Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5116855" data-attributes="member: 80487">It was not the game function of Gnolls (and was not the fictional function of Gnoles) to be part of 'culture'. It was their function to have 2 Hit Dice and to do horrible things to human burglars who came for their treasures.Likewise, the "racial essence" of Bugbears (introduced in Supplement I) was filling the gap between 2 HD Gnoles and 4 HD Ogres. Their monstrous appearance made identification of risk levels easier, as one could (apart from "specials") count on Bugbears fighting as 3+1 HD with AC  5. Their monstrous behavior, par for the course, reflects reputation in the reaches of the Ocean of Story whence they originated.Dwarves and Elves and Hobbits were included to make for variety in pawns, the Hobbits apparently as a blatant sop to Frodo-fans. All anyone really got in terms of "culture", beyond the roughly medieval trappings, was the note that "Elves are of two general sorts, those who make their homes in woodlands and those who seek the remote meadowlands."Even the treatments of human types -- Bandits, Berserkers, Brigands, Dervishes, Nomads (Desert and Steppes), Buccaneers, Pirates and Cavemen -- were as "monsters" described in terms of military organization and other combat data.Elaborations since have naturally been at least slightly influenced both by the origins of elements and by the nature of the original D&D game, what it was "about" and how it was played.One thing I would note, though, is that myth and folklore are nobody's "intellectual property". The depictions of many monsters in 4E are at odds even with those of 1E. Green goblins and kobolds, and black (gray?) orcs with human-like (instead of pig-like) faces are minor examples. An awful lot of "fluff" was introduced in the 2E and 3E eras, apparently most often as new players' primary source on those subjects -- and an increasingly "canonical" one in their eyes.Moreover, the game-purposed "essence" -- monster type as guide to combat strength and treasure -- that was already undermined in 3E seems pretty well blown away in 4E. The design is quite different from 1E.Considering that, I think it likely that WotC will continue to turn out many flavors of almost everything but flumphs. It seems to me that the GSL virtually forces third parties to create new variants of monsters. If people will pay enough for products specifying cultural variations, then I reckon we shall see such things.However, the game's combat focus suggests to me that radical departure from monsters being things to be killed so as to take their stuff is unlikely. I would expect exceptions that are notable because of the rule, not wholesale transformation into "just people, too".One particular case seems pretty much to have turned the stereotype upside down: "good guy" Drow, the D&D counterpart to sparkly vampires!</blockquote>

Verification