D&D 5E Legends & Lore 3/17 /14

[Hussar]

I come out in a slightly different place.

I think the bits of specific fluff and links are useful. Useful to lazy DMs, useful to newbie DMs, useful to big-boy DMs who want to run with it or tweak it. I'd much rather it be explicit.

What's not as useful -- to any of those groups -- is making it a default assumption of the game. It might not be hard-coded (which is better than it otherwise could be!), but if a new player is going to encounter the story that jackalweres are from Pseudo-Egypt and are linked with the god Set, and their reaction is, "I'm confused, I thought they were loyal followers this demon Grazz'zt?" (or worse, "No, they're made by this Grazz'zt thing, says so right here."), that's annoying. That's less modular and flexible than it could be. That throws up roadblocks (and it's unclear to me what benefit those roadblocks offer -- mearls insists that the stories the designers make have a point, but why they need to be the game's default assumption eludes me).

I like good, specific fluff. What I'm not so enamored of is training players to expect a certain story when D&D is a game of imagination and creativity, about forging and telling your own stories. Part of what makes DMing fun is finding out what jackalweres are in your world, what makes them interesting to you, even if it's just selecting from a list of currently-existing jackalwere stories. A game that says, "Jackalweres are X" makes that fun harder to have, since it gives players an expectation that you need to contradict, rather than just giving you an idea that you can use.

Now here's a question. You and I and others went several rounds over Planescape lore and how designers should not make any changes which negate existing ps lore.

How do you jive that with what you are saying here which is that lore should be fluid and easily changed?

 

[Klaus]

if a new player is going to encounter the story that jackalweres are from Pseudo-Egypt and are linked with the god Set, and their reaction is, "I'm confused, I thought they were loyal followers this demon Grazz'zt?" (or worse, "No, they're made by this Grazz'zt thing, says so right here."), that's annoying.

Who *are* these new players, that know so much of jackalweres and Grazzt?

IME, the more common reaction is "so these are kinda demon werewolf thingies?" or "kill the jackalmen! Thundercats, ho!".

Tying jackalweres and lamias to Graz'zt is no different than tying dragons to Io, Bahamut and Tiamat, or tying drow to Lolth, or tying undead to Orcus, or tying Asmodeus to the Nine Hells. It's default D&D fluff, and DMs are free to change these assumptions for their campaigns.

 

[TerraDave]

I agree with many of the previous posts.

I like the use of the Monstrous Manual and Monster Vault--but in a book called the Monster Manual.

However, the back story beyond that doesn't do much for me. Not all creatures need to be githyanki or drow. I will never use 95% of it in game, and there are some players which actually look at this stuff (which is incorporated into wikipedia and other places).

And it doesn't fit that well with common approaches to DMing. Neither the "there is a lot of different kinds of monsters in this dungeon/wilderness" approach nor the "DM has carefully crafted his own story/world approach" expect for a handful of the monsters.

And there is a solution. Put this stuff in the Grazz't (or Bahumat, or Demogorgon...) entry. Someone wants to a do a big campaign around it and that particular power can, the rest of us can just ignore it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Now here's a question. You and I and others went several rounds over Planescape lore and how designers should not make any changes which negate existing ps lore.

How do you jive that with what you are saying here which is that lore should be fluid and easily changed?

So the way that I'd propose -- "options, not assumptions" if you're into soundbites. -- both preserves the old lore and makes it possible to have entirely new lore, by recognizing that each one is specific to a given kind of game or setting.

Because it lets us say, for instance, "Mariliths in the Planescape setting are demonic generals in the unending Blood War where demons fight devils for supremacy over the concept of Evil itself."

But then turn around and also say, for instance, "In the Forgotten Realms, Mariliths are servants of chaotic evil deities, especially Loviatar, the Maiden of Pain." (that bit of FR lore might be wrong, I'm no scholar on the stuff)

And then you could even go the extra mile and say "Mariliths on the Dragon Isles serve the Red Dragon as consorts and spies, and are born out of red dragon blood being infused into mountain fey called Oreads." (all new lore!)

But you don't just say "Mariliths are creations of Zehir the Snake God" and leave it at that. Though you could say, "Zehir, a god in the Nentir Vale, is the creator of Mariliths there."

The idea being that it's not four different kinds of mariliths fighting to be called The One True Marilith (ie, the one the game assumes as a default), but rather four different kinds of mariliths that can all exist independent of each other, or even alongside each other (Mariliths serve evil gods and red dragons and also are generals in a plane-wide Blood War, why not? Or maybe there's different factions among the Mariliths!).

