The need for monsters as beings rather than statblocks.

[Aberzanzorax]

@Doug McCrae

I somewhat agree, while reserving some disagreement.

By that I mean you make some excellent points. The type of game certainly matters (and D&D can be a different type of game depending on the group of players and DM...but it still has its own roots and "type").

Please note that I'm not necessarily interested in making D&D simulationist. (That is an interest in part, but not totally driving my point here). I want monsters to make sense. It doesn't have to emulate the real world. It needs to be fun, evocative, and most importantly MAKE SENSE. Here I almost want to toss out the words Verisimilitude and Narrativist, but I fear that'd lead too far into GNS territory and might reduce the discussion to jargon rather than important basics.


Here's the reserved disagreement, similar to what I said here (in this thread): http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...eings-rather-than-statblocks.html#post5943049, (just a link to post #8) but in a different vein:

I don't see why a goal of harmony between stats and ecology would be a barrier for any of the game styles you mention.

magical medieval world?
aspects of fantasy fiction?
primarily work as a game? As a satisfying story?
light-hearted entertainment for a group of drunken college students?

Is there any reason why a monster couldn't both make sense AND be fun for these different groups?

I agree, it could be hard to achieve that for every monster, and I'm certainly not saying that harmony between stats and story is the ONLY factor that matters (that'd be like a player who said "I'm sorry I screwed the party, but IT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO!!!!") But, I also don't think people should ignore roleplaying, and neither do I think that monsters should exist as combat machines that live outside of a story/adventure/roleplaying context.

Like I said earlier...sure sometimes it's just a random fight. But the Monster itself (as an entity) shouldn't exist as nothing more, ever, than a random fight the way it's written up (nothing more, sometimes, SURE!). It's a subtle distinction, and one I missed myself when I mistakenly railed against Mike Mearls's article.

However, using a monster is different than creating a monster...especially in the sense of creating a monster for general use versus creating a monster as a DM for my own group for a single encounter. If I, as a DM, create a slughound for a specific encounter just so players can fight a slughound...it doesn't need an ecology. But if it's published in a monster book, then I (as a customer, not necessarily as a DM) become interested in what a slughound might do besides that one encounter. Hell, it could be the impetus for a campaign of "invasion of the slughounds".

I think I'm rambling and restating myself at this point...so I'll just leave with my general point:

{D&D is} chock full of non-simulationist stuff like hit points, classes, alignment, mega-dungeons, spiked chains, gelatinous cubes, rust monsters, and hook horrors.

There's no reason that all of those can't be cinematically evocative, even if they fail to be all three of narrativist, simulationist, or gamist.

 

[howandwhy99]

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

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

That is a great article. I would argue that points 1 & 2 are every bit as pertinent to D&D and some of the best parts of playing the game. At least for me.

 

[Zaukrie]

I LOVED the fluff ecology articles in 2E Dragon era. Some of my favorite reads, by far. Not even close. I ripped up most of my Dragons, and kept only the articles I thought I'd ever read again. All the fiction and all the ecology articles made it.

 

[Mark CMG]

Please note that I'm not necessarily interested in making D&D simulationist. (That is an interest in part, but not totally driving my point here). I want monsters to make sense. It doesn't have to emulate the real world. It needs to be fun, evocative, and most importantly MAKE SENSE. Here I almost want to toss out the words Verisimilitude and Narrativist, but I fear that'd lead too far into GNS territory and might reduce the discussion to jargon rather than important basics.

Perhaps you're a Verisimulationist?

 

[jadrax]

I have full faith that those cool "flavor" elements will be alive and well, if not stuck in the statblock...

Personally, some of the flavour has to be in the stat block. I need to know what the power is actually doing, in fact I need that more than I need the mechanics for it.

The most glaring problem in the playtest right now for me is 'Ray of Frost', which has no actual power description, just mechanics. Now I think it works by freezing people feet to the floor, but that's me reverse engineering the description from the effect.

I don't really have many Dealbreakers with regard to 5th, but if power descriptions are not front and centre of power design, I probably won't be playing it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Personally, some of the flavour has to be in the stat block. I need to know what the power is actually doing, in fact I need that more than I need the mechanics for it.

The most glaring problem in the playtest right now for me is 'Ray of Frost', which has no actual power description, just mechanics. Now I think it works by freezing people feet to the floor, but that's me reverse engineering the description from the effect.

I don't really have many Dealbreakers with regard to 5th, but if power descriptions are not front and centre of power design, I probably won't be playing it.

