil" thing, and their "fleeting memories of a past life."

IIRC, this was even better in 2e where their appearance had a mechanical effect in combat, giving you the whole eerie "killed by the ghost of the paladin you were sent to rescue" kind of moment.

Even in 3e, the bodak allowed you to have a slightly sympathetic creature of absolute evil, a tragic model of a fallen mortal, who got a bit too close to Things Man Was Not Meant To Know and went a bit funny in the head. You needed to kill it, but you could see that it knew that, on some level, it needed to be killed.

4e's response to this juicy little flavor?

"It's a creature of killing who likes to kill and kills a lot!"

FREAKING YAWN.

 

[Aloïsius]

Specifically, I'm a little bummed about the Bodak missing their "killed by the touch of absolute evil" thing, and their "fleeting memories of a past life."
[...]
4e's response to this juicy little flavor?

"It's a creature of killing who likes to kill and kills a lot!"

Nope, read better :

DC 30: When a nightwalker slays a humanoid, that nightwalker can ritually transform the slain creature's body and spirit into a bodak. The bodak then acts at the nightwalker's behest, serving whomever its master dictates.

So, now you know WHAT was the "pure evil"* that killed the humanoid, and WHY this victim has been made into a bodak. As much fluff as before, more informations, less verbosity. 4e win



* BTW, I'm quite sure the nightwalker entry will play on this "pure evil" aspect.