|
I guess the point of this is to ask : "is it just me?"
I'm currently running some 3.5ed Forgotten Realms, starting to use the Pathfinder beta rules, and my current part of the campaign is drawing heavily on some 2nd ed material. Now, its's already been mentioned on the boards that 2ed was the zenith of fluff for monster descriptions - a whole page per monster with Habitat/Society sections and Ecolegy, activity cycle, etc.
I'd happily pay for the Pathfinder monster bestiary to be done in a similar style. Buy a stack of monster sheets shrink-wrapped and an optional 3-ring pathfinder logo-ed binder to keep them in... and I'm from the 4-ring binder end of the world.
So, is it just me?
And a question for any Paizonians : would the saving in production cost from just shipping shrink-wrapped hole-punched pages be enough to pay for the extra fluff and page-count?
|
You know, I always did like that about the 2nd edition period - the binders and loose-leaf pages. You could arrange your MM in whatever manner made the most sense to you: alphabetical, by habitat, by XP, whatever.
I wonder if TSR stopped doing that because it wasn't cost effective (for them), or because it was too cost effective (for the consumer).
I'd definitely be in favor of the binder approach.
Humm i would buy a hard cover and a binder one. One for reading and brainstorming the other for ease of use at the table.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I also liked the Binder/Loose Leaf approach. Only thing is to be cost effective the pages may possibly have to be Black & White (which I have no problem with, a lot of my 2e Monsters have been coloured by myself).
That being said, I also like the Hardcover versions as well, so either way is fine with me.
|
|
I must admit that even though I've never played in a 2ed game I have perused through the books of said edition. Looking at the 2ed Monster Manual I recall there being a lot more fluff for each monster than in 3e or 4e. The 2e position is of course a double-edged swords. On the other hand, more setting material gives DMs more information to go with when it comes to running monsters as PCs, but at the same time all the space spent on monster fluff reduces the number of possible monsters or variations thereof dealt with in the book.
Premade fluff also runs the risk of reducing the DM's power. If everything you ever need to know about a said monster is explicitly spelled out in the MM the DM can only rely on DM fiat to change that fluff. The less said about monsters the more room there is left for creativity for the DM. Then again, newbie DMs will be more likely to appreciate premade fluff and the adventure hooks that come with it.
So, in the end, I am left to submit a post that really says nothing at all one way or another.
Premade fluff reduces none of my Dming power. I am god of my setting,he who rules with an iron fist. If I say orcs in my setting like taking long bubble baths, then by the gods they do!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'd much rather have a pdf than a loose leaf binder. The Monstrous Compendium had a tendency to lose pages, the rings would bend/get out of alignment (as is typical for 3-ring binders), and it's ability to integrate future releases was limited by the fact that you would frequently have newly published monsters that fit alphabetically between two existing monsters that were on two sides of the same page.
Plus, we live in a different decade. Back when home printers and copying were rare commodities, the binder made sense. These days, you get the same functionality as a binder from a pdf copy where you can print up the monsters you want to use (and, as a bonus, write on them without ruining your original copy). And, if you want to, you can put the pages in a binder and recreate a Monstrous Compendium which includes only the monsters you use and organized as you prefer.
3 ring binders are outdated technology. Print on demand is a much better way of achieving the same (better) results. The only negative is the cost of ink, which I am not particularly sympathetic towards. I'd rather bear the cost of ink than have a falling-apart 3 ring binder with black and white art that can't actually be organized how I want it because some monsters only take up one page.
|
|
it's ability to integrate future releases was limited by the fact that you would frequently have newly published monsters that fit alphabetically between two existing monsters that were on two sides of the same page.
This could be solved by the simple expedient of having one monster per leaf - Art and PC friendly information on one side; rules, ecology, and such the like for GMs on the other. It's not space efficient, granted, but I bet you'd have a lot of GMs who would love to be able to do the old "you see this coming up over the ridge" without trying to cover up the name and rules with his thumbs.
The only negative is the cost of ink, which I am not particularly sympathetic towards.
Well, we're not all making lawyer money, are we? :p ;)
I loved the Monstrous Compendium approach back in 1989. No having to dig through the MM, FF, and MMII to find the monster, they'll all be in alphabetical order right here . . .
Come 1993, I was eager for an actual book. Loose-leaf in a binder doesn't stand up to wear very well (never mind the trouble with alphabetical order when your new Appendix ended with a W monster on one side and a Z on the back).
I'm all for Pathfinder (AP) Bestiary entries in the Pathfinder (RPG) Bestiary, but I'll take that as a hardcover. Loose pages are a disaster patiently waiting to happen.
I can see it there, the disaster. It just sits there with that smug expression. "I can wait," that expression says, "I have all the time in the world. My time will come. Sooner or later, your vigilance will slip, and I'll swoop in on a maelstrom of flittering pages and cries of dismay."
It scares me.
I'd rather have a book and accompanying PDF with search functions and bookmarks.
Premade fluff reduces none of my Dming power. I am god of my setting,he who rules with an iron fist. If I say orcs in my setting like taking long bubble baths, then by the gods they do!
A mere god, eh? And in the same text, you talk about gods? No wonder the players never took you seriously ;-p
|
|
I just want them to put the Tarrasque in the book and make him look cool again instead of something that looks like the by product of a turtle and Godzilla.
Well, Paizo has a history of taking historic monsters and driving hard toward rendering them in historic fashion.
So here's the PFRPG tarrasque:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TarasqueStatue.jpg
|
|
The only problem I had with the three ring binder is it seemed the they were far less durable that the bound books. I spent a lot of time repairing the holes on the loose pages. Maybe it would be better with 4 to 6 ring binder instead.
