D&D 5E Wandering Monsters- playable monsters

[Hussar]

This has been said before by others, but it bears repeating.

20% is not a small amount. It is one gamer in five, or roughly one person at each table. Most tables have someone who wants to play a monster. I am not sure the same can be said of several classes.

For all the talk about the desirability of modularity in Next, this seems a module that would be used at many tables. Twenty percent is a mainstream view, and it is not a view that deserves to be marginalized.

Really? When four times more people don't want it?

Why not put it in a supplement for that 20%? Then everyone is happy. Why should the core books include material that you flat out know only appeals to a small minority?

Funny thing is, you'd never actually put this sort of thing in a supplement because 20% isn't anywhere near enough people to justify publishing a book about it. It's just bad for business.

 

[Kobold Stew]

One person at each table. Not "a small minority" at all, as you know.

Really? When four times more people don't want it?

You also know that it is not the case that four times more people don't want it -- that's a willful misreading of the numbers. Many are fine either way.

It becomes a question of why you are working so hard to deny the possibility of this being an option -- as it has been in both the previous editions -- in an edition that is aiming to be modular, and in giving options to DMs and players.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I think it's an effort to avoid situations where every PC at your table is a "special snowflake" as some put it. A lot of people have experience with groups that doesn't have a single "normal" character in the mix, and it can be bothersome. So the people who don't want the rules in the core probably don't object to one occasional monstrous PC, it's the party consisting of a werewolf monk, an iron golem embermage, and an incubus paladin that they're afraid of.

And no, I'm not sure how to resolve this.

 

[Weather Report]

I think it's an effort to avoid situations where every PC at your table is a "special snowflake" as some put it. A lot of people have experience with groups that doesn't have a single "normal" character in the mix, and it can be bothersome. So the people who don't want the rules in the core probably don't object to one occasional monstrous PC, it's the party consisting of a werewolf monk, an iron golem embermage, and an incubus paladin that they're afraid of.

And no, I'm not sure how to resolve this.

I think like before, have a decent selection of races in the PHB, and rules to play anything else in the Monster Manual or what-have-you.

And the rules could be several approaches, a Savage Species/Tall Tales of the Wee Folk type module, a play monster as is.

 

[Tovec]

I think it's an effort to avoid situations where every PC at your table is a "special snowflake" as some put it. A lot of people have experience with groups that doesn't have a single "normal" character in the mix, and it can be bothersome. So the people who don't want the rules in the core probably don't object to one occasional monstrous PC, it's the party consisting of a werewolf monk, an iron golem embermage, and an incubus paladin that they're afraid of.

And no, I'm not sure how to resolve this.

The only way to get "probably don't object to one occasional monstrous PC" you have to have the option of "party consisting of a werewolf monk, an iron golem embermage, and an incubus paladin".

Just as it would be if: It is fine to have a party with a necromancer, what bothers people is if EVERYONE is that class. So, not all the time, or even one in every party - but it should still be an option every once in a while.

You resolve it by making the selected option not too good, where everyone has to take it. And by making sure players realize it is an option and not a right. That they should have to work with the DM to be allowed to play it, and that they are not guaranteed if abused. All of those "DM's option, not player's" type responses.

 

[Tovec]

Really? When four times more people don't want it?

I hadn't realized the results were out.. but they are.

For the most "offending" category:

[TABLE="width: 400, align: center"] [TR] [TD="bgcolor: silver, colspan: 3, align: center"]5) How important is it to you that players can make truly monstrous characters, such as gold dragons, water nagas, and green slaads?
[/TD] [/TR] [TR="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"] [TD]I can’t run my campaign or play my favorite PC without rules for this.[/TD] [TD="align: right"]253[/TD] [TD="align: right"]9%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]My game will suffer without rules for this.[/TD] [TD="align: right"]271[/TD] [TD="align: right"]10%[/TD] [/TR] [TR="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"] [TD]I wouldn’t want other people’s games to suffer because these rules aren’t in the game.[/TD] [TD="align: right"]957[/TD] [TD="align: right"]35%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]I wouldn’t want other people’s games to suffer because these rules aren’t in the game.[/TD] [TD="align: right"]1211[/TD] [TD="align: right"]44%[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
I'm reasonably sure that the last answer (44%) should be "These creatures are for slaying, not for playing." and not "I wouldn’t want other people’s games to suffer because these rules aren’t in the game." (again) so I'm going to use that as my assumption going forward.

What is pretty clear to me is that 35% do not want the rules to exclude it and do not want to make others suffer. Which is definitely not the same as 80% of people (roughly the last two answer-groups together) saying to NOT work on it or put it in game.

Also, when you add in the top two groups .. "my game will suffer" and "I can't run my game without them" to that 35% then it clearly becomes 54% of people who DO want them in the game, which is larger majority than your 44% who don't.

I'm not saying we should calculate it that way, it is as equally wrong as saying 80% of the people on the poll agree with you.

In addition, it is as I said before about Book of Nine Swords. I dislike that book. I will never use it or allow players in my game to select anything from that book. Not ever, not again. HOWEVER I see the value and lots of other people find it invaluable to "correcting" the imbalance in the game. I would never disallow or say the book should not be published, even if the numbers shaped up exactly as that poll did.

I would be firmly in the "I don't want others to suffer" group, and yet you are saying I would be part of this mysterious 80% that want monster-PCs scrapped.

