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

[Zaukrie]

I don't get this argument that D&D is not about stories....it is all about stories, imo. I also don't get this argument we don't need fluff at all (which appears to be the core of the statements here), as lots of people have never played this game, and fluff helps them develop stories. YMMV, but I love fluff and stories about monsters, in my monster books. I don't want to flip back and forth to other articles.....

 

[Kinak]

So, think of of Mastermind again and the ref changing the code after play has begun.

It's a question of trust. If my goal playing Mastermind is to make the game more enjoyable for the player, rather than to win, there are certainly times where tweaking the code might help.

For example, if they've completely outthought me and come up with a cool pattern... well, maybe rewarding that is more important than the sanctity of the game. It depends a lot on the group.

The way I GM would be more like leaving a few gaps in the code, filling them in as the player tries to fit in a cool pattern. The trick, of course, is that it's completely non-adversarial. The players trust that my first goal is for them to have fun.

And sometimes that means frustrating them for a bit and sometimes that means saying "eh, close enough" and moving on to the next scene.

Rules can cover far more than you might be giving them credit for. Think of how much of real world combat is covered by the combat system rules - before the current exception-based designs that is. Rules keep things consistent so the DM doesn't have to remember every single last consequence of a game action, yet enables players to still engage in "long strand" strategy. Long term goals. Players realizing a dream that isn't about immediate gratification.

I actually agree that rules for long strand strategy can help a lot. For example, the Kindgom Building rules in Pathfinder or Birthright or Houses of the Blooded really bring those elements of the game home.

Also, careful about using the word fun. Currently fun is being conflated with narratively interesting. Games are highly addictive. Think of computer games. How many people consider computer games tools to create art? Like Photoshop or a word processor? Storygame rules are like a word processing program. The point is for the players to expressive themselves in spoken (or written) language. What most people believe is a computer game though is a program that can be won, whether playing other players within it or "the Computer" -more program. It's puzzle solving and primarily about pattern recognition-based learning. Players may create a Wiki like groups keep Character Logs to enable them to better play the game. My point is, "game fun" is largely held by most to be something other than personal expressionism.

I agree with you on a general level here. When we're talking about the set of all games, narrative is far down on the list people enjoy them.

My group is pretty strongly narrative based, though. Three of us are avid console gamers and the other two enjoy watching people play. All five of us gain enjoyment mostly based on following the plot, finding out what happens and how.

Which is to say: I conflate fun with narratively interesting because that's how my group has fun, predominantly. They also enjoy some tactical combat, but really only within the structure of the narrative.

EDIT: Thanks for replying. Metroplexity looks pretty interesting.

You're welcome

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Tovec]

I've had almost 40 years of monster books that have given me almost the exact same concepts, ecology and definitions for all of these monsters each and every time. I know this stuff already. The last thing I need is for another monster book to rehash the exact same material for the eighth time.

I've been playing DnD since 2005. Not 40 years, certainly. In that time I have had opportunity to see 3e's, 4e's and PF's take on the same monster. Do you know what I can tell you? None of them are the same. They don't live in the same places, often times they don't even have the same alignments, looks or backgrounds.

So, I guess my point is that they might want to make the game for someone who doesn't have 40 years of books already. Someone who MIGHT buy the books with rehashed (though obviously changed and updated for a new edition) monsters. I own the first monster manual (3.5) and two Bestiaries for pathfinder. Do you know what I don't own? All the other useless monster books and splatbooks. They don't help me at all. I don't find the monsters in them (except the rarest exceptions) to be unique or worth using. I need monsters I recognize and can easily slot into my existing game world. Ones that my players will recognize. I need orcs, and gnolls and goblins. I don't need random sea-creatures that are unknown. I don't need all 758 pokemon (or whatever it is up to these days). Those from the first game, maybe the second, are all I need to tell the story I want to tell. I expect many are the same. If there happens to be a few minor pokemon from later games that I want to introduce for whatever reason then I will, but I don't need to introduce all the others.

Anyone who says that the 5E monster manual shouldn't include new concepts for old monsters and want it to just have "true" D&D monster ecology information so they can run them as they see fit... what on earth are you paying for? New stats? You want to spend $35 for just stats? If that's true... then buy the book for the stats, and ignore all the 5E descriptions. Go ahead and just use the monster descriptions from any previous monster manuals you own that you think "got it right" and just ignore the descriptions in the 5E book. The 4E book, or 3.5 book, or 3.0 book, or 2E book or AD&D book or Rules Cyclopedia book or whatever.

