A big part of the genius of D&D is that it's built from modular elements, like character classes, spells, magic items, and, yes, monsters. Simply adding a new one here or there can change the game in all sorts of ways, keeping it fresh and opening up new avenues for exploration and development. As a kid, I was especially fond of seeing new monsters in the pages of Dragon, in adventure modules, and in expansion books such as the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II. My motto then was "you can never have too many monsters."
Consequently, I was always on the lookout for sources of new monsters to add to my AD&D campaign – and I wasn't very picky. Recently, a comment on my post about piercer miniatures unintentionally reminded me that Grenadier Models published a 32-page monster book in 1986, called the Monster Manuscript. According to multiple online sources, the book was given away for free to purchasers of a particular set of miniature figures produced by Grenadier. However, I'm fairly certain I got my copy in the mail simply because I was on the mailing list for the Grenadier Bulletin newsletter. On the other hand, this was nearly forty years ago, so it's quite possible I'm mistaken about that.
Regardless, I owned a copy of the Monster Manuscript, which features a striking cover by Ray Rubin, depicting a night hag riding a helsteed, two of the monsters included in the book (more on that shortly). Rubin was the cofounder of Grenadier, along with Andrew Chernak, but he's probably best known for having painted most of the color box covers for Grenadier figures, going all the way back to its licensed AD&D sets, if not before. The Manuscript's text is attributed to Don Wellman, who was apparently a sculptor at the company, much like John Dennett, who did all the interior black and white art.
Grenadier, you may recall, once held the license to produce official AD&D miniatures, a license they lost in 1982. In the aftermath of that loss, Grenadier rebranded their fantasy figures under the name Dragon Lords, many of which were identical to their old AD&D sculpts under new names. However, after a few years, the company wanted to create new sculpts of their monsters and, to promote that endeavor, they released the Monster Manuscript, which also became the name of the Dragon Lords sub-line devoted to fantasy creatures. All of the monsters included in the book thus had corresponding figures released for them over the course of 1986 and '87.
The introduction to the book (by Wellman) is mostly self-promotion about the game line, but it does include a section that I think is interesting from a historical point of view:
The creature descriptions and gaming stats included in the MONSTER MANUSCRIPT are my perspectives. They are provided as merely food for thought. If you like them the way I've presented them – great! If not, feel free to change them however you see fit; adapt them to your own fantasy world. I tend to believe that the word, "Official", is one which has been used too much in the gaming industry over the years. Imagination is what fantasy is a li about, so why place unnecessary restrictions on it? Fantasy and science fiction fans have to be some of the most creative and intelligent people anywhere, so utilize your abilities, don't be afraid to try something a little different just because it's not labeled "Official". If you've got a yearning for Lawful Good troll warriors, go for it!
It's hard not to look at this section as a dig at Gary Gygax/TSR and their emphasis on only using "official" products at the gaming table. Grenadier had probably suffered financially as a result of their having the AD&D license pulled, so I can hardly blame Wellman for a little bit of snark on the subject in his introduction.
Judging by their stats, the monsters included in the Monster Manuscript are clearly intended for use with Dungeons & Dragons, specifically AD&D. Here's an example of one of the entries. It's for a floating eye, a beholder knock-off:
I never had any of these minis but I somehow came into possession of this "supplement", and have every once in a while used the monsters in D&D games.
ReplyDeleteJim Hodges---
ReplyDeleteReminds me of a conversation I had at Christmas with a Gen-Z gamer who was critical of TSR's '80s business model for not being more inclusive of other developers.
I explained that what he was saying works fine for, say, the manufacturer of a video game console because no matter how many software companies make games for that console, you're good because players still have to buy the console to play them. With an abstract product like D&D, there was no "console" for role players to purchase, only the D&D books, modules, dice, miniatures, and anything of the sort other companies made took money from TSR, hence its protectiveness.
I don't think he'd ever considered the situation from that angle before.
It was a tough reality for Gygax and crew.
Presumably these included stats for both the knockoffs (Mind Master, Corrosion Creeper) and originals (Stalking Kree-Ack, Nightmare Worm with Larvoid Rider) that made the Subterranean Horrors boxed set so memorable for me in high school.
ReplyDeleteThe knock-offs are there, but none of the original ones, alas. Were their stats included with the minis?
DeleteActually, I dimly recall some kind of an insert that had rudimentary stats on them. Very few sets for sale these days still have that, though ...
DeleteThere are originals statted up in the Monster Manuscript, but not the ones Roger G-S mentioned.
DeleteI still use some of these monsters, and I have a fair fraction of the figures, too. I still believe that "you can never have too many monsters." :)
Miniatures didn't fit our world because we played D&D so much in the woods. By 1986 I think I was in the transition from BMX bikes (take off the brakes, rub'm down with gasoline to get all the stickers and emblems off, repack the bearings, etc.) to electric guitars.
ReplyDeleteThe Manuscript is something I have never seen until now. I don't have much use for the scabs, but I love new monsters and potential ecologies. The cover is killer, too. Wasn't there a cheerleader riding a nyghtmaer inside a module somewhere . . . Bone Hill?
It looks like they cribbed from more than D&D. The Quagmire or "swamp ogre" is a mix of animal and plant. it has an acidic touch and fear aura, which suggests to me they looked at a Shambling Mound, said, "that certainly _looks_ like Marvel's Man-Thing" (as opposed to DC's Swamp Thing or Hillman's Heap), then just statted up Man-Thing.
