...or just a few dozen?
I have to admit I really don't get the necessity some people have to collect "monster manuals" of different kinds. I've never found the need for it in any of my fantasy campaigns; for starters, usually the list of monsters in, say, the basic 1e monster manual or the monster section of the Rules Cyclopedia has more than enough variety.
And beyond that, I find it much simpler to just take one of those, and put some slight spin on it (it can even be precisely the same stats but with a different physical appearance), than to have a collection of a dozen monster-books full of unique creatures.
RPGPundit
I always collected the MM's. I rather like being spoilt for choice.
What I want from monster books:
(1) Clever ideas for new monsters that I wouldn't have thought of
(2) Awesome illustrations that I can show to my players
(3) Clever mechanical variations
(4) For sufficiently complex rule systems, advanced variants of common "base types"
("Clever ideas" can include conceptual cleverness, clever details, and clever hooks that I can use for bait.)
What I don't need from a monster book:
(1) Stupid creatures
(2) Generic Humanoid #156
(3) Generic Demon #198
One of the first things I'll do when prepping a new D&D campaign is to flip through my very large collection of monster manuals: I'm looking for stuff that intrigues me and that ties into the themes or schemes of the campaign I'm planning.
Basically, it's the same as any other supplemental material: I incorporate the creations of other people for the same reason that, when I'm doing theater, I don't always produce new work. Interpreting that work and bridging the gap between your own creativity and the creativity of another will often result in a richer and deeper product.
Absolutely need them. My opinion of D&D as a system is that it isn't great, but what distinguishes it from other games is the tremendous depth of resources it brings to the gaming table. Monsters, spells, magical artifacts, and to a lesser degree campaign worlds.
Any hack can throw a couple of darts at a dictionary and crank out "dogs" in say.. a "vinyard"... but the variety is something that takes hard work, real creative talent, and plenty of it. Even just browsing through the listings fires the imagination for me.
Anyway commentary aside, its great to have as many options as possible when spinning up game worlds, random encounters and adventures.
I see what you did Traveller.:) Dogs in the Vineyard indeed. And 7 Demon bags to boot!:D
My solution ...
A toolkit to build monsters.
A couple of dozen or so examples of monsters
In the setting book an ecology of Monsters built from the toolkit.
In DnD beyond the very basica orc ogre stuff I usually create my own monsters anyway.
Art work in monster books is often of dubious quality apart from the old 1e D&D books of course which had 10 decent illustrations and a lot of stuff that would look ameteruish if it had been handed in by my daughters class as projects on monsters. There is so much fantastic artwork about.
These days for monsters I take a lot of inspiration from MtG which has monsters with nice unique ideas and uniformly excellent art work
I have lots of magic cards, I can type 'dragon' MtG into a search engine and get 100 images, likewise for orc, cat, shadow, ghoul, etc etc
Nope. For the longest towards the end of me playing it, I ran 2E AD&D, using just the PHB.
Most of the monsters I used were custom versions that were world specific anyway, so it made it a lot easier to let go of AD&D's pre-built elements and go with what I wanted.
I find with 4e D&D it's helpful to have huge numbers of stat blocks, with lots of different (eg) orc stat blocks, since it's almost impossible to improvise in play the variety of attack routines the game expects.
Most versions of D&D only need one Monster Manual, IME, although 3e & Pathfinder really need generic NPC stat blocks. For 1e AD&D I find having MM-FF-MM2 is useful, but not vital.
I like having the choices. I know I can make them up on my own, but if they're already done (and done well, which isn't always the case), so much the better.
The vast majority of monsters in any game I run are deployed as unique entities (or a unique nest of a few such entities). The common exception being stuff like humanoids and low-level undead, etc.
I firmly believe that the existence of a well-stocked monster manual is why D&D has never been successfully toppled.
The ability to run a game without having to generate a single stat for oneself is a massive advantage in D&D's favor, one that the competition has perpetually failed to grasp, and constantly slacked off on providing.
I've run combat-oriented campaigns with a "monster of the week" and for those types of games I could never have enough nasty critters statted out. So yes, I bought Monster Manual volume one thru whatever and used them. OTOH, I've also run social/political-oriented RPGs in which most of the monsters turned out to be... humans! Didn't need a monster manual of any kind for those, but I had to create a metric butt-load of NPCs instead. It turns out the monster-of-the-week game is really much easier to run. Not as rewarding, though.
Short version: It depends.
I'm a sucker for monster stats, D&D or otherwise.
