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

[genshou]

Aside from the rising temperatures in some parts...

This thread rocks.

 

[Melan]

These sorts of criticisms were plenty common back in the day, but Dragon would have been the last place you would go to find documentation of this. Not sure if the editors rarely published these sorts of D&D-griping letters (as opposed to Dragon-griping letters), or if the critics just didn't write to Dragon, or what. But there was certainly a vocal group criticizing D&D's treatment of monsters . . . for both mechanics and flavor. I remember the first time I read through some non-TSR publications, and it really opened my eyes. Not that I agreed with all of the criticism -- monsters were my favorite part of the game! -- but I remember being surprised that there were so many folks discontented with D&D. I never got that sense reading Dragon magazine every month.

But you would need to check out the APAs and magazines affiliated with other games to get a sense of the depth and breadth of the criticism. I can't think specifically of a letter picking on the ogre mage, but there is an essay in a Chivalry and Sorcerery supplement (I think the first Companion book) that really takes D&D to task for its monster design.

Garnfellow -- I know what you mean. D&D was mercilessly criticised, dissected and pooh-poohed in each and every aspect. I have seen it myself, read it in fanzines (well, fanzines from 90s Hungary, okay) and on message boards. But the criticism usually seemed to come from people who didn't like the whole of the game. People who decried it as "unrealistic" or "childish", people who thought it didn't simulate the kind of fiction or historical/mythical corpus they wanted it to simulat (most often Tolkien) and so on. I don't think it would have been wise at any time to cater to the wishes of these groups (just like it wouldn't be wise today to replace 3e with a reprint of OD&D, for instance, although I sure would get a kick out of it )

I think Dragon is relevant because it was the kind of forum where you would find criticism from people who were fans, even dedicated fans, who nevertheless felt something was wrong and needed fixing. In short, a bit like ENWorld. So yesterday evening, I went through the Dragon archive and read everything that
a) had to do with rust monsters or ogre mages
b) was found in a reader's feedback or game designers' soapbox area.
There was no criticism. A lot of suggestions on how to use rust monsters as a DM or as a player (tame and train them for your army, for example ), but for a magazine which ran a lengthy debate on whether female dwarves have beards, or how fireballs really work, the question was conspiciously absent.

Maybe I should also do a search of rec.games.frp.dnd, but there is no time for that now.

 

[MerricB]

Actually, what comes to mind are two reviews of "Fiend Folio" in an early Dragon (I think one is by Ed Greenwood).

Look them up.

Cheers!

 

[Dr_Rictus]

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

Yeah, inasmuch as I believe Monte's explanation, I have to say ... they lied. Or they made up a story not caring whether it was true. "Um, yeah... we meant to do that."

That said, I do agree that art failing to match the description of the monster does seem to happen too often. I'm sure a competent artist with Photoshop could have made the Grick look like it deserves that +8 bonus to Hide checks some time between 3rd and 3.5th edition, for example. Or at least get the miniature right when they came to do that. But they didn't.

Now I have images of the Design and Development article on the Grick: "The description says it gets a +8 bonus to Hide checks, but look at that dazzling green and yellow coloration! Let's give it color spray." Sorry, but I couldn't chose not to resist.

 

[turbo]

Mearls is brilliant at tactics and seems to care about little else. I love his work, but it doesn't meet my every need. In other words, I'm pleased that he's on the team, not just because he brings so much to the table, but because he needs to be on a team.

Frankly, I can't wait for 4th ed., if he's going to play a big role in it. But it has to be a specialized role. Damn, he's a great mechanic, but what are his tools for? Fighting. Other designers have to work out who's doing the fighting and what might happen outside of it.

Mearls is one of those writers whose personalities and prejudices come through in every word. The revisions bespeak a total focus on encounters and complete disinterest in campaigns ('campaign' meaning more than "a series of encounters"). That's cool, but it's not the whole game.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

These sorts of criticisms were plenty common back in the day, but Dragon would have been the last place you would go to find documentation of this. Not sure if the editors rarely published these sorts of D&D-griping letters (as opposed to Dragon-griping letters), or if the critics just didn't write to Dragon, or what. But there was certainly a vocal group criticizing D&D's treatment of monsters . . . for both mechanics and flavor. I remember the first time I read through some non-TSR publications, and it really opened my eyes. Not that I agreed with all of the criticism -- monsters were my favorite part of the game! -- but I remember being surprised that there were so many folks discontented with D&D. I never got that sense reading Dragon magazine every month.

But you would need to check out the APAs and magazines affiliated with other games to get a sense of the depth and breadth of the criticism. I can't think specifically of a letter picking on the ogre mage, but there is an essay in a Chivalry and Sorcerery supplement (I think the first Companion book) that really takes D&D to task for its monster design.

Yup. From even my limited amount of alternative FRP material, the number of slaps against D&D by disgruntled players or former players, some now game designers, is not small. Disregarding the mythology source (the flavor) for no apparent advantage drew sharp criticism way back then. But such talk did not filter into the Dragon.

There is an entire chapter in the Chivalry & Sorcery Sourcebook (circa 1980) on designing the monster mechanics from the flavor of the original source material. It lambasts D&D for making the Hydra a multiheaded dinosaur instead of the actual foe of Hercules as the starting point. It mocks the weird treatment of trolls, instead of the more impressive beasts that made Beowulf legend. It also spends time to make a "superior" version of the Umber Hulk and Giant Slug as examples of good D&D ideas that could be done better.

Criticism of D&D monsters as lacking flavor is older than the topsoil.

 

[gizmo33]

Yeah, inasmuch as I believe Monte's explanation, I have to say ... they lied. Or they made up a story not caring whether it was true. "Um, yeah... we meant to do that."

It seems likely to me that someone at some point would have noticed, and that person (or persons) decided that they didn't care enough about Demogorgon's look to go back and change it. So maybe both stories are true.

Mistakes in the rendering of characters probably happen all of the time - but how many Star Wars posters have Chewbacca looking like a hyena? Someone probably would care enough to fix that. Either version of the story makes my point - designers should think twice about basing their designs off of artwork if the process of producing the art is going to be governed by that much happenstance.

 

[painandgreed]

I hope you would agree that the new Ogre Mage and the new Rust Monster still are roughly the same creature as before, so keeping the name has some merrit (compatability to older editions, and you don't have to invent new flavour).

Not me. My main complaint is that he came up with entirely new monsters with new mechanics that do different things and then gave them old names to replace old monsters. If he would have just come up with better mechanics for their abilities but left them as the same monsters, I doubt I would care.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) he came up with entirely new monsters with new mechanics that do different things and then gave them old names to replace old monsters. If he would have just come up with better mechanics for their abilities but left them as the same monsters, I doubt I would care.

That sums it up well. It's like highjacking flavor to legitimize the mechanics.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

[snip borderline ad hominem] Mearls is one of those writers whose personalities and prejudices come through in every word. The revisions bespeak a total focus on encounters and complete disinterest in campaigns ... .

(Emphasis added) Nice... enjoy hyperbole much?