D&D 5E Wondering Monster- Once Upon A Time

[howandwhy99]

I like it. Frankly, sometimes D&D is too self-referential; I think it periodically it needs to reach back to the stories that inspired it to be refreshed -- whether they be faerie tales, or Jack Vance, or Edgar Rice Burroughs.

They dryad's pretty cool, but the redcap doesn't work for me -- I prefer the original evil faerie creature legend to the one presented here.

I agree with everything Olgar's said. This doesn't need to be your version, it's simply the one that is provided for ease of use for you. A toolbox of what a vampire, werewolf, mummy, frankenstein and stooge are out of the box, no further work needed. Everything in D&D should read: Customize as needed.

Undead should have origin stories as well as any other non-living creature which lacks procreation. A race isn't necessarily self-procreating if it's a construct of other races. And undead are almost entirely the result of a once-living creature or creatures. I like the curse idea for the dryad. I think I'd like a cacophony of bizarre, intermixed chaos/evil fey rather than a generalized race like redcaps. But the curse works to. It's not like curses can't turn you into the dreaded ...human!

 

[gyor]

Its fine for an optional side bar. It doesn't fit all settings.

Oh and I voted in favour of the Flumph, Flumph fans are legion and our numbers grow by the day!

Mawhahahahahaha.

 

[pemerton]

Great for a story or novel, but not so good to force-fit over everyone else's stories and games.

In a toolkit system like D&D, these story-based creature origins are close to useless

<snip>

Giving a creature a specific, unique backstory is something best left for a module, not the Monster Manual.

D&D can't be that.

<snip>

I mean the stories are all well and good. Perfectly fine stories. Should they be in the MM as a defining origin story? Uh, no

The "fantasy biology" approach, with habitats and ecologies and the like, is defining too. It defines a certain tone to play, to the role of setting in the game, etc. It's not just a neutral RPG "toolkit".

D&D has always had plenty of monsters that bring story with them - other-planar creatures; liches with their phylacteries; mummies with their curses; etc. Give me more stories, and different stories! This is what I want from a Monster Manual - story elements to use in my game.

 

[howandwhy99]

D&D has always had plenty of monsters that bring story with them - other-planar creatures; liches with their phylacteries; mummies with their curses; etc. Give me more stories, and different stories! This is what I want from a Monster Manual - story elements to use in my game.

The problem is, D&D was never about stories or storytelling, but rather game play. What is interesting to you is not necessarily what is interesting to others. What you see as story elements of the past were exciting game elements focusing on interaction and abilities within the game. It was about relationships rather than raw, undefined emotional impact. Can great game design strike a nerve? Of course, but it's almost never on the surface. "Reads poorly, plays well" is the mantra to good game design. I do agree defining may be confining, but for games it is required before play can begin. And in it's own way it is freedom.

 

[Ratskinner]

The "fantasy biology" approach, with habitats and ecologies and the like, is defining too. It defines a certain tone to play, to the role of setting in the game, etc. It's not just a neutral RPG "toolkit".

D&D has always had plenty of monsters that bring story with them - other-planar creatures; liches with their phylacteries; mummies with their curses; etc. Give me more stories, and different stories! This is what I want from a Monster Manual - story elements to use in my game.

I find myself torn about the direction the article takes for this very reason. Because, on the one hand, I love these particular writeups. On the other hand, I think they are very world-specific, which I often play around with while GMing. However, I certainly agree that the "fantasy biology" approach (as well as "reliable magic") often seem to de-fantasize D&D to me.

I'd almost prefer a very plain-Jane MM, with little of this, but more articles or even a "Worlds and Monsters" type book to bring this type of thing to the forefront. Maybe even a section in the DMG with help about making it up from scratch. The redcap story makes me think that coming up with an origin story to connect two randomly selected monsters might make a fun party game.

 

[Zaukrie]

Love backstory in my monster books.....use it or not.....some play orcs as lawful evil, van they still mot use monsters from editions where they are chaotic? I think the last couple of 4e monster books are great, and I want more story I can use or not.