The list doesn't need to be exhaustive (and if I had my druthers, each one might come with its own ability or trait that tied it more to any given setting -- maybe PS Mariliths get some Warlord/leader-style commanding strike ability, maybe Dragon Isles Mariliths get a little elemental rock ability for being descended from Oreads, maybe Nentir Vale Mariliths can shed their skin to heal HP, whatever). In fact, you could just choose one version, and go with it, but mix in different settings. Mariliths from the Dragon Isles. Balors from Planescape. Galbrezu from the Forgotten Realms. Rutterkin from the Nentir Vale. Whatev. That'd take up no more space than in a normal MM.

I always fall on the side that says the game should never be designed to just placate obnoxious players.

I guess where I disagree is that I don't see players who make the assumptions that the writers of the books clearly intended them to make as obnoxious. They're mislead. Under-informed. They listened to someone who promised to tell them the way things were, but the thing that they listened to wasn't entirely honest. It omitted a lot of how things are. It showed you the color orange and said "rainbows are this color," which is true, but they're also a lot of other colors. It elided the interesting complexity in the world in favor of....well, I don't know, exactly. To throw a bone to a brand team that is terrified of honest complexity? To make the designers' amateur fiction-writing dreams come a little bit true? There's value in the stories that the designers tell, Mearls says. What he doesn't say is why those stories are so valuable that they need to be presumed standard. Why is that worth the (admittedly, small in most cases) hassle of contradicting a player who presumes that rainbows are orange or that jackalweres are Grazz'zt-related?

 

[Klaus]

I agree with many of the previous posts.

I like the use of the Monstrous Manual and Monster Vault--but in a book called the Monster Manual.

However, the back story beyond that doesn't do much for me. Not all creatures need to be githyanki or drow. I will never use 95% of it in game, and there are some players which actually look at this stuff (which is incorporated into wikipedia and other places).

And it doesn't fit that well with common approaches to DMing. Neither the "there is a lot of different kinds of monsters in this dungeon/wilderness" approach nor the "DM has carefully crafted his own story/world approach" expect for a handful of the monsters.

And there is a solution. Put this stuff in the Grazz't (or Bahumat, or Demogorgon...) entry. Someone wants to a do a big campaign around it and that particular power can, the rest of us can just ignore it.

Except that it fits perfectly with both approaches. Whether "there's a lot of monsters" or "DM carefully crafts", the story (if used) gives you at least three different creatures to use (jackalweres, lamias and demons).

As for your "solution", I don't agree. Most DMs don't start adventure planning by looking at an epic-level boss, they skim through level-appropriate creatures in search of something that sparks their imaginations. IMHO, the story should be included (briefly) in all three entries (jackalweres, lamias and Graz'zt), with each part focusing on the appropriate creature.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Who *are* these new players, that know so much of jackalweres and Grazzt?

IME, the more common reaction is "so these are kinda demon werewolf thingies?" or "kill the jackalmen! Thundercats, ho!".

Players who read the books and absorbed the lore. Exactly the kind of engaged, motivated players that I'd prefer to encourage rather than to introduce them to D&D and show them that all their study is pointless when it comes to world lore because I -- SHOCK! -- don't play in the assumed setting. Like most DMs.

Tying jackalweres and lamias to Graz'zt is no different than tying dragons to Io, Bahamut and Tiamat, or tying drow to Lolth, or tying undead to Orcus, or tying Asmodeus to the Nine Hells. It's default D&D fluff, and DMs are free to change these assumptions for their campaigns.

There's no such thing as default D&D, no matter how much the books have occasionally tried to make that true. Every table is its own microcosm, every game is different, and that difference shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Klaus]

Players who read the books and absorbed the lore.

(still trying to find players that read more than the sections of the PHB that pertain directly to their character...)

And if they read the books and absorbed the lore, then they've also absorbed the notion that DMs are free to use, adapt or ignore the lore as they see fit.

There's no such thing as default D&D, no matter how much the books have occasionally tried to make that true. Every table is its own microcosm, every game is different, and that difference shouldn't be ignored.

Yes, each table is its own microcosm, every game is different, and still most drow will be associated with spiders, worship a Lolth-like being and dwell underground.

More likely than not, individual DMs end up using these bits of lore as LEGO bricks, assembling them to build unique worlds, and only here and there make up custom bricks from clay.

