D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Boarstorm]

I love watching how topics fluctuate over the course of 30 pages of discussion.

It's like people-watching, but ... different.

 

[Desdichado]

While that's DM 101, any player playing for a while will recognize that as a kobold* and begin the cycle there...

Which can be alleviated by never describing the monster the same way twice, but how many ways can you describe a "kobold"? The wheel can only be re-invented so many times before it ends up a square.

After they've met kobolds, is there any reason to assume that they don't recognize them again the next time they see them?

There's a fine line between "metagaming" and "paying attention."

Sure, and it wouldn't bother me much. I was responding specifically to the question (I can't remember who posed it off-hand) that players recognize their monsters. It's not hard to make that not an issue if you don't want that. If you don't care, then call them kobolds and be done with it.

I'd call both of these problems unless the setting was intentionally one where the PCs have little knowledge of the world they supposedly grew up in.

See above. However, I think D&D has a completely different problem with regards to this question... the absurd assumption that adventurers come across 1d4 (or whatever) wandering monsters on their daily commute. The sheer preponderance of monsters in D&D and the expectation of how often adventurers deal with them has two unanticipated consequences--1) it doesn't actually make any sense that any people or civilizations formed and lasted in these settings without falling apart to monstrous depredation, and 2) from a metagame standpoint, monsters lose all aspects of being monstrous. They're routine which is the opposite of monstrous. Players don't give much thought to the notion of there being bazillions of monsters all around them all the time.

I personally don't have much use for the standard D&D paradigm on monsters most of the time when I run. I focus much more on NPC antagonists; bandits, cultists, corrupt soldiers, organized crime, etc. In the wilderness, you've got wild animals: bears, lions, wolves, elephants, etc.

Monsters, when they appear, need to be something special. An entire adventure can be structured around the gradual reveal and confrontation with a monster. So, to me, the notion that there are a bunch of kobolds all sitting around out there, and anybody who desires to be an adventurer is already really familiar with what a kobold is, how it operates, and what it's likely to do, defeats the purpose of kobolds even being in the monster manual at all.

Also: kobolds are intelligent. The idea that all kobolds everywhere, and all kobold society everywhere is the same is as ridiculous as the notion that all humans and all human societies everywhere is the same. Also: it's boring.

 

[The Shadow]

I personally don't have much use for the standard D&D paradigm on monsters most of the time when I run. I focus much more on NPC antagonists; bandits, cultists, corrupt soldiers, organized crime, etc. In the wilderness, you've got wild animals: bears, lions, wolves, elephants, etc.

Monsters, when they appear, need to be something special. An entire adventure can be structured around the gradual reveal and confrontation with a monster. So, to me, the notion that there are a bunch of kobolds all sitting around out there, and anybody who desires to be an adventurer is already really familiar with what a kobold is, how it operates, and what it's likely to do, defeats the purpose of kobolds even being in the monster manual at all.

I mostly agree with you - I just treat the more common humanoid races (orcs, goblins, etc) as NPC races who can be relatively common in some areas.

Monsters, on the other hand, should be special. And scary! I tend to beef up undead in particular for just that reason - I quite approve of the Undead Fortitude trait the zombie has.

Also: kobolds are intelligent. The idea that all kobolds everywhere, and all kobold society everywhere is the same is as ridiculous as the notion that all humans and all human societies everywhere is the same. Also: it's boring.

Well, the 'little guy' races do tend to get stepped on by everybody, so it stands to reason they'd tend to pick up bits of the local "big un's" culture as protective coloration. Though kobolds might well have their own draconic quirks. (Dragons tend to be even bigger 'uns! )

I do find it amusing that a German mine-ghost has been turned into a reptilian critter in D&D.

 

[Desdichado]

I mostly agree with you - I just treat the more common humanoid races (orcs, goblins, etc) as NPC races who can be relatively common in some areas.

Actually, I often do that too. But when shifting the paradigm of them from monster race to NPC race, the notion of monolithic cultural expected behavior becomes less likely. As does the concept of them being "dungeon inhabitants" as opposed to a race that you could do all kinds of different kinds of interactions with in all kinds of environments.

Monsters, on the other hand, should be special. And scary! I tend to beef up undead in particular for just that reason - I quite approve of the Undead Fortitude trait the zombie has.

The biggest problem I have with undead in this paradigm is actually the cleric's turn undead ability. I tend to focus more on eliminating or modifying the cleric, though.

To bring the discussion full circle, this is actually one of the reasons I like fiends. They're always scary, weird, abnormal, and... well, monstrous--unless you play them like chumps as the GM. But the esoteric distinctions between them, and things like the Blood War become less useful. Now, if a given fiend has allegiance of some kind to the court of Orcus as opposed to Dagon or Moloch or Geryon or Demogorgon or whomever... then there's also the opportunity for monstrous RP and Machiavellian manipulation. I prefer my Outsiders to belong to balkanized camps... but I don't necessarily find the default D&D balkanization of fiends to be what works best for me. So, I'm more likely to shuffle them around as needed or desired. Whether or not the stat block says tanar'ri or obyrith or baatezu or demodand or whatever isn't what's important; does the statline, and illustration and inherent traits serve the purpose I need the monster to right then; that's my first consideration.

And I do admit that I enjoy specifically not following default D&D conventions for no other reason than to not do so sometimes. Keep my long-time players guessing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

What examples do you have in mind?

