Monsters aren't just stats

[Aaedimus]

I look through the books (like Mordenkain's Tomb of Foes) and the one thing that disappoints me is that monsters don't come with more individualized information.

Sure, they include stories in the book and some background, and there are some individualized comments about monsters, but I'd like one for every monster with information about how they behave, what are their likes/dislikes etc. In many campaigns, worth many DMs I've played with, monsters seem to lose their flavor because people don't have allot of background on them.

I'd like a book to come out that has the format and look of an explorer's notebook, drawing and studying the creatures, each one specifically with interest. Include rough sketches of the creatures, maybe including different angles etc.

I should make that book... A compendium of all creatures D&D!!! Anything you would want to see in a book like that?

[WeaselGuy]

Sounds kinda like the 3.5e Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, and Fiend Folio (1 & 2) books. Both were fantastic at what they did, which was namely expound upon dragons, undead, demons, and devils (respectively) in such a manner as to flesh their MM entries out, a lot. Particularly the Draconomicon, with respect to sketches and such. One of my favorite 3.5 books overall, really.

[Aaedimus]

Something like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=explorer%27s+notebook+creatures&prmd=sivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDvOnPpvzdAhXzIDQIHYXTCiYQ_AUICigC&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=Edr3FUIxloIzfM&imgdii=EcQOJTmIav5NlM

I'll have to look it up lol
Maybe I can either:
1: find an artist to work with me
2: crowd source art

Than push out a printable version of a final copy! It'd take a long time though to make and for copyright purposes I doubt I could make money off of it, but it would exist, and tats good enough for me lol

[PhoenixPhyre]

I look through the books (like Mordenkain's Tomb of Foes) and the one thing that disappoints me is that monsters don't come with more individualized information.

Sure, they include stories in the book and some background, and there are some individualized comments about monsters, but I'd like one for every monster with information about how they behave, what are their likes/dislikes etc. In many campaigns, worth many DMs I've played with, monsters seem to lose their flavor because people don't have allot of background on them.

I'd like a book to come out that has the format and look of an explorer's notebook, drawing and studying the creatures, each one specifically with interest. Include rough sketches of the creatures, maybe including different angles etc.

I should make that book... A compendium of all creatures D&D!!! Anything you would want to see in a book like that?

A few issues of concern for me:

1. Doing this would drastically reduce the number of monsters they could do. Art is expensive and time-consuming.
2. This would tie the monsters very strongly to one setting, something they're avoiding. Behavior, likes, dislikes, habitat--all of that is setting-dependent. My orcs are not your orcs. Eberron's dragons are not FR's dragons. Etc.

[Unoriginal]

I look through the books (like Mordenkain's Tomb of Foes) and the one thing that disappoints me is that monsters don't come with more individualized information.

Sure, they include stories in the book and some background, and there are some individualized comments about monsters, but I'd like one for every monster with information about how they behave, what are their likes/dislikes etc. In many campaigns, worth many DMs I've played with, monsters seem to lose their flavor because people don't have allot of background on them.

I'd like a book to come out that has the format and look of an explorer's notebook, drawing and studying the creatures, each one specifically with interest. Include rough sketches of the creatures, maybe including different angles etc.

I should make that book... A compendium of all creatures D&D!!! Anything you would want to see in a book like that?


The MM and the like DO provide information about what the monsters are like, how they behave, what they like, etc.

The Mordenkainen's and the Volo's in particular have sections that go more in depths on those subjects.


That some monsters lose their flavor when played isn't due to the books. DMs just tend to not put much effort into adding the flavor when the monsters in question aren't plot-relevant enough for them to bother. The same often happens with tactics, with monsters acting dumb robots because coming up with combat tactics and other combat behaviors demand some effort, and many DMs don't feel like putting effort in "non-plot-relevant" fights (random encounters, non-climatic fights against mooks, etc).

Now if you want to write a book about monster roleplay, go for it, it can be fun and great. But just be aware that while it'll be an interesting read, it probably won't solve the issue you're talking about here.

[Scarytincan]

A good site semi on topic :

http://themonstersknow.com

[Tiadoppler]

Anything you would want to see in a book like that?


