|
1 year ago ::
Jan 31, 2012 - 4:25PM
#21
|
|
|
I love monster manuals.
Except 4E's... in my humble opinion was like reading a TV manual. In fact, as soon Monster builder was launched I've never open it again. Every.
Reading monster entries should be a pleasure, must tell us how they live, what they eat... I understand that for some people monster are just creatures behind a dungeon door, but for those there's DDI and MB.
Keep monster simple as in 4E.
Keep sheets short and complete like in 4E, with no need of consulting books.
Keep monster variants like in 4E.
But I want my fluff back, not what was presented in 4E.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 31, 2012 - 4:50PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2010
|
I love monster manuals.
Except 4E's... in my humble opinion was like reading a TV manual. In fact, as soon Monster builder was launched I've never open it again. Every.
Reading monster entries should be a pleasure, must tell us how they live, what they eat... I understand that for some people monster are just creatures behind a dungeon door, but for those there's DDI and MB.
Keep monster simple as in 4E.
Keep sheets short and complete like in 4E, with no need of consulting books.
Keep monster variants like in 4E.
But I want my fluff back, not what was presented in 4E.
Sounds like something we can agree on.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 2:33PM
#23
|
|
|
Sounds like something we can agree on.
I don't know why 4E fluff, inside MMs, was so poor, in special in the first book... there were enough space for a better writing in there... and it won't change sheets a bit...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 8:23PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2007
|
Keep monster simple as in 4E.
Keep sheets short and complete like in 4E, with no need of consulting books.
Keep monster variants like in 4E.
But I want my fluff back, not what was presented in 4E.
This; aside from lack of fluff, 4E got monsters (mainly) right. While i'm not a fan of explicit roles for PCs I love them for monsters. Minions were a nice addition.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 02, 2012 - 7:34AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2010
|
I am somewhat in agreement on The Conspicuously Missing Monster Fluff... sort of. Just because WotC doesn't publish it in a stat block doesn't mean I'm not allowed to imagine it. The Publsihed Fluff should inspire, not dicate, and its absence on the page should not equate to an absence in your game.
If less published Fluff gives me more page space for more monsters and monster variants with well developed mechanical stats... I'll take it. I can fluff up the monsters "conceptual" stats as needed all day long. Fluffing a monster's conceptual details is much faster, easier, and less likely to bite you in the backside then teching its mechanical stats.
Don't crutch on published fluff - give me an overview of a monster and I can generate all the related fluff I need to flesh out the creature's ecology and such as it relates to my campaign or the particular encounter. I like having that kind of flexibility as a DM. If the creatures in your world aren't carboard cutout video game enemies then they're probably going to be adaptable and versatile in many of the same ways PCs and PC Races are. And just like PCs and PC Races, many (intelligent) baddies are likely to show up in a wide vareity of habitats having adapted to life accordingly.
I LOVE good fluff, but the published fluff should never be more than an inspirational guideline anyway. The presence of published fluff shouldn't be considered the absolute defining details of a critter. The absence of published fluff shouldn't be construed as "details absent, kill the video game bad guy."
Obviously, some creatures only exist in a very limited scope when it comes to habitat, terrain, ecology... But application of a touch of creative common sense answers all such woes... Aside from the fact.. this IS a fantasy world. The DM might have a perfectly good explanation of why your party encountered a hostile band of Lizard Folk while marching across the frozen tundra in the dead of winter... Rather than objecting because that critter should be skulking around in more tropical climes... ask him. DM's are fickle and strange creatures, but they usually have reasons.
The only thing limiting the application of proper monster fluff in your game is your own imagination.
-MOUTH
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 02, 2012 - 8:42AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
What I want would be a return to the old 1e and 2e monster manuals way of describing the monsters, their habitat, family groups etc. Monsters aren't just statblocks, and I think its nice to have an eye towards dungeon ecologies (though such things can stretch credulity)
to me that is all just fluff that usualy doesen't apply to our homebrew games anyway.
just give me the rough stats and let the campaign setting decide on what a momsters ecolegy is like.
4th removed a lot of this straight jacketing monsters into ecolegies per monster.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 02, 2012 - 8:58AM
#27
|
|
|
Here's the thing, though: the sort of thoughtful, world building DM who's going to care enough about ecology and behavior and so forth to handcraft each creature's fluff is just as like as not to do it if there's fluff provided. Discarding the fluff you're given and writing your own is the same amount of effort as noting that you're given no fluff and writing your own. A book devoid of fluff only serves those DMs well.