I don't care how many rings it has, as long as I can re-organize, add and subtract monsters at will, and pierce recalcitrant players with the rings.
I also miss the format of 2nd ed. While I am not too crazy about binder format, I find carrying 15 books just for the monster appendix at the end even worst. With the current technology, something better has to exist?
As far as space is concerned, I'd rather have less monsters in a more approachable format than tons of hard-to-decipher monsters.
'findel
I love the idea of 2ed style, bigger, loose leaf - but would need to be multipunched
-why ?
...because its virtually impossible to get a 3-ring binder in europe - 2 or 4 are the norm.
Wasnt too bad for MC as it came with a binder, but I had a problen when SFB came out 3-punched and had to repunch the whole lot.
So, is it just me?
No binder for me. Sure it was practical for adding new monsters alphabetically into your existing collection but:
nearly all of my pages were torn apart and ugly at the holes even after strengthening them. and guess what: the binder was unwieldy when reading it on the toilet (i.e. without a flat surface to lay on). The paper of 2nd edition was shoddy and after flipping it a few times it was dirty. I always felt that the binder didn't protect the pages as good as a book cover and that actual book binding for pages was far superior.
AND i don't know how often I hurt my fingers after inserting a monster page and closing the clasps(?)... No binder please. Thank you.
Creative Director
|
We won't be going the binder route. It's fine at the start, but for me at least, as soon as they introduced a monster who, alphabetically, would fall inside of a page rather than between them, the whole point of the binder thing fell apart.
That too. Binders fall apart. And monster pages rip out easy, and the ones you use often go away and get lost. At least, if you lose a book, you pay to replace everything you lost. If you lose just your favorite monster it's a lot more annoying.
|
|
We won't be going the binder route. It's fine at the start, but for me at least, as soon as they introduced a monster who, alphabetically, would fall inside of a page rather than between them, the whole point of the binder thing fell apart.
That too. Binders fall apart. And monster pages rip out easy, and the ones you use often go away and get lost. At least, if you lose a book, you pay to replace everything you lost. If you lose just your favorite monster it's a lot more annoying.
Fair enough, and I do recall getting quite grumpy about the problems with alphabetization myself.
The general style and extra fluff would still be good if possible though - I had a lot of good adventure ideas just randomly browsing through entries. I guess that the cost would be prohibitive - too many words.
A thought : would it be possible for the PDF version to be laid out as 1 monster per page for easy printing of the required monsters for a given evening? Do your design tools allow that kind of 'reflowing' or whatever the appropriate term is? I do like having my monsters printed out for scribbling on.
I would love to see the Appearance/Combat/Habitat-Society/Ecology format applied in a PDF format containing updated entries for ALL the monsters from the original SRD (including epic and psionic) and maybe even the Tome of Horrors.
I prefer PDF because I like electronic versions instead of paper ones, and also because there's no paper cost restraint - if you want a 1000 page book, you don't have to pay $125 for it.
|
Creative Director
|
A thought : would it be possible for the PDF version to be laid out as 1 monster per page for easy printing of the required monsters for a given evening? Do your design tools allow that kind of 'reflowing' or whatever the appropriate term is? I do like having my monsters printed out for scribbling on.
Nope; not possible. We're barely gonna be able to handle getting the print version out; the prospect of basically doing the book all over again a 2nd time for an expanded PDF version is almost enough to make me eat broken glass and poison dart frogs.
That said... the goal of the Bestiary is to have one monster per page as it is, and we'll certainly have a PDF version of the print book, so things will probably work out that way anyway!
I just want them to put the Tarrasque in the book and make him look cool again instead of something that looks like the by product of a turtle and Godzilla.
Heck, Cloverfield was a cooler looking Tarrasque then the 4e one >_>. And 3e wasn't any better. 2e was coolish though
TurDzilla? Speaking of which, Tarrasque as the final monster in an AP would rock
My 3-ring binders fell apart, I also dropped one that was full, and the binder actually ripped about 2 inches on a side...I do like my PDFs now, though I wish I could get a PDF BookReader for cheaper than they are right now, would be easier to use during the game...but it's easy enough to pull out a sheet from the PDF and assemble a game specific Monster PDF, could even work for per module, per random encounters, etc.
Having the knowledge check tables like the MM V has are great!
Oh the good old days, my favorite 2E monster description was by far and large the one for the Lich, back when it still was "the single most powerful form of undead known to exist" not because of its 'power' per se, but because of its personality profile, blind, serene-fanatical sense of purpose, endless patience, inhuman cunning, and the amount of magical research that an unlimited supply of time granted them (profile which was actually required of anyone insane enough to drink the potion, a concoction so toxic it killed you and destroyed your soul if you failed the Fort save).
Yeah, Monsters Revisited definitely takes that great aproach, I LOVE that book, with capitals, and bolds, even when it's barely 60 pages (I never thought Bugbears could be depicted so good! They're really fearsome). I'm sooo looking forward to the Pathfinder Bestiary. =)
|
|
Nope; not possible. We're barely gonna be able to handle getting the print version out; the prospect of basically doing the book all over again a 2nd time for an expanded PDF version is almost enough to make me eat broken glass and poison dart frogs.
Good grief! If I ever run into you at a Con I owe you a beer.
That said... the goal of the Bestiary is to have one monster per page as it is, and we'll certainly have a PDF version of the print book, so things will probably work out that way anyway!
Fingers crossed, but only if it doesn't involve toxic frogs.