 

[Orius]

Not a bad article, though some of this stuff is a bit too specific to use all the time. It's a good pair of examples for DMs to use for specific ecounters though. Honestly, Wyatt has probably come to the end of most of the really classic D&D monsters and there's little left to talk about.

When I read this though:

Once upon a time, in a wooded glen that straddled the border between the world and the immortal realm of the fey, there lived a lovely nymph. The glade lay near the outskirts of a human village. A hunter used to pass through her glen every week as he went out from the village to hunt, and again every week as he returned to his home. For many months the nymph hid and watched him pass, while the sprites who lived with her hissed warnings in her ears.

But she turned a deaf ear to those warnings and gave her heart to this mortal man. So beautiful was his face, so graceful his movements, that she saw in him a distant echo of the immortal Feywild. One day, unable to hold back her love any longer, she revealed herself to him and proclaimed her adoration, pretending to be an ordinary mortal maid.

...the first thing that came to my mind was, "Oh gawd, it's N2, The Forest Oracle!"

 

[Stormonu]

As just a sidebar, I wouldn't mind it at all, but I think for a general MM, the two stories are too specific as origin stories. I've always liked that most monster origins in D&D were open to interpretation (drow and the gith being two notable exceptions). I think the MM or an ecology book could certainly be livened up by these sort of stories and myths, but I think the general MM and the base creature should be open for DMs to interpret their origins as befits their game.

 

[pemerton]

The problem is, D&D was never about stories or storytelling, but rather game play. What is interesting to you is not necessarily what is interesting to others.

The second sentence is obviously true - on the other hand, simply by putting together a game with elves, dwarves and hobbits as playable races, and with demons and devils as antagonists, you're making some assumptions about common aesthetic interests among your audience.

The first sentence is contentious. Gygaxian D&D may not be concerned with stories or storytelling (though it is certainly interested in the tropes from certain stories - what else is Appendix N for?). What about Hickman and post-Hickman D&D? 4e D&D? Anyone playing B/X D&D and motivated to try and emulate the story in the foreword about freeing the land from the dragon tyrant?

What you see as story elements of the past were exciting game elements focusing on interaction and abilities within the game. It was about relationships rather than raw, undefined emotional impact. Can great game design strike a nerve? Of course, but it's almost never on the surface. "Reads poorly, plays well" is the mantra to good game design.

This is pretty orthogonal to my point. I'm not interested in these sorts of story elements because they move me when I read them. I'm interested in these sorts of story elements because of their likely contributions to play. That's part of why I like the Dryad story better than the Redcap story - I think it's more likely to matter in play, because the story provide not just an origin for the dryad but a set of motivations for her ongoing interaction with mortals.

 

[howandwhy99]

The first sentence is contentious. Gygaxian D&D may not be concerned with stories or storytelling (though it is certainly interested in the tropes from certain stories - what else is Appendix N for?). What about Hickman and post-Hickman D&D? 4e D&D? Anyone playing B/X D&D and motivated to try and emulate the story in the foreword about freeing the land from the dragon tyrant?

As of 2013 I agree there are versions of D&D more aptly designed to tell stories rather than for game play.

This is pretty orthogonal to my point. I'm not interested in these sorts of story elements because they move me when I read them. I'm interested in these sorts of story elements because of their likely contributions to play. That's part of why I like the Dryad story better than the Redcap story - I think it's more likely to matter in play, because the story provide not just an origin for the dryad but a set of motivations for her ongoing interaction with mortals.

The article is interesting in that it adds new back stories to creatures which haven't been quite as well defined in D&D. Maybe Dragon Magazine fleshed them out first, most assuredly Dryads, but new content is always appreciated. What's missing is how background, NPC behavior, motivations, personality, genealogy, origins, and so on are still not rules and stats driven. There's nothing for players to interact with in NPCs except largely undefined ability scores and and class-related material, only improv suggestions for a DM who shouldn't be doing so.