worlds and monsters is in my hands

[Imban]

True, but once charmed, someone is easy to shackle. Once imprisioned, someone is easy to break. (snip)
There are more ways to dominate someone than the spells with that name.

Well, that description and powerset alone does indeed give worldbuilders the choice to cast Mind Flayer thralls like that. They could assume, like you did, that Mind Flayers' slaves aren't actually fully mind-wiped, but just enslaved by terror and the superior power of Mind Flayers. That's actually rather cool. The "problem" for those of us who like monster stats to represent what monsters are capable of is when the choice is made explicit that Mind Flayer thralls are actually Dominated in some way - perhaps they have no minds left at all anymore and fall dead when their master is slain - but yet no information is provided on how this status comes about.

A little phrasing explaining that, for instance, Mind Flayers create their Dominated thralls by sucking out their target's brains and replacing them with magical goo, or through a five-minute version of their Charming process that can only be performed on a helpless foe, or whatever, goes a long way. It's good to let DMs make up how and whether monsters fit into their setting. It's bad to force DMs to make up stuff in order to explain how a monster makes sense or does its presented schtick at all.

 

[Derren]

Right, right. But I believe the point being made here is that things like "are often really good blacksmiths" belong in the monster description, not in the monster stat block. Putting that in the monster stat block shackles the monster in a way that putting it in the description does not. And even worse, it commits an unforgivable sin- cluttering up the stat block with information not relevant to combat, where the stat block is actually used.

Ok, but lets use another example.
Take a nonexisting demon which fluff text say that it normally tries to raise large undead armies and then spread chaos through the countryside.
I expect that this monster has an Animate Dead ability and means to control this undead.

And I just one of those things (fluff or abilities) will make it into the MM I would prefer the abilities because then I can decide for myself what this demon does with that ability or how it might use them otherwise.
When only the fluff text is in the MM I have to figure out how this monster does that and what to do when one of my PCs want to turn the uncontrolled undead in the army against each other and things like that.

I would rater have (non combat) stats which can inspire me what this monster could do instead of some fluff but no real way to use it.
But either is still better than no fluff and no stats and sadly it looks like that is how it will be in 4E.

 

[PeterWeller]

But players will do much more with monsters than fight them.

And a monster's noncombat abilities give it a pre-packaged niche in the world that can be used and expanded on the fly. The designers can tell me where this mosnter was intended to go, and then I can put it there in an instant. If they don't tell me that, I have to do the work myself, which eats up time.

Oh, totally. But I don't need the stat block to contain those noncombat abilities. I want the statblock to just tell me what it's like in a fight. Everything else, I'll figure out based on the monsters' fluff information and the context in which the party encountered it. 4E's skill system and discreet breakdown of powers into different categories of usability look like they're going to make this pretty darn easy.

 

[PeterWeller]

But either is still better than no fluff and no stats and sadly it looks like that is how it will be in 4E.

Where do you get that impression?

 

[Derren]

Where do you get that impression?

The published informations, the declared intent of the designers, how dragons are treated, etc. 4E seems to revolve mostly around combat, giving no heed to out of combat behavior of monsters.

Sure there are counter examples for this (history of fire archons and giants) but I have the feeling that those things will not appear in the MM. I hope that I am wrong, but I think I'm not.

 

[frankthedm]

I thought they said giants will come in large and huge varieties, with huge having more elemental abilities?

Yes, they did. The Name for those huge giants with strong elemental ties has been revealed as 'titans'.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Monsters having social stats does not prevent you from anything. You can always change it.
But when they have those stats you can easily recognize how this monster would fit into the world and what it would do. You wouldn't need to make it up.
Also those stats might give an idea about possible plot hooks. I certainly can thing of more plot hooks involving "+20 blacksmithing" than "Deals 1d6 unholy damage on a critical hit".

The best thing would be to have a "stat block" along with a "fluff block".
The stat block contains all combat related stuff, the fluff book contains the "flavor" text and a few describing keywords.

Like, say:
Dragon
Dragons are flying lizards that can often breath fire. They typically live in lairs like abandoned ruins or deep caves. Many dragons rule the territory around them with fear, though some also offer their assistance in exchange for services rendered (and many use a combination of both).
Environment: Any (see individual Dragon)
Organization: Single Dragon oversees Minions inside lair, villages or cities.
Offspring: Dragons lay eggs and usually hide them in safe places. They don't care much for their hatchlings.
Food: Animals and Humanoids
Allies: Dragonborn, Kobolds
Enemies: Goblins, Giants
Activities: Sleeping, Hunting, Scheming

Orc
Orcs are barbarian humanoids that live in nomadic clans. If near humanoid settlements, they often raid them for crops and money. Powerful Orcs sometimes unite several orc clans to assault a large city. Many Orc clans also send their hunters and warriors out as mercenaries for local nobles.
Enviroment: Plains (Deserts and Hills)
Organization: Band (2-6 Orcs) or Clan (20-60 Orcs) or
Offspring: Born alive. Children grow adult within 12-15 years.
Food: Animals, rarely Humanoids
Allies: Goblin, Ogre
Enemies: Dwarves, Elves and Humans
Activities: Hunting, Raiding, Sleeping


---

But I am not convinced that this is really neccessary. If I am considering to integrate a monster in my campaign world, I will read the fluff text entirely, not just look at a few check marks.

 

[Counterspin]

I'm not particularly interested in out of combat info on the monsters. If that can be cut and more solidly balanced monsters included, cut cut cut.. I don't use monsters with their set fluff or even their set appearance generally, just pick and choose them for interesting combats and then add on some new appearance to keep my group off gaurd.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

The published informations, the declared intent of the designers, how dragons are treated, etc. 4E seems to revolve mostly around combat, giving no heed to out of combat behavior of monsters.

Sure there are counter examples for this (history of fire archons and giants) but I have the feeling that those things will not appear in the MM. I hope that I am wrong, but I think I'm not.

There is an emphasis on making simple monsters - that you can fleshen.

The problem is the reverse also - too much fluff and all applied, often.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Ok, but lets use another example.
Take a nonexisting demon which fluff text say that it normally tries to raise large undead armies and then spread chaos through the countryside.
I expect that this monster has an Animate Dead ability and means to control this undead.

From what little I do know about 4E its as easy as creating an interesting encounter with said demon and his undead minions. That's basically how it would have happened back in 1E. And if the players ask how the demon came to have undead minions, just smile and say "Ancient DM Secret!"

3E tried a new take on monsters that sounded like a great idea. I was excited to know the workings behind the monsters that largely didn't exist in previous editions. It created a side effect I didn't expect though. It strangled creativity. As players became more savvy in the 3E ruleset they started to question how a monster was able to achieve the effects that it was using against them. Instead of just making an interesting encounter using an established monster, the DM was pulled down to the same level as the players and had to explain the mechanics behind his creations. Admitedly, a DM could take the same approach being suggested for 4E monsters in 3E, but it often caused ill feeling in players and started to re-foster the DM vs. Player mentality if the 3E ruleset was not adhered to by the DM.