Why is the Monster Manual a Core Rulebook?

[Hand of Evil]

Could say it is a 'cow'!

In the old days of D&D it was always the three, player's guide, DM guide and the monster manual. It is one of the books you have to have to play the game, everything after that is optional.

 

[reiella]

Hmm and it was also fairly possible to play and run D&D with just the first printing PHB. The survival guide told you what you needed to know about awarding xp, and gave you a handful of monsters (ok, maybe not even a handful but there were some).

It's core simply because the default nature is not to have the monsters bundled with the PHB or DMG in any large number. It's also to sate the players who think that monsters are only really important for the DMs to know (hence blue border).

If the MM shouldn't be core, how much else of the 'core books' shouldn't be? Not going as far as to say the phb, but should all the classes be core or races? Why do we need a spellbook of any sort beyond a handful of examples?

 

[alsih2o]

a better question might be: "why do they call it the monster manual?" i mean, are dwarves and elves monsters? halflings or gnomes? ponies? i dare you to call a solar or planetar a monster to their face

it is core because there are 3 things in the d+d world, players, d.m.'s and the things we chat wit and whup tooshy on

all of this is said in jest, and complete seriousness

 

[Lady Dragon]

Why is the monster manual a corebook?

Because they decided to do it in 3 books instead of 2 or 1 like most lesser games do. Yes they could have cut out half of the monsters and half of the spells and/or magic items and tacked the MM on to the end of either the PH or the DMG which is what most games do.

In the twenty years I've been playing there is no doubt that my MM of whatever edition I'm playing gets the most use.Since I'm fairly familiar with the rules in the Players handbook I don't really need to look at it all that often and then its usually for spells the same goes for the DMG I usually look at it for Magic items but I need the MM the most since I don't have all of the various monsters stats memorized And I'm most likely to use variety with monsters types.

As for creating my own monsters,come on why would I want to do that when there are so many great monsters available in already published books and there is no doubt that MM is the best it has all the classic monsters(yeah I know maybe your personal favorite didn't make it)but overall there are some wonderful monsters in that book.Sometimes I think we get to familiar with them that we don't appreciate them anymore.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I lack the time to create all my own monsters. Plus the "classic" D&D monsters are part of the feel of the game. I don't think that means I'm lazy, I think it means I have more important things to do with my gaming time than to create all my own monsters.

 

[William Ronald]

I am more interested in creating interesting adventures for my players than having to constantly invent new monsters from scratch. Yes, I have created new monsters for my campaign. Yet I have found the Monster Manual to be a valuable tool.

I can work with existing creatures to give me an idea how a new monster would compare to existing creatures. With 3rd edition, I can now stack on templates and do even more fun things.

Some of the creatures in the Monster Manual are based off of creatures in myth, legend, and folklore. Having these creatures in the core rules makes sense to me. Of course, I might have thought it strange back in 1980 if there were no rules on dragons in a game called Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[SableWyvern]

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.

Given that I started the thread, and was also the person that first used the word "lazy", I'm thinking that I may be one of the people that this comment is directed at.

Originally posted by me
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).

I did not mean to imply that there is anything wrong with this laziness, and I pointed out that I fit the bill as well. The MM is a very handy resource. It is a Good Thing.

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.

"My way", in the context of the Colonel's post, would simply be to take away the MMs official status as a Core Rulebook. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Geoff Watson]

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.

Geoff.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Given that I started the thread, and was also the person that first used the word "lazy", I'm thinking that I may be one of the people that this comment is directed at.

Yes. I guess that goes without saying. Do you agree or disagree? You (and at least one other person) object to what you perceive to be the MM's furtherance of the D&D design team's dictation of how monsters are supposed to be, but then indicate that those who use it are somehow lesser people (or at least lesser gamers) because of that (it's difficult to believe that "lazy" can be taken as anything but a negative given the context of your post). In effect, you present a dichotomy; you dislike the "our way or no way" attitude of the design team via the MM (or any given monster book), but seem to have the same attitude yourself. I understand you may simply be venting; I'm simply responding, and I hope I'm being civil.

To be honest, I'm not sure why the MM being called a core book would cause any consternation. If you don't like it, ignore it. I don't know how it can affect your game. I disagree with the notion that such a book - and its core status - "dumbs down" the general gaming public. Since the MM has been a core book since 1978, and the gaming public today is, if anything, even more vigorous and creative than ever, that particular assertion seems not to be accurate.

 

[Nathal]

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.