This is a clash of tastes and one I'm happy to give way on to an extent. But for some of us translating from the statblock and the name to the power description is something you do so automatically you don't need to think about it.

 

[jadrax]

This is a clash of tastes and one I'm happy to give way on to an extent. But for some of us translating from the statblock and the name to the power description is something you do so automatically you don't need to think about it.

I can certainly see that if you do that automatically the description isn't needed.

But personally I am the exact opposite, I can see the description and add mechanics automatically, I pretty much cannot do the reverse at all.

 

[pemerton]

The Hook Horror isn't a particularly interesting monster. But in the article it is once again stripped down to its stats and combat efficacy. This was deemed a problem by many in the first 4e monster manual, and was corrected to some degree in later 4e MMs.

<snip>

I'm really hoping that 5e follows the mantra of "story and adventure first, rules supporting that second." I'm worried it is (at least in this article) currently following the mantra "Rules first, plot/story maybe

<snip>

4e is often (unfairly) criticized as "not having roleplaying" or "being all about combat". I don't agree with this, but once thought that way. I think this concern I have, right here with monsters, is a big part of that (again, unfair) overall criticism. Though I think it might be a fair criticism of that one book (the 4e MM1).

You may not be surprised that I disagree with you somewhat.

First, on the 4e MM: it has the following to say about Hook Horrors (I've slighltly toyed with the sequencing, and elided some of the content, including repetition):

Hook horrors drag victims to their deaths using their powerful hooked arms. These pack omnivores scour the Underdark in search of live prey, foraging when necessary. . . Hook horrors are omnivorous but prefer meat to plants. Rumor has it that they prefer the flesh of drow over any other. Not surprisingly, drow slay wild hook horrors and take young and eggs to raise as slaves. . .

Hook horrors live in total darkness. They can see in lit environments, but in the dark of the deep earth they navigate using echolocation. They Hook horrors communicate with one another using . . . clicking noises they make with their mouths and carapace. . . An Underdark explorer might become aware of nearby hook horrors by these noises. . . The eerie clicks echo in the Underdark, warning prey that death is near. . .

Although they hunt in small packs, hook horrors also gather in larger groups called clans. A particular clan, ruled by its strongest egg-laying female, ranges over a wide area in the Underdark. Its members defend clan territory fiercely from any intruder, including unrelated hook horrors.​

I think that is quite a bit of "fluff". It doesn't strike me as being all about combat at all. I learn about matriarchal clan structure, a fondness for drow (suggesting to players that hook horrors could be used to advantage in a War of the Spider Queen or Vault of the Drow-type scenario), and the taking of eggs for enslavement. We certainly get told about the preference for meat, and - as far as brining cows is concerned - there is no reason why this couldn't be resolved as a simple skill challenge.

Second, more generally - I don't find the "rules should follow story" mantra very useful. Mechanics, in my view, should evoke story. If a situation is meant to be scary to the players, or tense, the mechanics should help induce that experience. For me, this is the significance of 4e's tactical mechanics - the players have to think hard, and the game can spend a long time in a difficult and complex situation where the outcome remains in doubt. In my RPGing experience, that's not a bad way to try to evoke an appropriate emotional response in half-a-dozen people sitting around someone's kitchen table.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I can certainly see that if you do that automatically the description isn't needed.

But personally I am the exact opposite, I can see the description and add mechanics automatically, I pretty much cannot do the reverse at all.

The problem I have with that translation is that I can come up with a decent set of rules from the fluff - but compared to a pre-tuned set they are going to come up short. At least a pre-tuned set from an expert; on the fly they are going to look something like [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION]' Hook Hurler. And quite simply I want better. Although a sentence explaining the attacks I can see would help.

 

[tomBitonti]

Now, I may be overreacting. The Hook Horror isn't a particularly interesting monster. But in the article it is once again stripped down to its stats and combat efficacy. This was deemed a problem by many in the first 4e monster manual, and was corrected to some degree in later 4e MMs.

I wish he'd picked a monster that could really showcase fluff better. I want to see that they're paying attention to monsters as "beings" rather than just "statblocks". I don't see that here, but I do see that, even with this monster, more care could have been taken to avoid that.

I don't think you are overreacting. I had the same reaction. I think your point about describing the monster's motivation for interacting with the PC's, as well as the PC's motivation for interacting with the monster was spot on. Those motivations are key to fitting the monster into a game.

TomB