ReplyDeleteWonderful to see someone else used the Sears catalog for their AD&D books. The tiny little catalog store (really, a counter) next to my mom's pharmacy brought me the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and DMG in their wonderful, already musty-smelling glory.
ReplyDeleteWe had other spots for D&D books, but I remember the Sears Catalog store well, too. We bought several pool cue sticks there among other harder-to-find items. Back then, youngsters, you had to wait 4-6 weeks for delivery!
DeleteAnyone get them from the JCPenney catalog counter in a Thrift Drug store?
DeleteRabbit Hole: We're here!
DeleteStrangely enough, we had local May Company/Federated Department stores a la Hecht's and Jordan Marsh (Marsh was a more southern outfit, but still present in Northern Virginia) and Woodward & Lothrop. There were some Kmarts sprinkled around.
Our closest JCP doppleganger was Woolworth. Curiously, Sears had the monstrous catalog but no proper department stores in our area until the mid-late 1980's. They had the cat pickup storefronts in strip malls.
The talk on this reminded me of Kenmore, which I believe was the Sears house brand for hard goods. The builder option in the neighborhood where I grew up was Kenmore wash/dryer, so my father would order replacement OEM parts and collect them at the cat pickup.
I knew about JCP and Belk (not really related here, I know) and BEST and a few others, but we saw them more on southern travels.
Our local drugstore was Dart Drug, before it was bought by People's. Echo from the Rabbit Hole . . .
die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die! die!
ReplyDeleteHeroes never die!
Delete"A big part of the genius of D&D is that it's built from modular elements, like character classes, spells, magic items, and, yes, monsters."
ReplyDeleteWould you mind explaining this a bit better?
D&D, especially older editions, was not really "modular", but more like "kitchen-sinkey". A hodgepodge of different subsystems, high stats being better than low stats, but low AC being better than high AC...
Thieves having rudimental skills with a subset of those given to monks and assassins but not to anyone else, ever.
Psionics, optional but incompatible with magic system. Strength going beyond 18 (remember 18/00?) while everything else topping at 18. (Or 19. Or 20...)
To hit adjustement table for weapon vs AC... walking speed in feet or yards depending if you are inside or outside a dungeon... saving throws ...
Even adding new classes, most often than not, will introduce new subsystems - precisely because the existing "modules" were neither extensible nor combinable.
If D&D had any kind of modularity you would be able to assemble two standardized parts and create something new out of it. Like, I dunno, take the "module" describing grappling, replace STR with INT (or a introduce a new, optional characteristic, PSI - still rolled on 3D6 though) and presto! You'd get psionic combat for free.
Can you think of anything in D&D that was designed in such a way? which "modules" would you have to replace/combine to handle firearms in D&D, for example? And what happens to the rest of the system when you replace the 1-minute combat round with something more appropriate for revolvers or automatic guns?
I meant only that you can easily add and subtract monsters, spells, magic items, etc. and it doesn't have too many mechanical effects on gameplay. Maybe "modular" isn't the right word.
DeleteIf the criterion is: "I can add creatures/spells/equipment to a system (writing new special rulings if I think that the current ruleset is not enough to model the specific effect I want)" then I cannot think of any RPG where this is "impossible".
DeleteI can think of 3-4 distinct attempts at grafting magic onto Traveller, for example.
In my opinion modularity is not just a matter of being able to add stuff, but it should also allow you to replace a *specific* module with a totally new one, without any need to revise other parts.
Is armor a "module", in D&D? I.e. can I say "I want armor to reduce inflicted damage instead of influencing to-hit probability, and I can rewrite the AC section(s) without having to touch weapons, hit points, spells, every single NPC/monster stat block, the way DEX works or anything else"?
>>"A big part of the genius of D&D is that it's built from modular elements, like character classes, spells, magic items, and, yes, monsters. Simply adding a new one here or there can change the game in all sorts of ways, keeping it fresh and opening up new avenues for exploration and development."<<
DeleteAgree. But lately I've found it interesting to do the opposite; build campaign worlds by *eliminating* entire swaths of monsters from the Monster Manual.
Want a sword and sorcery game? Cut the classic Humanoids and Demihumans.
Want a gothic horror campaign? Use Undead, Flesh Golems, Lycanthropes, etc.
A campaign set in ancient Greece? Only creatures from Greek mythology.
Lost World campaign? Dinosaurs, Neanderthals and a Lizardman empire.
Middle Earth, Arthurian England, Vikings, Feudal Japan, etc. A limited monster array is key to setting up the world.
The Monster Manual covers almost every monster, but I'm not sure it's best to use it that way. My young self did use it that way, envisioning a world (called Greyhawk) where every monster in the MM coexisted. Which contributed to that generic/ vanilla fantasy feel.
Flavor comes from what you leave out, as much as what you put in. The "modularity" of each monster type allows that.
It's odd that the floating eye is depicted shooting rays—as expected of a beholder—but there is no mention in the text of it having magical abilities. Does the description continue on another page?
ReplyDeleteInteresting that the Floating Eye's eyestalks dangle like jellyfish tendrils, as opposed to being on the top like braids.
ReplyDeleteGiven Gygax and TSR's attempted monopolization of the fantasy RPG market, I found Wellman's comment to be less snarky than a reasonable plea for intellectual diversity in the hobby.
ReplyDeleteLoving that Dark Crystal font on there
ReplyDeleteI had never heard of this before Grodog recommended it to me, and I'm glad he did! I'm planning on using the Dread Goblins as a major faction in my current campaign, with them running a highly advanced empire that performs genetic experiments on various goblin species.
ReplyDelete