Rule of 3: 10/31/2011

[Mark CMG]

I don't see how it's so contradictory.

He claims to understand the problem and then doesn't actually propose a decent solution, just begrudgingly admits to it and says they will add the bare minimum more information, just the essential truths. Plus, the phrase "story burden" really seems like an odd choice, as if the flavor text that really makes the monsters what they are, more than a formula, more than just a pile of numbers, is somehow baggage to him, somehow onerous and in need of his efforts to jetison as much of it has possible down to the bare minimum, and now he will begrudgingly admit it was a bad plan and he'll throw in the bare minimum more if that is what he has to do.

"Story burden?" That's not even close to the mindset of someone I would want working on an RPG. To me, a roleplaying game is primarily about the story while the game, the formulas and numbers, are there to facilitate the shared story. All elements of a roleplaying game should be steeped in story: the elements brought to the table by the players (GM included) and especially the elements presented in the game books. Perhaps that is why it seems so contradictory to me. Story burden. What a horribly dismissive term.

 

[GSHamster]

"Story burden?" That's not even close to the mindset of someone I would want working on an RPG. To me, a roleplaying game is primarily about the story while the game, the formulas and numbers, are there to facilitate the shared story. All elements of a roleplaying game should be steeped in story: the elements brought to the table by the players (GM included) and especially the elements presented in the game books. Perhaps that is why it seems so contradictory to me. Story burden. What a horribly dismissive term.

I think you are reading too much into his response.

The sense I got from that answer was that every piece of fluff they include in monster's description constrains the DM in some fashion.

For example, if the fluff for kobolds says that kobolds are the servitors of dragons, then if the DM wants to use kobolds, she might feel compelled to use dragons (especially a newbie DM). Or she might ignore kobolds because there is no dragon, even though kobolds would have been the ideal enemy to use at a particular point.

That's a 'story burden'. Using kobolds with that piece of fluff burdens the story with a dragon, even if a dragon is not appropriate to the story.

They were trying to minimize those constraints created by fluff. Making the monsters as universally available to all the different campaign settings out there seemed the better option at the time. They may have gone a little overboard, but I don't think the idea was obviously wrong.

 

[tomBitonti]

He claims to understand the problem and then doesn't actually propose a decent solution, just begrudgingly admits to it and says they will add the bare minimum more information, just the essential truths. Plus, the phrase "story burden" really seems like an odd choice, as if the flavor text that really makes the monsters what they are, more than a formula, more than just a pile of numbers, is somehow baggage to him, somehow onerous and in need of his efforts to jetison as much of it has possible down to the bare minimum, and now he will begrudgingly admit it was a bad plan and he'll throw in the bare minimum more if that is what he has to do.

"Story burden?" That's not even close to the mindset of someone I would want working on an RPG. To me, a roleplaying game is primarily about the story while the game, the formulas and numbers, are there to facilitate the shared story. All elements of a roleplaying game should be steeped in story: the elements brought to the table by the players (GM included) and especially the elements presented in the game books. Perhaps that is why it seems so contradictory to me. Story burden. What a horribly dismissive term.

I caught that too. Rereading, I'm struck by this:

Why did the initial Monster Manual and Adventurer's Vault books focus so heavily on crunch at the expense of fluff?

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the premise of the question (that crunch comes at the expense of fluff), but I'm certainly willing to discuss the relative ratio of mechanical information and story elements in these two books. There are two reasons, really: The "bottleneck" of a new edition, and our desire to present monsters unimpeded by story elements that would discourage or limit their use.

He begs the question. The context "Monster Manual and Adventurer's Vault books" makes the question specific, not a general "crunch comes at the expense of fluff".

But mostly, I can't get behind the notion that fluff is a negative burden. Looking at an example, say, a Black Dragon, providing an "acid breathing dragon" template, and having a section that "in traditional setting, Black dragons are commonly placed in swamps" doesn't seem a terrible burden, and doesn't seem to be prohibitive.

Of course, there becomes an issue of players who consult an experienced ranger to ask about a dragon they spotted in the nearby swamp, and to have them look for the distinctive spoor of a black dragon. The players bring back some dark scales and acid pitted leaves, show those to the ranger, who promptly spits out "Yep; black dragon; Draco -- insert appropriate latinism here --. Has a tendency to lurk underwater; he's a crafty devil, that he is" Providing the fluff seems to add more in terms of this sort of play than it is a burden.

TomB

 

[Mark CMG]

I think you are reading too much into his response.

