Why is the Monster Manual a Core Rulebook?

[Psion]

I think most people have way more important things to do with their lives than create new monsters from scratch.

Precisely. There are many monsters that I have created an converted. But doing it right, with an appropriate level of challenge takes time. Further, I might find a nugget or idea there that I hadn't thought of myself.

For that matter, saving work and getting ideas are pretty much the central reason to buy many materials.

The "humans are the most dangerous monsters" type of campaign gets boring, especially for someone wanting to play D&D.

That pretty much described my 2e campaign (well, pretty much "races that can have classes", not just humans.) In 3e, the better defined monster statistics, templates, and ability to add class levels to nearly any creatures have made the monster manual more than just a "stock" villain resource, but a baseline from which you can build considerably.

 

[Psion]

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

Uh, yeah. The DMG and MM are pretty much for DMs. Anything new or astonishing about this statement?

 

[Darraketh]

Uh, yeah. The DMG and MM are pretty much for DMs. Anything new or astonishing about this statement?

Sorry, I should have quoted the quote below for the benefit of those not reading the entire thread.

I promise to do better in the future. lol

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... <snip>...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....

 

[LostSoul]

I consider the Monster Manual a D&D setting book. A very handy setting book.

 

[Alcamtar]

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

Mine bought both MM and DMG anyway. They "needed" the MM so they'd have stats for their monster summoning spells. And they "needed" the DMG so they'd know what to use their item creation feats on. I'd prefer they don't have this info and encouraged them not to buy the stuff, but I can't really stop them. And they argued that the monsters are right there in the spell description, so "obviously" they would have learned all about them in the process of learning the spell. (sigh)

Besides, all my players felt that they at least needed a complete set of the "core books", since those weren't optional. (We all know they don't really, but the "core" designation is a very convenient excuse for players and does sell books, so it's a good marketing decision.)

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Besides, all my players felt that they at least needed a complete set of the "core books", since those weren't optional. (We all know they don't really, but the "core" designation is a very convenient excuse for players and does sell books, so it's a good marketing decision.)

Want to trade players?

Mine are too cheap to buy the other core books, and I become the local rpg library.

And they ignore my late fees..

FD

 

[Alcamtar]

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.
[...]
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.

I agree completely with pretty much everything you said. I much prefer unique monsters, both as a player and a DM. And I really hate the "all trolls are X" approach, as well as the laundry list of special abilities... every monster with tremorsense works the same way? What is that all about? Monsters should be scary and unpredictable. It's so annoying to read a conversion from a movie or game and then find a poorly-matched D&D monster in there, just because it has the same name and "this is the way it's done in D&D".

The "this is the way things should be done - we are professionals and we know what we're doing" attitude goes all the way back to Gygax, who was flat-out condescending at times. He was also fond of saying "beware of imitations, and accept only approved D&D brand products." But a lot of players buy into this marketing line, looking askance at original creations because "it's not official" and "it wasn't done by a professional" and "I don't trust it". That's naive and lazy, IMO.

Someone said that without the MM you wouldn't know how to design your own monster. To this I respectfully reply, "it's because you didn't try". The writers did it -- there had to be a "first monster" -- and so can you. Sure it's intimidating the first time, but it really isn't hard. My cat can't catch birds. It's not that he's incapable or lacks the instinct; cats are natural bird catchers. But he never really tries. He takes a few steps, sits down, goes back to his food dish. Why put out the effort when you can be fed? So instead he gets fat and lazy and complacent, and misses out on part of the experience of being a cat. People are naturally creative too, especially gamers. It's interesting to see the huge abundance of fan-created d20 material, and at the same time everyone is cautious about actually using it or allowing it in their games.

Someone else said the DMG was dispensable but the MM was essential for CRs. I just wanted to point out that without the DMG, CRs are extremely limited. Yes the MM has a very brief explanation of what they mean, but no guidelines at all on how to do multiple creatures in an encounter, award experience, etc. (I 'm not fond of the CR system anyway, but that's a different topic.)

To each his own, I guess. None of this breaks the game, but it does influence the overall D&D subculture and has a retarding effect on it I think. (I mean "limiting" not "stupid".)

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I'd rather be thinking up adventures than whipping up stats for critters whole cloth.

I think you're overlooking, or ignoring, the fact that monsters in the Monster Manual are very, very customizable, with advancement and classes. It's also easy to make up whole new critters with a minimum of effort, simply by using templates, classes, skill and feat choices, power substitutions, etc. This whole Luddite attitude that the only legitimate way of using monsters is to create them from scratch everytime seems curious to me. What else should this mind-set be applied to? Would you rather smelt your own iron and create new parts for your car, or do you prefer the innovation of interchangeability of parts? If you golf, do you make your own clubs? For that matter, why not create your own game system and not bother buying any books? Most people simply want to enjoy the game, and not turn it into a vocation.

 

[Mouseferatu]

A lot of people--and I'm not pointing any fingers--seem to make the mistake of thinking that "I don't need this" is the same thing as "This isn't necessary."

It isn't.

When you get right down to it, none of this is necessary. You could make up new rules and play your own fantasy game without using the PHB. You can make up your own magic items and the like, and play without the DMG. And yes, you can make up your own monsters.

But the bottom line is, you shouldn't have to. The purpose of the core rules is twofold:

1) To provide the basic rules of the game.

2) To provide enough material that a DM could run a game without having to consult any other books and without having to make up his own stuff.

Now leaving aside the notion as to whether that's a good or bad thing, it's a necessary thing. A game like D&D, in its most basic form, cannot function without a variety of monsters and enemies. The MM provides that.

And I, for one, have never met anyone who thinks that the MM is the be all and end all of monsters. It provides a bunch for DMs to choose from, add to, or modify, as they prefer. If the people you're gaming with don't understand that, they're not mature enough to be worth bothering with. But I think gamers that immature are far rarer than they're made out to be.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I think, though, if you read the thread again, you'll see that those who are saying "I don't need this" have also said that using the MM and books like it is "lazy." That seems like a pretty absolute statement to me, and a judgement of those who do use it. It also seems to be saying "my way is the better way, " which is precisely the attitude that is being criticized.