Wednesday, June 26, 2024

Retrospective: Monstrous Manual

In the course of writing posts about the pictorial histories of several standard Dungeons & Dragons monsters, I often consulted 1993's Monstrous Manual. This book, released four years after the launch of AD&D Second Edition was, according to its own introduction, "created in response to many requests to gather monsters into a single, durable volume which would be convenient to carry." The introduction goes on to say that, alongside the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, the Monstrous Manual "forms the core of the AD&D 2nd Edition game."

Those unfamiliar with the history of Second Edition can be forgiven for wondering why it took TSR four years to publish what is essentially an updated version of the venerable Monster Manual or why this version carries a slightly different title than its predecessor, unlike either the PHB or DMG, whose titles remained the same. The truth is that the Monstrous Manual was a do-over, TSR's attempt to fix the grave mistake of the Monstrous Compendium, released in 1989 along with the other 2e rulebooks. Rather than being a hardcover book, the Compendium was a D-ring binder designed to hold loose, three-hole punched sheets of monster entries. The Compendium was an interesting high concept, its actual implementation proved impractical o multiple levels, hence the need for the Monstrous Manual.

The Monstrous Manual is a very large book, larger than either of its companion 2e volumes or indeed of any AD&D rulebook published up to that point. At 384 pages, it includes all the contents of Volumes One and Two of the original Monstrous Compendium, along with additional monsters imported from the MC volumes associated with the Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, and Dark Sun settings. By necessity, many of these entries are abbreviated in length from their original Compendium appearances, since, with a handful of exceptions, all are limited to a single page. Even so, the book uses a small type face and all the entries are quite dense. Like the MC, each entry includes an illustration – this time in color – but, unlike its predecessor, these illustrations are largely provided by a new generation of artists rather than longtime TSR hands like Jeff Easley or James Holloway.

The presence of these new artists, most notably Tony DiTerlizzi, gives the Monstrous Compendium a very distinctive look, one that stands out from earlier 2e releases. I remember being struck by this even at the time I originally bought the book. DiTerlizzi, for example, is best known for his defining work on the Planescape setting, which didn't come out until a year later. His illustrations in the Monstrous Manual are uniformly excellent and admirable – but they nevertheless represent a strong break with AD&D's artistic past, which had broadly favored artwork with a more "traditional" high fantasy/sword-and-sorcery esthetic. DiTerlizzi's work meanwhile has an otherworldly, fairytale-ish quality that works better for some monsters than for others. Likewise, it contrasts with the comic book-inspired illustrations of Jeff Butler and the dark moodiness of Thomas Baxa, two other artists whose styles are quite different from those of TSR's past. The result is, by my lights, an artistic mishmash that detracts somewhat from its content.

And that content is, by and large, quite solid. The Monstrous Manual is good and useful, eminently more suited to its purpose than was the Monstrous Compendium, if for no other reason than it is practical. As I mentioned above (and in my earlier Retrospective post about it), the MC was an interesting high concept that might have worked had TSR thought a little more about the details of its design. There is nothing clever about the design of the Monstrous Manual, but it at least served its intended purpose without much fuss. That it also included a very large selection of monsters – far more than the original Monster Manual – was another point in its favor.

From the vantage point of more than three decades after its original publication, what strikes me most about the Monstrous Manual is how it reminds that TSR never had a clear plan of what to do with AD&D as a game line and, even when it did, it often bungled those plans. From its original conception under Gary Gygax to its eventual realization under David Cook, AD&D 2e was always conceived as a way to correct, regularize, and improve upon the foundations laid by First Edition. However, for various reasons, those plans never fully came to pass. Instead, we got missteps, half-measures, and course corrections that, in retrospect, casts a shadow even over the best products of 2e, like the Monstrous Manual. 

22 comments:

  1. The Monstrous Manual is an incredibly good monster book, if someone asked me to recommend a single book of monsters for their OSR game, it would be up there though with the caveat of needing to be aware of certain changes compared to 1e. I don't mind the varied art styles personally, and I love DiTerlizzi's work, but I do get wanting something more consistent.

    As for the changes, most famously of course are the dragons with a complete rework from 1e and the balor gets bumped up to 13HD, but also most giants have gotten about an extra 4HD and harpies for some reason get a buff from 3HD to 7HD while dire wolves and worgs have had their HD values flipped from 1e. Most of those changes make some sense (people had long complained dragons were too weak in 1e, general power creep made the balor's 8+8HD a little unimpressive, the giants were featured in the first TSR adventure modules and were considered iconic) while some seem inexplicable to me (the harpies) and some I suspect were an error (dire wolves and worgs). I would love to hear about the design work on this book (and the Compendiums).

    ReplyDelete
  2. The loose-leaf binder approach wasn't a *bad* idea, since in theory TSR and others could publish new monsters on 3-hole punched sheets and the DM could insert them in the appropriate sorted location. No need to keep track of various volumes of monsters, magazines, modules, etc.

    But loose-leaf binders tend not to be the sturdiest things, and the contained papers often don't stand up to the abuse of a teenager's backpack. The pages tear, they work their way out of the binder rings, etc. To really work well the pages would need reinforcement, which is added cost for TSR or added cost and time for the buyer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the concept would have worked if it was done digest size each monster on one page front and back.

      That way you could have actually
      arranged alphabetical when you added new monsters. Versus the mishmash it became.

