D&D 5E Alternate Backstories: What's Missing in D&DN Monster Design

[KidSnide]

I like James Wyatt's "Wandering Monsters" column. Or, to be more accurate, I think it's a good idea. I'm never blown away by any of the ideas (after all, the whole point is that they should be familiar), but I like the idea of running through the monsters one-by-one and checking to see what the community thinks of them.

But at the same time, I think the project has a serious flaw. The objective is to find the "true" / "classic" / "consensus" version of a monster. That's a fine goal (and an important part of D&DN), but (1) not all monsters have a single true version and (2) going back to the canonical version of every race makes it very hard to write new material. The minotaur is the classic version of this. The "cursed by Baphomet, and not a real race" is a cool idea in principle, but it loses a lot when it's modified to be "cursed by Baphoment, but now also a race." And at the same time, "cursed by Baphomet" doesn't make any sense if you also want to accommodate PC-playable Krynn-style minotaurs.

For some races, there just isn't one single "core" that will satisfy everyone.

And why limit D&DN to a single core? Krynn minotaurs are cool because they are different from traditional minotaurs, just like Dark Sun halflings are cool because they are different from regular halflings, and Golarion goblins are cool for their eccentric differences from vanilla goblins.

Yes, D&DN should find a core for each monster, but it should also celebrate the variation. The default minotaur should be a regular breeding race, but the minotaur entry can also include a "monsters cursed by Baphomet" alternate backstory and a Krynn-style civilized seafarers alternate backstory. D&DN is all about letting the DM customize the game. The monster manual should support that by helping DMs pick and choose which cool monster variants they want in their world.

Thoughts?

-KS

 

[GX.Sigma]

I absolutely agree for stuff like the Minotaur. I think that applies to classes, too--instead of just saying "this is what it is now," give some options, maybe a little background as to how different editions and settings did it, and let people choose for themselves.

But for stuff like, I dunno, Githyanki and Githzerai, there is a "true" version (IMO).

 

[Blackwarder]

They said that they want to start with some basic canonical text and probably have a sidebar saying things like in Krynn Minotaurs are so and so...

Warder

 

[Jester David]

The problem with this idea (it is a good one) is that it kills the page count. Statblocks take half a page, illustrations take a quarter, and flavour the final quarter. Add an extra sidebar and you lose the art or both the sidebar and regular fluff are half-sized.

if you start making monsters have multiple backgrounds, likely by doubling the pages certain monsters have, that means you end up with fewer monsters in the MM.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The problem with this idea (it is a good one) is that it kills the page count. Statblocks take half a page, illustrations take a quarter, and flavour the final quarter. Add an extra sidebar and you lose the art or both the sidebar and regular fluff are half-sized.

if you start making monsters have multiple backgrounds, likely by doubling the pages certain monsters have, that means you end up with fewer monsters in the MM.

Exactly. What do people want more of in a Monster Manual? 10 monsters with 2 pages of information, or 20 monsters with 1 page of information? I'm thinking probably two out of every three players would say the latter.

But here's the other thing-- D&DN seems to be leaning towards a design paradigm wherein most (if not all) "rules" are being presented to everybody at the top, in the first couple books. It doesn't seem like we're following past editions wherein the next several books past the core system books all are "splatbooks"... giving new or additional rules, abilities and mechanics to that which appeared in the core system books. Which means that the alternative to this is to publish more "fluff" centered product off the top. Modules, campaign settings, background and historical texts and the like. And it'd be in these kinds of things where you could start putting in "alternate" histories of monsters and the like (and getting them into the game published much earlier than they might otherwise have appeared in previous editions that were more concerned with crunch splatbooks).

Does the first Monster Manual need to go into detail about a second or third "alternate" background to the minotaur to encompass their usage in Krynn? No, probably not. But you can be darned sure that if there is a new line of Dragonlance features, that this is where those "alternate" minotaur backgrounds can and will be found. And truth be told is probably the best place for them.

The "alternate background" of the Drow in Eberron probably shouldn't appear in the Monster Manual. But it will certainly appear in an Eberron-centric book. The "alternate background" of the halflings in Dark Sun probably shouldn't appear in the Monster Manual. But it will certainly appear in a Dark Sun-centric book.