For non-sapient creatures, especially potentially hostile random encounters, I'd like to see two sections on behavior:

Section 1: "Activities, patterns and social behavior" would describe things like: what time of day are they most/least active? How often do they hunt/attack? What sorts of lairs do they maintain (if any)? What is their social structure? What foods do they prefer? Yes, this information is usually there to some extent, but going more in depth would be better imo.

Section 2: "Fight or Flight" would describe their general in-combat behavior in a way that a DM can use. For example, wolves do not like to attack an opponent alone, and would generally choose to use their entire pack to ambush a single small target separated from the main group. If injured (at less than 50% HP), an individual wolf will likely attempt to retreat from battle. If there are only two wolves left in the battle, they will both attempt to retreat.


Another thing that might be useful:

Examples of distinguishing marks that might make an individual recognizable: Colors, patterns, shapes. A wolf that the villagers refer to as "Big ol' Reddy" or a pegasus called "Clippedwing". A beholder called "Goldeneye". A gorgon called "Rattlesnake Mohawk".

[Unoriginal]

A good site semi on topic :

http://themonstersknow.com

Eh. Those articles are VERY hit-or-miss at best.

The author keeps making wrong assumptions about what the mental scores represent, for example, and it's very detrimential given that he pretends showing how the monsters would behave.

Like, just in his recent analysis, he pretends that because an Ogre has 7 in WIS, they don't have any sense of preservation and always fight to the death. Which is ridiculous on many levels.

[Scarytincan]

Eh. Those articles are VERY hit-or-miss at best.

The author keeps making wrong assumptions about what the mental scores represent, for example, and it's very detrimential given that he pretends showing how the monsters would behave.

Like, just in his recent analysis, he pretends that because an Ogre has 7 in WIS, they don't have any sense of preservation and always fight to the death. Which is ridiculous on many levels.

Perfect? Not likely. Freaking awesome amount of very hard work that is a good short cut for most DMs who won't give even a fraction of this amount of thought before running a monster that also delves into some strong synergies for each creatures combat? Hell yes.

But by all means feel free to do a better one and send me the link, I will happily ingest it too!

[GlenSmash!]

There are a couple of Lets read the Monster Manual threads on this very site that have wonderful discussions on Monsters, their artwork, tactics based on the statblock, and plot hooks to include them in campaigns.

[MaxWilson]

I look through the books (like Mordenkain's Tomb of Foes) and the one thing that disappoints me is that monsters don't come with more individualized information.

Sure, they include stories in the book and some background, and there are some individualized comments about monsters, but I'd like one for every monster with information about how they behave, what are their likes/dislikes etc. In many campaigns, worth many DMs I've played with, monsters seem to lose their flavor because people don't have allot of background on them.

I'd like a book to come out that has the format and look of an explorer's notebook, drawing and studying the creatures, each one specifically with interest. Include rough sketches of the creatures, maybe including different angles etc.

I should make that book... A compendium of all creatures D&D!!! Anything you would want to see in a book like that?

You're not wrong. Welcome to 5E, where everything is about combat.

I like information on monster ecology/diet/social organization, goals/behavior (what are the monsters likely to be doing when you encounter them? are they likely to attack? to fight to the death?), traces/spoor (signs to telegraph to players which monsters may be in the area), treasure suggestions and where/how that treasure would be hidden, and a nice textual description of the monster's description that I can steal verbatim. Fifth Edition Foes does a pretty nice job at many of these and is worth checking out; and AD&D monster entries are worth liberally stealing from. Basically, I want things that give monsters a presence onscreen that makes them potentially part of the adventure, not just eighteen seconds (three rounds) of casual murder.

It doesn't have to be a lot of info, maybe just a couple of sentences on each topic, but show me that the author of the monster has at least thought about each of these issues and given monsters distinct identities. And it needs to be good quality. 5E has a ton of monsters whose description blurb is basically "they are chaotic and like to kill things," so insipid and generic that it might as well not even be there. Give me something 1% as inspiring as Courtney Campbell's Ecology articles (e.g. http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/01/on-ecology-of-bugbear.html) for each monster and I'll be happy.