 

[I'm A Banana]

(still trying to find players that read more than the sections of the PHB that pertain directly to their character...)

And if they read the books and absorbed the lore, then they've also absorbed the notion that DMs are free to use, adapt or ignore the lore as they see fit.

It's disheartening, though. It's like you were really excited by this job interview, learned about the company, researched the position, and absorbed the mission statement as your own. And then you get there, and they person you're interviewing with tells you it's a different position, at a different company, and actually all that stuff you read up on is out-dated now.

"Why'd I even read that and care about it, if I can't use it?"

Yes, each table is its own microcosm, every game is different, and still most drow will be associated with spiders, worship a Lolth-like being and dwell underground.

Unless Eberron. Unless Dark Sun. Unless the players are fans of WoW. Unless they're into nordic myth. Unless, unless, unless. Why not empower DMs to use whatever story they find most awesome and fun and get their engaged, interested players on board, rather than set up players to make assumptions that might not pan out?

A compelling story is useful, and there is a compelling story for drow, but it's still not a default. It's a choice to use that story. It's a choice to engage with that compelling story rather than create your own or go with a different (possibly equally, possibly more compelling) story.

More likely than not, individual DMs end up using these bits of lore as LEGO bricks, assembling them to build unique worlds, and only here and there make up custom bricks from clay.

Yeah, but if the manual defaults to you building a castle with those LEGO bricks, and someone comes over to your house excited to make a castle, it's going to suck for them to hear you actually want to make a space station. That's suck that can be avoided by the manual showing you how to build a castle...and also how to build a space station...and also how to build a WWII fortress....I mean, the manual in this case is ~300 pages of monster entries after all. No reason it needs to be limited to one setting.

 

[SkidAce]

I tend to agree with [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION], that this is fine if the presentation is changed so that Graz'zt's name isn't dropped specifically in the jackalwere & lamia entries, rather alluding to demon lords. And
under Graz'zt's entry it can say "jackalweres, lamias, cambions, succubi, and six-fingered cultists number among the servitors of Graz'zt."

What seems off about the jackalweres being tied to Graz'zt is that jackalweres have been associated with dry lands, and they've always had an Egyptian vibe in my games. Graz'zt doesn't associate readily with deserts or Egyptian themes (unless they're rescinding him in 5e), but a god like Set fits that role quite naturally.

That's what I mean about the lore feeling a bit forced. Obviously it is easy enough to re-skin, but that means players who get used to the new lore now have it as a default assumption. "OK, jackalweres, (monster knowledge check) that means Graz'zt is behind this." To which I need to respond: "Not in my world." It's not that doing this once or twice is an issue, it's when it happens a lot that certain players can feel...undermined? I'm not sure what the word is, but there is a certain player type who like to have their game lore mastery be rewarded, and enough instances of me saying "Not in my world" as DM could be off-putting.

Now this would only be an issue for a DM who has a rotating player basis or who is in transition between groups (I happen to be in the first category).

Yeah, I ran into that when I was in the military...rebuilding groups every couple of years.

 

[TerraDave]

Except that it fits perfectly with both approaches. Whether "there's a lot of monsters" or "DM carefully crafts", the story (if used) gives you at least three different creatures to use (jackalweres, lamias and demons).

As for your "solution", I don't agree. Most DMs don't start adventure planning by looking at an epic-level boss, they skim through level-appropriate creatures in search of something that sparks their imaginations. IMHO, the story should be included (briefly) in all three entries (jackalweres, lamias and Graz'zt), with each part focusing on the appropriate creature.

The story, what story? Thats the problem.

In the many monster approach, you don't want every monster to have some huge elaborate back story. Its really not workable. At all. You may have some backstory for the dungeon or area as a whole, but you don't want a bunch of other stories on top of that. Take any of the many adventures now on D&D classic. The classic ones. The famous ones. You could add a twist here or there, but most monsters don't need much more then what they have.

Now, lets take a very different approach. One much more coherent with a very sensible back story and hooks and plot elements. Created by the DM. Now the DM has created the story. He may get a few things from these MM stories, but again most of it is coming from him, and those stories are just superfluous or can get in the way.

There could be an episodic homebrew approach where the story is more useful, but even here I am skeptical. You want to do a session with a few monsters here, then another with a few there, you don't need name beings. You can link the jackalweres and lamia, but you don't need the demonlord.