The one flaw I see in BECMI/RC (and now ACKS) is the scarcity of demonic and/or planar critters for heroic characters to fight (and for evil characters to summon and bind).
Of course, converting from AD&D 1e is easy enough, and making up your own is easier still. I don't "need" them statted out, anymore than I "need", say, any setting supplement ever; I can make up something on my own just as easily. Nevertheless, it's nice to have things notched and ready when your prep time is at a premium (as mine is).
So bring on the monsters.
Quote from: J Arcane;558782I firmly believe that the existence of a well-stocked monster manual is why D&D has never been successfully toppled.
The ability to run a game without having to generate a single stat for oneself is a massive advantage in D&D's favor, one that the competition has perpetually failed to grasp, and constantly slacked off on providing.
Hell yes. Prep time is a crucial factor in my preference towards older editions. Familiarity with the systems and subsystems plays a big role, but I suppose ease to run is also hardcoded to some degree in the game itself.
I need 20,000 stat blocks. But that's for RuneQuest. :D
A few dozen probably aren't enough - 20,000 is probably more than I need.
First off, having a hundred or two-hundred 'normal monsters' is probably fine. But I absolutely think templates are great (I mean - the idea, not always the implementation). The fact that 3.5 used a template for skeletons was great - it made it pretty easy to make a skeletal hydra, for instance, rather than assuming all skeletons are humans (or equivalent).
I also like to have a variety of stat blocks. What I don't need is a bunch of stat-blocks for Level 1 humanoid warriors (ie, dwarf, elf, etc). That's seriously annoying. For humanoids, stats for a 'standard war party' would be much more useful. In 2nd edition, for instance, a troop might be listed as 5-10 Lvl 1 Ftrs, 1 2nd level Seargeant (Ftr 3) and Wizard 1 (50% chance). I'd want to see the stats for each of those three creatures so I can quickly insert the whole group, rather than having to advance the 'base monster' to the right format - or worse, remove the crap that the 1st level of the class provided and then put on the right 'class'...
Quote from: The Traveller;558756Absolutely need them. My opinion of D&D as a system is that it isn't great, but what distinguishes it from other games is the tremendous depth of resources it brings to the gaming table. Monsters, spells, magical artifacts, and to a lesser degree campaign worlds.
This.
Personally I'm always looking for ideas, and D&D books up to 3.5 were always full of them. Not all of the same quality, of course, but if half of the monsters in MM XVII are interesting I'm already happy to have bought the book.
I'm not specifically talking about monsters/items stats. History, lore, behavior, physical description and other useful info are enough. Sometimes I even made up stats on the spot after reading something interesting by chance while the players were readying for playing - but the contents alone were enough to spice up the session.
What I need out of a module:
Monster name, how many of them there are, hit points, what treasure it has.
If all the fine details are in the Monster Manual, Fiend Folio or MMII I'm good.
I love monster books and am always happy to get more of them as long as they're imaginative.
I can make my own monsters or use classics, but I like making a whole out of random content, and having a ton of monsters allows for a ton of random content. I end up with something I would have never made up possibly even playing out in ways that neither I or the players would have anticipated.
Some people like to have lots of pre-made options for their games, some people don't. There's a reason there are dozens of different RPGs on the market. You can find a game that fits your needs, and play it. Or at least one that comes really close to what you want, and you can house rule it.
If you want one with lots of stuff like monsters, there are plenty of options. If you want less stuff of that sort, there are plenty of other games.
So, even though I'd rather make things of that sort up most of the time, I don't begrudge people who like having it all done and official. Play styles vary.
Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;558980Some people like to have lots of pre-made options for their games, some people don't. There's a reason there are dozens of different RPGs on the market. You can find a game that fits your needs, and play it. Or at least one that comes really close to what you want, and you can house rule it.
If you want one with lots of stuff like monsters, there are plenty of options. If you want less stuff of that sort, there are plenty of other games.
So, even though I'd rather make things of that sort up most of the time, I don't begrudge people who like having it all done and official. Play styles vary.
Welcome to the RPGsite, monkeyfaceratboy, and there's a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.
Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;558980Some people like to have lots of pre-made options for their games, some people don't. There's a reason there are dozens of different RPGs on the market. You can find a game that fits your needs, and play it. Or at least one that comes really close to what you want, and you can house rule it.
If you want one with lots of stuff like monsters, there are plenty of options. If you want less stuff of that sort, there are plenty of other games.
So, even though I'd rather make things of that sort up most of the time, I don't begrudge people who like having it all done and official. Play styles vary.
Is that avatar from
Meet the Feebles?
