Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mind if I pedantically complain that monster manuals butcher myth/folklore/fairytale?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="VelvetViolet" data-source="post: 7580898" data-attributes="member: 6686357"><p>The responses have been really great. Thanks.</p><p></p><p>So I guess my original complaints may be summarized as:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Doing insufficient research when adapting mythical monsters, resulting in monsters with the wrong names or other erroneous details</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Adapting a mythical monster in a way that destroys what originally made it interesting without adding anything of equivalent value, or failing to improve upon a monster that was already bland</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">All of the above and more, taken to absurd extremes. At this point the adaptation is so utterly different as to be pointless as an adaptation</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The various absurdities and frustrations of the D&D-specific monster taxonomy mechanic</li> </ol><p></p><p>I think #1-3 have been pretty well addressed, but I don't recall any responses to #4. #4 is a criticism I have specifically against the world building of D&D. It can be broken down into a number of more specific components. Credits to this article for inspiring me: <a href="https://www.monsterdarlings.com/blogposts/2016/03/02/the-frustration-of-fantasy-taxonomies" target="_blank">https://www.monsterdarlings.com/blogposts/2016/03/02/the-frustration-of-fantasy-taxonomies</a></p><p></p><p><strong>The types are needlessly hierarchical. </strong>This is the big problem with the types, at least in d20 derivatives, because it is ultimately the root of all the others. A given monster may only have one type, even if it would be logical for it to have multiple types. For example, the fomorian is a giant from the feywild, but does not have the fey type because the authors arbitrarily decided it cannot be a dual-typed fey/giant. Likewise, the guardinals and eladrin are typed as fey (IIRC) despite being from the upper planes, and the rules disallow them being dual-typed celestial/fey. The fairy dragon is a dragon but not a fey, despite the name! This can make it difficult for designers to place monsters that are not written specifically to fit around these idiosyncratic distinctions. The types force the designers to world build around the rules rather than use the rules to support the world building!</p><p></p><p><strong>The types are not clearly or consistently defined.</strong> The aforementioned fact that it may be difficult to know where a given monster belongs is a testament to the vague definitions of the types themselves. Indeed, the types have changed meaning across editions. In a number of cases there is no consistent criteria for placing monsters, especially regarding the monstrosity type (which is literally a miscellaneous catch-all for lazy design). For example, the owlbear, griffon and centaur are monstrosities, whereas the flying snake (a snake with wings), the tressym (a winged, intelligent cat with spell turning), and cranium rat (a psychic rat) are beasts. In another example, the chimera was typed as a dragon in the <em>Rules Cyclopedia</em>, but a monstrosity in 5e. The fey type includes dryads, satyrs, blink dogs, and hags; what do these have in common that makes them the same type?</p><p></p><p><strong>The types cannot account for all monsters.</strong> Precisely because the types lack solid definitions, it means that (depending on how a designer defines them) they cannot account for monster concepts that aren't specifically built around them. For example, there types for creatures from specific planes but not others: celestials for upper planes, fiends for lower planes, aberrations for planes of chaos and far realm, but no type for planes of law or neutrality. Modrons have the construct type, yes, but it doesn't show up under <em>detect good/evil</em> like the others do; being invisible to that spell makes no sense considering that modrons are the personifications of law. How would you type something like <em>Planescape</em>'s rilmani or <em>Pathfinder</em>'s aeons? In the early days of 3.x, this resulted in some publishers inventing new types, such as the manifestation and spirit types in <em>Relics & Rituals: Excalibur</em> and the biomechanoid type in <em>Infernum</em>.</p><p></p><p><strong>The rules for types are not intended to be tweaked.</strong> The problems I mentioned could be solved by modifying the type mechanic, but the problem there is that it is not modular at all and trying to change it results in a cascade effect to account for all the other mechanics that reference types. Adding a new type would require checking every spell and effect that targets specific types to make sure it is referenced correctly, or else inventing a set of guidelines for how spells should interact with types. The latter defeats the point of the 5e types lacking inherent rules, even if it is something that would be really useful for anyone who cannot read the developers' minds.