An Open Letter: 'Missing the Mark: Mike Mearls’s ‘Revised’ Ogre Mage'

[Scribble]

QFT.

In fact, in the game I've been playing, my GM has gone so far as to throw out long standing superb flavour for some of his own, and for his and our purposes, it works. The Blood Wars? Never happened. In fact, Demons and Devils all strive for the same goals, if by differing means.

My campaign is similar. They aren't friends but there's no "blood war" so to speak...

Asmodeous, once an angel, grew jealous of the main god and wanted to create his own race of servents. He created the demons, but, they were twisted hideous always selfish creatures that would not serve him.

 

[Klaus]

QFT.

In fact, in the game I've been playing, my GM has gone so far as to throw out long standing superb flavour for some of his own, and for his and our purposes, it works. The Blood Wars? Never happened. In fact, Demons and Devils all strive for the same goals, if by differing means.

QFT, too.

It's far easier for an individual GM to come up with flavor (that'll be target-modelled for his group) than with balanced mechanics.

 

[Henry]

I think the oft-noted exodus from 2E would be proof enough of design flaws for you. I don't think the deserters were sending in their letters to Dragon. They were probably buying stuff like GURPS and Rolemaster.

For 1E, I dunno. That was before my time.

I don't think they were leaving because of Ogre Magi and Rust Monsters. They were more likely leaving because of the customization of characters that those games offered which D&D largely lacked.

As for 1E, there was no debate because those monsters were used sparingly. I have maybe used Rust monsters maybe once per campaign, if at that, in the old days. I used Ogre Magi about as much. It doesn't make 'em bad; in fact, I can name SCORES of monsters from the old MM2, FF, Monstrous Compendiums, etc. that I never used at all.

 

[gizmo33]

One thing to keep in mind is that this is simply one developer's view of the process. They aren't official, and nothing in the MM is going to change. This is a sort of side project/thought experiment I'm doing. Normally, there would be a team of three working on this. Also, I haven't yet looked at a monster's flavor and background. So far, these have all focused on mechanics.

This is an interesting point to keep in mind but it's something that's been hard to follow. The web page on the WoTC didn't make this clear:

We're hoping this column becomes your window into roleplaying design and development—or at least the way we approach these things here at Wizards of the Coast.

"We" didn't sound at first like just "one developer's opinion." The "window" metaphor might make people feel more like stalkers than folks that are expected to contribute to the thought experiment.

And on the topic of buff ogre mages vs. pot-bellied ogre mages: PLEASE don't let the art department drive the design. The art that they're using the monster books just hits the same note over and over. The whole incident with Demogorgon losing his baboon heads and regaining them pretty much says it all.

 

[Pants]

The art that they're using the monster books just hits the same note over and over. The whole incident with Demogorgon losing his baboon heads and regaining them pretty much says it all.

That was a typo on Monte's part FYI.

 

[Scribble]

And on the topic of buff ogre mages vs. pot-bellied ogre mages: PLEASE don't let the art department drive the design. The art that they're using the monster books just hits the same note over and over. The whole incident with Demogorgon losing his baboon heads and regaining them pretty much says it all.

See kids... even a normally "cool cat" like Demogorgon looses his head(s) every once n'awhile.

 

[gizmo33]

That was a typo on Monte's part FYI.

The explanation on Wizard's web site didn't mention a typo by Monte - it made it sound like it was a "style" decision.

Well then, if the Demogorgon thing is a bad example then I'll say that there are an uncountable number of other examples where they've taken iconic creatures from the past and put them on a diet, made their teeth bigger, and based them off of a small number of animal-types that they know how to draw.

IMO there's not much subtlety or variation in what art is being made for WotC products, and while it always bothered me, it was easier to ignore when I thought it wouldn't have much impact on the game. But now, when I "look into the mind of a developer" and see that it's being influenced by that art, it makes me nervous. WotC art to classic art is like comparing sugary cereal to food.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Don't turn this into an edition wars thread. (What's wrong with breath weapons other than fire anyway?)

This so-called mechanics over flavor sin has always been part of the game from its very beginning and that is obvious, regardless of which edition you might prefer (by whatever standard we would be discussing at the moment).

As aptly put by another poster, slapping a coat of paint on a dragon is a perfect example of what your are decrying. The logical alternative would be to design several mythologically inspired different dragons that would (mostly) all breath fire, and that is how to get real flavor. Not exactly rocket science, but avoided in favor of mechanically inspired gimmicks.

In a universe with Gelatinous Cubes, Mind Flayers, Rust Monsters, Beholders, and Shriekers I do not find your list particularly troubling, even if I do not care for them myself. (Except for that stupid doggy that peels back its face. Cannot stand that one. But the must have been designed by someone's 8-year-old child...?)

You're kidding, right? For every synergistic combination this makes possible, it makes a mockery of the flavour in countless others...nevermind suggesting the notion of a world full of randy trolls and dragons mating with every other random species in sight.

If abused, yes, it is painfully lame. It is not news that DMs need to exercise some editorial control.

But as a mechanics templates are beautifully flexible means of generating themed groups of creatures. Want to journey to an Unseelie influenced island? The DM can build ~1-2 Dark Fey templates, using existing templates as a guideline, and slap them on most of the critters in the MM in seconds. Not perfect, but it gets us 90% of the way there with almost no effort.

 

[Klaus]

This is an interesting point to keep in mind but it's something that's been hard to follow. The web page on the WoTC didn't make this clear:



"We" didn't sound at first like just "one developer's opinion." The "window" metaphor might make people feel more like stalkers than folks that are expected to contribute to the thought experiment.

And on the topic of buff ogre mages vs. pot-bellied ogre mages: PLEASE don't let the art department drive the design. The art that they're using the monster books just hits the same note over and over. The whole incident with Demogorgon losing his baboon heads and regaining them pretty much says it all.

I can't speak for other artists, but when *I* have to draw a creature or a NPC, I always try to look at their stats, if available.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

On the level of an individual DM with a homebrew, sure. But it is not particularly good design for large-scale publication and adoption. Consistency is frequently a strength - if there are lots of exceptions it becomes extremely difficult to tweak, convert, or repurpose a critter, or to even simply guess how it'll interact with your party, in particular.

I agree with you to a certain point. I think it's important for monsters to follow the mechanics rules during actual gameplay. Creating a creature that introduces a unique mechanic or that creates an exception to a well-established rule (eg, if you created a mult-armed creature with suckers on its arms that used its own grapple mechanic) is a bad idea all around.

But saying that your mutli-armed creature with suckers on its arms gets a +4 bonus to grapple checks shouldn't need any additional justification other than 'it has suckers on its arms'.

99% of the DMs aren't going to be running fights and have a critter memorized; they are going to have the MM open to that page, or a stat-block sketched out, or whatever. So long as once its in play the monster follows the rules, how it got there or what it can do shouldn't matter. And if a designer strays far from the base type, or wonders whether or not something might be overpowered, that's what playtesting is for. D&D is so far from a science that you shouldn't be trusting formulas for all this anyway.