The rest of the DMs, the ones who are pressed for time and need something ready to play right out of the box, or those who need a spark to fan into flame aren't getting what they need from a sterile stat block and a few lines about tactics. DMs who are new to the game are more likely to take what they're given and use it, so if they're given nothing but crunch their players will get nothing but crunch. 4e gave the DM a pile of monsters and told him how they fight, and that sent a pretty clear message to the new DM: these are things for fighting. That tactical advice became their instructions for use for want of any other guidance.
The Monster Manual needs to serve a broader range of DMs than the ones who can make everything but the numbers up on their own, so some considerable page space needs to be spent on things that some DMs will never use. Unless you set out to use every monster in the book, selling people material they'll ignore is unavoidable. It's good for business.
An acceptable compromise would be populating the Monster Builder with ecological and anthropological information, provided that the builder goes live as the paper hits the shelves. There needs to be a source of fluff (if you can even call where monsters live, how they interact with other creatures and what motivates them as a species "fluff",) that DMs can access, something that suggests that these creatures are more than combatants and gives them a better starting point than an initiative roll. Ideally, that should be packaged with the stat block.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish."
D&D Outsider
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 02, 2012 - 9:06AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
An acceptable compromise would be populating the Monster Builder with ecological and anthropological information, provided that the builder goes live as the paper hits the shelves. There needs to be a source of fluff (if you can even call where monsters live, how they interact with other creatures and what motivates them as a species "fluff",) that DMs can access, something that suggests that these creatures are more than combatants and gives them a better starting point than an initiative roll. Ideally, that should be packaged with the stat block.
personaly i would say much off that fluff belongs in campaign settings.
So a creature might have a totaly difrent ecolegy and culture in forgotten realms as it does in dragonlance for example.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 02, 2012 - 10:27AM
#29
|
|
|
When that is the case, put the exception to the standard option in the sourcebook. For instance, put the standard subterranean Llolth-worshipping drow in the MM, and note in the Eberron sourcebook that hey, our drow are different in the following ways: _____________. In the Monster Builder application, each monster entry could have a section that lists worlds to which it is native, and in those sections any deviations from the standard variety could be noted.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish."
D&D Outsider
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 02, 2012 - 10:42AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2010
|
Here's the thing, though: the sort of thoughtful, world building DM who's going to care enough about ecology and behavior and so forth to handcraft each creature's fluff is just as like as not to do it if there's fluff provided. Discarding the fluff you're given and writing your own is the same amount of effort as noting that you're given no fluff and writing your own. A book devoid of fluff only serves those DMs well.
As much as I stand by my post (which admittedly applies only to me and my DM'ing style) I can't argue with this assessment as it applies to the community's DM population as a whole. Fair enough.
The rest of the DMs, the ones who are pressed for time and need something ready to play right out of the box, or those who need a spark to fan into flame aren't getting what they need from a sterile stat block and a few lines about tactics. DMs who are new to the game are more likely to take what they're given and use it, so if they're given nothing but crunch their players will get nothing but crunch. 4e gave the DM a pile of monsters and told him how they fight, and that sent a pretty clear message to the new DM: these are things for fighting. That tactical advice became their instructions for use for want of any other guidance.
That last part regarding DMs new to the game is something I hadn't given proper consideration. While absent fluff is an invitation to fill-in-the-blanks for old veteran DMs, it could certainly leave a new DM saying "Oh, I never realized anything was missing." Especially when you're talking about a generation of players that are new to tabletop RPGs and are accustomed to video games.
An acceptable compromise would be populating the Monster Builder with ecological and anthropological information, provided that the builder goes live as the paper hits the shelves.
I could get onboard with this. Don't misunderstand me - I love the fluff. Always have. Always will.
For my personal use, since fluff generation even on the fly doesn't bother me one bit, if I am forced to choose between "greater variety" and "greater fluff" I'm probably going to still opt for variety. Only because "conceptual fluff" is less painful and more fun to generate than "mechanical stats."
The biggest pitfall I see in the 4E "fluff vacuum" is the idea that new DMs and Players, who don't even realize the fluff exists, might miss that boat entirely.
I'll gladly accept less variety for my personal consumption if that means putting a better "game education" in the hands of new Players and new DMs.
Good food for thought, Kaganfindel. Nice post.
-MOUTH
|
|
|
