Why is the Monster Manual a Core Rulebook?

[ColonelHardisson]

What inspired this thread was the Vampire thread, where the original poster was complaining that he didn't like the way vampires were portrayed in the MM. As if the MM should have portrayed Vampires in a fashion that suited him. This, to me is not dissimialar to buying a generic module to slot into a campaign, and then complaining that the module relies on a feudally structured society, when he takes his inspiration from the early Roman Empire.

A lot of people do seem to me to be placing more weight on the "coreness" of the MM than should be done. As a very handy resource, the MM is great. When treated as The guide for monsters in D&D (which is what "core" implies), it is restrictive and limits DM creativity.

In some ways I almost see your point. However, the MM gives ways to customize all those monsters, and WotC has given away a great article on how to easily design your own critters with a minimum of fuss. The core status of the MM is necessary, because it is, in effect, the most essential resource on designing one's own monsters. If some take it as being the be-all and end-all of monsters in D&D, that's not the book's fault. Removing the core status of the book to accomodate people who are too unimaginative to consider it as just a basis or inspiration for one's own stable of monsters rather than as an inflexible gospel (and there are very few people like that, in my experience) is too much like how shampoo companies have to put "not to be taken internally" on their products.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

The MM is useful, but is it really assumed by most players that the DM has no right to make up varient monsters? I'd say that was quite unreasonable of the players.

In fact, I'd tell those players to bugger off.

I could be wrong, but I think that this is along the lines of why SableWyvern objects to the core status of the MM. That's just how I'm interpreting his posts, and I will stand corrected if I'm wrong.

Yes, I can see that players might challenge a DM on this. However, unlike past editions, the book has customization built right in, with advancement, levels, and templates (I know I sound like a broken record). So, any player who decided to call out the DM can be quickly shut down using the same book he or she tried to use against the DM. But it shouldn't come to that if the group is solid.

 

[SableWyvern]

Colonel, I think you have read more into what I was saying than I intended. However, I think that most of the responsibility for that rests with me.

I didn't really consider when using the word "lazy" that it might come across as being insulting.

To define what I meant, I included both of the following within lazy:

1. People who have no real reason for not making up monsters of their own, appart from the fact that they couldn't be bothered.

2. People who have more important things to do with their time than invent monsters.

I fall into category 1. Category 2 is not really lazy, in the accepted sense of the word. And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with being in either group. You do not have to make up your own critters in order to be a good DM, or run a successful campaign. The reason I'm playing d&d at the moment is because buying the rulebooks was easier than finishing off the completely home-made system I was working on. That, within the very loose definition of laziness that I used, is lazy. But it is not wrong or bad. At no stage was it my intent to impy otherwise.

Perhaps my initial question could have been better phrased:

Why do a large number of people (far less than a majority, I'm guessing, but still a large number) feel constrained to obey the letter of the d20 rules?

Have WotC (and TSR before them), by their methods of presenting the rules, helped to create an atmosphere where this attitude is more prevalent than it need be?

IMHO, there are far too many references within the rules that indicate to a new player that "Tampering with what is layed down here is dangerous! Beware, lest you destroy the perfect balance we have given you!" Calling MM Core is really only a small factor in that bigger picture.

I have always been of the opinion that you learn more from your mistakes than your successes (I know that I most certainly have, both with relationship to RPing, and otherwise). There are those who have disagreed with me on this before, but I really think that d20 has a great potential to give a beginning player a negative mindset in this regard.

I do think that most experienced players are capable of determining for themselves what to use and what not to.

I dunno. I certainly didn't realise when I first posted that the topic would excite as much fervour as it did. And I most certainly did not mean to denigrate any particular style of DMing/monster use.



Edit: almost threw in another poorly expressed and thus potentially misguiding comment. Actually, I did, but I have now corrected it.

 

[SableWyvern]

Heh. Next post I read, and I've already got a decent example of the mentality I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Dr Zoom
BTW, how can you have that many levels? The current rules only go up to character level 20, and the ELH just got published.

The post was in response to a query about a character with about 27 levels.

 

[Numion]

The Monster Manual is a Core book so that module and adventure writers can use a large variety of monsters without needing to write full page descriptions for each monster they use.

This is a very good reason. WotC counted on other companies to provide the bulk of adventures for D&D through d20 lisence. That would be impossible without a proper monster book as a Core book.

IMHO, WotC should have somehow included in the d20 lisence text that other books (than PHB, DMG and MM) shouldn't be referred to as core books. It got a bit silly with every hardcover book being called core.

 

[Lady Dragon]

I think the most important reason however for the MM being a corerulebook is the policy about only referring to the core rulebooks in future products.This way they can reference monster is a module or supplement without having to reprint the whole monster description in every supplement.

 

[Christian]

The Monster Manual is a Core book so that module and adventure writers can use a large variety of monsters without needing to write full page descriptions for each monster they use.

Ding-ding-ding! And Geoff gets the door prize for the first fully correct answer. Honorable mention to Lady Dragon for repeating in more detail a bit later.