Yes I want to spend 35 bucks for a new book. That is the point. It is a new system. What you are saying here may as well apply to the whole of the game system itself, and is equally non-helpful.

[sarcasm] What on earth are you paying for? A new system? You want to spend $35 for just mechanics and description? If that's true... then buy the book for the mechanics and description, and ignore all the 5E 'stats'. Go ahead and just use the character 'stats' from any previous player's handbook you own that you think "got it right" and just ignore the mechanics and descriptions in the 5E book. The 4E book, or 3.5 book, or 3.0 book, or 2E book or AD&D book or Rules Cyclopedia book or whatever. [/sarcasm]

Seems as silly to me. Personally I want to buy a book for the whole package. I want all of those elements to be good. That's why it matters DEFCON 1.

But speaking personally... why on earth would I want to buy a book that HAD NOTHING DIFFERENT in it from any previous monster manual (except for new stats)? That is a waste of time, money, and space. These story hooks? They're NEW. At the very least, they give me something I haven't had in any previous monster manual. Thus... even if I don't use them as-is, they're useful for ideas. And that's a good thing. Don't strip this stuff out of this new book just because some players don't want to just ignore it and instead want it to not exist at all.

It is about being internally consistent. If a description for a monster is tied to some random curse that you should break, then that strikes me as an adventure path as opposed to a monster description. It would be like the description of the devils being tied to the souls he torments and about the contracts he made, implying the players should go out and free all those souls. It is a good adventure to give a boost. But it also doesn't really (to me) belong in the MM. I think the devil description should be more along the lines of WHAT the character is. Now what heir background is. But maybe that's just me. I just need a clean, clear description that I can use, reflavour, or otherwise ignore. All the "adventure" stuff seems to belong in another place, IMHO.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I need monsters I recognize and can easily slot into my existing game world. Ones that my players will recognize. I need orcs, and gnolls and goblins.

If you and your players already can recognize orcs, gnolls, and goblins, then you don't need a 5E monster book to reiterate it. Thus it doesn't matter what the book says, because you can just use whatever you have in your head for the orcs, gnolls, and goblins in your campaign.

But for the rest of us who want interesting ways of using these monsters that isn't an exact rehashing of every orc, gnoll, and goblin that has come before... adding in these extra stories (which are easily ignored if we don't want to use it) makes a NEW monster book worthwhile.

 

[Tovec]

If you and your players already can recognize orcs, gnolls, and goblins, then you don't need a 5E monster book to reiterate it. Thus it doesn't matter what the book says, because you can just use whatever you have in your head for the orcs, gnolls, and goblins in your campaign.

Internal consistency.

Have you ever watched lord of the rings? Then played World of Warcraft? Both have orcs. Both have goblins. Both have giant living, talking trees, humans, halflings, elves and so on. Are they the same? No. Of course they aren't. If you were writing a book of monsters for each of those worlds, they would both include orcs. They both need to and they both need to describe WHAT the orc is. They need to say for LotR that it is a former elf, twisted by darkness into its current form. For WoW they would say that it is a green skined tribal creature that have had XYZ relations with other races in the past. Those are very different descriptions. However, if blizzard were to go on and create WoW.2 then release another book that has monster descriptions would you really expect them to release it with the following for ALL the monsters in the book? "See previous WoW.1 sourcebook on all information for these creatures except where noted here."

You want an errata. I want a sourcebook.

But for the rest of us who want interesting ways of using these monsters that isn't an exact rehashing of every orc, gnoll, and goblin that has come before... adding in these extra stories (which are easily ignored if we don't want to use it) makes a NEW monster book worthwhile.

Those extra stories, are just that. They are stories. They aren't descriptions. Say that all dryads are cursed and so they must stay near their tree. I personally would avoid giving a specific range or maybe I'd give example ranges of how far. Then, when you write adventures - featuring STORIES - write an adventure about a poor nymph that turned into a dryad. In that AP it could just be a cool piece of backstory or a thread for the new adventure "dryad's lost love". I don't care. I don't need the AP. I might hate that the dryad (singular or plural, my choice) is a cursed fey creature. I might love it. I might find it meh. But all I need is a description I can .. Use, Not Use, Or Ignore. (As I said before.)

