D&D 5E New Wandering Monsters - Hulking Out

[urLordy]

Just food for thought; obviously, YMMV.

Some people want to improve something, others prefer the way it is -- that's how it always is. Do the number of happy pro-change people exceed the number of unhappy status-quo people? You can't keep everyone happy. And like with every individual campaign, nobody is forcing anyone to adopt the new monster lore. Sounds a lot like overall new edition politics

 

[steeldragons]

Some people want to improve something, others prefer the way it is -- that's how it always is.

This is absolutely true...Then, there are also, the "middle ground" people...Improve what is...if it can be!..which is not the same as "change for change's sake." The D&D-verse, even homebrewed ones, are not always black and white.

Do the number of happy pro-change people exceed the number of unhappy status-quo people? You can't keep everyone happy.

Also, a uni/multi-versal truth. BUT, in the middle ground, you can keep most people content, if not "happy", by giving them some of what they want. In the case of D&D, that is what they already know and/or close to find familiar. Add a few tweaks to what exists. Some people will say "cool, Accept!" Some people will say ", Reject!" Some [and it is my contention "most"] people will say "Huh. I hadn't considered that alteration." Goto "Accept" or "Reject" or "Use some of it."

And like with every individual campaign, nobody is forcing anyone to adopt the new monster lore. Sounds a lot like overall new edition politics

And this, again...multiversal truth. But altering things whole cloth...for no more apparent reason than giving oneself something to do to keep one's job [like writing/suggesting changes that don't need to be there]? Not necessary [for the game/system/lore] nor acceptable.

 

[urLordy]

And this, again...multiversal truth. But altering things whole cloth...for no more apparent reason than giving oneself something to do to keep one's job [like writing/suggesting changes that don't need to be there]? Not necessary [for the game/system/lore] nor acceptable.

YMMV but my reading of the Wandering Monsters column is that Wyatt has been looking for that middle ground, and only considers a reboot when there was something wanting with the old school concept.

Personally, come spring time, I'm not the guy who would invest countless hours upgrading a house based on a shakey foundation. If I could, I would tear down the house and rebuild it from new foundations, and the new house would probably pay homage to the original structure, but it depends what makes sense for me in that moment. I wouldn't reimagine the house just because, but I wouldn't clone the house just because. Again IMO.

 

[steeldragons]

YMMV but my reading of the Wandering Monsters column is that Wyatt has been looking for that middle ground, and only considers a reboot when there was something wanting with the old school concept.

Personally, come spring time, I'm not the guy who would invest countless hours upgrading a house based on a shakey foundation. If I could, I would tear down the house and rebuild it from new foundations, and the new house would probably pay homage to the original structure, but it depends what makes sense for me in that moment. I wouldn't reimagine the house just because, but I wouldn't clone the house just because. Again IMO.

Fair enough. But there is no reason to look for a middle ground when there's nothing "wrong" with the foundation in the first place...to mangle the metaphors. lol. I think we just see these articles differently.

 

[urLordy]

Fair enough. But there is no reason to look for a middle ground when there's nothing "wrong" with the foundation in the first place...to mangle the metaphors. lol. I think we just see these articles differently.

Something was "wrong" with the Slaadi, for example. They were never designed to be chaos incarnate when ported from 1e to Planescape.

 

[Weather Report]

I just realised I have never used any of them, after DMing for 27 years!

I dig them all, this will have to be remedied.

What I especially like about Umberhulks, aside from being one of the coolest and most iconic creatures unique to D&D, is that they have campaign setting tie-ins, like in Spelljammer they act as bodyguards for neogi.

 

[Sunseeker]

This isn't aimed specifically at shidaku, but his post got me to thinking.

What is it with trying to retcon stuff just because? What if someone out there has a campaign that has developed both grey renders and umber hulks in different directions? Why does there seem to be this urge to rewrite decades of D&D lore in a lot of these discussions? (Again, this is about far more than just shidaku's post; the designers and a lot of the discussion seems to treat established D&D lore as completely dispensable.)

Take, for example, the talk about slaadi. "Should they be demons or should they be more Lovecraftian?" What's wrong with, even if we EXPAND the lore on something, not DISCARDING the lore about it? They are distinctly NOT demons; making them demons just disrespects all the campaigns that have heavily featured slaadi as forces of Chaos but not evil.

A perfect example of how to expand the lore on a monster the right way IMHO: Gibberlings, as (re-)presented in the Gates of Firestorm Peak. The treatment of gibberlings in there didn't throw away or overturn anything; but it expanded the lore on them in fantastic (and fantastically creepy!) ways.

A good example of how to do this wrong, in a way that is subtle but potentially campaign-shaking: The switch of orcs from LE to CE in 3e. What if someone's campaign has a huge emphasis on orcs, with a great deal of effort on the dm's part gone into their elaborate system of laws, their military organization, etc? Suddenly the lore on orcs doesn't support that campaign's vision of them. Worse yet, there are a bunch of mechanical bits that need tweaking, rewriting or fixing to be of use in that dm's game. And for what? Because a few designers decided that their vision of orcs fit CE better.