      Good concept, poor execution.

      Delete
    2. The really baffling thing is that affordable plastic binder sleeves designed to hold an 8.5x11 document were on the market already. The actual MC stuff never needed to be punched in the first place and would have had more room to work with if they hadn't been and people had just had to rely on sleeving them. Yeah, even plastic sleeves don't last forever, but replacing them as needed is a lot cheaper and more practical than trying to fix a damaged MC page with those daft reinforcement rings or tape or whatever.

      Delete
    3. Yes, two main reasons why I never got in 2e. First, the loose-binder was a terrible idea and I since I tried to keep my books in pristine condition, the inevitable ripped pages would drive me nuts. Two, the three column format of the books just gave me motion-sickness to read.

      Delete
  3. James, have you ever considered a post about how you would have developed second edition? Did I miss it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think I prefer an "artistic mishmash" of differing styles to the stultified homogenized house style of modern D&D where it's pretty much impossible to recognize the work of different artists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As mentioned above by others above the binders could have worked really well if done correctly but I think you can also read into this the change from products that are meant to be used at the table to products that are meant to be purchased, read and put on a shelf.
    With the Compendiums you could easily take out the monsters you knew you needed for your session and have them at the ready. Likewise the 1e adventures were compact and the covers separated so you could view the map alongside the room descriptions at the same time.
    In moving everything over to hardcover TSR probably increased their profit margins but personally I find this format really irritating to flip through at the table.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ve been thinking recently about the old tsr module format with the wraparound covers. Why don’t any osr publishers do that? I hate flipping back and forth to the maps. I would buy the hell out of, say, dcc modules with wraparound map covers.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, DCC otherwise imitates the old module form factor but you still have to flip through to wherever the maps are, boo!

      OSE does a great job with their adventures though, including a section of the map alongside the room descriptions. Kind of wish everyone used their layouts...

      Delete
  6. Out of the Pit is the best monster book, obviously, but I adore the Monstrous Manual, and it's a close second.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Out of the Pit was the first monster book I got, and Marc Gascoigne had written it in a very engaging manner that I liked, so when I later obtained the AD&D Monster Manual I was really disappointed with the sparse but rules-heavy text. Fiend Folio was better because at least there was the art of Russ Nicholson. And there are 2 sequels to Out of the Pit out now too, with another on the way. :-)

      Delete
  7. What!? No mention at all that Project Manager Tim Beach and Editor Doug Stewart took time from their important work in leading the team creating the book to also collaborate on the single greatest monster illustration in the whole tome?

    Yes, they have the art credit for the Invisible Stalker.

    Yes, it’s an empty box.

    I love it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I almost included a scan of that "image" at the end of the post, but I thought better of it. Maybe that was a mistake :)

      Delete
    2. Best illustration in any D&D related product, ever. I will fight anyone who says otherwise. One at a time or in a group!

      Delete
    3. Grenadier Models' 1988 "Comedy Lords" boxed set included an Invisible Stalker "miniature" which was an empty figure base with a couple of clawed footprints, of course. Games Workshop did the same basic gag decades later with a "Frodo wearing the One Ring" base, but by then the joke was well past its prime.

      The rest of the box was a mix of older single figs originally sold in blister packs under the "Funny Fantasies" mine and a number of new models made for the set. My favorite was the extremely dead wererat caught in a giant mousetrap - suitable for TOON, even.

      Delete
  8. As much as I have nostalgia for 2e during second phase formative years of D&D (with it's art and cleaned up layout)... every real RPG book should look like something you find down in an occult weirdos basement. Double down on the Satanic Panic paranoia and give the games mystique and superstitious fear (whether you believe it or not).

    That's the real aesthetic appeal to old school fantasy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So that's a vote in favor of the 3/3.5 books with their faux "arcane tome" covers, then? It was certainly a bold design choice when they were new, I'll give them that.

      Delete
    2. I think the boldest design choice with 3e was the MSRP of $19.95 each for the PHB, DMG, and MM. That was a shockingly good deal even then (most games were $40 for their core rulebook).

      Today, adjusted for inflation, that’d be about $40 per book in a market where $60 is the norm.

      Delete
  9. The loose leaf format used for the 2e MC wasn't TSR's first pass at the format...they would use it in 88 for MSH and the Marvel Universe books until it's end in 93. It was also used by both Marvel and DC for their guide products.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I love the Monstrous Manual. Wish I still had my original white cover print but sold it long ago- then replaced later with the last WOTC print run of the book before 3E (black cover, super thin paper-like a cheap magazine). When C&C first became a thing and they had not yet published "Monsters & Treasures", the Monstrous Manual became my go to until a couple or three years later and I decided to pick up the M&T book. I've also used it for various OD&D and derivative games- though I tend to weaken monsters for that- using D6 for HD, dropping AC a point, and dropping a die type for monster damage on the toughest monsters. (e.g. if a claw/claw/bite is 1-8/1-8/1-6- I''ll go with 1-6/1-6/1-4.

    Oddly enough, several years ago The Trolls offered the new expanded print of M&T in the monstrous compendium/binder format (and a PDF for printing out pages once originals were worn) I kept telling myself to buy because I love the idea of the format, but I always passed-even when it hit their bargain bin pricing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Art, for sure, was much better in the monstrous compendium, but - yeah - since monster manual came out I started using that one during game sessions. Much much more easy to use.

    ReplyDelete