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

[Nyaricus]

SJ, that was a most entertaining and excellent post. Kudos, my friend.

You raise a lot of good points. One of the fun and interesting things about doing the re-designs is that they provoke good conversations.... 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.

Mike, these are an excellent idea, and I have been very entertained and interested in them I am planning to try out your Orge Mage version as the BBEGs in Murann (from FR) in an upcoming game. CR 20, or so I can't wait!

I am also verily amazed at the excellent conduct of this thread and how this sort of project is 'provoking good conversations', as Mearls put it

Also, I haven't yet looked at a monster's flavor and background. So far, these have all focused on mechanics.

Well, with all fairness, I think this should be a fairly big priority when craftng critters. We wouldn't have D&D if we didn't have this amazing mythological / folklore / religious backdrop which has spawned stories running the gamut from bible tales to moral stories. If you don't at least try to stay true to them, you are doing yourself a misnomer. Mike, despite the fact that these "rethinkings" are just a thought excercise, you are a god amoungst men in the RPG community - when you talk people listen. And I am sure some are listening very keenly right now with this revised monsters, reguardless of what reason or lable you put on your purpose to do so.

I really like what you are doing so far, however. It's interesting; what other monsters do you have in mind? I personally submitted the Bodak which I feel is a whackjob of a monster.

More importantly, this is a thought exercise and an attempt to create dialog. Eloquent responses such as your own are a huge incentive to continue the series. I want to hear reactions, disagreements, and ideas. They're what helps shape the game. I've read everything posted about the two re-designs and have learned a lot about what people want in the game, what they enjoy, and what they find interesting.

And for this, we thank you. Mike, you have been stirring up some big waves in D&D recently, and I can't wait to see what else you have to contribute.

Now, if only Dodge gave a straight +1 to AC

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I do hope that these revised critters show up in MMV as subraces of the MMI versions. Will we be seeing more of these?

 

[ThirdWizard]

So Mike is just trolling us all? (I jest, I jest!)

But, if the purpose is to stir up controversy to get at what people really think, he's done an excelent job. People rarely post much about things they like. If Mike had posted a vastly improved Ogre Mage that just made it do better what it does now in 3.5, the reaction probably would have been some people nodding their heads with very little nitpicking.

As it is, he's gotten some great feedback that measures pages and pages on these forums alone, not counting any other forums or emails he's recieved. I think he's done his job quite well. If you want customer feedback, this is the best way to go about it that I can think of!

 

[Gundark]

you know I liked the revision. I think that it's good to shake things up. And like what has been mentioned it's not offical...just an idea.

 

[rounser]

I think he is experimenting with mechanics and currently ignoring the flavor aspects of the game.

You've only now just noticed???

This has been the case since 3E was first released, with monsters being tailored to fit mechanical needs, first and foremost...i.e. "We need another sonic monster so the bard can shine....oh, and a low CR fear-causing monster too." Attach some IMO lame flavour as an afterthought, and you have about half the MM.

Where this design philosophy misses the boat IMO is that certain monsters are useful because of their flavour, and define what makes D&D cool in the first place. How many old Dungeon magazine adventures are based around the leprechaun, for instance? Doesn't that suggest it's a useful monster for reasons that have nothing to do with it's mechanics, but rather it's mythological role?

I think flavour should be taken seriously, instead of consistently compromising flavour whenever there's some sort of conflict between flavour and mechanical needs...which is a classic geek thing to do - to throw out the baby with the bathwater in an attempt to maintain the integrity of one's precious system.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

You've only now just noticed???

This has been the case since 3E was first released, with monsters being tailored to fit mechanical needs, first and foremost...i.e. "We need another sonic monster so the bard can shine....oh, and a low CR fear-causing monster too." Attach some IMO lame flavour as an afterthought, and you have about half the MM.

....

I think flavour should be taken seriously, instead of consistently compromising flavour whenever there's some sort of conflict between flavour and mechanical needs...which is a classic geek thing to do - to throw out the baby with the bathwater in an attempt to maintain the integrity of one's precious system.

It would be trivially easy to support those charges against 1e with its painfully anemic treatment of fey and dragons seemingly more inspired by color wheels and in game whizbang mechanics than mythology. Acid breath?!? Shall I go on?

In fact, I could argue that 3e treats flavor more seriously than any previous edition by the introduction of templates -- Fiendish Apes, Half-Celestial Elves PCs, Alienist familiars, etc. The technology is here for that gives a powerful and flexible means of dealing with themes.

