Why is the Monster Manual a Core Rulebook?

[SableWyvern]

Just what the topic says.

D&D is the only game system I've come across that considers it's compendium of critters to be a core rulebook. Why, why, why is it so?

You could talk about the difficulty of determining CRs for homebrewed critters, but the MM as core predates 3e, so I don't think that counts, nor is the problem unique to D&D. So, to iterate, why, why, why is it so?

 

[coyote6]

What game that features "killing monsters" as a fairly major portion of its style doesn't have monsters in its core rules?

There are monsters in every Call of Cthulhu core book I've seen.

ISTR Stormbringer having plenty of monster stats in it. Even Elfquest had monster stats.

Every one of WW's World of Darkness games I've seen has had a section of foes at the back that's full of monsters.

SR has a section in all three editions' core rules devoted to critters. [Edit: wait -- now that I think about it, 3rd edition may have pushed the critters stuff out to the GM's screen booklet. My bad. OTOH, monster fighting isn't that big a part of shadowrunning, and the critters would've been in the core rules if they'd had room.]

Heck, even GURPS has lots of stuff to allow a GM to create monsters in its rules, plus animal stats, plus monster stats in appropriate world- and genre-books (e.g., Aztecs, Fantasy, etc.).

So which game that has monster fighting as an expected part of the game doesn't have monsters in its core rules?

 

[Darkness]

Hmm... Probably since, given that D&D is a "general" fantasy system, a solid basis of creatures is necessary - and thus, most people will need it to play.

 

[Zappo]

How can you play without monsters? Yeah, you can use (demi)human foes only, and that can work very well, but it wouldn't be D&D.

Before you say that you can homebrew monsters, try to look at it with a total newbie's eye and you'll see why this is unfeasible.

Actually, I can't think at a single RPG that doesn't come with a good number of monsters, except those where monsters aren't really present. If I buy an RPG where it says "Heroes battle monsters with magic", I fully expect to find the mechanical info for monsters inside. Don't you?

 

[SableWyvern]

OK.

I was a little overcome by emotion when I posted originally. And I sort of missed all the games that include detailed monster descriptions in their main rulebook (as opposed to d&d, which put out a separate book).

My bad.

I'll try to be a little more precise with my semi-rant.

I pretty much started playing with MERP. This included a collection of critters, but certainly not a huge one. I moved on to Rolemaster, which included brief stats for a fair few monsters, but no detailed descriptions/rules.

I think that I am better of for it. Of course, I also believe that d20 over-guides new players. I'm all for learning from your mistakes, rather than the new d20 style that gives (me at least) the impression that it is trying to present a perfectly balanced system - which, simply, it isn't. But that's a different issue.

I guess what I was really meaning to get at (and something that I didn't express very well) is that with the MM as a core rulebook, it is looked upon by many players as a definitive explanation of the monsters contained within. NOT as merely a handy resource, which is what it really is. As with so many things d20, IMHO, it is presented as a final arbiter of what is right and wrong with respect to monsters - and while there is Rule-0, and there are a few spots in the DMG where it talks about the rulebooks as guidelines, the overwhelming feeling from all three books is that "This is the way things should be done - do otherwise at your own peril". This, in my opinion, stunts the learning curve of new players, and especially with regard to the MM, which should have far less import given to it than the PHB and DMG. To quote myself, from the thread that inspired this one:

Originally posted by me
I think the problem here is with the efficacy of the TSR marketing department. I was DMing for 10 years before I bought my first book of monsters (ICE's Creatures and Treasures).

IMO, the Monster Manual, and the equivalents for other game systems, are for lazy DMs (and note that I own the MM, and am pulling most of the monsters for my current campaign out of it; I have become lazy).

Books full of monsters, Vampires or otherwise, are not core rulebooks. They are crutches. Make your own critters. Use PC race antagonists. Apply the bigger-picture affects of vampire abilities in your campaign, or, if you don't like them, alter what's written.

The Monster Manual is just an adventure module without a plot. It has no import beyond that. Treat it as such, and change what doesn't suit your campaign. Don't give it the same respect that you do the PHB or the DMG.

The D&D vampire is perfectly reasonable. But, it is based on a widespread and varied myth, open to huge interpretation. No matter what WotC did, it was never going fit the archetype, because there is none.

 

[Aaron2]

Huh

I think the MM is way more important than the DMG (no offense to Monte). In fact, I've been running a game for almost a year now and I've almost never even looked in it. I've certainly never consulted it while playing.

The MM is most important because is shows how monsters are made. Without it, I'm not sure how you can even create homebrew monsters.

The MM has the paint used to create the shared D&D experience. You meet another player and you can talk about Beholders, Liches, Carrion Crawlers, and Rust Monsters and the other players will know what your talking about. If you only use strange homebrew monsters, you playing in a vaccuum ... and that isn't what D&D is all about. Its a social activity, why be anti-social about it?

Aaron

 

[ColonelHardisson]

You can easily customize monsters from the MM using advancement or adding class levels, so the PCs and players will never be quite sure how tough a given critter will be.

Now, don't take the following personally, or as a slam. I think most people have way more important things to do with their lives than create new monsters from scratch. The "humans are the most dangerous monsters" type of campaign gets boring, especially for someone wanting to play D&D. When I want to interact with humans, I hang out with friends and family. To paraphrase a criticism I've seen of films that try to be "realistic" - why should I pay money and play a game that simulates something I can get on the street for free?

Monster books are handy. They provide good basic monsters that can be tailored to a gamers tastes. Monsters are the essence of D&D, or at least a huge part of it. I will say that not only do I think it's not lazy to use them, but I'll say that it's lazier to not use them. I know how people act and react because not only do I know and interact with people constantly, I am a person. The inner workings of humans have been explored in songs, poems, medical journals - basically, all the great minds of the ages have produced material upon which I can draw to ascribe motives and feelings to humans. It's a lot harder to come up with properly alien thoughts and motives for non-humans, especially those that are very unhuman in nature.

Just my thoughts, and a respectful counterargument.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Now, don't take the following personally, or as a slam. I think most people have way more important things to do with their lives than create new monsters from scratch.

Bingo-

I am not lacking in creativity. I could create new and original monsters for every session, but I would rather work on the adventure. Heck, half the MM and books like it act as a way to generate ideas for encounters/adventures.. I am thankful it is there.

And.. I look forward to the nearly thought figments of my imagination, the Monsternomicon and Liber Bestarius.

FD

 

[Darraketh]

IMO As far as new players are concerned all they need is the Player's Handbook.

 

[Crothian]

IMO As far as new players are concerned all they need is the Player's Handbook.

Players don't need the MM. Heck, I'd perfer them not having or looking at it. It's the DM's who need it. It's a good set of rules and a general timesaver.