Results 1 to 13 of 13
Thread: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
-
2010-08-04, 07:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
Mostly inspired from reading some of the delightful thread named More flumphs than you can shake a flindbar at: Let's Read the Tome of Horrors!
A lot of Rappy's complaints seem based around with how bland or nonsensical the monsters are. Which I can't really argue with the Skulleton, the oozes, and the Korred. Beyond Weird, little fluff, or both.
Even more common monsters have little going for them. Ogres, most giants, gnolls, orcs, and far more are little more than "slightly different looking, Always Evil, Strong and not very smart."
So the question that makes me do this post is do people like the 3.5 MMs (I haven't looked through the 4ed MM much, as I have only played it) with how they present creatures? What changes would you want, or why do you currently like it?
My thoughts are obviously to cut a few of the odder creatures with no practical use, and add a lot more on the creatures in fluff terms. Especially beyond "always evil, likes the tastes of humans, elves, and other PC races. Yes, they can taste the PC on it." Even dragons only have a small entry on them in the MM. Dracononononomicon adds a lot, along with races of the dragon.
This is mostly just a rant, obviously, but I'm curious what other people think about these things.Originally Posted by Alabenson
-
2010-08-04, 08:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Location
- VA
- Gender
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
Keep Something in mind. All of the Always Evil, Eats human children, smelly, strong goblinoids are just that. They are Goblinoids. Just like humans have a direct relationship to Tieflings, Aasimars, Half-Elves and Orcs. I would say that the Fluff is there, but it is more than just a flavor of the week thing. I advidly play Monstrous races, and I have fallen in love with the roleplaying aspects of it. For instance, my Bugbear fighter, who wore banded mail beacuse he was a scavenger and it was all he could find. He had a healthy fear of fire because he had fur. The different races just open up roleplay possibilities for PC's, and makes combat fun because of the different things the monsters are afraid of, or capable of doing. So yes, there is some flavor, but it is not the only aspect of these creatures that should be looked at.
Praytell, what difference is there in 4.0? i have never played it.____________________________________________
A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.
~Sir Winston Churchill
I Am A: Lawful Evil Human Monk (4th Level)
Ability Scores:
Strength-15
Dexterity-15
Constitution-17
Intelligence-16
Wisdom-14
Charisma-13
-
2010-08-04, 08:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
I think the MM1 was right to cram as much in as possible. Fluff seemed to increase later on.
I'd be interested in seeing a basic MM and then additional 'packs' that expand on the creatures presented in the style of the old 'Ecology of...' articles published in Dragon magazine.
I kind of like a lot of the niche creatures. There are a zillion evil humanoids already out there, but it's the 'Saturday night specials' that people always remember.
PS: I love Rust Monsters.Last edited by Psyx; 2010-08-04 at 08:14 AM.
-
2010-08-04, 08:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
There are lots of threads about 4E- but, to sum up, it takes the basic manuevers idea of Tome of Battle, and applies it to all the classes. They get Per Day, Per Encounter, and At Will manevers/spells/powers.
Many of the Wizard spells of 3rd ed are now rituals- which anyone can use if they have the right feat, and the right skills.Last edited by hamishspence; 2010-08-04 at 08:17 AM.
Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2010-08-04, 08:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Derby, UK
- Gender
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
When designing my current campaign world, I simply tossed out the entire MM and started again from mythological scratch. (Okay, there is a certain level of Tolkieniness in the big four races and in the Orc-Kin (i.e. Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins and Kobolds).) This has given me some interesting new takes on old monsters (cockatrices are saurian, simurgh are pterosaurian) and some ones I've not even really heard of in other bestiaries have come to the forefront (gagana and cusith came out very well from their re-envisioning, becoming some of my favourite monsters.)
One thing I have always disliked in any system as extraneous monsters and races that don't feel like they fit into an ecology. The "messy" races and monsters, I call them. (Races and subraces especially, since most of the time they boil down into man-in-rubber-suit-with-these-stat-mods.)
I don't think the 3.5 MM is bad, as bestiaries go, given that it has to be fairly generic (well, it should be). Rolemaster's Creatures and Treasures books were in the same vein (only RM had a lot more conventional animals, which I consider a plus).
MM2 and beyond, well. Not so much. Aside from MM2 updating many old AD&D monsters to 3.0 (before I started my current world), they didn't offer much that wasn't very...messy. They were designed ina very "the PCs will fight this" sort of way, as opposed to a "this is what lives in the world" way, and the latter is my preference.
I think, for pure reading entertainment, that the Creature Collections, for example, were better; but of course they were tailoring their creatures to the history of their campaign world. So while they were a fun read, I have used little to nothing from them in my own games.
(For the record 4E's bestiary rubbed me so far the wrong way, I actually sold it on. It wasn't a fun read - basically no fluff - and reminded me more of the bestiary in Dungeon Siege 2 than one for a basically-real-world-with-knobs-on fantasy set up. Virtually no animals, for starters.)