That's a minor issue, by the way, compared to the kind of wholesale rewrite that, say, titans got in 4e. What if my campaign featured "classical" Titans as major npcs or mythological figures? Suddenly a TON of D&D lore is at odds with my game (at least with 4e lore)- titans aren't elemental; they aren't necessarily evil; I don't have viable stats for them; I have a good half-dozen or more monsters I can't use in the books; etc.

I think D&D needs to respect its precedents, recognize that, yes, there ARE 20-year-long campaigns running (and those groups are ones where someone buys every book released for the system), and not change things for the sake of change. Get rid of umber hulks? No. No, never. They have played a central part in a TON of D&D over the years (see especially Spelljammer), and even if none of those settings, adventures or whatever move you, they all move SOMEONE. The game should develop and expand lore without disrespecting and discarding it, IMHO.

Just food for thought; obviously, YMMV.

Sure, tell that to all the Tiefling and Dragonborn haters out there.

I'm fine with expanding the mythos, but at least with the initial offering, I'd like to see WOTC trim the fat so we get fewer, but far more creative and interesting monsters, than tons and tons of monsters that are barely any different from each other.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This is what I don't get. You want the dim-witted ogre stroking his lil' kitty? The abominable snowman taking care of his pal George, "And I will luv'em n' squeeze'em. George is my friend"? Or at least a half dozen anime demon-ogre-monster things that attend little children? So...do those. A whole separate monster just for this idea of a "loveable oaf character"?

Wasted of space. Take it out.

D&D has a weirdly huge number of monsters compared to other roleplaying games. It could probably get away with about a dozen - orcs, ogres, giants, dragons, demons, vampires, zombies, werewolves, t-rexes, drow, and a few natural animals such as wolves and bears. But people would complain.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sure, tell that to all the Tiefling and Dragonborn haters out there.

Which dragonborn are those, again? The ones that had their lore completely trashed and redone when they were moved into the PHB in 4E?

 

[MortalPlague]

This is what I don't get. You want the dim-witted ogre stroking his lil' kitty? The abominable snowman taking care of his pal George, "And I will luv'em n' squeeze'em. George is my friend"? Or at least a half dozen anime demon-ogre-monster things that attend little children? So...do those. A whole separate monster just for this idea of a "loveable oaf character"?

Wasted of space. Take it out.

I disagree. While the ogre and the yeti and other big brute monsters have their own identity, I don't want them to inherit a 'strong bond' trait from gray renders. Remember that this bond is enough to keep the render following the character even after the character attacks them. That's not something I could ever see an ogre doing, which makes it unique and interesting. It's a behaviour that defies any sort of natural logic, which can create for some pretty memorable encounters. So that alone is reason enough to include them, in my opinion.

Also, there are relatively few brutes who are clearly magical. Reproducing asexually, the bonding mechanic, potential wizard bodyguard tie-ins? That's no ogre.

Umber hulk cities? Really guys? They're monstrous dangerous underground predators...and iconic D&D. They're not hunting for treasure...They're not looking for slaves...They don't ccare if their people rise up and take over the world...They want to eat you. Bite your face off dead. Plain. Simple. All they need to do/be.

Actually, in the article, James Wyatt is saying just that. He's discarding the lore that there are cities for Umber Hulks.

What is it with trying to retcon stuff just because? What if someone out there has a campaign that has developed both grey renders and umber hulks in different directions? Why does there seem to be this urge to rewrite decades of D&D lore in a lot of these discussions? (Again, this is about far more than just shidaku's post; the designers and a lot of the discussion seems to treat established D&D lore as completely dispensable.)

-snip-

That's a minor issue, by the way, compared to the kind of wholesale rewrite that, say, titans got in 4e. What if my campaign featured "classical" Titans as major npcs or mythological figures? Suddenly a TON of D&D lore is at odds with my game (at least with 4e lore)- titans aren't elemental; they aren't necessarily evil; I don't have viable stats for them; I have a good half-dozen or more monsters I can't use in the books; etc.

That 4th Edition re-write is exactly why the articles need to address the possibility of a retcon, though. The titan example is good. 4th Edition made elemental titans, while previous editions had Olympus-like titans. Which do you use? If you go with one or the other, you exclude a lot of people. Maybe someone started gaming with 4th edition and built a campaign around the elemental titans? Equally likely, someone's 2nd edition game is focused on the godly titans. You have to weigh the choice pretty carefully. Maybe you discard one or the other, or maybe you keep both as separate species. But consulting the audience isn't such a bad idea in that case.

I think D&D needs to respect its precedents, recognize that, yes, there ARE 20-year-long campaigns running (and those groups are ones where someone buys every book released for the system), and not change things for the sake of change. Get rid of umber hulks? No. No, never. They have played a central part in a TON of D&D over the years (see especially Spelljammer), and even if none of those settings, adventures or whatever move you, they all move SOMEONE. The game should develop and expand lore without disrespecting and discarding it, IMHO.

I completely agree here. Discarding something with a huge established tradition 'just because' is silly and reckless. But examining the four different versions of a monster who have cropped up across four editions is an exercise that needs to be undertaken.

Which dragonborn are those, again? The ones that had their lore completely trashed and redone when they were moved into the PHB in 4E?

I think that's what he was getting at.

Which dragonborn do you keep? There are many people who started with 4th edition and want to bring their beloved dragonborn PCs forward into 5th. There are many whose campaigns focused on the old dragonborn. Which side do you take? Can you please everyone?