Stupid Monsters Part 3

[havard]

Am I the only one who thinks these articles are less than funny and offer cheap shots at things that were created for comical effect decades earlier?

-Havard

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Am I the only one who thinks these articles are less than funny and offer cheap shots at things that were created for comical effect decades earlier?

-Havard

Humor is very cultural.
For instance most of the time I don't find too obvious and straightforward jokes that funny, but I often find myself laughing to subtle British humor. It all depends really, I think you and I have a bit darker sense of humor, perhaps? There is no right or wrong kind of jokes (as long they are not tasteless) but I really have to agree with you that listing silly old jokes, most from the past millennium, is really not that funny.

 

[Jhaelen]

Am I the only one who thinks these articles are less than funny and offer cheap shots at things that were created for comical effect decades earlier?

Possibly. I didn't get that impression.

I can remember seeing most of them when they were originally published. There's been some monsters that likely have been created intentionally 'silly', but few of them are on the list.

In a way, as a long-time D&D player you stop wondering about weird cross-breeds and only notice how ridiculous some of them are if it's pointed out to you by an 'outsider'. So I greatly enjoy these articles; it's a bit like 'the emperor's new clothes'.

I might groan at unimaginative names (mant? rly?!) and change them, but otherwise keep them largely intact and actually use them in my games.

Since D&D features 'Animate Object' as a spell, there's a lot of potential for 'funny' monsters.

 

[Hussar]

Am I the only one who thinks these articles are less than funny and offer cheap shots at things that were created for comical effect decades earlier?

-Havard

Umm, other than the Calzone Golem which of these were created for comical effect? Most of these are not actually joke creatures. They're straight up Monster Manual fodder. Heck, even Humpty Dumpty wasn't really a joke creature.

 

[DnD_Dad]

I've used the calzone golem myself and I really think it adds a lot of fun to the adventure. Plus they get to eat it if they don't die from hot cheese /splash dmg.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Umm, other than the Calzone Golem which of these were created for comical effect? Most of these are not actually joke creatures. They're straight up Monster Manual fodder. Heck, even Humpty Dumpty wasn't really a joke creature.

I have the module.

Humpty Dumpty is sewious business.

 

[Alzrius]

I've long wondered if anyone besides me remembered the old Dragon article with those centaur variants. D&D seems to have thoroughly purged them from its cultural consciousness - it's nice to see them finally get the remembrance they deserve.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The whole series of articles makes me hope that WotC will assemble all of the Monstrous Compendium Annuals (which is where I assume many of the stinkers sprang from) in PDF form.

And, um, I'd use those centaur variants, albeit with better names. (I have a game with a lot of focus on gnomes and dwarves.)

 

[Zhaleskra]

Some of those I don't find quite so stupid, the dabus are more of a "use sparingly" creature.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Some of those I don't find quite so stupid, the dabus are more of a "use sparingly" creature.

I would imagine you'd want to have all their dialogue pre-written and not put them in a situation where the players could question them at will. Or have an interpreter NPC with them at all times.