D&D 5E (2014) L&L: Monsters and Stories

[Kinak]

I'm not terribly concerned with WotC sending out new backstories, as long as they're compatible with what came before. I personally like having a bit more lore than 3.x and certainly way more than early 4e.

It is interesting to see, though, how far they've drifted since the minotaur article of yesteryear. I mean, that was trying to be all things to all people, this is just describing one specific version of a monster. It's certainly a change of direction.

But this particular backstory is a terrible one. Not because it's not interesting or engaging, it is, but for the reason [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] points out: if someone puts a deal like that in the game, it behooves them to explain what happens when players seek it out.

It's possible they have a solution to that in their back pocket, but it doesn't sound like it's even come up from the article. Without that information, the medusa described weakens the game it's put in. If I'm relying on WotC to give me fluff so I don't have to build it, I want plot hooks, not tripwires.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[TerraDave]

I had to actually stop myself from cursing out loud while reading it...so no, didn't love it.

My position is somewhere between this...

No. Give us the monster and what it is now. Let us decide how it came to be, and how it makes more of its own kind.

...

and this...

I like stories behind monsters, but I rather prefer they either stick to D&D tradition as much as possible, or they integrate by using concepts and ideas taken from real-world folklore and classical literature.

probably closest to this:

Same boat. Except I have 2 kids. I prefer minimal fluff for monsters..S&W, Moldvay, etc. 3.0 MM is pretty good too.

Where I WILL pay for story, is quality adventure material, or setting material,.which is where it should be, IMO, not core products meant to appeal to the most broad section of gamers. Not to mention the legions of gamers who feel that whatever is in the book, is the gospel.

Mike is swinging around the branding iron this week...James must be tired from the last two weeks.

They put their stories in the wrong places. This would work great for an adventure or article. But every monster in a game does not need this. And backstory in the core isn't just filler, it can be annoying for a DM. The less I have to say "it doesn't work that way in my campaign" the happier I tend to be.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the trend toward "We're going to rework all the lore!" that I've been seeing in Wyatt's monster posts, and that Mearls is now echoing. Come on! Didn't they learn anything from 4E? The designers of 1E had the luxury of making up whatever lore they felt like, because they were writing on a mostly-blank slate. But that was forty years ago. The advantage of working within an established franchise is that you get the benefit of its established customer base; but the tradeoff is that you don't have the freedom to do whatever you want.

The way to do this is to offer scraps of legend and scholarly debate which might or might not be true, and then let DMs decide where they want to go. Personally, I dislike this take on medusa origins, so I won't be using it.

Backstory in the core isn't just filler, it can be annoying for a DM. The less I have to say "it doesn't work that way in my campaign" the happier I tend to be.

YES. This. A hundred times this. I like having engaged players who read more than just the bare minimum of game material, but not if that means I have to constantly correct them on which bits of my setting don't work the way the book says.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm mildly disappointed. The new medusas (medusae?) sound like weak creatures (they have usually been). I was hoping for some kind of "epic" solo/legendary monster. After all, it has a gaze that can petrify you and the rest of your group, and the legendary mechanic includes clues about what kind of creature you can face.

Also, who would give up the rest of their life for a mere ten years of beauty? Does the typical medusa have a really low Int and Wisdom?

 

[TerraDave]

I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the trend toward "We're going to rework all the lore!" that I've been seeing in Wyatt's monster posts, and that Mearls is now echoing. Come on! Didn't they learn anything from 4E? The designers of 1E had the luxury of making up whatever lore they felt like, because they were writing on a mostly-blank slate. But that was forty years ago. The advantage of working within an established franchise is that you get the benefit of its established customer base; but the tradeoff is that you don't have the freedom to do whatever you want.

Yes.

 

[Mistwell]

When looking at monsters for D&D Next, we start by looking at how they've been portrayed in the game over the years. Is a critter devious and likely to set up ambushes, or is it a simple brute that loves to wade into melee? Is it a mastermind that gathers minions to command, or does it keep to itself and rely solely on its own abilities?

These questions are useful because they give us a sense of how most players and DMs have experienced the creature in the past. It's a starting point we can use for a monster's story that allows it to remain consistent with how the creature has behaved in previous editions of the game.

However, even as we keep the monster's fundamental role in the D&D cosmos unchanged, we can introduce new stories or flesh out details that have previously been left vague

I am not sure how that matches...

I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the trend toward "We're going to rework all the lore!" that I've been seeing in Wyatt's monster posts, and that Mearls is now echoing.

Your summary of what he said, does not match what he said. Introducing new stories or fleshing out details that have previously been left vague is not the same as reworking all the prior lore.

YES. This. A hundred times this. I like having engaged players who read more than just the bare minimum of game material, but not if that means I have to constantly correct them on which bits of my setting don't work the way the book says.

The players should not be focusing on the monster manual. That solves that problem nicely. It's a tool for when you are DMing. Players who start quoting the Monster Manual to you in your game need to be set straight on that.

 

[TwoSix]

Also, who would give up the rest of their life for a mere ten years of beauty? Does the typical medusa have a really low Int and Wisdom?

Teenagers? If you were the village ugly person, and you could have ten years of making all the cruel people in your village worship you, why wouldn't you take it?

Never underestimate the human ability to be shortsighted and emotional. That's what the great tragedies are made of!

 

[Nagol]

Teenagers? If you were the village ugly person, and you could have ten years of making all the cruel people in your village worship you, why wouldn't you take it?

Never underestimate the human ability to be shortsighted and emotional. That's what the great tragedies are made of!

Not to mention the ability to convince oneself that the downside won't apply to me! I'll find a way out!

 

[Dausuul]

Your summary of what he said, does not match what he said.

I'm not "summarizing" Mearls's post. I'm observing a trend in James Wyatt's monster posts, wherein he presents us with a monster and then reworks all the lore about that monster, sometimes subtly and sometimes radically. This post from Mearls follows the same pattern.

The players should not be focusing on the monster manual. That solves that problem nicely.

Possibly the dumbest idea Gary Gygax ever had was the conceit that there would be a rigorous separation of player from DM, and the former would never read material intended for the latter. I thought that particular idea had long ago been consigned to the dustbin of history. Engaged and interested players read the books, and that includes monster books. Furthermore, DMing duties are often traded around; I myself am currently a player after some years as the primary DM for my group, while one of my former players tries his hand behind the screen. But I still know more D&D monster lore than he does.

 

[TwoSix]

Possibly the dumbest idea Gary Gygax ever had was the conceit that there would be a rigorous separation of player from DM, and the former would never read material intended for the latter. I thought that particular idea had long ago been consigned to the dustbin of history. Engaged and interested players read the books, and that includes monster books. Furthermore, DMing duties are often traded around; I myself am currently a player after some years as the primary DM for my group, while one of my former players tries his hand behind the screen. But I still know more D&D monster lore than he does.

So just be upfront at the start of the campaign that your campaign deviates a lot from D&D orthodoxy, and that their characters will need some knowledge skills to know some of the features of the monsters in YOUR world. Then attack them with fire breathing white dragons mounted by ten foot tall elves with battle axes just to prove the point.