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

[Weather Report]

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

I concur, Medusa is one chick.

 

[Morrus]

This is some quite fervent discussion - but none of us have seen what the Monster Manual (assuming there is one) will look like. But maybe the MM will say "Here's an idea for how to use the Medusa in a campaign"? (Well, it doesn't yet - but only because the MM hasn't been written yet; whether it will or not is the question).

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is some quite fervent discussion - but none of us have seen what the Monster Manual (assuming there is one) will look like. But maybe the MM will say "Here's an idea for how to use the Medusa in a campaign"? (Well, it doesn't yet - but only because the MM hasn't been written yet; whether it will or not is the question).

Hey, it might, and more power to 'em if it does. It's hard to see that from what they're saying in these articles, though. The way James and Mike and even sometimes Jon are talking about these things, they are saying "Medusas are X" or "Goblins are Y" or "Kobolds are Z" or "Minotaurs are Q" or "The planes are W." And the way I see it, they may have some misplaced incentive to limit other takes on these game elements (the "Branding Iron" referred to upthread, wielded inexpertly). They've certainly made mention of a plausible rationale for this approach (a "consistent experience"), and this kind of "here's the fiction, take it or leave it!" style was certainly the established way that 4e entered the scene, and pretty much also the way that elder D&D operated (especially in 2e).

So, I think it's a reasonable thing to be vigilant about, if one hopes to see that not happen in 5e. It's happened before, it is sort of the default mode of D&D, the tone of the articles doesn't suggest anything different, they've offered rationale, and there may be a (misaligned, IMO) incentive from the business/brand side that encourages them to think this way.

If Mike or James wants to write an article about how they plan on presenting monsters in 5e, I'd certainly be open to seeing what they have in store in more detail! What we've seen so far has been pretty definitional. That might not be accurate to what their plan is, though.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Same ridiculous argument.

"I have to tell my players that I'm not using every single thing that appears in any of the books completely as written. I'm changing some stuff for my campaign."

How heartless could WotC be? Making you actually talk with your players? DAMN THEM!!! DAMN THEM TO HELL!!!

 

[Mistwell]

Same ridiculous argument.

"I have to tell my players that I'm not using every single thing that appears in any of the books completely as written. I'm changing some stuff for my campaign."

How heartless could WotC be? Making you actually talk with your players? DAMN THEM!!! DAMN THEM TO HELL!!!

Yeah I am really not getting it. I can only assume this is some damage done in more modern editions that shifted power from the DM to the Players, and taught players to think about the game in a different way. The concept that the DM must run it all like it's written, or else players will complain and the DM has to explain themselves, is bizarre to me.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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.

Yeah, I agree. For Medusa, I like the idea that there was originally one (ala the Greek myth) and the subsequent ones are all descendants.

I could live with cursed humans, but can't quite buy the "decade of beauty and eternity of ugly" trade.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"I have to tell my players that I'm not using every single thing that appears in any of the books completely as written. I'm changing some stuff for my campaign."

Yeah I am really not getting it. I can only assume this is some damage done in more modern editions that shifted power from the DM to the Players, and taught players to think about the game in a different way. The concept that the DM must run it all like it's written, or else players will complain and the DM has to explain themselves, is bizarre to me.

Modern science tells us it is a big deal.

When the supposed absurdity of this is brought up, this is my go-to link, becuase it's a decent media's-eye-view on how insanely powerful this phenomenon actually is in practice. 12% vs. 99% -- or even 35% vs. 60% -- is a dramatic shift. This isn't nothing. That isn't insignificant, trivial, or easily handwaved. Simply changing opt-out to opt-in results in a huge change in actual human behavior. According to Science.

Yeah, it's counter-intuitive. You wouldn't expect checking a box to be that big of a deal. You wouldn't expect changing a monster's keyword or ignoring the word "archon" in its description to be that big of a deal, either. But as far as Science can tell is, it is.

Heck, I'll quote right from a related paper by the some of the same psychologists where they tease out some of the reasons this might be:

A major and, perhaps to some, surprising conclusion is that
identifying one option as a default (i.e., the option selected if no
active decision is made) has a sizable impact on what is chosen,
even for economically or socially significant decisions.

So it's a big deal. Says guys who've spent a lot more time on this topic than me. Whether or not it should be or common sense would tell you it is, it is. I don't think it's rational or reasonable to pretend that this doesn't happen in the world of D&D when it happens in situations that can literally save lives. If all that's functionally stopping someone from donating an organ is checking a box, you can bet that a game that doesn't make explicit and intentional its opt-in nature is certainly going to stop someone from changing their Medusa around.

Hope that helps elucidate the actual magnitude we're talking about, here.

 

[Warbringer]

Same ridiculous argument.

"I have to tell my players that I'm not using every single thing that appears in any of the books completely as written. I'm changing some stuff for my campaign."