</p><p></p><p><strong>The types are not equivalent to one another.</strong> The types as of 3.x/5e measure concepts that are not necessarily comparable. While it makes common sense for some types to be mutually exclusive, like humanoid versus giant (the differences is size) or beast versus humanoid (bipedal? thumbs?), the types collectively represent diverse concepts like planar origin (aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend), state of life (construct, undead), body plan (beast, humanoid, ooze, plant), and such. 4e tried to clarify the types by setting some aside as "origins" and "keywords," making it easier than ever to place monsters and perhaps inspiring creativity with its combination potential; unfortunately this was forgotten in 5e. Other games with type mechanics generally have very few types to avoid confusion or allow monsters to have as many as applicable, as seen in examples like <em>Mazes & Minotaurs</em>, <em>13th Age</em>, <em>Rules Cyclopedia</em>, <em>Trudvang</em>, <em>Fantasy Craft</em>, and <em>Dark Dungeons</em>.</p><p></p><p><strong>The types ignore the principle of Gygaxian naturalism.</strong> By this I mean that the type mechanic as presented assumes that adventures occur only on the material plane and that nobody visits other planes, since creatures from other planes all generally have the type related to that plane. Every creature from the upper planes is a celestial (except the guardinal and eladrin), every creature from the feywild is a fey (except the fomori), every creature from the lower planes is a fiend, etc. This is in sharp contrast to <em>Planescape</em>, where the planes harbor creatures of many types; for example, the PCs are typically humanoids from planes other than the material.</p><p></p><p>In my opinion, a good type mechanic should allow a given monster to have as many types as applicable, only list as many types as absolutely necessary, and give clear common sense guidelines for why types are even distinguished.</p><p></p><p>For example: the "spirit" type covers the universal concept of spirits in world mythology. A spirit is the personification of a physical or abstract concept, such as fire, healing, disease, madness, moonlight, a river, a mountain, a tree, the hearth, war, etc. Spirits live to protect and serve the advancement of the thing they represent, and share a mutual mystical sympathetic bond with that thing (analogous to a human's body/soul duality). A spirit may be naturally invisible and incorporeal, but capable of interacting with material things through a variety of means (haunting, temporary incarnation, possession, etc), or permanently incarnated. The most powerful spirits are worshiped as gods.</p><p></p><p>Feel free to chime in with your thoughts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="VelvetViolet, post: 7580898, member: 6686357"] The responses have been really great. Thanks. So I guess my original complaints may be summarized as: [LIST=1] [*]Doing insufficient research when adapting mythical monsters, resulting in monsters with the wrong names or other erroneous details [*]Adapting a mythical monster in a way that destroys what originally made it interesting without adding anything of equivalent value, or failing to improve upon a monster that was already bland [*]All of the above and more, taken to absurd extremes. At this point the adaptation is so utterly different as to be pointless as an adaptation [*]The various absurdities and frustrations of the D&D-specific monster taxonomy mechanic [/LIST] I think #1-3 have been pretty well addressed, but I don't recall any responses to #4. #4 is a criticism I have specifically against the world building of D&D. It can be broken down into a number of more specific components. Credits to this article for inspiring me: [url]https://www.monsterdarlings.com/blogposts/2016/03/02/the-frustration-of-fantasy-taxonomies[/url] [B]The types are needlessly hierarchical. [/B]This is the big problem with the types, at least in d20 derivatives, because it is ultimately the root of all the others. A given monster may only have one type, even if it would be logical for it to have multiple types. For example, the fomorian is a giant from the feywild, but does not have the fey type because the authors arbitrarily decided it cannot be a dual-typed fey/giant. Likewise, the guardinals and eladrin are typed as fey (IIRC) despite being from the upper planes, and the rules disallow them being dual-typed celestial/fey. The fairy dragon is a dragon but not a fey, despite the name! This can make it difficult for designers to place monsters that are not written specifically to fit around these idiosyncratic distinctions. The types force the designers to world build around the rules rather than use the rules to support the world building! [B]The types are not clearly or consistently defined.