The sense I got from that answer was that every piece of fluff they include in monster's description constrains the DM in some fashion.

For example, if the fluff for kobolds says that kobolds are the servitors of dragons, then if the DM wants to use kobolds, she might feel compelled to use dragons (especially a newbie DM). Or she might ignore kobolds because there is no dragon, even though kobolds would have been the ideal enemy to use at a particular point.

That's a 'story burden'. Using kobolds with that piece of fluff burdens the story with a dragon, even if a dragon is not appropriate to the story.

They were trying to minimize those constraints created by fluff. Making the monsters as universally available to all the different campaign settings out there seemed the better option at the time. They may have gone a little overboard, but I don't think the idea was obviously wrong.

That's a bad example because it assumes that labeling kobolds as "servitors of dragons" is good fluff and compounds the problem by assuming if that is the fluff then there must always be a dragon present. Certainly one could imagine all sorts of alternate possibilities where, for instance, a cult of kobolds lived in the sewers of the city and, though never having seen a dragon, sacrificed small pets snatched through sewer grates to some great winged kobold who they hoped would someone day raise them above the station of their misery. (Look for that in the upcoming Creative Mountain Games Narrative Adventure, "Sewers of the Serpent Sect." )

Nevertheless, to address your subsequent points, it doesn't present constraints, it stirs the imagination to think of the creatures in terms of environment, culture, etc. even if what you, as a GM, decides, is different than what is presented in some substantial ways. Flavor text isn't a restraint, it is exemplar, showing typical examples of what is possible as guidance and fodder for GMs.

Too often I see monster entries being used by players as trading cards for what they plan to kill or summon fully expactant that what is presented in the books is the exact mechanical way they will function in-game, in any environment, as to their bidding or to be put up as paper tigers to be killed because they have the books, have read their weaknesses, have done the math, and now will kill and level up.

Look, I am a big fan of wargaming and skirmish games, and played them even before D&D existed, but that style of play is not what roleplaying games are about to me. If all we need are the stats on a card or in a book so we can push minis around a table, with a bare minimum of "flavor" just to pretend one pile of numbers is significantly different from another, I've got better games for that and there's no need to put RPG on the cover.

 

[Mark CMG]

I caught that too. Rereading, I'm struck by this:



He begs the question. The context "Monster Manual and Adventurer's Vault books" makes the question specific, not a general "crunch comes at the expense of fluff".

But mostly, I can't get behind the notion that fluff is a negative burden. Looking at an example, say, a Black Dragon, providing an "acid breathing dragon" template, and having a section that "in traditional setting, Black dragons are commonly placed in swamps" doesn't seem a terrible burden, and doesn't seem to be prohibitive.

Of course, there becomes an issue of players who consult an experienced ranger to ask about a dragon they spotted in the nearby swamp, and to have them look for the distinctive spoor of a black dragon. The players bring back some dark scales and acid pitted leaves, show those to the ranger, who promptly spits out "Yep; black dragon; Draco -- insert appropriate latinism here --. Has a tendency to lurk underwater; he's a crafty devil, that he is" Providing the fluff seems to add more in terms of this sort of play than it is a burden.

TomB

That's a good example of a very common situation in which such design mentality proves immediately problematic. You don't have to look too far to find difficulties with what he wrote in the article.


On another note, this also seems contrary to what Monte wrote in his most recent column regarding reading the books just for inspiration's sake. Is this article defending more recent-past decisions (and holding on to those erroneous design ideals) even as the other is looking toward the future while jettisoning those credos in favor of even more tradtional sensibilities?

 

[Aeolius]

"Story burden?" That's not even close to the mindset of someone I would want working on an RPG. To me, a roleplaying game is primarily about the story while the game, the formulas and numbers, are there to facilitate the shared story.

On the nosey!

If all we need are the stats on a card or in a book so we can push minis around a table, with a bare minimum of "flavor" just to pretend one pile of numbers is significantly different from another, I've got better games for that and there's no need to put RPG on the cover.

And again!

I remember looking at the 4e MM and thinking it was in essence a blank book with trading cards taped inside. Not my cup of tea. I want a book with loads of fluff that I can use as I see fit. Heck, I'd like to see a MM written up like a cookbook, discussing all of the bits one can harvest, how to cook them, and a sample recipe or two.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But mostly, I can't get behind the notion that fluff is a negative burden.

It's a negative burden insofar as page and word count (and thus cost) depending on what the hopes for the particular book are.