[Bohandas]

Sounds kinda like the 3.5e Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, and Fiend Folio (1 & 2) books. Both were fantastic at what they did, which was namely expound upon dragons, undead, demons, and devils (respectively) in such a manner as to flesh their MM entries out, a lot. Particularly the Draconomicon, with respect to sketches and such. One of my favorite 3.5 books overall, really.

And Lords of Madness, the aberration book. Don't forget Lords of Madness.

[Pex]

A few issues of concern for me:

1. Doing this would drastically reduce the number of monsters they could do. Art is expensive and time-consuming.
2. This would tie the monsters very strongly to one setting, something they're avoiding. Behavior, likes, dislikes, habitat--all of that is setting-dependent. My orcs are not your orcs. Eberron's dragons are not FR's dragons. Etc.

I agree.
:smallcool:

Monster lore and culture is well within the DM's purview. It's his trees and bees. Details are fine for a specific published campaign setting to set the tone of that gameworld if the DM wants to follow it faithfully, but it's still his baby. In my paladin game, the Cult of the Dragon in this DM's Forgotten Realm is ruled by the chromatic dragons. While one is a dracolich it's not the purpose of the Cult. They are evil, but they are allies to the party including my paladin of Torm. He would even call them friends as much as evil dragons could be. Unlike a certain published campaign, Bahamut will soon release Tiamat himself to help save the world.

[JellyPooga]

The 3ed MM4 (and I think MM3) explored some of the "tried and true" monsters like that too; lizardfolk and hobgoblins come to mind but it's been a loooong time since I had a gander at it. Worth looking up.

[Gastronomie]

Because the behavior of many monsters differ based on the campaign setting, I believe it is more or less the DM's job to select a behavior pattern that suits his world best for each monster he will use.

It's honesty not that difficult.

[Laserlight]

You may find this article (http://blog.trilemma.com/2014/10/non-mechanical-difficulty-levels-for.html) useful. It lists factors of monster behavior such as their territoriality, cohesion, numbers, etc, which will influence how the monsters behave and how dangerous they are. A single, stationary, inattentive, well known monster is a lot less of a problem than the same monster in a cohesive group which is alert, territorial, and inclined to pursue.

[mephnick]

Eh. Those articles are VERY hit-or-miss at best.

The author's also a child who responds to criticism of his ideas by pointing out grammar mistakes instead of responding to discussion...in my experience.

And he supports flanking so that puts all his analysis into doubt.

Still a good read, though. I enjoy it.

[Pelle]

No thanks, I prefer to do my own worldbuilding.

[Consensus]

There's still default D&D lore, it's often taken for granted that the default setting is not FR no matter how similar they are. This info is still useful for any dm looking for inspiration or just doesn't want to put that work in for a small part of the game

[MaxWilson]

No thanks, I prefer to do my own worldbuilding.

Then you don't need an MM at all. Coming up with piles of numbers is the easiest part of monster creation. You could randomly generate monster stats/HP/attacks and probably most players would never notice the difference between that and a MM monster.


You may find this article (http://blog.trilemma.com/2014/10/non-mechanical-difficulty-levels-for.html) useful. It lists factors of monster behavior such as their territoriality, cohesion, numbers, etc, which will influence how the monsters behave and how dangerous they are. A single, stationary, inattentive, well known monster is a lot less of a problem than the same monster in a cohesive group which is alert, territorial, and inclined to pursue.

Interesting. Thanks, that's a good read.

[Pelle]

Then you don't need an MM at all. Coming up with piles of numbers is the easiest part of monster creation. You could randomly generate monster stats/HP/attacks and probably most players would never notice the difference between that and a MM monster.

That's right.

[Darth Ultron]

According to Wizards, such fluff is not popular and does not sell, except to one group of fans: The Forgotten Realms. So everything else is mechanics and crunch.

D&D is a combat adventure game. Creatures are just foes to kill. By the rule book, you don't need to know anything more about a monster then it's stats.

Getting rid of monster fluff was one of the first things 3E did, and that has been part of D&D evermore...

[strangebloke]

The MM just provides a few ingredients in the dish that is a good encounter.