The Monster Manual should give us as much detail as it can in whatever background will be the most widely used, while also giving us as many monsters to use as possible. The further away from that you get, the less useful the book becomes to more people overall.

 

[steeldragons]

Does the first Monster Manual need to go into detail about a second or third "alternate" background to the minotaur to encompass their usage in Krynn? No, probably not. But you can be darned sure that if there is a new line of Dragonlance features, that this is where those "alternate" minotaur backgrounds can and will be found. And truth be told is probably the best place for them.

The "alternate background" of the Drow in Eberron probably shouldn't appear in the Monster Manual. But it will certainly appear in an Eberron-centric book. The "alternate background" of the halflings in Dark Sun probably shouldn't appear in the Monster Manual. But it will certainly appear in a Dark Sun-centric book.

The Monster Manual should give us as much detail as it can in whatever background will be the most widely used, while also giving us as many monsters to use as possible. The further away from that you get, the less useful the book becomes to more people overall.

Exactly this. Alternate "backgrounds" (when really what you're talking about is completely different histories/creatures/ways of incorporating said creatures into your games) do not belong in the Monster Manual. They belong in the relevant "X-campaign-world" book.

 

[Jester David]

Exactly this. Alternate "backgrounds" (when really what you're talking about is completely different histories/creatures/ways of incorporating said creatures into your games) do not belong in the Monster Manual. They belong in the relevant "X-campaign-world" book.

Or Dragon articles. You can imagine alternate minotaurs, hydras, and the like.

 

[howandwhy99]

A good monster (magic item, equipment item, NPC, and so on) is like a well designed dungeon. It has all kinds of interesting, unique to it alone elements which make that particular monster identifiable, and that's before personalization of each instance.

Just like B1 we could use monsters not entirely fleshed out, but rather allow each DM to customize portions of them. That may seem like making work for the DMs, but I think that's backwards thinking about playing D&D. The idea is to feed people's imagination, not sell it to them. D&D doesn't need "Branding" as much as it does have a history deserving of respect.

Alternate monsters isn't the purpose here. It isn't about Kobold Standard + Kobold Slinger, Kobold Shaman, Kobold King, etc. It's about enabling DMs to customize just enough on their own, but giving them a good portion of monster already filled in. Then, the advice on altering monsters to one's taste of the already completed portions begins to gain weight.

Complete every single element of a monster (slash whatever) and you convince people that they have no role, no part to play with this creature. Ultimately all this game text is assistant and that's why it's worth money, not prescriptive, or real "D&D", or needed to pay at all.

 

[KidSnide]

The problem with this idea (it is a good one) is that it kills the page count. Statblocks take half a page, illustrations take a quarter, and flavour the final quarter. Add an extra sidebar and you lose the art or both the sidebar and regular fluff are half-sized.

if you start making monsters have multiple backgrounds, likely by doubling the pages certain monsters have, that means you end up with fewer monsters in the MM.

It's true that page count has to be considered with any given product. But this is about how the monster fits into the game, not necessarily how you choose to integrate it into any given product. To continue with the minotaur example, the entry in the monster manual need not include an extensive description of the "Krynn-style" or "Cursed by Baphomet" backgrounds. Those could be left entirely to Dragon articles or setting supplements. Or, a sentence or two on "alternate backgrounds" could refer a DM to possibilities fleshed out elsewhere. (And, of course, links could be included in a Compendium-style tool.)

The point of this idea is that the designers don't have to cram all their ideas into a single version of the monster. It's also OK to design one version of the monster and then acknowledge that other versions also exist. They can provide a picture of a modern dragon-like kobold and acknowledge that, in other gameworlds, goblins may be blue-skinned mammals.

-KS

 

[Stormonu]

It would be kind of nice if they could do the "campaign specific notes" in the margin, say in red with a "written-in" sort of appearance. The books are full bleed, so they could use that margin space for that sort of thing, so long as they don't make it look too busy. Hmmm, upon contemplation, perhaps that might be something best suited for an "enhanced" or "annotated" version of the MM (or in a PDF, a layer you can hide/show).