Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6049532" data-attributes="member: 42582">Based on the 2nd ed MM entries that I and others have linked to in this thread, I think this is quite a generous assessment of the Monstrous Manual.I agree that the 4e MM was a revelation - in play, but also in pre-reading, because of the play that it promised.I do read 4e monster books as bedtime reading, but not because they're stories - but because of the play implict in them.In contrast to pre-4e monster books, I found Rolemaster's Creatures & Treasures very good, mostly because it showed a very clear alternative to the D&D norm: concise stat blocks, dozens of monsters on a page, and also a strong integration of monster and PC-building rules: C&T uses Rolemaster's spell list systems to express the supernatural abilities of monsters, which does have the "need multiple books" headache but, for a strongly simulationist system, helps reinforce the sense of the spell lists as expressing the underlying workings of magic in that world.That makes sense. An appreciation for the stat blocks is certainly a key part of reading the 4e MM. They're not an appendix to the monster descriptions - they express the monsters as game elements.</blockquote>