It provides the stats, some art, and optional motivations, fluff, and tactics.

You need to come up with the environment, the narration, and the dramatic question of the encounter. That's on you.

There's more detailed stuff in Volos for giants, beholders, goblinoids, and orcs. It's my favorite of the 'three' monster manuals since it allows you to populate an entire dungeon with orc or beholder or illithid-themed monsters.

[Oramac]

Perfect? Not likely. Freaking awesome amount of very hard work that is a good short cut for most DMs who won't give even a fraction of this amount of thought before running a monster that also delves into some strong synergies for each creatures combat? Hell yes.

But by all means feel free to do a better one and send me the link, I will happily ingest it too!

Well said.

============

To the OP: I think the main reason they don't give more specifics to the various monsters is because at some point you have to start discussing individual foes. There are always exceptions to the rule. Eventually you'll find the Hill Giant that lives in the plains, or a blue dragon that likes mountains instead of deserts. Hell, Harshnag is a perfect example of a published exception to the rule. He's a good-aligned Frost Giant who helps small-folk slay his frost giant kinsmen.

Realistically, the MM is a broad overview that gives the DM a basis from which to modify monsters to fit their own campaign.

[BLC1975]

Always worth checking on Youtube to see if AJ Pickett has covered the lore of your chosen creature in one of his videos.

[Darth Ultron]

There is a bit of Game Fiction vs Reality here too. With this question:

1.Do you want monsters(more so the humanoid ones) to each represent a narrow archtype or be anything?

Now sure a lot of people are going to give the knee jerk answer of ''anything", because they view ''anything" as always better by default. People like the idea in reality that anything can be anything: walk up to monster x and they might be good or evil or neither or The Great Pumpkin.

But, then you enter the game fiction problem. If all monsters are anything, well why have so many of them and really why even have monsters at all? You might as well just make all humanoid monsters just humans. What is the point of having whole races of ''anything people", that just have a tiny mechanical ability. You might as well go the next step and just make all monster humanoids human and then have a generic table of race traits to pick from.

And you also get the fiction problem. If a story has ''a tribe of orcs" and an ''orc'' is a ''anything people", then why even have them be ''orcs''? You might as well just say ''tribe of people", and when you say ''people", just say "human" . There is no point much in having them look different, if they will just be ''anything humans".

And that brings us to the whole point of fictional races: they are their to make it easy to know who and what they are. Orcs are savage, goblins are sneaky, and trolls are hungry...or whatever. The point is more you know the race is X, or at least some version of X. Now sure you can have exceptions, but for the most part the race is X.

Though the big stumbling block here will always be to make 'X' broad enough to fit a whole race in it and not make it too narrow. For example goblins being sneaky can cover a lot and leaves lots of room for lots of types of people that can all fall under sneaky, from the goblin used wagon sales guy to coward that avoids fights to the brute that has a dirty trick up his sleeve to win and more.

[Pex]

Then you don't need an MM at all. Coming up with piles of numbers is the easiest part of monster creation. You could randomly generate monster stats/HP/attacks and probably most players would never notice the difference between that and a MM monster.



I know not directed at me.

I don't see it that way. It's fine enough for the game designers to do the game math for me and let me create the game world culture. The two don't affect each other. The game determines how. The DM determines why.

[Willie the Duck]

No thanks, I prefer to do my own worldbuilding.


According to Wizards, such fluff is not popular and does not sell, except to one group of fans: The Forgotten Realms. So everything else is mechanics and crunch.
D&D is a combat adventure game. Creatures are just foes to kill. By the rule book, you don't need to know anything more about a monster then it's stats.
Getting rid of monster fluff was one of the first things 3E did, and that has been part of D&D evermore...