With the understanding that this is all IMO, AFAIAC, YMMV, ABC123, etc...

The 4e PHB.

Now, I liked 4e. I worked on 4e. I played multiple campaigns, I was a vocal defender of the game, and many of the later books didn't have this problem. I need to state all that up front; this is not an edition war thing.

But the PHB itself, the "corest" of the core books, was a misfire. Interesting characters and plotlines were created in spite of that book, not because of it. It was nothing but solid mechanics, with no deep flavor or inspiration. And what do you know? 4e is the one edition that most frequently, by far, gets the "it's just a board/war/video game imitator" accusations leveled at it. (I don't agree with those accusations by a long shot, but I do understand where the impression comes from.)

I agree with you that the books shouldn't cater to "readers who aren't players" instead of players. It should lean toward players, yes. But again, I don't feel that any edition has made that mistake, nor do I think Mearls meant to suggest that was the intent. But catering to them in addition is a very good idea; it's how you turn readers into players.

Believe me, I'm not saying 5e does that flawlessly. There are several mechanics that could stand clarification. But overall, as a whole, I think it succeeds.

 

[Remathilis]

But the PHB itself, the "corest" of the core books, was a misfire. Interesting characters and plotlines were created in spite of that book, not because of it. It was nothing but solid mechanics, with no deep flavor or inspiration. And what do you know? 4e is the one edition that most frequently, by far, gets the "it's just a board/war/video game imitator" accusations leveled at it. (I don't agree with those accusations by a long shot, but I do understand where the impression comes from.)

Preach it.

I will add on the Adventurer's Vault and the Monster Manual(s) to that list as well. The PHB at least got broken up with 1 paragraph "adventurers" and a column of fluff, the Monster Manual was pages and pages of stat blocks with maybe three nuggets of info, a picture, and some suggested encounters. There was no wonder. There was no majesty. It had all the cut-and-dry boring of a Video Game RPG Walk-through Guide. The Adventurer's Vault was worse; at least the MM had pretty pictures! Miles and miles of stat-blocks of the most unmagical magic items imagined.

Third edition was dry, second edition was preachy, but fourth was downright clinical.

Which felt like such a betrayal after the beautiful picture painted by Preview books. There was obviously a huge story bible for what the D&D world was like with the Dawn War, the deities, the Points of Light, Nerrath, the World Axis, etc. None of that is anywhere in the PHB or MM; hints of it are in the DMG.

Say what you will about 4e as a system, but the original Core books were a failure in attempting to capture the majesty or wonder of such a fantastical world.

 

[pemerton]

The 4e PHB.

<snip>

the PHB itself, the "corest" of the core books, was a misfire. Interesting characters and plotlines were created in spite of that book, not because of it. It was nothing but solid mechanics, with no deep flavor or inspiration.

For me, I found the 4e PHB has more flavour and inspiration than any other D&D PHB.

The races all have mythic histories presented, for instance. Gygax's PHB tells me that dwarves are short, live in mountains and like beer. The 4e PHB tells me that dwarves were once slaves of giants, who were liberated with the help of their god. That, to me, is flavour and inspiration.

The history of the dragonborn and tieflings, the relationship between elves and the fewywild, etc are all similar.

The books also has gods which, to my mind, have more mythic character and inspiration than the 3E gods. (And earlier PHBs had no gods at all.)

I'm not saying you're wrong to see more mythic inspiration in the 3E or AD&D PHB, but I personally can't see what it is that you're seeing in them. To me, they are completely devoid of game-inspiring backstory for PCs, whereas the 4e PHB is full of that.

the Monster Manual was pages and pages of stat blocks with maybe three nuggets of info

For me, the difference between the 4e MM and Gygax's MM is that Gygax's MM has statblocks plus advice on demography, whereas the 4e MM has more dynamic statblocks (I can read those statblocks and envisage dramatic encounters resulting from them) and information on how the monster fits into an epic backstory.

Again, I'm not disputing that some people find Gygax's demon and devil entries more rich and inspiring than those in the 4e MM, but I personally can't see it. The 4e MM has a whole history of both the Hells and the Abyss, which locates the demons and devils, including their leading overlords, into an overall cosmological dynamic. Even the AD&D MMII didn't go that far (though it had more backstory than the original MM).

 

[Hussar]

Pen, I think you hot on what bugs me. The older dnd monsters had lots of demographically important bits but rarely tried to fit things into a larger story, epic or not.

The 2e Monstrous Manual entry on kobolds has tons of "biological" information about kobolds but nothing about history.

Honestly, that's what I want.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The races all have mythic histories presented, for instance. Gygax's PHB tells me that dwarves are short, live in mountains and like beer. The 4e PHB tells me that dwarves were once slaves of giants, who were liberated with the help of their god. That, to me, is flavour and inspiration.

I'll grant you that, yeah. Some of the race write-ups in the 4e PHB are better, in that regard, than anything else in the book.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Pen, I think you hot on what bugs me. The older dnd monsters had lots of demographically important bits but rarely tried to fit things into a larger story, epic or not.

The 2e Monstrous Manual entry on kobolds has tons of "biological" information about kobolds but nothing about history.

Honestly, that's what I want.

Whereas I found the demographic stuff less inspiring than more story-oriented stuff.

Which, ultimately, leaves us with "It is absolutely impossible to make a D&D rulebook that's going to please all of us equally."