Of course, this is all purely subjective.

 

[rounser]

It would be trivially easy to support those charges against 1e with its painfully anemic treatment of fey and dragons seemingly more inspired by color wheels and in game whizbang mechanics than mythology. Acid breath?!? Shall I go on?

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

Besides, 3E inherited all that stuff without modification, and saw fit to put such flavour "gems" like the digester, choker, krenshar, tojanida, phantom fungus, spider eater, destrachan, howler, girallon, ravid, rast, ethereal filcher & marauder, grey render, athach, delver, yrthak and devourer in the core monster book. Wouldn't touch most of those with a 10 foot pole.

From what I gather, the reason why this (IMO) carnival of lame is in there is for mechanical reasons - no other edition of the game seems to have put the wagon before the horse in this way as a matter of course.

In fact, I could argue that 3e treats flavor more seriously than any previous edition by the introduction of templates -- Fiendish Apes, Half-Celestial Elves PCs, Alienist familiars, etc. The technology is here for that gives a powerful and flexible means of dealing with themes.

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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

Didn't you want monsters based on mythological roots, rather than mechanics?

Besides, 3E inherited all that stuff without modification, and saw fit to put such flavour "gems" like the digester, choker, krenshar, tojanida, phantom fungus, spider eater, destrachan, howler, girallon, ravid, rast, ethereal filcher & marauder, grey render, athach, delver, yrthak and devourer in the core monster book. Wouldn't touch most of those with a 10 foot pole.

The Choker is an inherited Basic D&D monster and the athach is both a Basic D&D monster and a mythological critter.

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.

By that argument, we might as well toss the whole game out, since for every cool thing someone can do with it, someone creates a non-evil dual-scimitar-wielding drow ranger or a fast-talking halfling-as-kender rogue.

Templating does allow, when properly used, a lot of things that previously were a lot more difficult in previous versions, like creating lots of creatures from the elemental planes quickly or making an army of the damned not be the same few creatures over and over again, etc.

Yes, it can be abused. So can (and is) everything else in the game.

 

[rounser]

Didn't you want monsters based on mythological roots, rather than mechanics?

D&D already has the classic firebreathing dragon. You don't have a point.

The Choker is an inherited Basic D&D monster and the athach is both a Basic D&D monster and a mythological critter.

I considered the athach lame in OD&D too (what is it with assymetrical monsters and the MM?). There are plenty of lame mythological monsters, for that matter.

I think the phantom fungus dates back older than 3E as well, which is why I edited my post. In any case, the choker has flavour problems as well. The problem is the underlying philosophy which put these monsters into the MM: "Oh, the bard needs some sonic-monsters, so yrthak and destrachan, and we need to make remove fear useful, so krenshar, and an acid-attacking monster, so digester etc." All four turned out (IMO) lame flavourwise....coincidence?

Yes, it can be abused. So can (and is) everything else in the game.

All I was pointing out is that it's a terrible example of how 3E is more "flavour friendly".

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

D&D already has the classic firebreathing dragon. You don't have a point.

You specifically decried creating new monsters for purely mechanical reasons. Slapping a coat of paint on a dragon and changing its damage type is creating a new monster for a purely mechanical reason.

Now, it's either not a big issue to you when the resulting monster is cool enough -- say so, if this is it -- or it's not really an issue to you at all.

I considered the athach lame in OD&D too (what is it with assymetrical monsters and the MM?). There are plenty of lame mythological monsters, for that matter.

You did specifically exempt other monsters due to the grandfather clause. The athach gets in under it, if one exists.

I think the phantom fungus dates back older than 3E as well, which is why I edited my post.

I think it actually was a monster created for 3E. I seem to recall Monte or someone discussing it on the WotC site. It's the archetypal monster created for mechanical reasons: They wanted to give players a chance to deal with invisibility at a low level without dealing with the other complications of an invisible caster.

In any case, the choker has flavour problems as well.

Well, I'd never put one in my mouth, personally, but so long as you're a consenting adult and a consenting aberration, have at it.

Me, I think they fit in just fine into a world with beholders and mind flayers. Indeed, they feel like they were designed to fit in that same pseudonatural ecology.

All I was pointing out is that it's a terrible example of how 3E is more "flavour friendly".

Except, it's not a terrible example. I can whip up 100 fire-based creatures in 100 minutes now. Gone are the days where things like "fire bats" are new creatures just because someone wanted a flying fire elemental. Templates are insanely useful, for all that the morons that you (and I) hopefully don't play with anyway abuse them.