 

[Cadence]

But all I need is a description I can .. Use, Not Use, Or Ignore. (As I said before.)

If the goal is to sell the most books and attract the largest number of people, both new and old,... would the best thing be to have a bit of both? Ecology/demographic suggestions things like an abbreviated 2e description and maybe a few brief good story hooks (like some of the better 4e ones?). Then they could top it off with something really new like consistently good art.

I'm just hoping they avoid having huge swaths of monsters written so that everything about them seems to tie into a new cosmology (like giants in 4e versus previous giants?).

 

[Tovec]

Mostly, agreed.

The problem is I don't think you can get 10 people in a room and get 6 of them to confirm what "good story hooks" means. Let alone "good art".

But I do agree that better descriptions (probably longer ones too) would be helpful. Again, I want descriptions of those monsters. Descriptions of who and what they are, but I don't need what has happened to them in their past. I need enough to run them and understand their alien mindset or motivations. Unless it directly affects how they'll react in a given situation I don't really need it. It might be cool or fun, but I don't need it taking up room. I also don't need for random stuff like dryads being offended if you offer them cake, but loving you forever if you offer them pie. Random stuff like that that is related to the original myth works fine for me, but just coming up with it out of nowhere as a WotC staffer doesn't mean much to me.

And yes, please god, I do mean that they shouldn't tie stuff directly a cosmology. This goes back the fiends split. If you want to define demons and devils as vastly different creatures, you can mention the blood war. But don't assume everyone is going to be using it. I mean I would personally avoid references to blood war or anything so specific. Campaign specific stuff only serves to make it less widely applicable. So, yeah, avoid cosmology as much as possible except where you can't avoid it. "Comes from a fey realm" is probably best in such cases. You don't need to say if it Feywild or Arborea (or other). Doesn't even need to be another plane by typical definition.

Sorry, went off a little tangenty.

 

[howandwhy99]

But that was the game's rule book by the co-creator of the game saying how it should be done in his view.... not just "someone suggesting cheating."

Or was OD&D relatively popular and refined enough that it should be more defining of the spirit of early D&D than, say, 1e and Moldvay/Cook? Did the 1st generation of players substantially change their view of the idea of the game with the advent of AD&D? Or was AD&D meant to capture what those players were already doing?

Yeah, lots of stuff was said back in the 80s and early 90s about Gygax giving tacit approval to cheating. And DMs followed his advice. I don't think it applies to game design. I don't have any answers to your other questions. I largely think it was driven by Gary's thoughts and material he used from the community when he wrote books back then.

I haven't meant to imply that game play wasn't important or that storytelling was even the larger goal of the two. But I think the DMG makes it clear it is a part. I'm claiming that both the writings of Gygax in the DMG and my memories of how one group from the first generation of players approached things had both the rules side and the fudging-storytelling side as being important for the game. I'm even good with the game play being noticeably more important than the storytelling aspect in the early versions.

That's cool. I think fantasy stories had a huge impact on the game. It would be like saying that stories aren't influential on the design of The Legend of Zelda. But I still hold the particular game design (broad school of design?) as indicative as to what D&D is rather than any narrative genre.

That seems reasonable to me. But doesn't explain why neither Gygax in his writing nor the first generation players I knew personally seemed to treat the game solely the way you describe (without the sandbox, do it on the fly, change what you had written down, incorporate player ideas) when it seemed to make things work better. Certainly by 1981 the younger group in my own age range that I played with was pretty cooperative in its world building and resolution, did lots of things unplanned on the fly, and would have thought the storytelling idea described a big part of what we were playing (if anyone had described it to us in those words). We treated the D&D rules very differently than those of (the rigid) Star Fleet Battles a few years down the road.

I'm not trying to explain why you and your friends played as you did. I don't personally interpret Gygax's DMing advice as game rules, but more of maybe "give 'em a break" advice if the players get in a tight spot. But it's still like ignoring the rules to a board game to me in the middle of a game.

I'm fine with not being true to D&D's true roots... it just seems that you were presenting how you've always viewed it and claiming it should be definitive (because all games would have been viewed in the same way at the time - in spite of any recollections or writings to the contrary?)