I always thought the various Monster Manuals were cool to look at, but not particularly useful. I used to peruse them at the local library before they all got stolen.
But I also cut my teeth on Robotech, TMNT, and Twilight 2000 - didn't get into fantasy games until pretty recently.
I still like looking at them (my friends never really left the 1st/2nd edition era), but I'd rather make my own monsters and villains to suit my LotFP campaign.
I'm not going to fault anyone for using them though - I did use a flailsnail once.
Speaking of which, flailsnails are my all-time favorite monster from any game. And not because of what's going on on Google+. They're just so ridiculous, and the "pitiful wail," makes me tear up a little.
I like them, but I rarely make use of them. Does anyone really need anything from this hobby? Truthfully, I'm more baffled by the proliferation of adventure modules than monster books.
T-2
This:
(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM_Files.jpeg)
is available as a pdf out there somewhere. It has all you would ever need and more.
Quote from: Gib;558997I like them, but I rarely make use of them. Does anyone really need anything from this hobby? Truthfully, I'm more baffled by the proliferation of adventure modules than monster books.
T-2
I'd agree with that. A jumping off point adventure is swell for getting some campaigns going (or getting the right feel for a new game), after that, we're usually getting so personalized that it seems like a non-issue.
On the other hand, I like monster books. I especially like using monster books from different games as inspiration for The Game I'm Running. For instance, getting the idea to drop a "by the book" Iron Golem into a Marvel SAGA game (and never calling it an iron golem), while the PCs try to figure out the best way to take it down. (It wasn't completely random...it was serving a wizard from another dimension who was trying to get one of The Great Old Ones to chase him into the PCs' reality to threaten their world instead of his.)
Quote from: Teazia;559002This:
is available as a pdf out there somewhere. It has all you would ever need and more.
I ordered the second Dark Sun appendix today. Remember kids, Noble Knight is great, but check Amazon first.
I'm less interested in the monster stats per se than I am in what the monsters tell me about the game/campaign.
I agree, monster books can be the best setting books.
Quote from: Teazia;559002This:
(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM_Files.jpeg)
is available as a pdf out there somewhere. It has all you would ever need and more.
The illustrations... Please... NOooOoooO!!!!1
Quote from: Planet Algol;559015The illustrations... Please... NOooOoooO!!!!1
The DS illos seem pretty cool, is there a problem with the set as a whole? BTW, can you get that stuff in a book or are you stuck with binders?
I like monster books because they give me ideas that I otherwise might not have thought of. Especially when you get specialized stuff like the Privateer Press Iron Kingdoms monster books.
Quote from: Gib;559011I ordered the second Dark Sun appendix today. Remember kids, Noble Knight is great, but check Amazon first.
I thought second-hand stuff at Amazon was all horrendously overpriced.
Also I have a hard time trusting some of the sellers using Amazon. When you're paying for overseas shipping you tend to err on the side of caution.
Quote from: The Butcher;559049I thought second-hand stuff at Amazon was all horrendously overpriced.
Also I have a hard time trusting some of the sellers using Amazon. When you're paying for overseas shipping you tend to err on the side of caution.
Well, over the last year, the cheapest price I've seen for it on noble knight is 10$ over what I paid, and I did not even take the least expensive option. What's truly odd, though, is last i looked on amazon it wasn't anywhere to be found, today i checked because I had a gift card and there were like two dozen of the things.
I can't speak to the shipping, of course, but as far as price goes I have found, as this case illustrates, that it really pays to jettison your assumptions and look everywhere, every time.
FWIW, I tend to buy my used stuff from amazon resellers that have fulfillment through amazon itself because on order over 25$ I can get free (super slow) shipping. I got the Scarred Lands campaign guide today as well because Melan said good things about it and wanted have a look (and it made the shipping free).
Quote from: Gib;559018The DS illos seem pretty cool, is there a problem with the set as a whole? BTW, can you get that stuff in a book or are you stuck with binders?
I recall the DS illos being some of the better ones, but in general the Monstrous Compendium loose leafs had some pretty dubious artwork.
There is a Monstrous Compendium, with better color illos, but it's pretty poorly assembled/edited.
In general, I find, the 2e MCs to be more poorly organized and edited than their 1e counterparts.
Quote from: The Traveller;558756Absolutely need them. My opinion of D&D as a system is that it isn't great, but what distinguishes it from other games is the tremendous depth of resources it brings to the gaming table. Monsters, spells, magical artifacts, and to a lesser degree campaign worlds.
