What makes a monster?

[Zaukrie]

In reading the orc preview, I'm struck more and more by the lack of actual description and fluff in the MM. What is the difference between an orc and any other humanoid? There isn't enough in the lore area, really.

What makes a monster memorable - fluff and story, or stats?

Really, I don't know how anyone that hasn't played the game could come up with anything interesting about what a particular monster is, how it behaves, it's role in the world....

Think of the gith, would they be interesting w/o their backstory?

I feel bad for all the new players (if any) this version attracts. All they'll be able to do is play against stats, not against stories (ok, that is hyperbole, but not far off, I don't think).

Of course, this opens it up for WotC to produce books with monster fluff....or maybe all the fluff will be in the world books (doubtful). Maybe the fluff will be in Dragon (again, doubtful). Maybe it will be in free (hahahaha) web content.

 

[Mort_Q]

What makes a monster memorable - fluff and story, or stats?

A little from column A, a little from column B....

Having a cool backstory is important for roleplaying social interactions. Having different stats (and strategies) makes monsters interesting in combat.

Think of the gith, would they be interesting w/o their backstory?

Gith aren't interesting at all to me... but that's completely subjective and supports your point more than anything.

I feel bad for all the new players (if any) this version attracts. All they'll be able to do is play against stats, not against stories (ok, that is hyperbole, but not far off, I don't think).

How so? I want to tell my own story, not someone else's. I like a hint of fluff, that I can take, or adapt, or ignore.

Of course, this opens it up for WotC to produce books with monster fluff....or maybe all the fluff will be in the world books (doubtful). Maybe the fluff will be in Dragon (again, doubtful). Maybe it will be in free (hahahaha) web content.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

Orcs are iconic. Everyone knows what orcs are like, even millions of non-gamers and non-geeks who have seen the Lord of the Rings movies. There's no real need for fluff.

For the fluffier monsters, like githyanki and githzerai, I expect to see some more description. Not pages of it, but enough to hang some story on. For the monsters that are so iconic that everyone knows what they're like, or for monsters that don't have a deep roleplaying purpose (like griffons, gelatinous cubes, and so on), a few juicy tidbits are sufficient.

The stat blocks also give story information. What are orcs like? They're brutal savages who are relentless in going after what the want, attacking you even with their dying breaths.

 

[hong]

Do you mean, what makes A monster memorable, or what makes THIS monster memorable?

The answer to the first one is some kind of signature ability that nothing else has, or a unique place in the game world, or fills an important niche. But this is of secondary importance to:

The answer to the second is a memorable encounter that includes the monster as a significant part of it.

Of course, the first can play into the second.

 

[simply not edible]

The stat blocks also give story information. What are orcs like? They're brutal savages who are relentless in going after what the want, attacking you even with their dying breaths.

And what foul breath it is...

 

[TwinBahamut]

In reading the orc preview, I'm struck more and more by the lack of actual description and fluff in the MM. What is the difference between an orc and any other humanoid? There isn't enough in the lore area, really.

I don't know about that... The entirety of what they put in the Lore section for Orcs is stuff I don't care for, and if they wrote more it it would simply be even more stuff I would just ignore. I don't really see a lot of added value in adding more to that section. Fluff may be important, but quantity of fluff is meaningless.

What makes a monster memorable - fluff and story, or stats?

Neither fluff nor stats will ever make something memorable in of itself. Things like scenes and encounters are memorable, not individual creatures. Even a widely-acknowledged-as-awesome character like Darth Vader would be boring and lifeless without Imperial Death March theme music as he emerges from the blaster smoke and "You have failed me for the last time." Backstory and fluff don't do that, you need creative usage and a good concept in the DM's head.

There are certainly good ways to make a good monster that can provide the needed inspiration for the DM in order to get a memorable result, but I don't think the "Lore" section is important for that. Good art is a lot more important, for example, as is a good basic concept and solid mechanics to back up the concept. Truthfully, the Orc Eye of Gruumsh's Death Strike Aura and the names for the different Orc units add a lot more to their character than any Lore section ever would.