For the first 4E MM... the hopes for that book seemed to me to be to cram as many different monsters with as many different variations as possible into it, because of the new paradigm shift in design. That meant to save as much space as possible by removing large swathes of fluff information... most of which had already been covered quite well in the 3E Monster Manual in 2000, and the 3.5 Monster Manual in 2003 (let alone the monster books from even earlier editions before that.) Because they were no longer presenting one stat block per monster... they now tried/hoped to get upwards of three or more.

Whether or not you see that as a good thing or a bad thing is really up to the individual. But for what they seemed to want to accomplish with the book... it fulfilled its job. It got many more monster stat blocks out there to people right off the very top of the game's release, whereas having a lot more fluff description would have increased page count to the point of making the book more expensive than they wanted it to be.

 

[pemerton]

The Monster Manuals 1 and 2 had, in my view, the right amount of story elements. More than 1st ed AD&D. About the same as 3E's Monster Manual. Considerably more than RM or RQ monster entries. And helpfully organised under entries for knowledge skill checks that players might make for their PCs.

The Monster Manual 3 and the Monster Vault tend to have more than I want, and not as well organised. The writing is generally wordy, overblown and overlong. In some cases, the Monster Vault entries add nothing to the Monster Manual ones (it is more-or-less the same text), but lose its arrangement under skill check entries - so it is harder to adjudicate monster knowledge checks.

The Threats to the Nentir Vale book is a different kettle of fish, because it is really a setting book with some monsters included. Even it, though, would benefit from arranging the informatin under skill check entries.

How would you possibly know that if you hadn't played earlier versions of D&D, or at least had some of the source books?

A bulette? WTF is that?

The fun of reading a monster manual is finding out about the monster. Stats about the monster are secondary information, imo. I can always make up stats, given a verbal description of what it actually is supposed to do.

Luckily, the 4e MM tells me that a bulette is sometimes called a "landshark" and describes it as a "heavily armoured predator" (p 38). Maybe there are some people who can't tell, from this plus the other information that [MENTION=6676736]Pentius[/MENTION] mentioned, what a bulette eats. I'd imagine that they're a minority, however.

This idea that the Monster Manual had no story elements is just not true. I'm pesonally a bit disappointed that WotC has once again bowed to pressure from those who, as far as I can tell, do not primarily play the game it is publishing. It makes it more likely that future monster books will be unnecessarily padded with bad fiction.

 

[Pentius]

He claims to understand the problem and then doesn't actually propose a decent solution, just begrudgingly admits to it and says they will add the bare minimum more information, just the essential truths.

if the problem is that not enough fluff was included, I fail to see how adding more fluff is anything but a decent solution. And this bare minimum you are talking about seems pretty silly to me. Look at the MM1, and then look at the Monster Vault, which was published with Mearls higher on the food chain. The increase there is no bare minimum. The previously mentioned Bulette goes from a couple paragraphs of fluff to having a couple pages. The Monster Vault pages aren't as big as MM pages, but it's still several times over the amount of fluff.

Plus, the phrase "story burden" really seems like an odd choice, as if the flavor text that really makes the monsters what they are, more than a formula, more than just a pile of numbers, is somehow baggage to him, somehow onerous and in need of his efforts to jetison as much of it has possible down to the bare minimum, and now he will begrudgingly admit it was a bad plan and he'll throw in the bare minimum more if that is what he has to do.

"Story burden?" That's not even close to the mindset of someone I would want working on an RPG. To me, a roleplaying game is primarily about the story while the game, the formulas and numbers, are there to facilitate the shared story. All elements of a roleplaying game should be steeped in story: the elements brought to the table by the players (GM included) and especially the elements presented in the game books. Perhaps that is why it seems so contradictory to me. Story burden. What a horribly dismissive term.

I think you are reading the term Story Burden and hearing "We don't want any story at all." when the way Mearls presents it in the article is more along the lines of "We want DMs, even new DMs who aren't used to disregarding printed stuff in pursuit of their own stories, to be able to tell as many stories as possible with what we give them."

It's a huge difference.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think you are reading the term Story Burden and hearing "We don't want any story at all."

I understand what "burden" means and see that in this article there is a bias to prioritize story below mechanics which is antithetical to roleplaying games, IMO.

(. . .) when the way Mearls presents it in the article (. . .)

Is there another article you mean to reference? I am only discussing what Rich Baker has written in this particular article -

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 10/31/2011)

Mike Mearls might be doing things differently these days, which would be good, but we'll have to see how that shapes the next incarnation of the game. Hopefully, he will move/has moved past his early position of having creatures/monsters include no more than what they can bring to a single combat encounter.