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

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Se, that's the thing that bothers me about this article. Its not that they gave us an origin story, it that the origin story is "one-true-wayism", which was one of the things I was hoping 5E was leaving behind.

I don't see that at all. I see it as "one-wayism", as in this is one way medusae can be portrayed. They haven't ruled out multiple origin stories in the same monster write-up. They haven't shed light on what will be in the DMG, which could include a section about modifying aspects of the game to fit your campaign world. IMO, they don't need to keep telling us we can change what they design, because 1) they told us so in their goals (re:modularity), and 2) we are all smart enough to know that we can and always have done this.

 

[Weather Report]

I never fret about this sort of stuff, so many ways to go with monster mythology, it's campaign dependant for me.

 

[Warbringer]

In sort, its a default mythology for the branded game; your game is your brand, this is simply theirs. And at its heart its trying to capture "when you think about this monster in the D&D branded mythology, what comes to mind."

This is necessary if WoTC wants to enable fast play for DMs and players, where he 2-4 hour games all in (including prep) can be achieved, and it needs to be archived for the game to expand towards mass (small mass) market.

Me? I'll probably ignore most of the fluff, though mine it for ideas (just like the last edition)

 

[Zaukrie]

I am pretty sure that WotC is not saying there is one true way. I have no idea, given everything they have said, how anyone could even think this. On the topic, I love story in the MM. As a DM, I can choose to use it or not. As a busy adult, I like, nay, need, the jumpstart. A MM with only stats is nearly useless to me. I cannot imagine a new DM running much without it. But then, the sides are already drawn on this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I strongly value the idea of continuity between editions' narrative. I wish my children will play D&D 7e or 8e and will encounter the same monsters with the same backstories that I have, so that we have something to share. I dread the idea of hearing stuff like "but this is how drow are nowadays, they are all demons, they have wings, and they ride dinosaurs". I even hate campaign settings with metaplots having big changes to conform to new rules, instead of the rules conforming to a campaign setting's needs.

That's an interesting perspective. I'm not quite so cleaved to traditional lore myself, and winged demon-drow on dinosaurs sounds awesome to me. But I think a modular format captures the best of both worlds: THESE medusa can be one thing, THOSE medusa can be another, and YOUR medusa might be one of those or something else, but either way there isn't a single medusa that defines what medusae are for the game, and you're making an active choice whenever you use a medusa about what purpose to use that particular medusa moment for.

What he says is this is material to hopefully inspire you to create your own ideas for your campaign. At no point does he say this is the "one-true-way" to do it. Indeed, suggesting the material is there to inspire your own ideas is pretty much the opposite of declaring something the one true way. He's saying you do have the option to take it or leave it, but hopefully you will find the material inspiring for your own ideas.

The thing is, saying This Is What Medusa Are Like In D&D hurts that goal. It doesn't empower me to define medusa for myself.

Now, since I'm a lazy DM and I don't always want to define medusa for myself, having a no-thought solution is boffo. Also boffo for the newbie DM.

But it's a mistake to take one no-thought solution and propose that as This Is What Medusa Are Like In D&D, because monsters are actually always opt-in, functionally speaking: I always make an active choice to say Medusa In My Games Are Like This, even if all that is is pointing at the MM and saying that.

If the purpose of the design is to enable us to make our own Medusa for our own campaign, then this is not a design methodology that is meeting that goal as far as I can see.

IMO, they don't need to keep telling us we can change what they design, because 1) they told us so in their goals (re:modularity), and 2) we are all smart enough to know that we can and always have done this.

IMO, they need to take actual human behavior into account when designing the game, regardless of how smart with think we all are.

 

[Savage Wombat]

If you think about it, the fact that we're referring to the creature in question as "a medusa" instead of "a gorgon" shows how much influence the words in the Monster Manual have compared to the original source material. If they want to say "make up your own mind as to origin" they should say so, not just leave it for the advanced reader.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

IMO, they need to take actual human behavior into account when designing the game, regardless of how smart with think we all are.

I have no preference over opt-in and opt-out approaches when it comes to games ("free" trials are another matter). So I wouldn't be bothered if they took an opt-in approach (or whichever it is you've advocated for in recent threads). But I would have a problem if they decided to not bother putting anything new in the MM like others have suggested. I don't want to hunt down various articles in whatever "magazine" they produce for 5E. I don't want to buy their adventures solely for the purpose of getting monster origin stories. I don't want a stat-block only MM. And I don't want the information provided for monsters to only be ecological (it has its place and use, but I don't want that to be all there is).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have no preference over opt-in and opt-out approaches when it comes to games ("free" trials are another matter). So I wouldn't be bothered if they took an opt-in approach (or whichever it is you've advocated for in recent threads). But I would have a problem if they decided to not bother putting anything new in the MM like others have suggested. I don't want to hunt down various articles in whatever "magazine" they produce for 5E. I don't want to buy their adventures solely for the purpose of getting monster origin stories. I don't want a stat-block only MM. And I don't want the information provided for monsters to only be ecological (it has its place and use, but I don't want that to be all there is).

No argument here! I like new stuff, I like complete stuff, and I like game-relevant stuff I can use right away. I also like stuff that asks me if I want to use it rather than stuff that presumes I'm going to use it.

 

[Li Shenron]

That's an interesting perspective. I'm not quite so cleaved to traditional lore myself, and winged demon-drow on dinosaurs sounds awesome to me. But I think a modular format captures the best of both worlds: THESE medusa can be one thing, THOSE medusa can be another, and YOUR medusa might be one of those or something else, but either way there isn't a single medusa that defines what medusae are for the game, and you're making an active choice whenever you use a medusa about what purpose to use that particular medusa moment for.

Sure, but I think the problem is that the designers can put in the book only one version, and that will be the default.

First of all, what is cool for someone is uncool for others. If they change a creature significantly, there is probably roughly as many people switching from dislike to like as there are switching from like to dislike. At least, if they don't change what already is, there is a general benefit of continuity between old and new campaign settings and adventures.

That said, if they think that a new concept like "results of trading off 10 years of beauty for ugliness afterward" is cool and worth putting in the book, why applying it to a monster that already has a different characterization? Why not increasing the ties of the Medusa with the real-world mythology or folklore instead, and leave the new cool idea for another creature (doesn't have to be an entirely new creature, could be an underdeveloped D&D creature without already a real-world myth)?

This is the problem I have... if I think of that trade-off concept by itself, I say why not, a creature like that in a fantasy world has a cool story. But then what the hell it's not the traditional story of a gorgon/medusa anymore! How would you feel if the designers decided that from now on the Drow are demon-blooded planehopper rogues and the Tiefling are now spiders-lovers living in the underdark and led by female priestesses? Aren't these two cool concepts for evil humanoid races after all?

 

[Li Shenron]

If you think about it, the fact that we're referring to the creature in question as "a medusa" instead of "a gorgon" shows how much influence the words in the Monster Manual have compared to the original source material. If they want to say "make up your own mind as to origin" they should say so, not just leave it for the advanced reader.

Fixing their names to "Gorgons" would be certainly an improvement.