Any hack can throw a couple of darts at a dictionary and crank out "dogs" in say.. a "vinyard"... but the variety is something that takes hard work, real creative talent, and plenty of it. Even just browsing through the listings fires the imagination for me.
Anyway commentary aside, its great to have as many options as possible when spinning up game worlds, random encounters and adventures.
Quote from: J Arcane;558782I firmly believe that the existence of a well-stocked monster manual is why D&D has never been successfully toppled.
The ability to run a game without having to generate a single stat for oneself is a massive advantage in D&D's favor, one that the competition has perpetually failed to grasp, and constantly slacked off on providing.
These, then, are the fundamental truths of the universe.
Quote from: StormBringer;559068These, then, are the fundamental truths of the universe.
Yes, no, maybe? Hold on...."you are posting in a troll thread". :)
Quote from: Marleycat;559090Yes, no, maybe? Hold on...."you are posting in a troll thread". :)
:D
At some point, there has to be some heavy lifting in monster design. The same 'generic monster template' cannot possibly serve both kobolds and dragons, otherwise you really will have wandering bundles of xp that occasionally cause damage. There is a far wider range of possibilities for 'kobold' than 'weak lizard-dog with short sword', and those possibilities can (and probably should) be very different than the 'weak humanoid with short sword' goblin.
On a side note, David A Trampier was the greatest D&D artist of all fucking time:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/D%26DGoblin.JPG)
Quote from: RPGPundit;558751...or just a few dozen?
I have to admit I really don't get the necessity some people have to collect "monster manuals" of different kinds. I've never found the need for it in any of my fantasy campaigns; for starters, usually the list of monsters in, say, the basic 1e monster manual or the monster section of the Rules Cyclopedia has more than enough variety.
And beyond that, I find it much simpler to just take one of those, and put some slight spin on it (it can even be precisely the same stats but with a different physical appearance), than to have a collection of a dozen monster-books full of unique creatures.
RPGPundit
My sentiments as well. I've gotten far more use out of standard-issue monsters (MM1 or the Basic Set), plus Katherine Briggs'
Encyclopedia of Fairies than I ever got out of all the other monster books. I prefer to take an existing monster (where the stats are already written up), change its name (this is where Briggs' book comes in handy) and appearance, and a few attributes.
For example, I took the standard vampire, changed it to the Bavanshee (a Gaelic bloodsucking monster), and changed its weaknesses from garlic etc to iron. New monster made easy.
This is especially useful for tripping up players who have read the monster books and know what do against all the published creatures.
Quote from: Elfdart;559173This is especially useful for tripping up players who have read the monster books and know what do against all the published creatures.
I haven't had to deal with this since the early 90's. I'd forgotten that monster books can be porn for rules lawyers.
As far as changing the names and whatnot, doesn't everyone do this?
Quote from: Gib;559176I haven't had to deal with this since the early 90's. I'd forgotten that monster books can be porn for rules lawyers.
As far as changing the names and whatnot, doesn't everyone do this?
You better if you want to keep the game interesting.
I wrote an essay (http://themetalearth.blogspot.com/2010/09/retro-redbox-outrage.html) on this topic once. It has cuss words.
Quote from: Gib;559180I wrote an essay (http://themetalearth.blogspot.com/2010/09/retro-redbox-outrage.html) on this topic once. It has cuss words.
The differentiation between 'monster' and 'critter' is awesome.
Quote from: StormBringer;559182The differentiation between 'monster' and 'critter' is awesome.
Thanks. It may be the only interesting thought I've ever had in regards to RPGs.
Quote from: Gib;559176I haven't had to deal with this since the early 90's. I'd forgotten that monster books can be porn for rules lawyers.
It's a pain, isn't it?
QuoteAs far as changing the names and whatnot, doesn't everyone do this?
Apparently not.
Quote from: Planet Algol;559063Quote from: Gib;559018The DS illos seem pretty cool, is there a problem with the set as a whole? BTW, can you get that stuff in a book or are you stuck with binders?
I recall the DS illos being some of the better ones, but in general the Monstrous Compendium loose leafs had some pretty dubious artwork.
There is a Monstrous Compendium, with better color illos, but it's pretty poorly assembled/edited.
In general, I find, the 2e MCs to be more poorly organized and edited than their 1e counterparts.
