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

[Dausuul]

I don't always read an MM cover to cover but I do read the into section and the descriptions of what the statblock entries mean for a particular system. That way when I do need to reference a monster the statblock will not have to be decoded.

I find it's a lot easier to understand the "What does the statblock mean?" stuff after I've noodled over some of the statblocks for a bit. Like I said, information without context tends to slide out of the brain.

And in the case of a player reading the Monster Manual purely for fun, they'd have no reason at all to look at the intro.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I get what your saying here, but what I don't get is why a blanket statement at the beginning of the MM stating that each campaign may have different monster lore can't work. There's no need to arbitrarily foist every monster onto a specific setting.

So, to your question: blanket statements like that aren't functional. You'd think they would be, but no, they actually aren't, in practice. 2e made a point of saying DMs make their worlds, but still people felt that the Blood War was foisted on them. 3e had Rule Zero and people still felt like wealth by level was gospel. 4e didn't have Fun Police but people still felt like succubi being devils was the worst.

It doesn't do what it's meant to do. The people who make these criticisms aren't idiots, and they aren't "wrong," the games just aren't living up to their own message -- they aren't DESIGNED or PRESENTED to be played like they occasionally claim to be played as.

Also, the world assignment is not arbitrary. Every monster already has a specific setting that it's a part of. Typically in historical D&D, that's FR or Greyhawk (or the 2e omnisetting) and is left un-stated, but every monster has a specific context. There's no reason FR mariliths need to be defined by their Planescape lore, and no reason PS mariliths need to play by FR's rules, either.

Most people don't sit down, pick up the Monster Manual, and read it cover to cover, carefully assimilating every word.
...
In 25 years of gaming, I don't think I've ever read the opening pages of a Monster Manual in their entirety. Why would I? It's a reference book, not a novel! I bought it because I wanted to read about monsters and monster lore. The rest, I'll look up when I need it.

Apparently you're the kind of player that [MENTION=184]Agamon[/MENTION] thinks can't put on his pants. That's totally a part of what I was talking about above with a paragraph in the opening being ineffective. If people don't read it, certainly they are going to miss the fact that this presented default cannot be assumed.

Second, you're contradicting yourself a bit here. Why would you read the MM? Because you want to read about fantastic creatures and their lore. Because you are 14 years old and you're excited by your new Christmas present and you can't wait to get back to school and talk to your friends about this thing. Because your roommate left it on the coffee table and you were bored one night. Because your new girlfriend seems REALLY into this.

The MM isn't just a reference book. It's also a window into the worlds of fantasy and imagination that these stories unlock. Why can't it be a window into all the awesome D&D stories that are out there, and some new ones to boot?

 

[Agamon]

Most people don't sit down, pick up the Monster Manual, and read it cover to cover, carefully assimilating every word. This is something I see a lot as a software developer: People are not computers. Present them with a page of detailed instructions and they won't read it. Or if they do read it, they'll forget most of it, because they have no context to slot it into. Instead, they'll just jump in and start trying whatever looks promising, according to whatever paradigm they've already got in their heads. You can call them morons and scream about how it shouldn't be that way, but you're just swinging your sword at the tide; this is human nature, deal with it.

In 25 years of gaming, I don't think I've ever read the opening pages of a Monster Manual in their entirety. Why would I? It's a reference book, not a novel! I bought it because I wanted to read about monsters and monster lore. The rest, I'll look up when I need it.

This is a fair statement, but not the point, really. I'm the same way. A list of spells? Read them when I need to. Feats? Same thing. Monsters? Yup.

However, I do read how the spells, in general, work. That's part of knowing how to play the game. Same thing with feats. And the same with monsters. Every MM has had a section explaining what each part of the monster listing means. If you don't read that, you aren't reading the rules. It's the same as assuming you know how spells work without reading the magic section.

This is a tabletop roleplaying game. It doesn't run itself like a piece of software. You have to read the rules to play, there's no tutorial. And if someone reads the rules and choose to instantly forget it, that's their problem. Why cater to the lowest common denominator?

And as I stated, dumb people will be dumb no matter how you build the game. Build it, and someone, somewhere, will find a way to break it.

