Of Roads, and Rome, and the Soul of D&D

Think about beholders, mind flayers, drow, behir, remorhaz, Lolth, Orcus, Type I-VI demons, yugoloths, svirfneblin, otyughs, owlbears, bullettes, bugbears, sahuagin, aboleth, githyanki, death knights, etc. I am not saying that a D&D world has to have the majority of these creatures, but that they almost always have a large number of them, at least as a possibility.

Is three a large number? I count beholder, owlbear, and bugbear for BECMI D&D. You can score another six if you include the demons from the Immortal set, which are different from directly inspired by the type I - VI demons. I still do not agree with your modified thesis.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Why are you assuming I am being absolutely literal and not looking at the spirit of the statement?

I didn't assume. I came to a conclusion based upon the data available. The key was that you included AD&D Greyhawk, specifically, which may not literally share 99% of monsters, but does share most of its iconic critters with later editions.

Since your point failed there in the spirit of the statement, there was a choice - conclude that you were outright wrong, or conclude that you were technically correct, but literal. Would you prefer I'd taken it the other way?
 

I didn't assume. I came to a conclusion based upon the data available. The key was that you included AD&D Greyhawk, specifically, which may not literally share 99% of monsters, but does share most of its iconic critters with later editions.

Since your point failed there in the spirit of the statement, there was a choice - conclude that you were outright wrong, or conclude that you were technically correct, but literal. Would you prefer I'd taken it the other way?

I truly don't see how my point failed in the spirit of the statement. You are saying Greyhawk shares most of its iconic critters with later editions; yet that is only true because many later settings borrowed from Greyhawk. The relationship is not reciprocal, except in the case of the Forgotten Realms, meaning that Greyhawkian D&D is thus the only D&D.

I will grant Mercurius's clarification that he meant all versions of D&D share 1% of their monsters, but as I noted before, that isn't much to grant. That would include GURPS WWII, while excluding Empire of the Petal Throne.

The argument then comes that a "large number" of unique D&D monsters are found across editions. I countered that isn't true, unless you are very generous in defining "large number." The argument was put forward that the large number of monsters is only editions of D&D, not settings. That seems nonsensical to me, as we are talking about the "soul" of D&D, not its pantry. Does it matter if Krynn and Dark Sun draw from the same rules set? Do they share a "soul" with Greyhawk even though Krynn has no orcs and Dark Sun has no theistic clerics? Even so, I'll grant it.

And BECMI D&D and AD&D, probably the two most popular versions of D&D of all time, do not share a "large" number of unique D&D monsters. Only at the end of the AD&D cycle, when Mystara become (briefly) an AD&D setting do you finally get many of the unique Mystaran monsters in AD&D... and BECMI D&D never still never had most of the unique and iconic AD&D monsters.

So unless you are ready to claim "Red Box" D&D was not, in fact, D&D, then I think it is very, very difficult to claim that some variation of "all editions of D&D have mostly the same iconic monsters" is true. In fact, I will guess that anyone who is willing to make that claim is probably greatly more familiar with AD&D than BECMI.

Once you exclude real world animals, creatures based on real world mythology, and creatures found in Lord of the Rings, the number of unique monsters shared by all editions of D&D in the 80s is actually quite small.
 

I defer to a more expert researcher:

The Piazza • View topic - Is there a comprehensive comparison between RC and DD?

According to Blacky the Blackball, of the 302 monsters found in the Rules Cyclopedia, 68 were unique D&D creatures not found in the SRD. 125 existed in the SRD, including some real world creatures and mythology.

So of all the "D&D monsters" found in the Rules Cyclopedia, no more than 2/3 were found in the 3e MM. While there was certainly some cross-pollination, "D&D monsters" found in all editions seems to consist mainly of monsters found in OD&D which did not become exctinct by 3e.
 

I truly don't see how my point failed in the spirit of the statement. You are saying Greyhawk shares most of its iconic critters with later editions; yet that is only true because many later settings borrowed from Greyhawk.

So? It isn't as if being borrowed should discount them. It simply suggests that the "soul" was established early, and transferred from early games to later. You somehow expect it to be different than that? Like each would have it's own soul, developed independently, but they'd somehow be the same? Unless you can time travel, this is what you'd expect to see - the soul being passed down over time, with modifications as it goes. Hobby reincarnation, if you will.

The relationship is not reciprocal

The relationship is reciprocal insofar as the game's real "sacred cows" are generally not new, but old. In terms of outright iconic critters, it seems to me the majority, the things that pop into people's minds first, come from the early days, not the later days.

Once you exclude real world animals, creatures based on real world mythology, and creatures found in Lord of the Rings, the number of unique monsters shared by all editions of D&D in the 80s is actually quite small.

I don't see any reason to exclude those, since they are quite solidly part of the D&D experience. So, I include them.

So of all the "D&D monsters" found in the Rules Cyclopedia, no more than 2/3 were found in the 3e MM.

To my eye, this sinks your point, rather than supports it. To me, 2/3 is beyond a solid majority. While not literally 99%, the spirit is there. Pick a monster at random, and chances are good that it crosses the edition boundaries.
 


I'm quite plebeian in that I don't think D&D is a set of rules or specific elements. D&D is about stories with you and your friends making a difference whether bad or good in a world which centres around your ideas and characterization.
 

Another thread made me realize what a major part of "D&D" means to me: Encouraging houserules to tailor the experience to the DM/group. A game that doesn't actively encourage you to make it your own does not feel like D&D to me.


RC
 


Remove ads

Top