How heartless could WotC be? Making you actually talk with your players? DAMN THEM!!! DAMN THEM TO HELL!!!

Isn't that the 4e quote?

"We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you. God damn you all to hell."*

---
* please realize this is said in complete humor; i have nothing against 4e: some of my best friends are 4e-ers

 

[Mistwell]

Modern science tells us it is a big deal.

When the supposed absurdity of this is brought up, this is my go-to link, becuase it's a decent media's-eye-view on how insanely powerful this phenomenon actually is in practice. 12% vs. 99% -- or even 35% vs. 60% -- is a dramatic shift. This isn't nothing. That isn't insignificant, trivial, or easily handwaved. Simply changing opt-out to opt-in results in a huge change in actual human behavior. According to Science.

No matter how many times you claim it's "because of science", that doesn't make it so. The studies are not on this specific behavior, they're on general ones. And if there is something special about a particular topic that breaks from the norm (and there is with this one), it's not applicable. You're making what "Science" calls a hasty generalization. You've applied the general to the specific with no evidence the specific properly fits in with the general.

D&D is a game where one party has clear, and acknowledged, vastly superior ability to opt in or opt out. It's the rule - the established parameters of the game is the DM decides on all of it. The books we're talking about, monster books, are specifically for the DM as an aid. House rules for this game are so common they rules expect them, and even try and give guidelines on how to do it effectively, and publish optional rules and modules to accommodate that expected behavior. A huge portion of the game, indeed much of the book we're talking about, is intended for use in creating your own adventures which are not related to a published adventure or setting. None of the standardized generic behavior of "will I or won't I opt in to this thing that does not much matter at the moment" applies to that specific circumstance.

It's the opposite circumstance to the donor card issue - the donor card issue is a position of non-imminent consequence, where lazily defaulting is the norm because it has no immediacy to the individual. With the DM, everything they do with this sort of issue has immediate and direct consequence on their game. They are only in the position to opt-in or opt-out because in that moment they need to make the decision (for either game prep for an imminent game, or for the game in-play itself), which has consequences for them at that time.

Yeah, it's counter-intuitive. You wouldn't expect checking a box to be that big of a deal. You wouldn't expect changing a monster's keyword or ignoring the word "archon" in its description to be that big of a deal, either. But as far as Science can tell is, it is.

As far as Science can tell, it has no idea, as it hasn't tested against a phenomenon like a role created to make those decisions with an assumption of frequent and immediate opt-out with direct imminent consequences.

So it's a big deal.

Or it's totally meaningless and and doesn't account for the thing being debated but pretends all things are equal even when they are obviously not.

Says guys who've spent a lot more time on this topic than me.

Untrue. They've spent zero time playing this game. You've spent plenty. You are way up on them.

Whether or not it should be or common sense would tell you it is, it is. I don't think it's rational or reasonable to pretend that this doesn't happen in the world of D&D when it happens in situations that can literally save lives.

The magnitude of the issue isn't relevant. It's the nature of the person in the position of making opt-in or opt-out decisions, the immediacy of the issue, and the consequences for the person making the decision (not the person benefiting from it).

If all that's functionally stopping someone from donating an organ is checking a box, you can bet that a game that doesn't make explicit and intentional its opt-in nature is certainly going to stop someone from changing their Medusa around.

Every single version of D&D has made it clear that all rules are opt-in or opt-out in nature, it's inherent in the nature of the DM's duties. There is no reason to repeat it for every creature or even in every book.

And even if you didn't know this before this thread (and I suspect based on your experience you did), but you for sure knew it as soon as you read this thread. A whole bunch of people said "meh, I'll just ignore it" and "in my campaign we do X", and "we've always ignored that sort of stuff". So, at that point you knew the theory was not holding up well for D&D.

Hope that helps elucidate the actual magnitude we're talking about, here.

It does not. At least, not for me. I don't buy the argument at all. All it tells me is you probably watched the same TED talk I did.

But since you raised the issue of magnitude, I am also quite unclear on why you would care if many people followed the color text for monsters in their games (though I do not think they will). Why do you feel this impacts you? Why would you care if I and many others were to follow the color text instinctively like you theorize? Seems like even if the quantity of people who do it is high, the magnitude of the impact is very low.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No matter how many times you claim it's "because of science", that doesn't make it so. The studies are not on this specific behavior, they're on general ones.

The papers are available for anyone to read, and I think they're pretty crystal clear that the default effect is huge. They explicitly say that the power of the default effect on many different decisions is one of the takeaways their research shows. If that's not convincing to you, I don't think anything I can say is going to be. If you don't believe the paid, trained experts from Columbia University who say that the simple act of having a default can have a remarkable effect on how people think and act, because they actually make a living studying human thought and behavior, and this is what their research actually tells them, then you ain't never gonna believe some jerk on the internet with a banana avatar.