I think that's it*. Certainly from an explanation perspective. Monster fluff does not sell all that well, in no small part because each DM likes to do it their own way. Over 40-odd years, the base has split twelve ways from sunrise on everything from are orcs ravaging marauders or nature loving humanoids pushed into marginal lands; whether dragons are genius almost-demigods, high-level treasure piles, paragons of some kind of planar values, or future mounts to the party fighters; and whether lizardfolk or gnolls are the no-nonsense survivalists who eat humanoids not out of malice but pragmatism. That last one is an example where 5e did come down down with fluff of its own, and a lot of people said, 'that's not what I wanted,' exemplifying to me why this is perhaps a needle that WotC doesn't really see any benefit by trying to thread.
*With the caveat that it is really that 2e was a high point more than 3e got rid of it (oD&D through most of basic, along with 1e, certainly did not have huge monster description sections in the respective monster sections/manuals), and 3e certainly added it all back in in splatbook supplements.


I don't see it that way. It's fine enough for the game designers to do the game math for me and let me create the game world culture. The two don't affect each other. The game determines how. The DM determines why.

That definitely (to me) seems to be WotC's working theory.

[strangebloke]

...Is nobody going to talk about Volo's? That book had a ton of fluff and monster lore.

Granted, it only covered a handful of monsters, but with that book in hand I could easily build a whole campaign arc where the only enemies were orcs or giants or whatever.

[MaxWilson]

...Is nobody going to talk about Volo's? That book had a ton of fluff and monster lore.

Granted, it only covered a handful of monsters, but with that book in hand I could easily build a whole campaign arc where the only enemies were orcs or giants or whatever.

Volos was... okay. Signal-to-noise ratio wasn't terrific, and the execution was a bit pedestrian in many places, so there's lots of room for someone to do a much better job. But Volos did bring some value to the table. I liked the section on hags quite a lot, and the section on hobgoblins wasn't awful and had some usable ideas--though all the good stuff about hobgoblins could have fit on a single page instead of the 10+ pages it received. (See: signal-to-noise ratio issues.)

[strangebloke]

Volos was... okay. Signal-to-noise ratio wasn't terrific, and the execution was a bit pedestrian in many places, so there's lots of room for someone to do a much better job. But Volos did bring some value to the table. I liked the section on hags quite a lot, and the section on hobgoblins wasn't awful and had some usable ideas--though all the good stuff about hobgoblins could have fit on a single page instead of the 10+ pages it received. (See: signal-to-noise ratio issues.)

Fair enough. I'm not big on fluff books, but Volo's is pretty typical compared to other fluff books I've seen.

Orcs are evil, grar grar grar. Giants are *******s, but their have their own alien sense of honor.

[Unoriginal]

...Is nobody going to talk about Volo's? That book had a ton of fluff and monster lore.




The Mordenkainen's and the Volo's in particular have sections that go more in depths on those subjects.


5e did a good job at establishing the monsters' identity, IMO.


But an identity doesn't mean that they're going to tell you How Those Creatures Always Behave. That's something for a video game script, not for a TTRPG.

[MaxWilson]

Fair enough. I'm not big on fluff books, but Volo's is pretty typical compared to other fluff books I've seen.

Much like Communism, I think people are often down on fluff books because they've seen it done poorly so often. Good fluff is inspiring and evocative, not necessarily authoritative, not binding. It's a sketch for the DM to draw inspiration from.

I like to point to Courtney Campbell's blog an example of fluff done right, and MrConsideration's Monster Reviews (including the ones done by posters other than MrConsideration) are also excellent. IMO, http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516507-Let-s-Read-The-Monster-Manual-II-Fantastic-Beasts-and-Where-to-Fight-Them is better than Volo's. If that thread were an ebook I would spend $25 to get it and consider it a bargain. It's not perfect but it is quite good.

[strangebloke]

Much like Communism, I think people are often down on fluff books because they've seen it done poorly so often. Good fluff is inspiring and evocative, not necessarily authoritative, not binding. It's a sketch for the DM to draw inspiration from.

I like to point to Courtney Campbell's blog an example of fluff done right, and MrConsideration's Monster Reviews (including the ones done by posters other than MrConsideration) are also excellent. IMO, http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516507-Let-s-Read-The-Monster-Manual-II-Fantastic-Beasts-and-Where-to-Fight-Them is better than Volo's. If that thread were an ebook I would spend $25 to get it and consider it a bargain. It's not perfect but it is quite good.

Ah, I agree that thread is very useful. But every fluff book I've ever heard of was a 'lore' source book with pages of nonsense about the gods and creation myths and the like.