The Core rulebooks provide a basic framework for any supplements and modules. If a writer wants to use a monster from the MM, (s)he can use a basic description and stat block, trusting that the reader has a MM, and that if the reader doesn't, the writer doesn't care. The only full writeups that need to appear in the module/supplement are for new or altered creatures. This lets items like the core modules, with some 1-2 dozen or so monsters, be 32 pages instead of 64.

If/when I run a campaign, I would strongly caution any player from assuming that a monster his/her character encounters is identical to anything in the MM. I generally write my own adventures, you see ...

 

[jaldaen]

My only reply to this is that when some d20 companies (I won't mention names) can barely get their monster stats correct (according to WotC's rules), then how do you expect regular Joesmoe DM to do so?

I'm a freelance writer/designer and have done quite a few monster entries and helped others with those entries, and to be honest with you they are no piece of cake... their are a lot of factors in making monsters and they shouldn't just be cranked-out... DMs have enough to plan for (I DM and play in a bunch of games) and having the MM is a boon that should not be overlooked... nor do I think it lazy... laziness implies not wanting to work on something... instead I think of the MM as a time saving tool... not to be a crutch for sure, but not to be overlooked as a device to be used when their is no reason not to...

Must be off... oh well this was turning into a rant anyway ;-)

Jaldaen

 

[Alcamtar]

Some followup comments.

First, I still agree with everything SableWyvern has said -- including clarifications -- so won't repeat that here.

Second, I didn't mean to imply that using the MM is stupid or lazy. I use it myself, and yes I also like using some classic monsters. And I often use monsters without modification. There's nothing *wrong* with using the MM, and it's a great resource and idea book.

I don't even necessary "object" to it being a core rulebook -- I think it's the *rule* book aspect that bothers me. It's more the attitude that it is a rulebook, the attitude that there is a "rule" about what orcs are and what they aren't, a "rule" about how they can be modified, and so forth.

For example, I hear a lot of people say "3E is better because now you can have tough, unpredictable orcs." Yet, you could always do that. It takes roughly 2 seonds to say "this orc has 6 HD and 20 strength, and I think I'll add two feats also." A new monster is just as easy.

Like SableWyvern, I also read the Vampire thread and that was partially in my mind as I was posting. I'm also thinking about all the times someone has proposed a small tweak in this or that (for whatever reason) and others chimed in and said "sure if you want to, but I prefer to trust the designers." And I'm thinking of all the times someone has suggested doing something new and different and others chime in with "well, just take monster X and add class levels" as if any other approach is unthinkable.

It's the culture of "I'll do everything 100% by the book even if it seems broken, because the designers know best" that bothers me. (Yes I've heard people say that.) And the attitude of "It's okay to make up stuff, but if a rule exists you should use that instead." This is not as bad, except that in 3E there is a rule for pretty much everything, so if you always stick to them you greatly limit your possibilities. I mean its fine if you just like playing that way... whatever floats your boat, after all. Anyway I don't mean to imply anyone is doing it wrong, just that thre is no one "right way" to do it.

Mike

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I don't even necessary "object" to it being a core rulebook -- I think it's the *rule* book aspect that bothers me. It's more the attitude that it is a rulebook, the attitude that there is a "rule" about what orcs are and what they aren't, a "rule" about how they can be modified, and so forth.

For example, I hear a lot of people say "3E is better because now you can have tough, unpredictable orcs." Yet, you could always do that. It takes roughly 2 seonds to say "this orc has 6 HD and 20 strength, and I think I'll add two feats also." A new monster is just as easy.

I understand what you're saying, and agree to an extent. I will add, though, that WotC's addition of guidelines for advancing monsters brought with it an implicit suggestion to customize to one's heart's content. At least it seemed that way to me. Especially after 20 years of TSR's often draconian attitude about house rules vs. what was "official."

I guess what I'm getting at is this - a lot of the methods given for advancing/customizing monsters in WotC's MM are not very far off from methods that DMs I've known, as well as myself, used to accomplish the same thing way back when. It was just exceedingly cool to see a lot of things we'd done as house rules in the 1e/2e eras make their way into the actual rules. I hesitate to call them rules, though, because 3e's attitude about house vs. official rules is so different than what we were used to with TSR.

Your last sentence that I've quoted is dead-on accurate. But, I think creating new monsters is extremely easy now, easier even than in the past. What the 3e MM (and that article available online now, including at the Creature Catalog) helps a DM to do is to create new monsters that are quick and self-consistent. This is because it is shown that one doesn't necessarily have to reinvent the wheel everytime one creates a new monster. For example, I wanted a tough Faerie Knight for an Arthurian campaign world. Rather than sit and hammer it out from scratch, I simply looked through the MM, found a monster with abilities similar to what I wanted (in this case, the Ogre Mage), added a template (half fiend), and added levels of fighter. Voila! A whole new monster that I'd bet would pass muster as a new creation.

In the end, I do actually agree with you and SableWyvern on this point - people should look at the rules - especially the MM - as guidelines rather than commandments. Use the "rules" when they work to your advantage, but don't become straitjacketed by them.