 

[Agamon]

So, to your question: blanket statements like that aren't functional. You'd think they would be, but no, they actually aren't, in practice. 2e made a point of saying DMs make their worlds, but still people felt that the Blood War was foisted on them. 3e had Rule Zero and people still felt like wealth by level was gospel. 4e didn't have Fun Police but people still felt like succubi being devils was the worst.

It doesn't do what it's meant to do. The people who make these criticisms aren't idiots, and they aren't "wrong," the games just aren't living up to their own message -- they aren't DESIGNED or PRESENTED to be played like they occasionally claim to be played as.

So, it's your opinion that people mistake the difference between crunch and fluff? It's one thing to say Rule Zero in 3e and then try to ignore things like wealth by level or alignment when hey are basically tattooed into the system mechanics. But if someone writes that elephants have always hated giraffes, that's impossible to simply ignore? I get that your going to hear about someone screaming about something or other on the internet. The vocal minority, and all. But to say that all the unwashed masses of the D&D world have a real problem with this concept seems unlikely to me. Roleplaying is primarily about imagination and I have a hard time believing that most roleplayers lack that.

Also, the world assignment is not arbitrary. Every monster already has a specific setting that it's a part of. Typically in historical D&D, that's FR or Greyhawk (or the 2e omnisetting) and is left un-stated, but every monster has a specific context. There's no reason FR mariliths need to be defined by their Planescape lore, and no reason PS mariliths need to play by FR's rules, either.

This is my point. So in the MM, have Mariliths have a default lore. In Planescape give them something different, and when you're playing in Planescape, just use the stats, ignore the default fluff.

I'm trying hard to picture the confused player looking between his MM and Plansecape setting book and not knowing what he's going to do. Which fluff to use? So confusing! There is a third option involving a gun. Darwin would approve.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Present them with a page of detailed instructions and they won't read it. Or if they do read it, they'll forget most of it, because they have no context to slot it into. Instead, they'll just jump in and start trying whatever looks promising, according to whatever paradigm they've already got in their heads. You can call them morons and scream about how it shouldn't be that way, but you're just swinging your sword at the tide; this is human nature, deal with it.

We do deal with it. We tell that player "That monster that you read about in the Monster Manual behaves and lives differently in the world we're playing in. As you adventure in this world, the differences will become clear."

For some of us apparently though... they play with people for whom this statement of fact is a hardship and is liable to stunt their imaginative growth. So those players need three to five different behaviors and lives listed for them in the MM. Because I guess when they read three different backgrounds for a monster and are then told the world they are playing in is a fourth, THAT'S when they're willing to accept it no questions asked.

 

[Remathilis]

I would like to hope so but then again this is the same company that thought " Play a dragonborn if you want to....look like a dragon." wasn't too stupid to print.

Nah, man. If you want quality D&D writing, you need Bear Lore.

The stats for Grazz'zt might be in the MM. The adventure that features him or the supplement that describes the Abyss where he lives or whatever is probably going to be a different product, though. If the DMG has a blurb on what the Abyss might generally be, then it can have a little blurb on what Athas might generally be (heck, for much the same reason -- no reason some budding DM can't jam bits of Athas into the desert in their home game). The upthrust being that this isn't an advert -- just because Grazz'zt lives in the Abyss and Braxat live on Athas doesn't mean that you then need to go buy the book about the Abyss or the book about Athas. The MM gives you what you need to run the critter, and references the fact that there might be deeper lore if you want to dig into it.

Well that's great, EXCEPT the Monster Manual is going to have to predict how every monster in it is going to fit in every setting WotC has and will produce. Is the ecology of the maralith going to discuss its role in the Realms, Eberron, Planescape, Athas, Mystara, Nentir Vale, Oerth, Krynn, and the new Darkhyde setting coming in 2015?

Or alternately, the MM could be a collection of pictures, stat-blocks, and maybe a few nods to obvious lore and possible uses. Like the 4e monster manual did.That way, the DM can make up his own lore!

This is my point. So in the MM, have Mariliths have a default lore. In Planescape give them something different, and when you're playing in Planescape, just use the stats, ignore the default fluff.