A long time ago I came up with a way of dealing with some of the really crap artwork in the monster books. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=48665)
Instead of lugging around all my books I just photocopied the pages I used most often and assembled them into a binder. When I got hold of dilapidated copies of rulebooks, I would cut out pages (or parts of pages) and put them in my binder too, along with Dragon articles or whatever else I wanted. At this point, because I was already cutting and pasting, I decided to cut/paste and swap out pics I didn't like for ones I did like. With the Interwebz and PDF files this is a thousand times easier (and cheaper) and with better-looking results.
For example, I always though pig-faced orcs were stupid, so I found pictures of orcs from modules or Dragon Magazine and used them instead. I also rearranged the text so "Orc" was all on one page:
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n87/Elfdart/Stuff/Orcs.jpg)
I did this for other monsters, too. The only bad thing is that this can very quickly become addictive and you can find yourself spending WAY too much time doing it.
*backs away slowly*
Anyways, I print out the PDFs of my monster books as digest sized booklets so they're pretty small and light and I easily stuff all of them in my satchel.
Arts and crafts D&D is awesome D&D.
Despite preferring human/demihuman-centric games, I also like a good monster or hundred to liven up a game too.
Though admittingly, it's far more likely I'll pull out a Medusa, or Wyvern, or Vampire (something that can really mess up the party), than stock giant badgers, purple worms, or worgs.
The first RPG I knew was AD&D 2E. The MCs were among its best assets: I could run a game within minutes. It's one area where it trumps 3E, IMHO.
Quote from: Novastar;559447Despite preferring human/demihuman-centric games, I also like a good monster or hundred to liven up a game too.
Though admittingly, it's far more likely I'll pull out a Medusa, or Wyvern, or Vampire (something that can really mess up the party), than stock giant badgers, purple worms, or worgs.
I agreee with the focus on people (even if they are elves). I prefer the big bad to be an NPC that a monster to be honest but when I do add a monster I want it to be a monster.
Quote from: JongWK;559844The first RPG I knew was AD&D 2E. The MCs were among its best assets: I could run a game within minutes. It's one area where it trumps 3E, IMHO.
Absolutely. Amazing concept, less than stellar on the execution. If they would have kept it to one monster per sheet like they planned, about 90% of my complaints with the products would disappear.
Quote from: RPGPundit;558751...or just a few dozen?
I have to admit I really don't get the necessity some people have to collect "monster manuals" of different kinds. I've never found the need for it in any of my fantasy campaigns; for starters, usually the list of monsters in, say, the basic 1e monster manual or the monster section of the Rules Cyclopedia has more than enough variety.
And beyond that, I find it much simpler to just take one of those, and put some slight spin on it (it can even be precisely the same stats but with a different physical appearance), than to have a collection of a dozen monster-books full of unique creatures.
RPGPundit
I think some people are comfortable tweaking monsters, and therefore may not feel the need for thousands of monsters. Other people enjoy 'shopping the monster manuals' for beasties that fit the setting. I do both.
Might be the shiny new book factor as well.
Yes, but a shiny new book full of nothing but statblocks of usually repetitive monsters (and they can't help but be repetitive when you get to the 100th different kind of humanoid) is just boring.
And again, in terms of collecting shiny new books you have a point, but in terms of actual play, I can't imagine any campaign that couldn't get by on just the monsters included in the monster manual (any one of them), especially with modifications being made.
I'm willing to bet that anyone who does have dozens of monster books probably hasn't actually USED all the monsters in their first book, or even half of them. Much less more than a tiny percentage of all subsequent books' monsters.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;561491I'm willing to bet that anyone who does have dozens of monster books probably hasn't actually USED all the monsters in their first book, or even half of them. Much less more than a tiny percentage of all subsequent books' monsters.
True, but this is true also for splatbooks and the like. However, I just like to read well done RPG supplements. If a MM or, let's say, a "Villains Book" (like "Exemplars of Evil" for 3.5E) is well written and interesting, I find an escapistic (sp?) pleasure in reading it. If I find something useful for my campaign, all the better. I liked most of the "Races of" books, and I never used one of them (except for "Races of Faerun).
Which is, as I always say to no avail, the point that never comes up in all 4E/5E debates: 4E books' contents were moronic. Will 5E books be
well written and full of interesting ideas? But everybody does seem to be interested in just crunch, dice and stats.
Quote from: RPGPundit;561491I'm willing to bet that anyone who does have dozens of monster books probably hasn't actually USED all the monsters in their first book, or even half of them. Much less more than a tiny percentage of all subsequent books' monsters.
In my case, that is half-true; I've used monsters from every book I have, not a tiny percentage but not a significant proportion either.