[Unoriginal]

Ah, I agree that thread is very useful. But every fluff book I've ever heard of was a 'lore' source book with pages of nonsense about the gods and creation myths and the like.

How is that nonsense?

[strangebloke]

How is that nonsense?

Nonsense here meaning "stuff."

But I don't care for it, because I've never used any established DND setting. I do borrow from some aspects of the lore like the Ordn for example. But Lore, ultimately, is pretty easy to come up with, compared to standard tactics, ecology, all that jazz.

And, you know, if the party comes upon a gang of bugbears, they're more likely to care about the bugbears sounding cool and having cool tactics than some blurb in Volo's about how they used to be a different race but got conquered by Maglubiyet. Like the latter point just would never come up for any reason in the case of a one-off monster. And a lot of the origin stuff reads the same after a while.

If you got rid of every Evil Race Corrupted by Evil Gods and every Hideous Monster Made by Evil Wizards/Giants/Dragons and every Ancient Thing From the Dawn of Time you'd scrub out like three quarters of the monster manual. So the lore is... kinda samey, honestly.

[MaxWilson]

Ah, I agree that thread is very useful. But every fluff book I've ever heard of was a 'lore' source book with pages of nonsense about the gods and creation myths and the like.

Yeah, those are useless.

This, on the other hand, is fantastic: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-cultivating-fantastic.html


Noisms pointed out a quote talking about how commercial fantasy authors attempting to literalise actual fantastical concepts removes their weight and value.

Once Orcs are not about the ancient threat of Neanderthal dominance,
Once Vampires are not about the nightmare of rape and the violation of our sanctity,
Once the immortal Lich is not about horror of structures of law and tradition which were invented by men who were dead long before we were born,
Once Werewolves are no longer about the terror of our inner animalistic impulses overwhelming us,
Once Zombies are not about our innate and unending fear of the implacable advance of gluttonous death,

then they are just housecats that we can kill from behind the safety of our +2 blade that adds two to our to hit roll, allowing us to strike at the monster if we roll an 8 or higher.

...

Recreate monsters - especially the humanoids. Keep them physically and statistically the same, but recreate their culture. Some of the following are cobbled together from a subconscious memory of the blog-o-sphere.

Cannites: Dog headed humanoids who are extremely religious nomads who eat and worship the dead. They are consumed by a never ending hunger that drives all their actions. Loud and brash in character they will gladly talk with men, because all men become corpses soon enough (gnolls)
Meeks: Tiny, three foot tall creatures, that are mechanically inclined. They have large eyes and heads and their whole language consists of one word 'meep'. They naturally congregate near other humanoids and gladly do their bidding. They are often found with ladders, knives, hammers and other tools, going about their own inscrutable purposes.(Kobolds)
Gigas: Some people are born with brains that produce extremes of human emotions. These energies collect and are released lashing out into natural forms. Hills, Mists, Storms, Mountains, and more fused with these energies come alive with emotion and thrash about destroying all that is around them. (Giants)
Watol: Evil seeps into the land, and the very forms of the earth and trees animate into heinous minor demons. Each different and twisted and sick they murder all who they come across. When killed they disintegrate into a pile of dirt and twigs and leaves, the material from which they came. (Goblins)

That Cannite fluff is waaaaay better than the MM Gnoll fluff, but it's even better to have BOTH ideas and then pick the one that fits your campaign.

It doesn't take much space to publish great fluff--three sentences can be enough. There's more than enough room in the MM to fit plenty of awesome ideas in addition to the usual dreary piles of combat statistics. But first the author has to have awesome ideas in the first place, and Volo's was... better than the MM but still decidedly mediocre. There's plenty of room for the OP to publish something better if they are so inclined.

[Pex]

I think this is why Eberron became popular. When they had their contest they told everyone do whatever you want. Do not feel beholden to whatever was published before. Eberron changed the fluff. Good vampires. Evil silver dragons. Constructs as PCs. Magic as industry. Deities don't walk the earth. Even for those who didn't play Eberron it was probably the spark they needed for permission to think outside the box. They always had it, and DMs have done it, but people needed Something Official to liberate themselves from flavor text devotion.