Personally, this system works best. It avoids the "what's this guy's story?" that filled the 4e Monster Manual (seriously, I remember a monster called swordwings which were epic level foes who liked to steal things. Why? For what? Why haven't they robbed entire nations by now; they're 26th level!). Then, a DM who uses a specific setting can change the lore to adapt it (the Mystara Monster Manual Compendium did just that for the monsters in the Monstrous Manual. And they were no small changes for some, such as dragons) or a DM who wants to make his own world can just say "In my world, gnomes are 20 feet tall and eat nothing but tar" and ignore it.

I really can't believe DMs feel they must fight to keep monsters flavorless and boring. You want boring, flavorless monsters; get the 3e or 4e MMs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, it's your opinion that people mistake the difference between crunch and fluff? It's one thing to say Rule Zero in 3e and then try to ignore things like wealth by level or alignment when hey are basically tattooed into the system mechanics. But if someone writes that elephants have always hated giraffes, that's impossible to simply ignore?

It's tattooed into the elephant. It's tattooed into the giraffe. It's tattooed into the "Keep on the African Savannah" adventure. It's tattooed into the fact that Elephavania and Giraffistan are next to each other on the map that came in the DMG. It's tattooed in the Elephantbane Blade whose lore specifies that it lies in the disputed territory on the border.

Honestly, look at any thread complaining about 4e lore or Planescape lore. Look at the post above where Hussar said it was a PITA to say no all the time.

It is a thing that happens all the time.

(personally, I don't think it's a fluff/crunch distinction, I think it is an opt-in/opt-out distinction. The Blood War was default in 2e. You could opt out if you thought it was dumb, but you had to KEEP opting out, and keep telling new players you were opting out. 5e jackalweres currently risk doing that).

This is my point. So in the MM, have Mariliths have a default lore. In Planescape give them something different, and when you're playing in Planescape, just use the stats, ignore the default fluff.

And my point is that all lore is specific (including "default" lore that wants to be applicable to many tables) so why not state that up-front?

I'm trying hard to picture the confused player looking between his MM and Plansecape setting book and not knowing what he's going to do. Which fluff to use? So confusing! There is a third option involving a gun. Darwin would approve.

Well that's great, EXCEPT the Monster Manual is going to have to predict how every monster in it is going to fit in every setting WotC has and will produce. Is the ecology of the maralith going to discuss its role in the Realms, Eberron, Planescape, Athas, Mystara, Nentir Vale, Oerth, Krynn, and the new Darkhyde setting coming in 2015?

Or alternately, the MM could be a collection of pictures, stat-blocks, and maybe a few nods to obvious lore and possible uses. Like the 4e monster manual did.That way, the DM can make up his own lore!

Nah, like I said above, you can just pick one and go with it, a different one for any given monster, eating up no more space than a typical MM entry and keeping the MM diverse and specific. No need to anticipate new settings or be exhaustive.

 

[Agamon]

I really can't believe DMs feel they must fight to keep monsters flavorless and boring. You want boring, flavorless monsters; get the 3e or 4e MMs.

Agreed. If I could paint, I know I'd work better with a model or scene rather than just a blank canvas. Anything that helps stir the imagination is a plus if you ask me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Honestly, look at any thread complaining about 4e lore or Planescape lore. Look at the post above where Hussar said it was a PITA to say no all the time.

It is a thing that happens all the time.

Yeah, well some of us also think that losing pages upon pages of extra monsters just to help those DMs not feel so bad about saying 'No' all the time, is a massive waste.

If you've changed your world so much that your players cannot help but ask "Why, why, why?" and you are stuck constantly saying "No, no, no"... then maybe you ought to think about readjusting your world so that you can occasionally say "Yes, yes, yes" and make yourself a little happier. Now, no one is saying you have to do that... but don't put it on us to accept losing extra monsters from the book so that you can have your cake and eat it too.

If you don't want to say "No" in your world, then don't. Say "Yes". Or if you *have* to say "No"... then put on your big boy pants and deal with it. I'M not going to deal with it for you.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Is there any way we can cut this mumble out? It's already something that most people would get a warning for, but it's just not right coming from a mod. Really, if someone is putting words in your mouth, or is using too much hyperbole, then say that or mod them. The condescending pictures are just as rude (if not more so), and really don't have a place on the site. Again, especially from a mod.