However, I do make and use encounter/stocking tables that use the monsters from all of my monster books, albeit when I'm DMing I reroll results that I find unsuitable for whatever milieu or dungeon I'm running, such as how I currently reroll kobold, orc, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, dwarf, elf, halfling and giant centipede results). And I use monsters from all my books when I'm making saturday night specials and the like.
(Incidentally this is why I wish that every monster book contained encounter tables referencing the monsters contained within, so I can easily make a master encounter matrix that utilizes tables from the various books).
My current "monster books" that I use when DMing are:
AD&D Monster Manual
AD&D Fiend Folio
AD&D Monster Manual II
Arduin Trilogy
All the Worlds Monsters Volumes I, II& III (albeit only the monsters referenced in the Arduin encounter tables so far; I haven't dove into them yet).
Booty & the Beast
Swords & Wizardry Monster Book
OSRIC Monsters of Myth
OSRIC Malevolent & Benign
Swords & Wizardry Tome of Horrors Complete
Empire of the Petal Throne
Realms of Crawling Chaos
Carcosa
The Bleak Beyond Bestiary
Varlet's and Vermin
Telecanter's Dangerous Denizens
The White Dwarf Fiend Factory compilation netbook
Kard & Magica
OSR Blogs
B/X D&D
+ stuff I'm forgetting.
as well as monster generators such as the Random Esoteric Creature Generator and Exquisite Corpses.
With such a pool of monsters, I've come to quite enjoy the emergent experience of a monsters coming right out of left field not only for the players but for me the DM as well.
If you publish a monster book for some variety of oldschool D&D or clone I will buy it and use it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;561491I'm willing to bet that anyone who does have dozens of monster books probably hasn't actually USED all the monsters in their first book, or even half of them. Much less more than a tiny percentage of all subsequent books' monsters.
If you've never run a full-on dimensional invasion by Mind Flayers, let me tell you that extensive monster lists come in handy. No stone goes unturned as far as cannon fodder goes. Besides the point isn't to run them all, although you could in a long enough campaign, the point is that "here be dragons" actually holds mystery when the players could be facing any one of ten thousand different creatures in the next game. And admittedly many of those in D&D are humanoid+power, but many more are quite unique. Those enhancement skills come in even more useful when you have such a wide base to choose from. The "ecology of" series in Dragon were outstanding examples of this, loved those articles.
Try mixing in the WHFRP chaos attribute tables with the 2e monster lists sometime, now that's an afternoon's entertainment.
Quote from: VectorSigma;559012I'm less interested in the monster stats per se than I am in what the monsters tell me about the game/campaign.
Wow you said it. Then shouldn't (after say, the initial core book) any standalone monster manuals be campaign world specific? After a base stat block, information about any critter should be dependent on where its likely to be, what its foes are, and the like.
Having escalated one of my games up through Pathfinder, dealing with the complexities of stat blocks is my biggest frustration. I think you all put your finger on my top peeve of the complexity curve through the years.
Quote from: RPGPundit;561491Yes, but a shiny new book full of nothing but statblocks of usually repetitive monsters (and they can't help but be repetitive when you get to the 100th different kind of humanoid) is just boring.
And again, in terms of collecting shiny new books you have a point, but in terms of actual play, I can't imagine any campaign that couldn't get by on just the monsters included in the monster manual (any one of them), especially with modifications being made.
I'm willing to bet that anyone who does have dozens of monster books probably hasn't actually USED all the monsters in their first book, or even half of them. Much less more than a tiny percentage of all subsequent books' monsters.
RPGPundit
Nope, there are monsters in the original MM I've never run...hell, there's monsters in B/X I've never run (like the Devil Swine).
I still like having the variety, though. Sometimes you need a specific something for a game. Like a flumph.
Quote from: Gib;559386Arts and crafts D&D is awesome D&D.
The new cut/paste job kept me busy a couple of years ago when I was unable to walk for several months and I had already gone through every book and movie I had in the first two weeks.
Quote from: Planet Algol;559384*backs away slowly*
Anyways, I print out the PDFs of my monster books as digest sized booklets so they're pretty small and light and I easily stuff all of them in my satchel.
Unfortunately, the tiny and shitty font used in the first four AD&D hardbacks makes this difficult since shrinking down the text to half size makes it difficult to read (for me).
Quote from: The Traveller;561636If you've never run a full-on dimensional invasion by Mind Flayers, let me tell you that extensive monster lists come in handy.
As a matter of fact, I did indeed run that very thing, in my Port Blacksand campaign. I didn't find need of anything more than the Monster Manual.
