D&D 5E Legends & Lore 3/17 /14

[I'm A Banana]

It's not that doing this once or twice is an issue, it's when it happens a lot that certain players can feel...undermined? I'm not sure what the word is, but there is a certain player type who like to have their game lore mastery be rewarded, and enough instances of me saying "Not in my world" as DM could be off-putting.

Yeah, that's a bit of a fair point. This method of "there is a default, it's easy to change" means that there will be players who assume that because there is a default, that this is a safe assumption to make in any game (unless explicitly told otherwise).

It's a default effect.

It's something that could have been mitigated by a more explicitly specific vision of monster lore: "In the Nentir Vale setting, Jackalweres are creations of Grazz't" keeps the ease of use for newbies ("just like they are in Nentir Vale," or "Well, the example adventure we're playing in is in the Nentir Vale, so it's like that"), while explicitly acknowledging the specificity of that lore (outside of the Nentir Vale, this is not a safe assumption to make...and the DM said we're playing in a custom setting).

I don't think it's necessarily a Big Deal for a lot of tables, but it's grist and churn and awkwardness that could have been avoided if the designers were just not so enamored of their own stories that they decided to treat them as defaults for D&D, rather than as examples that you can use (or not).

 

[Argyle King]

I like the idea of giving creatures connections and reasons to exist. Thumbs up there.


However, I've so far not been a fan of the stories and connections they are creating.


That puts me in the weird position of liking the mentality of what they're doing, but generally not liking the results. In some cases, I feel as though -if they're going to make new stories anyway- they might be better off also making new creatures rather than trying to figure out some way to arbitrarily plug something in.

 

[n00bdragon]

You all realize that a number of iconic monsters in D&D were invented when Gary Gygax bought a bunch of cheap plastic monster toys from a dime store and wrote stats for them right? Things like the owlbear and the rustmonster? Yeah, those started out as cheap throwaway toys.

All this talk of history and changing the lore and stuff is nonsense. The "ecology" or history of these monsters doesn't need to be consistent; self, internally, or otherwise. From where I'm sitting it seems like designers and a lot of people here have gotten way too caught up in some strange idea of what D&D is supposed to be and forgotten that it's a game of Fantasy with a capital F. It can be whatever you want it to be for whatever reason you want it to be. In the beginning it was just supposed to be a place where you made **** up and that was okay, everyone just rolled with it. I'd feel a lot better about 5e's Scoundrel Scroll or whatever if the designers would go out and buy a bag of cheap plastic monster and just let their imagination run wild.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

You all realize that a number of iconic monsters in D&D were invented when Gary Gygax bought a bunch of cheap plastic monster toys from a dime store and wrote stats for them right? Things like the owlbear and the rustmonster? Yeah, those started out as cheap throwaway toys.

If 40 years of new stories being developed cannot take you beyond that, feel free to go the whole "what a monster is depends on how I'm feeling this week". For myself, I really appreciate the fact that 5E is choosing a different methodology in monster design.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yeah, that's a bit of a fair point. This method of "there is a default, it's easy to change" means that there will be players who assume that because there is a default, that this is a safe assumption to make in any game (unless explicitly told otherwise).

It's a default effect.

It's something that could have been mitigated by a more explicitly specific vision of monster lore: "In the Nentir Vale setting, Jackalweres are creations of Grazz't" keeps the ease of use for newbies ("just like they are in Nentir Vale," or "Well, the example adventure we're playing in is in the Nentir Vale, so it's like that"), while explicitly acknowledging the specificity of that lore (outside of the Nentir Vale, this is not a safe assumption to make...and the DM said we're playing in a custom setting).

I don't think it's necessarily a Big Deal for a lot of tables, but it's grist and churn and awkwardness that could have been avoided if the designers were just not so enamored of their own stories that they decided to treat them as defaults for D&D, rather than as examples that you can use (or not).

Yeah, it's the...arbitrariness?... of how these sorts of narrative decisions intrude on the overall creative space, just as you describe. While I'm not opposed to the idea in principle of giving creatures connections, origins stories, and reasons to exist as [MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION] says, it's just that the reimagined monsters ideas WotC introduces have been rather hit or miss (or perhaps meant for a different target audience?). Hinting at possible origins, perhaps a 3-bulletpoint format, would seem a better way to go.

 

[Klaus]

This new connections between Grazzt, jackalweres and lamias might actually convince me to actually use Grazzt, jackalweres and lamias. As individual monsters, they've always been less than interesting to me (specially Grazzt... he's no Demogorgon). But taken as a whole, they might just form the basis for a few adventures! So thumbs up!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, it's the...arbitrariness?... of how these sorts of narrative decisions intrude on the overall creative space, just as you describe. While I'm not opposed to the idea in principle of giving creatures connections, origins stories, and reasons to exist as [MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION] says, it's just that the reimagined monsters ideas WotC introduces have been rather hit or miss (or perhaps meant for a different target audience?). Hinting at possible origins, perhaps a 3-bulletpoint format, would seem a better way to go.

I come out in a slightly different place.

I think the bits of specific fluff and links are useful. Useful to lazy DMs, useful to newbie DMs, useful to big-boy DMs who want to run with it or tweak it. I'd much rather it be explicit.

What's not as useful -- to any of those groups -- is making it a default assumption of the game. It might not be hard-coded (which is better than it otherwise could be!), but if a new player is going to encounter the story that jackalweres are from Pseudo-Egypt and are linked with the god Set, and their reaction is, "I'm confused, I thought they were loyal followers this demon Grazz'zt?" (or worse, "No, they're made by this Grazz'zt thing, says so right here."), that's annoying. That's less modular and flexible than it could be. That throws up roadblocks (and it's unclear to me what benefit those roadblocks offer -- mearls insists that the stories the designers make have a point, but why they need to be the game's default assumption eludes me).

I like good, specific fluff. What I'm not so enamored of is training players to expect a certain story when D&D is a game of imagination and creativity, about forging and telling your own stories. Part of what makes DMing fun is finding out what jackalweres are in your world, what makes them interesting to you, even if it's just selecting from a list of currently-existing jackalwere stories. A game that says, "Jackalweres are X" makes that fun harder to have, since it gives players an expectation that you need to contradict, rather than just giving you an idea that you can use.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] Yep We agree.

 

[steeldragons]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] , could not agree with your last post more. (XP seems to be down/won't open for you, for some reason.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Whereas I disagree with Kamikaze wholeheartedly!

I always fall on the side that says the game should never be designed to just placate obnoxious players.

If certain players are memorizing the book and spouting off this knowledge to define how the game is... regardless of the table they are sitting at and the DM they are playing with... those players need to get a doofslap up the back of the head.

We've been trying to re-educate the "rules lawyer" for years now... reiterating constantly that every game is different, every table is different, and every DM is different... and just because one thing is written in the book, that doesn't mean it cannot or will not ever be changed at a particular table. And that they do not deserve nor need special flags and tags waved all over the place to remind them of this. THAT'S the default. The books include basic assumptions to give people reading them ideas and baselines if they do not choose to make their own... but that those basic assumptions are NOT sacrosanct. And every time they spout off trying to make them so is not a behavior anyone is going to encourage. They need to get over themselves.

So if jackalweres, lamias and Grazzt are all connected in the MM to create an interesting narrative for these three monsters... that's cool. It gives people who don't want to create their own ideas for jackalweres something to go with. But that absolutely does not give certain players license to dictate that that connection is the ONLY one there is. And WotC should absolutely not write their books to protect everyone from those players. Because that's basically akin to "feeding the trolls". And we're not going to put up with it.