The need for monsters as beings rather than statblocks.

[BobTheNob]

To the OP, the only thing in your post that really sang to me was the line "I may be overreacting". Im not sure if it was your use of language (Using F.F.S. doesnt endear people) or the Mike Mearls takedown, but it was a hard post to take seriously.

By the end of reading it I just rolled my eyes and decided to not partake in the debate. So this is the only post I make.

Thought you might like the feedback for use in future postings.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

To the OP, the only thing in your post that really sang to me was the line "I may be overreacting". Im not sure if it was your use of language (Using F.F.S. doesnt endear people) or the Mike Mearls takedown, but it was a hard post to take seriously.

By the end of reading it I just rolled my eyes and decided to not partake in the debate. So this is the only post I make.

Thought you might like the feedback for use in future postings.

Well, Bob, you have a point. I just edited the two points that you made out of the OP.

Since you were so turned off by those, you probably missed my multiple "mea culpas" in the body of this thread (if you only read the OP).

ANYWHOO.... mea culpa (yet again) for overreaction as to the article being flavorless/unconcerned with the flavor of the monster. I'm still of the opinion that the article didn't have sufficient flavor...but have accepted that the purpose of this article wasn't to evoke flavor; rather it was to give insight as to the mechanics (and only the mechanics, not the flavor) of what they're doing. If it WAS to tell us the entirety of a MM entry, then I stand by my original concerns. However, several posters have convinced me that I was wrong- that the article wasn't that. It was just an example on how to change stats from one system to another.

I've since moved on to talk about how ecology might be easily/successfully integrated into monster writeups...likely outside their stat blocks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The need for monsters as beings rather than statblocks.

Only arises if the monster is used as a playable race.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I think that's correct on both counts.

On the other hand, the playtest (and the associated articles) are a great opportunity for WotC to experiment with getting the crunch / fluff interaction right. One of the problems we've been seeing in late 3.x and 4e design is that a lot of thought and playtesting goes into the mechanical aspects of the game while the in-game fiction seems like it is developed on an entirely separate track.

A good monster isn't just fun mechanics and a good story. It's fun mechanics that enable and serve a good story. Yes, WotC can productively work on improving the combat stat-block as its own project, but a good monster requires integration between the mechanics and the in-game fiction. Showing us the mechanics without the story is only half the picture.

-KS

Can't XP you, but this post resonated strongly with me.

Yeah, I overreacted because they were only talking about/showing half the picture (and I didn't realize that was the case...I was worried it was the whole picture). Hence the "much ado about nothing" comments (that I agree with) and my mea culpa.

BUT! You make a great point here. I particularly agree with your second paragraph. Fluff slapped onto mechanics after the fact (or crunch stapled to fluff after the fact) is missing the point.

The fluff represents the mechanics and vice versa. A monster isn't "whole" without a harmony between fluff and crunch. That point, I hope, wasn't lost among my ranting.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Only arises if the monster is used as a playable race.

Disagree massively. Not sure you read the whole thread or whole OP as to why. If you did, care to comment on my points?


EDIT TO ADD: Rereading my comment to you made me think that it could be taken as snide. I didn't mean it that way at all. I invite disagreement, if with specific points (and I'd like to hear someone disagreeing with those points, or even simply providing their own points against the overall idea). If you just disagree with the title, that's fine too, but I do have several points as to why I think what I do, and I'd be interested in hearing counterpoints beyond "nope, doesn't matter" which is all I could glean from your brief post.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Only arises if the monster is used as a playable race.

I completely, utterly disagree. With that in mind, I hope they come up with a presentation style that makes both of us happy. As always, play what you like

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Only arises if the monster is used as a playable race.

Quoting the previous posters:

"Disagree"

Monsters should bring the world alife. The few information: Climate, ecology, digest is enough, to find a place where it is natural to encounter the monster... not as an encounter per se, but as something that you happen to meet because it just belongs there.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Ya know, I read an excellent Cracked.com article today.

6 Moments That Make Video Games Worth It | Cracked.com

I even wonder, now that I think of it, if I was partly inspired by that article in regards to this thread.

Most specifically, I call attention to:
Reason #3 (The first time you see an awe inspiring enemy) and #4 (the first time you see the universe running without you).

Go read it! It's a great article.

Seriously!

I'll wait.



Back?

The point I'm making is: while the other four reasons in that article are either shared with videogames or unique to videogames (I don't know anyone who has a que-ed up soundtrack tone for healing potions for example...though I do use music in my RPGS). Reasons 3 and 4 have their roots in RPGs.

For reason 3, it's the exciting BBEG who is truly a challenge, an exciting one, and more than just "difficult", it's imposing/threatening/horrific. For a long time a BBEG in video games might be "hard" or in movies might be "big", but rarely did they have the mystique that they do in rpgs. There is no video game from the 80s or most of the 90s who I can equate to encountering the Tarrasque for the first time. My emotions were never similar in video games to rpgs at that point. Video games have gotten better in that regard, but have not caught RPGs yet, IMO. As the author writes (paraphrased)...sure it's scary in movies, but in video games (and in rpgs) YOU HAVE TO KILL IT.


For reason 4, well, that's the primary one I'm discussing in this thread. The "reality" of the enemy is beyond "they pop into existence for the player to deal with and pop out when killed". I can't possibly express it better than the writer in the article did. Go read it. Really! When NPC fights NPC...it makes the world more vibrant.


I'm saying here, to make it explicit: sure RPGs have learned some excellent stuff from video games...but here....here video games are learning from RPGS...the real "meaning" of world interaction. They're learning to play with human emotion and story in a way that they've never been successful with until recently...but that RPGS have not only been successful with, have focuse upon and mastered. Let them (RPGS) not forget what they've mastered so much that others wish to borrow/learn from them.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Fluff slapped onto mechanics after the fact (or crunch stapled to fluff after the fact) is missing the point.

The fluff represents the mechanics and vice versa. A monster isn't "whole" without a harmony between fluff and crunch.

That really depends on what one believes to be the primary purpose of a roleplaying game. Is it a simulation of a magical medieval world? Does it emulate aspects of fantasy fiction? Should it primarily work as a game? As a satisfying story? Should it be light-hearted entertainment for a group of drunken college students?

Sometimes I want rpgs to be simulationist, but not D&D. I think, for most of its history, D&D has mainly tried to work as a game, with some nods to simulation. Imho, D&D's fluff just isn't good enough to justify the simulationist approach. It's chock full of non-simulationist stuff like hit points, classes, alignment, mega-dungeons, spiked chains, gelatinous cubes, rust monsters, and hook horrors.

 

[GreyICE]

I actually agree on the harmony between fluff and crunch. Not because I think that the game should be simulationist, but because I like the order.

If your fluff is that Ergigians are a race that values the group over the individual, and are therefore almost all found in packs that become more dangerous as they synergize, there should be mechanics for that. 15 Ergigians should be a lot more than 15 units of 1 Ergigian. Maybe they boost each other's attacks. Maybe they have attacks they can use together. Maybe they have other mechanics that work well.

Similarly the fluff should respect the needs of D&D as a game. It might be 'flavorful' to have the enemy ghost immune to everything except magic, but that's fun for approximately no one. Have them take less damage from physical attacks, but ghosts in D&D should not enjoy getting hit by swords. Or D&D should avoid ghosts that can attack you.

As for the playtest, I doubt that the flavor found there was the 'last and final flavor.' It smells like 'playtest flavor' (funny that).