RPGPundit
Quote from: The Traveller;561636Try mixing in the WHFRP chaos attribute tables with the 2e monster lists sometime, now that's an afternoon's entertainment.
Oh, hell yes. The two "Realms of Chaos" books (Lost and the Damned, and Slaves to Darkness) found great use in the AD&D 1e campaign I was running from the late 80s to the early 90s. That was one awesome game.
For the monsters, I don't usually make use of the WFRP chaos stuff, but I use the Tome of Corruption VERY regularly in the Albion campaign; in particular one character's gotten herself mutated like three times.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;561491I'm willing to bet that anyone who does have dozens of monster books probably hasn't actually USED all the monsters in their first book, or even half of them. Much less more than a tiny percentage of all subsequent books' monsters.
Well, yes, but it's not like you need to get through all the monsters in the first book before you have need of the second. There's always monsters in a book you'll never use, but there's all kinds that you will. Or at least hope to.
I really like having a large assortment of pre-made monsters to choose from, especially in rules-heavy RPGs with a long NPC creation process.
However, I do think that Dungeons & Dragons can suffer from "monster bloat;" this is the case with a lot of undead in 3rd Edition, whose circumstances of creation and death are often interchangeable. But it's a lesser of two evils to me, so it's not much of a concern.
Last night I re-formulated a piercer into a "giant amoeba". You know how? By changing its name to "giant amoeba".
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;563445Last night I re-formulated a piercer into a "giant amoeba". You know how? By changing its name to "giant amoeba".
RPGPundit
Ochre Jelly feels sad and unloved!
Quote from: RPGPundit;563445Last night I re-formulated a piercer into a "giant amoeba". You know how? By changing its name to "giant amoeba".
RPGPundit
Apropos of nothing, "giant amoeba" is a character class in Hulks and Horrors.
Quote from: J Arcane;563522Apropos of nothing, "giant amoeba" is a character class in Hulks and Horrors.
I will have to check out Hulks and Horrors!
Ever since Dralasites in Star Frontiers I have wanted to play a giant ameoba!
Quote from: J Arcane;563522Apropos of nothing, "giant amoeba" is a character class in Hulks and Horrors.
I wondered what that blob in a spacesuit was on your Indiegogo page, thought it was a guy whose nannites got rearranged after a close encounter with a thirty gee braking burn.
Quote from: RPGPundit;558751...or just a few dozen?
I have to admit I really don't get the necessity some people have to collect "monster manuals" of different kinds. I've never found the need for it in any of my fantasy campaigns; for starters, usually the list of monsters in, say, the basic 1e monster manual or the monster section of the Rules Cyclopedia has more than enough variety.
And beyond that, I find it much simpler to just take one of those, and put some slight spin on it (it can even be precisely the same stats but with a different physical appearance), than to have a collection of a dozen monster-books full of unique creatures.
Agree 100 per cent. I don't need every single encounter in every single adventure to be with a different monster. And once you get beyond 100 or so monsters, they start to become goofy. There's only so many variants of humanoids or giant insects or skeletal undead that you need. And as you say, if you're bored with, say, a ghoul, then just give your ghouls an extra ability (say, Cause Fear). Voila, new monster.
Quote from: Bill;563456Ochre Jelly feels sad and unloved!
I randomly rolled an encounter with a piercer in a room where a piercer would not have been hidden at all; so instead I decided it was a nearly flat monster that clung to the ceiling, camouflaged, a flat round mass with hundreds of tiny sucker-like feet, waiting to drop on an unsuspecting opponent.
So basically, not an ochre-jelly style amoeba.
RPGPundit
It depends.
I felt that BECMI didn't have enough creatures to flip through in order to get "cool ideas", but I felt that 2e and 3e had waaaaay too many (I have yet to see the MM for 4e beyond a quick glance; my case of explosive vomiting brought on by what I saw made any further perusal impossible). I did feel that AD&D1e had a good amount.
Fuck, I'm such a 1e fanboy.
-=Grim=-
Quote from: GrimJesta;564523I felt that BECMI didn't have enough creatures to flip through in order to get "cool ideas", but I felt that 2e and 3e had waaaaay too many (I have yet to see the MM for 4e beyond a quick glance; my case of explosive vomiting brought on by what I saw made any further perusal impossible). I did feel that AD&D1e had a good amount.
Fuck, I'm such a 1e fanboy.
I hear you. When it comes to spells and monsters and comprehensive procedures for dungeon crawling, 1e is king. B/X, BECMI and RC are a bit lacking, especially in the aberration and demon/devil departments.
