Where's the oppressive fluff?

[The Little Raven]

Every DM is going to tailor the monsters used to their campaign

Here's the problem. You assume this. This, however, is not true for all DMs. The reason that multiple variations of iconic monsters like goblins are a good thing is that I don't have to tailor monsters, I can just drop them in and they are different from other types of goblins and still useful.

 

[Scribble]

I didn't say anything about abilities or powers... so what does the stat block have to do with this?

Sorry was referring to the overall section. Should have chosen my words more properly.

Every DM is going to tailor the monsters used to their campaign, so while it might be a good thing for you that there are less overall monsters and more variations, for others (especially seeing as it is ridiculously simple to create variations on monsters), looking at it from a general view I don't like it that much. I wonder, would you have been even happier if there had been a quarter of the monsters presented and even more variations? Personally, like I said earlier 3 or 4 variations and I'm good, give me more to base my own variations on.

I'm thinking they found the perfect ratio. The monsters that are the big guns, like Goblins and Orcs, and such have lots of variations. Those that aren't like the basilisk and the Wyvern have a smaller number of variations.

It's all about utility. Chances are people use Goblins a lot more, so chances are they'll want more variation. The work is done, it's plug and play.

Sure I can customize my Goblins... but I'm glad I don't have to do it as much because I tend to use a lot of goblins.

I'm willing to bet that a greater number of DMs out there want plug and play rather then having to customize monsters all the time.

The monster manual should seek to fulfill the greatest amount of utility for the greatest amount of players.

 

[Nifft]

I love the lack of fluff, because it eliminates "flavor lawyer" whining.

Nothing annoys me more than a player who's read the books and meta-games based on the flavor text. It kills the discovery aspect of social role-playing, and it turns the opportunity for some DM creativity into an adversarial power struggle. :\

Cheers, -- N

 

[Imaro]

Here's the problem. You assume this. This, however, is not true for all DMs. The reason that multiple variations of iconic monsters like goblins are a good thing is that I don't have to tailor monsters, I can just drop them in and they are different from other types of goblins and still useful.

And you assume the opposite. In all honesty I'm starting my real campaign going tomorrow... and I, as well as my players, are already tired of kobolds. My game will probably not feature a kobold for a pretty long time.

I tend to think most DM's have a setting or build a setting that have certain conceits, but to assume those conceits are the same as another's doesn't make much sense to me. It's sorta like...Well if I like chocolate then a company should make 50 variations of chocolate and 2 of vanilla, because most people eat chocolate since I do. That isn't sound logic.

In the end it's a preference thing, some people would rather have 4-5 pages of "different" goblins, rather than 3 new types of monsters, so that when the need arises they don't have to use the system to build them. I can understand it, but the simplicity of the monster design rules make me lean in the other direction.

 

[Fifth Element]

Every DM is going to tailor the monsters used to their campaign

This could be used as an argument for including minimal flavour text. Since most DMs are going to tailor the monsters as they see fit, does it matter that they don't tell us what the standard diet of the monster is supposed to be?

 

[SpiderMonkey]

I did like the inclusion in 3.5 of a sentence or two of description text (in italics) that you could throw out to describe the monster, but now that I think of it, I'm not sure I ever used it.

I guess the picture probably kills two birds with one stone in that regard.

 

[Imaro]

This could be used as an argument for including minimal flavour text. Since most DMs are going to tailor the monsters as they see fit, does it matter that they don't tell us what the standard diet of the monster is supposed to be?

I'm sorry, meant the types of monsters he uses most frequently. So now is it an argument for more monsters in the MM? And since we're using hyperbole there are definitely monsters in the MM who get no descriptive text at all, so forget about the standard diet give me the basics at least.

 

[jdrakeh]

I love the lack of fluff, because it eliminates "flavor lawyer" whining.

Heck, yes. I mentioned this over at Circvs, but it's worth repeating here. Nothing sucks the fun out of a RPG more for me than havinng the authors prescribe fluff for the reasons that you mention. Specifically. . .

It kills the discovery aspect of social role-playing, and it turns the opportunity for some DM creativity into an adversarial power struggle.

At Circvs, I mention the old Greyhawk campaigns of Gary Gygax, Rob Kuntz, et al. The details of these campaigns have all appeared online at various times -- and they're all completely different, despite ostensibly being set in the same world.

Today we have whole forums dedicated to arguing Greyhawk canon and what constitutes a 'real' Greyhawk campaign. This is the end result of standardizing fluff.

 

[Jack99]

Why would I not refer to the illustration when dealing with the monster's appearance?

Besides, wouldn't describing the monster in detail count as oppressive fluff?

C'mon, it was very important to know that female hill giants weighed around 11,500 lbs..

 

[Doug McCrae]

C'mon, it was very important to know that female hill giants weighed around 11,500 lbs..

For chubby chasers.