When I say conflating, it isn't just about fun == story. But currently games == story. Rules == story. Role Playing == story. And this one true wayism is just not indicative of the past. It's a kind of single-mindedness inherent in some folks philosophies of today. They are highly successful in making story definitive - not just for themselves, but for everyone else too. If you have different ideas than I do, that's fine, but a lot of tacit assumptions just don't hold true for early RPGs and D&D. And I believe the game design evidence from the first 25 years of the hobby largely backs me up.

I don't understand why it needs to be so binary. Why does the game need to be about only one of game play or storytelling? Why does a game where storytelling is an important part need to be pure storytelling? Why couldn't people have conceived it as something between the pure rules driven game and the pure storytelling in the beginning?

It isn't binary. Most storygames today include game play with turn taking for storytelling by the participants. They aren't one or the other. As to purism, that's game designer's talking. As yeah, one might have read D&D as a mix in the beginning, but most of our conceptions, language, design methods, etc. are from the recent past. I think most folks since the 80s probably just played a simulation game half the time and made up stuff the other half because everyone does it that way. That still goes on for most d20 games.

I'm a handful of years too late to the scene to know how it was viewed originally... so I think it would be interesting to get the views of a variety of others who started in the mid 70s and to go through the old Strategic Review and Dragon issues from back then to see the range of views at the beginning.

People are doing that in the OSR. I have my own ideas, not necessarily in agreement with those in fashion there either. But there is a lot of insightful conversation to be found regarding what you're asking for, if you look for it.

 

[howandwhy99]

It's a question of trust. If my goal playing Mastermind is to make the game more enjoyable for the player, rather than to win, there are certainly times where tweaking the code might help.

This is why it is very important the DM role is defined as a referee. You can't "win" behind the screen. It's not even a contest. You are enabling the player to win. To define that a little more, you are enabling the player to achieve their own predetermined goals. (...at least in D&D. Mastermind rules define that game's sole objective.) To explain even further, you as the ref are enabling players in mental resistance training, a kind of mind and imagination strengthening and overall improvement. It isn't about "the right idea" as if somehow the NYT crossword distributing scripture. It's not changing the code so the players can perform mental push ups, gymnastics, or whatever against it.

For example, if they've completely outthought me and come up with a cool pattern... well, maybe rewarding that is more important than the sanctity of the game. It depends a lot on the group.

It depends on what one considers rewards too. Beauty in its own right can be valued in games. The question is, "Why would anyone want to be constricted by game rules in order to achieve this?" Isn't real life constraint enough? I'm guessing it's more about removing what some view as the threat of other people when engaged in group creation, rather than enjoying the rules and their interaction in and of themselves. That's why I don't believe most storygames aren't about gameplay so much than, as you bring up, creating something cool, or narratively cool. Of course the same goes for political games being more about politics. Game for artistic creation being more about art. And so on.

The way I GM would be more like leaving a few gaps in the code, filling them in as the player tries to fit in a cool pattern. The trick, of course, is that it's completely non-adversarial. The players trust that my first goal is for them to have fun.

I don't think D&D or Mastermind are adversarial either. There's bad advice about doing so early in the hobby and a certain prejudice in vogue today against GMs as non-storyteller referees. But I suggest both of those are against the spirit of games and gaming. I take you are trying to make the game fun, to not be constrained by the rules in order to give players what they want as those desires change throughout play. I'm saying playing the rules, even if simply a code hidden behind the screen, is more indicative of game fun and just as worthwhile designing for. I think the games I am talking about are every bit as challenging to design and result in reams more printed material to allow for further play.

SNIP
My group is pretty strongly narrative based, though. Three of us are avid console gamers and the other two enjoy watching people play. All five of us gain enjoyment mostly based on following the plot, finding out what happens and how.

Which is to say: I conflate fun with narratively interesting because that's how my group has fun, predominantly. They also enjoy some tactical combat, but really only within the structure of the narrative.

That's all good. I'm not prescribing the correct way of RPG play, only my ideas on why RPGs were designed largely as they were for about 25 years. And that D&D may not be best understood exclusively within the limits of narrative theory.

 

[Ratskinner]

You shock me!

I don't get this argument that D&D is not about stories....it is all about stories, imo.

Maybe I should explain myself a little bit more....

