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

[Campbell]

I don't see where mechanics are being placed above flavor in the monsters described above. The flavor of those monsters might not be to a lot of people's tastes, but I don't think that has anything to do with these monsters being designed for a mechanical niche. The issue I see with a lot of these creatures, and this applies to most of the new monsters detailed in the MM, is that they are more reminiscent of Weird Tales monstrosities than a creature one might expect to encounter in mythology. Of course this isn't a problem for me, but I could see where other people might take issue with these newer monsters.

 

[rounser]

A Monster designed by looking at a plastic toy has no more flair than a monster designed to fill a nieche. But the monster filling the nieche at least has other useful properties.

Theoretically. If the flavour sucks (e.g. avalancher), it doesn't matter what the niche is.

 

[satori01]

Mr. Mearls,

To me, at least, this says that the ogre mage will most likely not be a “big, beefy monster” as you seem to feel they should be. An ogre mage is described as being about ten feet tall and weighs up to 700 pounds. A creature that tall and with that weight would not necessarily be big and beefy. At that height they would have to be thinner and well muscled without looking too bulky.

Shaquille O'neil is 7'2" tall and weighs around 320 lbs. An Ogre Mage by your own admission is 3' taller and weighs almost double what Shaq does. I do not think we are talking Kate Moss here.

It is an Ogre (Mage)...beefy comes with the territory.

 

[rounser]

The flavor of those monsters might not be to a lot of people's tastes, but I don't think that has anything to do with these monsters being designed for a mechanical niche.

I recall Monte Cook explaining the niche-based approach to designing the MM, so I think it does.

 

[Harlekin]

Theoretically. If the flavour sucks (e.g. avalancher), it doesn't matter what the niche is.

The flair of a critter is all in your head. Ever try showing a beholder to a non-gamer and ask him how moch flair the critter has. Nevertheless we have so many associations that foe us it has flair.

And not every new creation can be great. I fully expect a larger number of new monsters to be bad than something of a best of from old editions (although different creatures work for different people). That does not change that the AD&D lineup of monsters had holes that needed filling.

 

[rounser]

The flair of a critter is all in your head. Ever try showing a beholder to a non-gamer and ask him how moch flair the critter has. Nevertheless we have so many associations that foe us it has flair.

Yeah, but this sounds a lot like the chewbacca defense: "The beholder is lame, so you must acquit!"

Look, to all those accusing me of having nostalgia-coloured glasses for older monsters: There are plenty of lame monsters in older monster tomes too which I don't like either. What seems to be new is the cause; a rules mechanics basis for the creation of a lame monster. That's the new and interesting part.

 

[Harlekin]

Yeah, but this sounds a lot like the chewbacca defense: "The beholder is lame, so you must acquit!"

Look, to all those accusing me of having nostalgia-coloured glasses for older monsters: There are plenty of lame monsters in older monster tomes too which I don't like either. What seems to be new is the cause; a rules mechanics basis for the creation of a lame monster. That's the new and interesting part.

Yes, but you have to prove that this creates more lame monster than the old "finger in the wind" method. Because the new "monsters by mechanic" method has the advantage that actually there is always a monster that roughly does what you need at about the right CR in the MM, and that is an advantage. Not to mention that lameness is in the eye of the beholder.

Furthermore, I did not mean to say that the beholder is lame. It is just an aquired taste, like many other old-school D&D monsters. Their main reason for being flovorful is that they have been around for a long time and we remember game events that happened with them in it. And no flavor text in a book can compare to such a memory.

 

[Campbell]

I recall Monte Cook explaining the niche-based approach to designing the MM, so I think it does.

I don't dispute that some of the new monsters were designed with an eye towards their mechanical role. What I dispute is your assumption that the reason you find fault in these creatures' flavor is due to that initial focus. It's not a design philosophy problem, but rather a problem with the execution of that philosophy. Looking at the MM IV for instance I've found a number of flavor-packed creatures that also seem designed in mind with the role that the creatures will play in mind, but which fit more in line with the standard flavor of D&D.

 

[rounser]

Yes, but you have to prove that this creates more lame monster than the old "finger in the wind" method.

The designers keep proving their willingness to compromise flavour for mechanics reasons (e.g. pokemount), to dispose of flavour entirely to suit a design need (e.g. mystic theurge), or to design flavour as an afterthought in order to meet a mechanics need (e.g. yrthak). That's not self-evident enough for you? Sure, some people see no problem with this.

My opinion that the monsters that are a result of this "make monster to fit mechanical niche" process mostly suck is indeed subjective...I respect that krenshar, destrachan, yrthak and digester probably have their fans. You're effectively saying that "hey, I have this cool concept for a monster" is equally likely to result in something lame as "hey, I need a CR 9 flying sonic monster". The way things have panned out, having seen what this priority order has created, I don't think that's the case.

 

[Harlekin]

The designers keep proving their willingness to compromise flavour for mechanics reasons (e.g. pokemount), to dispose of flavour entirely to suit a design need (e.g. mystic theurge), or to design flavour as an afterthought in order to meet a mechanics need (e.g. yrthak). That's not self-evident enough for you? Sure, some people see no problem with this.

My opinion that the monsters that are a result of this "make monster to fit mechanical niche" process mostly suck is indeed subjective...I respect that krenshar, destrachan, yrthak and digester probably have their fans. You're effectively saying that "hey, I have this cool concept for a monster" is equally likely to result in something lame as "hey, I need a CR 9 flying sonic monster". The way things have panned out, having seen what this priority order has created, I don't think that's the case.

Honestly, i see no problem with the mystic theurge ot the yrthak. In my campaing mystic theurges are archpriests of boccob, and I think they fir that role very well. And the Yrthak is not more or less dumb than 90% of the critters in the book.

I have no problem with the Pokemount, but I can see how one might.

In the end I feel that providing flavour is to a large extent the job of the GM. And every GM is using each tool in the game a little differently. So there is little point for the designers to focus on "good flovour" because that means something else for each group. Good mechanics are much more universal. And the old Ogre Mage never had good mechanics.