But generally speaking, I mantain that 2e had the best Monster Manual (or was it "Monstruous Manual"?).
Quote from: GrimJesta;564523I felt that BECMI didn't have enough creatures to flip through in order to get "cool ideas", but I felt that 2e and 3e had waaaaay too many
See I don't get this, how is it possible to have too many? You don't need to use more than a handful if you don't want to.
Quote from: The Butcher;564534But generally speaking, I mantain that 2e had the best Monster Manual (or was it "Monstruous Manual"?).
I would be with you 110% if they had only stuck to the 'one page one monster' format. Even if that back page was crappy artwork, it would be better than trying to use it as intended (ie, to make my own compilation of monsters) only to be foiled by the monster on the reverse side that I don't want in there.
Quote from: StormBringer;564571I would be with you 110% if they had only stuck to the 'one page one monster' format. Even if that back page was crappy artwork, it would be better than trying to use it as intended (ie, to make my own compilation of monsters) only to be foiled by the monster on the reverse side that I don't want in there.
Monstrous Manual was the hardback book, Monster Compendiums was the collection of loose pages that had one monster per side or so (later MCs were softies though). It would have been cool if they had 1 monster per page (both sides), then there would have not been problems with alphabetizing the collection!
Quote from: RPGPundit;564436I randomly rolled an encounter with a piercer in a room where a piercer would not have been hidden at all; so instead I decided it was a nearly flat monster that clung to the ceiling, camouflaged, a flat round mass with hundreds of tiny sucker-like feet, waiting to drop on an unsuspecting opponent.
So basically, not an ochre-jelly style amoeba.
RPGPundit
Wait... wait... I know this monster. There was a whole species of floor/wall/ceiling critters, flat panels... the name escapes me, but I know it's there...
I think the ceiling one was in MM2...
Quote from: RPGPundit;564436I randomly rolled an encounter with a piercer in a room where a piercer would not have been hidden at all; so instead I decided it was a nearly flat monster that clung to the ceiling, camouflaged, a flat round mass with hundreds of tiny sucker-like feet, waiting to drop on an unsuspecting opponent.
So basically, not an ochre-jelly style amoeba.
RPGPundit
Makes sense. I am a big fan of 'reskinning' monsters.
Quote from: Spike;564623Wait... wait... I know this monster. There was a whole species of floor/wall/ceiling critters, flat panels... the name escapes me, but I know it's there...
I think the ceiling one was in MM2...
Are you thinking of the Lurker Above?
Quote from: everloss;564682Are you thinking of the Lurker Above?
Probably. I'm umpteen miles from my library and torrent the AD&D monster manuals sounds like a lot of work, so I'm gonna have to trust you on this one.
:thanx:
Quote from: RPGPundit;563445Last night I re-formulated a piercer into a "giant amoeba". You know how? By changing its name to "giant amoeba".
RPGPundit
Is there anybody who doesn't do this?
Honestly, though, I don't have much of an issue with your larger point except for the one true way part. I do think, however, that the candidates for the "only necessary monster book" varies from campaign to campaign. For classic D&D, or even your Dark Albion the 1e MM (which I do not currently own) seems the obvious choice. Settings like Dark Sun, Scarn or Spell Jammer, however, might be better served by different books.
Whatever, though, more is never really bad.
Quote from: GrimJesta;564523It depends.
I felt that BECMI didn't have enough creatures to flip through in order to get "cool ideas", but I felt that 2e and 3e had waaaaay too many (I have yet to see the MM for 4e beyond a quick glance; my case of explosive vomiting brought on by what I saw made any further perusal impossible). I did feel that AD&D1e had a good amount.
Fuck, I'm such a 1e fanboy.
-=Grim=-
The Rules Cyclopedia had a crazy amount of monsters, including a number of really weird ones that don't show up in any of the other editions.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Gib;564820Is there anybody who doesn't do this?
Honestly, though, I don't have much of an issue with your larger point except for the one true way part. I do think, however, that the candidates for the "only necessary monster book" varies from campaign to campaign. For classic D&D, or even your Dark Albion the 1e MM (which I do not currently own) seems the obvious choice. Settings like Dark Sun, Scarn or Spell Jammer, however, might be better served by different books.
Sure, I'm willing to accept that; more exotic settings need their own list of monsters. Its why I statted out a shitload of monsters for the Arrows of Indra book.
What no game needs, though, is to have Monster Manuals vols. 1-215.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;565007Its why I statted out a shitload of monsters for the Arrows of Indra book.
RPGPundit
I'm doing this for Metal Earth as well.