-
2010-08-04, 09:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Imagination Land
- Gender
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
-
2010-08-04, 10:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
Hey, I had a campaign that lasted to level 3 before the players got bored with it (because I like games beyond just smashing through stuff, while they don't) and the only non-animal they fought was a single Satyr. They're pretty useful for wilderness campaigns at low-levels.
My current DM has us fighting through a forest filled with them as well.It's been a bit, GitP. If you're reading this, you're either digging through old stuff, or I've posted for the first time in forever.
If you want to stay in touch, reach out to me on twitter (same username).
The best answer is always to ask your DM.
Unless you're the DM, in which case you should talk to your players.
-
2010-08-04, 10:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
NOW COMPLETE: Let's Play Starcraft II Trilogy:
Hell, It's About Time: Wings of Liberty
Does This Mutation Make Me Look Fat: Heart of the Swarm
My Life For Aiur? I Barely Know 'Er: Legacy of the Void
-
2010-08-04, 10:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
Good point. MM1 is probably the worst for fluff- MM2 and MM3 are a bit better.
And there's books like Open Grave, Draconomicon, Demonomicon, The Plane Below, The Plane Above, which have much more fluff than the MMs do.Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2010-08-04, 11:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Imagination Land
- Gender
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
"I played a game once where we fought animals until level 3" doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of other things for low-level heroes to fight against.
I'm willing to bet that "Kill the rats in the sewer" and "Kill the bear in the item shop" quests aren't the most common anymore, simply because they're not very interesting. D&D doesn't have to be an MMO where you have to grind the tutorial zone to get GPs so you can hit the shops and get rid of your filthy rags and wooden sword.
-
2010-08-04, 11:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
You don't need that much fluff for the typical Monster Manual entry. I mean, most of their motivation and characterization are going to be determined by the campaign setting anyways, so all you really need is a blurb on the monster's appearance (and then that's not always necessary either) and tactics to help the DM play them in a convincing way.
What I pine for is individual books that focus on particular types of enemies, like a book completely dedicated to Undead, one for Elementals, one for Humanoids, etc. It'd be really convenient for themed campaigns.It always amazes me how often people on forums would rather accuse you of misreading their posts with malice than re-explain their ideas with clarity.
-
2010-08-04, 12:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- Harmondale
- Gender
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
I don't like the fact that MM1 doesn't have the knowledge DC and info. It has minimal fluff, and some creatures don't even have weight and height entry. Others are better, but I still use MM1 for player stupidity punishment and for monsters that I know by heart. Use races of... for fluff. Draconcomicon is GREAT.
-
2010-08-04, 05:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: MM: Crunch Vs Fluff,
While its not quite those catergories (which would be nice) there is this:
Paizo has something like this. One for dragons, Dungeon Denizens, and classic horrors.
The two I have read through are excellent with a great amount of fluff for each creature until they actually felt unique and had a place in the worlds. Adds some racial feats and a variant or two is buried in the books. Classic monsters have 10 monsters, and dragons is the 10 colored and metallic dragons in the MM1. These are taken a bit further than I meant when I wanted more fluff on each race, however they are very good.
Things like the kua-toa have always disappointed me. I have no clue what the race is like other than they can gather together their clerics to shoot lightning bolts. I think there is something about being commonly ignored by the illithids and most other deep type creatures.
I think adding in the knowledge DC would definitely be nice, even if its not that important. That way some monsters could be rarer or more common that then the suggested DC under the skill description.
Finally: Perhaps it is best that the first MM has far more creatures that descriptions, and some really don't need that much description. Pixies (hopefully) will never be a main highlight of an adventure and need a lot of details. Animals certainly don't need much as, well, most of them are real life and you can get that info for free. However intelligent creatures, especially ones the PCs might interact with in more ways than "I axe it, repeat until it stops squawking," really should have a bit more on them.
Such as here is what we have for giant eagles:
SpoilerGiant eagles are intelligent, keen-eyed birds of prey that sometimes associates with good creatures. They attack creatures that appear threatening, especially those intent on raiding the eagle's nest for eggs or fledglings, which fetch a handsome price in many civilized areas. Young eagles can be trained and are prized as aerial mounts.
A typical giant eagle stands about 10 feet tall, has a wingspan of up to 20 feet, and resembles its smaller cousins in nearly every way except size. It weighs about 500 pounds.
Giant eagles speak Common and Auran.
The SRD only has the last paragraph. These are creatures that are wiser and just as intelligent as humans. Do they live together in a large aviary? Mated pairs? Get together only for mating and live alone other wise? There are a lot of creatures intelligent to enough to have a society that definitely won't be expanded on by a campaign setting. Some of them could be interesting beyond "sticky skin that can catch a weapon. Froglike."Originally Posted by Alabenson