I don't think D&D is a good story game, because it doesn't inherently produce a story structure. So what's that? Well, there's (AFAIK) two schools of thought on that:

School the first:
The way I learned it in school is (according to Wikipedia) defined by somebody named Freytag. You go from Exposition to Rising Action to Climax to Falling Action to Denouement. Unless its externally enforced by the DM, no edition of D&D (AFAICT) does anything to impose such a structure. Instead, the characters are on an encounter treadmill. I mean, if you could run multiple sessions with nothing but encounter tables.

However, this is the method to which D&D most lends itself to DM Story-crafting. The rules may not care about whether or not the big boss fight with the tough solo comes at the beginning or end of the adventure, but DMs often do. Its certainly not hard for a DM (or writer) to pattern an adventure after this structure: Exposition becomes the "Rumors at the Obligatory Tavern" or a reward notice. Rising action is the series of encounters leading up to the big climactic boss-fight. Climax is the boss fight. Falling Action is cleaning up the Encounters we missed or fulfilling sidequests. Denouement is collecting the reward and leveling up.

While this may lead us to think "See, Ratskinner! D&D's got story, you just showed it!" In reality that structure is imposed completely by the will of the DM/author. Even editions (2e, in particular) that exhorted DM's to create such a structure did nothing mechanically to reward players or DMs for doing so. 4e makes it easier by making "Encounter Difficulty"="Action" a little more explicit. And when a DM/author does push for such structure, its often seen as "railroading" or "linear". Many of the most-loved adventure modules (to hear people speak of them) are just "sandboxes" that lend themselves very poorly to such a structure.

School the Second:
This method is rather headier, IMO, and is the method that seems to have influenced Forge thinking the most heavily. The idea is called "Dialectic" and involves starting with a thesis ("Zombies are thoughtless eating machines, and cannot be a part of society.") introducing a conflict with through antithesis ("This zombie has rudimentary thoughts and emotions.") the conflict is resolved into an synthesis ("Zombies and humans can live together in a strange new society."--thank you Warm Bodies) In Forge thinking, games that focus on this sort of resolution are called Narrativist, and generally rely on the game to set up the conflicts and the players to resolve them by creating the synthesis. To do so, the characters have strong mechanical motivations to press their individual theses and the players are rewarded for doing so, often with control over the narrative of the synthesis result.

Does D&D do this? Not really. Most characters in most editions have no such thesis statements to uphold. If they have one, it is created solely by the whim of the player and yields no mechanical impact whatever. There are a few old-school exceptions. Namely Paladins and Clerics, and only in games where the DM would heavily enforce alignments (however they conceived them).* However, these usually only come to light when contrasted with an aggravating Thief or Rogue player, who introduces an antithesis do spur the conflict with their LG-ness. The "Holy Roller" party of paladins and clerics usually doesn't experience the need to develop a synthesis. To my eyes, there is a great deal of irony in some of the criticisms of 4e. Often accused of being "new school" or "too narrative", 4e actually eliminates the only elements of the traditional game that drove Narrativist play!

How about on the DM side? Nope. AFAICT, no edition provides any mechanical impetus for the DM to engage the players in making any of the "tough decisions" that make up the heart of Narrativist play, nor is he given any particular tools to do so. Tons of advice and recommendations, but no actual mechanics. So far as the rules are concerned, if your Cleric of the Raven Queen never runs into any Orcusian Cultists....them's the breaks. Paladin never met a thief...so what?

So, if D&D doesn't do either of these things, why do so many people think its a story game? Well, I think that finding a way to create those things is part of DM skill. Doing so helps to engage the players. However, the rules (generally) offer very little actual help. Additionally, sometimes story "just happens." Stories are how we humans engage the world. In any endeavor as complicated and time consuming as D&D, we will see some stories. I think this is what some of my OSR friends are talking about when they talk about the story emerging "organically".

*There is also the short-lived XP by class mechanic.

But what is that? I'm far from sure that it's the sort of "puzzle unravelling" that Howandwhy99 is describing.

What does D&D actually do well?..... I think it does okay with setting exploration, although not very well by Forge's standards for Simulationism. The DM can start up with some interesting things...a map, some politics, maybe some room for adventure, the seeds of a conflict, etc. Most editions also do fairly well with the Gamist aspects. So what does that get you? A pretty good opportunity for some geeky friends to sit around a table and have a good time acting silly. I think what [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] is describing sounds like an extreme gamist interpretation to me, but its hard to tell over the web and not being there.

anyway...I hope that helps.