[Darth Ultron]

I think this is why Eberron became popular.

I think Eberron was ''popular'' as it was made to be the anti- Forgotten Realms in a perfect marketing trick of ''hey, if you don't like FR, you will love this setting!".

[Pex]

I think Eberron was ''popular'' as it was made to be the anti- Forgotten Realms in a perfect marketing trick of ''hey, if you don't like FR, you will love this setting!".

Same difference.
:smallamused:

[Tanarii]

I look through the books (like Mordenkain's Tomb of Foes) and the one thing that disappoints me is that monsters don't come with more individualized information.
It's probably worth going back and not just skimming them then. The Momster Manual, Volo's, and Mordernkainen's all provide plenty of additional information tailored towards allowing a DM to use it as a launching pad for their imagination. 5e does an outstanding job of making monsters more than just their stats, while giving us a large amount of bang for our buck in terms of content (number of creatures) per book.

[Kalashak]

I think an Audobon Society Field Guide type book would be very interesting, and definitely neat for a bookshelf, but I don't think it would be the best use of time and funds for 5e. Or particularly useful (for me) at the table.

[TheMoxiousOne]

Anything you would want to see in a book like that?

I think field note-style footnotes next to the stat blocks would be handy- field sketches in their natural and agitated states, reactions and attack habits, and even some anatomy sketches would be neat!

[Baptor]

I think this is why Eberron became popular. When they had their contest they told everyone do whatever you want. Do not feel beholden to whatever was published before. Eberron changed the fluff. Good vampires. Evil silver dragons. Constructs as PCs. Magic as industry. Deities don't walk the earth. Even for those who didn't play Eberron it was probably the spark they needed for permission to think outside the box. They always had it, and DMs have done it, but people needed Something Official to liberate themselves from flavor text devotion.

Very true. I've never really played Eberron outside the online game, but I love the concept and owned the CSB at some point and read it often. It gave me all kinds of great ideas for my own games.


I think Eberron was ''popular'' as it was made to be the anti- Forgotten Realms in a perfect marketing trick of ''hey, if you don't like FR, you will love this setting!".

That might be true, but I am a lover of the Forgotten Realms, run ALL my games there, and still LOVE Eberron. I'd play in an Eberron game in a heartbeat.

When it comes to Monster Lore books, nothing really beats the AD&D Monstrous Manual and the various Compendiums that followed. Each entry gets at least a page of nothing but lore, lore, and more lore. I had a copy and sold it when 3e came out (big mistake) and recently tracked another one down on Ebay and don't intend to let go of it. Also it's full of Tony D's art, and who doesn't love that?

Truthfully I believe AD&D 2nd Edition was the best place to get those kinds of books about things like lore and the like. I am busy now collecting them and am so happy more and more are available on DriveThruRPG and the like. The rules set for 2nd Edition was a bit wonky for me (although nowadays I think I could make it work) but the fluff was second to none!

That said, I'd love it if an "explorer's notebook" kind of thing were to come out like the one the OP linked to. I love that "in world" stuff. I find it fascinating that Diablo III, a game that is almost 100% nothing but mindless killing and looting, is coming out with a third book just like the one the OP described. Book of Cain, Book of Tyrael, and now Adria's Bestiary. I mean if that shoot em up game can have cool books, why not D&D?

I get that it's a money thing - that's where we got the best "wink wink nudge nudge" story from the 3.0 days in the form of "Donut Cores and Forgotten Rums" explaining to us why more RPG heavy books were abandoned by WotC in the early days of 3rd Edition for crunch heavy splat books.

Nevertheless, I like what they are doing with things like Mordenkainen's and even that new adventure, Dragon Heist. They are sprinkling lots of good lore in almost every book now - and from a business perspective - that's smart. Any one fan of any one thing who wants all of that thing (lore, classes, races, monsters) has to buy every single book to "catch em all." Bravo WotC, bravo.

So it's not exactly what I'd want, but it's something, and when I really want dat lore, I go to my collection of 2nd Edition books.

Finally, as to those saying that lore books hinder DM creativity - I get you. My philosophy is to use the books as inspiration - not as something authoritative.