Really, I don't know how anyone that hasn't played the game could come up with anything interesting about what a particular monster is, how it behaves, it's role in the world....

Total nonsense. People are creative. Anyone who has read a fantasy book, watched a few good movies, played a videogame, or has familiarity of any kind with traditional folk tales, myths, popular culture, poetry, music, or pretty much anything else will have something to serve as an inspiration. If the game provides no information, the person will just compare what the thing looks like to something they saw somewhere else and just make stuff up.

I mean, look at something like a Chimera. You don't need to know whatever is in the Lore section to run one. You don't need to know its origins as the offspring of Typhon and Echidna in Greek Myth either. All you need to know is that it is a big ugly beast with several heads and a lot of fangs, and you are good to go.

Think of the gith, would they be interesting w/o their backstory?

The gith are not interesting with their stupid backstory. Seriously, the gith are terrible. No amount of writing will save them.

I feel bad for all the new players (if any) this version attracts. All they'll be able to do is play against stats, not against stories (ok, that is hyperbole, but not far off, I don't think).

Very far off. Sorry, but people don't need books to teach them how to have an imagination.

Of course, this opens it up for WotC to produce books with monster fluff....or maybe all the fluff will be in the world books (doubtful). Maybe the fluff will be in Dragon (again, doubtful). Maybe it will be in free (hahahaha) web content.

I would never touch that kind of book with a ten foot pole... The "Ecology of the..." articles posted on the website were bad enough...

 

[DylanCB]

Orcs? What story? Psychopaths who live in caves, easy to bully by bigger monsters. Typical of most fantasy. Most fantasy doesn't really explain its monsters. Especially Orcs, who are kinda dull to begin with.

 

[Hammerhead]

I'm not sure orcs need any fluff. I mean, they're orcs. Anyone who is playing D&D is going to be familiar with orcs.

Moreover, the fluff actually seems to be built into the mechanics: they're the brutal savages who attack relentlessly. I'm sure the hobgoblins will have some kind of team attack ability or something similar. Those abilities do far more for the game than the pages of social structure and ecology that essentially amounts to "evil humanoids who live in caves."

 

[Rechan]

I would never touch that kind of book with a ten foot pole... The "Ecology of the..." articles posted on the website were bad enough...

And yet, many of the "Slayer's Guide to..." and "Ecology of..." are full of sales. I dare you to pick up the Monsternomicon, read through every monster entry, and not tell me that you at least found ONE that had an intriguing presentation (like the Trapperkin, a child-eater who cannot stand a mother's love; if a mother or woman with child hugs it, it withers away).

Hell, I purchased the "Classic Monsters Revisited" from Paizo, just to give myself new ideas.

I like taking Standard Monster X and giving it a story purpose or a link to the campaign world, or at least a New Face.

But ultimately, all that is merely to make a typical, standard, every-gamer-is-familiar-with monster more interesting in an intellectual perspective. In combat, I really don't care where they came from or why they are there, those orcs are going to fight different than hobgoblins, different from shadar-kai. They are interesting mechanically, presenting a new situation I must react to.

 

[Zaukrie]

But the DM does need to have a story. That is the issue to me. And the draconomicon and other fluff monster books sell well and are generally considered top-notch products (liber mysterium - sp? - for example, and the afore mentioned Monsternomicon).

Many of your answers presume someone with experience in RPing/DMing - I'm talking about people like my 12 year old son. It isn't so easy to make up fluff when you are a kid. You can poo-poo it if you want, you can disagree with me if you want, but I can't see how anyone comes up with fluff based on the writeups we've seen so far (orcs, demons, angels....).

And, I don't have a problem with WotC selling more product, none at all, but I'd prefer to get more fluff/story with my monsters. A few sentences, even, on each of the various orcs and their role in their society would have been nice.