[/B] The aforementioned fact that it may be difficult to know where a given monster belongs is a testament to the vague definitions of the types themselves. Indeed, the types have changed meaning across editions. In a number of cases there is no consistent criteria for placing monsters, especially regarding the monstrosity type (which is literally a miscellaneous catch-all for lazy design). For example, the owlbear, griffon and centaur are monstrosities, whereas the flying snake (a snake with wings), the tressym (a winged, intelligent cat with spell turning), and cranium rat (a psychic rat) are beasts. In another example, the chimera was typed as a dragon in the [I]Rules Cyclopedia[/I], but a monstrosity in 5e. The fey type includes dryads, satyrs, blink dogs, and hags; what do these have in common that makes them the same type? [B]The types cannot account for all monsters.[/B] Precisely because the types lack solid definitions, it means that (depending on how a designer defines them) they cannot account for monster concepts that aren't specifically built around them. For example, there types for creatures from specific planes but not others: celestials for upper planes, fiends for lower planes, aberrations for planes of chaos and far realm, but no type for planes of law or neutrality. Modrons have the construct type, yes, but it doesn't show up under [I]detect good/evil[/I] like the others do; being invisible to that spell makes no sense considering that modrons are the personifications of law. How would you type something like [I]Planescape[/I]'s rilmani or [I]Pathfinder[/I]'s aeons? In the early days of 3.x, this resulted in some publishers inventing new types, such as the manifestation and spirit types in [I]Relics & Rituals: Excalibur[/I] and the biomechanoid type in [I]Infernum[/I]. [B]The rules for types are not intended to be tweaked.[/B] The problems I mentioned could be solved by modifying the type mechanic, but the problem there is that it is not modular at all and trying to change it results in a cascade effect to account for all the other mechanics that reference types. Adding a new type would require checking every spell and effect that targets specific types to make sure it is referenced correctly, or else inventing a set of guidelines for how spells should interact with types. The latter defeats the point of the 5e types lacking inherent rules, even if it is something that would be really useful for anyone who cannot read the developers' minds. [B]The types are not equivalent to one another.[/B] The types as of 3.x/5e measure concepts that are not necessarily comparable. While it makes common sense for some types to be mutually exclusive, like humanoid versus giant (the differences is size) or beast versus humanoid (bipedal? thumbs?), the types collectively represent diverse concepts like planar origin (aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend), state of life (construct, undead), body plan (beast, humanoid, ooze, plant), and such. 4e tried to clarify the types by setting some aside as "origins" and "keywords," making it easier than ever to place monsters and perhaps inspiring creativity with its combination potential; unfortunately this was forgotten in 5e. Other games with type mechanics generally have very few types to avoid confusion or allow monsters to have as many as applicable, as seen in examples like [I]Mazes & Minotaurs[/I], [I]13th Age[/I], [I]Rules Cyclopedia[/I], [I]Trudvang[/I], [I]Fantasy Craft[/I], and [I]Dark Dungeons[/I]. [B]The types ignore the principle of Gygaxian naturalism.[/B] By this I mean that the type mechanic as presented assumes that adventures occur only on the material plane and that nobody visits other planes, since creatures from other planes all generally have the type related to that plane. Every creature from the upper planes is a celestial (except the guardinal and eladrin), every creature from the feywild is a fey (except the fomori), every creature from the lower planes is a fiend, etc. This is in sharp contrast to [I]Planescape[/I], where the planes harbor creatures of many types; for example, the PCs are typically humanoids from planes other than the material. In my opinion, a good type mechanic should allow a given monster to have as many types as applicable, only list as many types as absolutely necessary, and give clear common sense guidelines for why types are even distinguished. For example: the "spirit" type covers the universal concept of spirits in world mythology. A spirit is the personification of a physical or abstract concept, such as fire, healing, disease, madness, moonlight, a river, a mountain, a tree, the hearth, war, etc. Spirits live to protect and serve the advancement of the thing they represent, and share a mutual mystical sympathetic bond with that thing (analogous to a human's body/soul duality). A spirit may be naturally invisible and incorporeal, but capable of interacting with material things through a variety of means (haunting, temporary incarnation, possession, etc), or permanently incarnated. The most powerful spirits are worshiped as gods. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mind if I pedantically complain that monster manuals butcher myth/folklore/fairytale?
Top