Oh, and when I said all this I PROVIDED ACTUAL STATS, instead of repeating the same 80% figure which is simply not true (as far as I can tell).

EDIT to include:
Link to results are at the bottom, after the poll for that article's topic. http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130709

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

What is pretty clear to me is that 35% do not want the rules to exclude it and do not want to make others suffer. Which is definitely not the same as 80% of people (roughly the last two answer-groups together) saying to NOT work on it or put it in game.

No, but 80% of people don't want it in THEIR games. There are a lot of people who don't want to be mean about the situation, so 35% of people say "Whoa, I would never allow that in my games and I wouldn't want to play a game with someone who has a monstrous race, but if it doesn't affect my game at all, then I don't want to take the rules away from groups that want it."

Which is fine if the rules don't affect the games of those who don't use them. However, I suspect that entire subsystems of the game would have to be changed to allow easy access to monstrous races.

I would be firmly in the "I don't want others to suffer" group, and yet you are saying I would be part of this mysterious 80% that want monster-PCs scrapped.

It's not 80% of people who want it scrapped. Only 44% want it scrapped. But 80% aren't going to use it at all, making it a waste of time and space.

Oh, and when I said all this I PROVIDED ACTUAL STATS, instead of repeating the same 80% figure which is simply not true (as far as I can tell).

We were both referring to Hussar's post on page...2 or 3 of this thread where he laid out the stats and said "Well, 44% of people don't want it and 35% more people don't want it but are too nice to tell other people what to do, that's 80% of people who don't want it."

It's not our fault if you didn't read the thread.

 

[Tovec]

No, but 80% of people don't want it in THEIR games. There are a lot of people who don't want to be mean about the situation, so 35% of people say "Whoa, I would never allow that in my games and I wouldn't want to play a game with someone who has a monstrous race, but if it doesn't affect my game at all, then I don't want to take the rules away from groups that want it."

Which is fine if the rules don't affect the games of those who don't use them. However, I suspect that entire subsystems of the game would have to be changed to allow easy access to monstrous races.

It's not 80% of people who want it scrapped. Only 44% want it scrapped. But 80% aren't going to use it at all, making it a waste of time and space.

We were both referring to Hussar's post on page...2 or 3 of this thread where he laid out the stats and said "Well, 44% of people don't want it and 35% more people don't want it but are too nice to tell other people what to do, that's 80% of people who don't want it."

It's not our fault if you didn't read the thread.

The 80% stat is as fictional now as it was when Hussar said it back then. I repeatedly asked for stats, then went and found the ones that he was using and showed that he was using them wrong.

Again, 44% are saying to scrap it. 44% is NOT 80%. You can hope that others agree with you enough to get you up to that 80% but wishes do not make it true.

Same as if I said 56% want these rules in the game. As some people NEED them and others don't give a damn either way. As I said, LAST TIME (now who isn't reading the thread) that is EQUALLY as wrong. I do not hold to it. I don't need to. You keep saying it is 80% and that is wrong. Period. Full stop.

Regardless, if there is 20% then that is a large enough number that they should simply not ignore it just because it is a minority position. You do not like it, that is fine. You do not not have to use it. My game breaks without this as an option. I have said it and roughly 20% feel the same as me. If 20% of perspective customers CANNOT play the game they expect to with the system that is a pretty big flaw I would say. Or should I boost that by the neutral 35% and say 55% people can't play the game they want without those rules. That figure sounds as fishy as 80% of people wanting it out of the game.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think one of the issues that bothers me about NOT including monstrous races in some form, is what it does to the math. Presenting monsters as incomprehensibly different from PCs is jarring. Yes, a dragon might naturally become smarter, stronger, faster and more magically inclined than a human ever could, but that's not to say we can't use the same math to reach two different conclusions. What makes it worse is that when we present two sets of math, it increases system complexity, which naturally makes the game more difficult to play and run. It starts to lean towards favoring system mastery as the only successful playstyle, which encourages power-building, optimization, and pushes away new players.

Why do we need two sets of math? It's unnecessarily complicated. We don't need "monster skills" or "monster feats", just apply a the same standard. It will make putting monsters together as simple as building a character.

 

[Hussar]

I think one of the issues that bothers me about NOT including monstrous races in some form, is what it does to the math. Presenting monsters as incomprehensibly different from PCs is jarring. Yes, a dragon might naturally become smarter, stronger, faster and more magically inclined than a human ever could, but that's not to say we can't use the same math to reach two different conclusions. What makes it worse is that when we present two sets of math, it increases system complexity, which naturally makes the game more difficult to play and run. It starts to lean towards favoring system mastery as the only successful playstyle, which encourages power-building, optimization, and pushes away new players.

Why do we need two sets of math? It's unnecessarily complicated. We don't need "monster skills" or "monster feats", just apply a the same standard. It will make putting monsters together as simple as building a character.

Now this I do disagree with. If monsters have to follow the same math as PC's, it's massively more complicated than if you have two sets of rules.

Case in point - the monster creation rules for 4e fit on the back of a business card. That's it. All monsters in 4e D&D can be created from the rules that fit on a business card. The monster creation rules in 3e were several A4 pages 8 point type long. Every monster type was different from each other and had to reference rules in the PHB and other places in order to be created.

That's much, much more complicated than having separate rules.

I think your last point is probably the most telling. "It will make putting monsters together as simple as building a character." How long does it take to make an 11th level wizard in 3e D&D? Building characters in D&D is hardly a simple thing.