Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5943006" data-attributes="member: 64209">Forked from: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/324875-monster-design-d-d-next.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/324875-monster-design-d-d-next.html</a> I was REALLY optimistic earlier on for D&DN (and when Monte was on board) with their "flavor first" philosophy.  Now I read this:  That's what makes a hook horror what it is? Clicking, hooks, climbing, and their language/tribe (pack)? THAT? Then there's:Here I agree. Keep its cool story as is. No need to go mucking about with fluff. But then: That's the story elements? Seriously? Apart from that, for story, all we get is "they climb, so they'd live in perches high up in caves."    So I wondered. Is that all they had to go on? Was the monster always this boring and flavorless...essentially nothing more than "semi-intelligent hook crab"? I was going to go through all my old monster manuals, but I figured I'd start with: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_horror" target="_blank">Hook horror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a> since others have already done just that for me (and for the current designers...hint hint)! At minimum, the wiki gives us a bunch of sources for the hook horror. It seems that the most useful for stuff other than pure stats would be "the ecology of the hook horror" in dragon 131. I don't have access to that, but I do have access to this: <a href="http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Hook_horror" target="_blank">Hook horror - The Forgotten Realms Wiki - Books, races, classes, and more</a>  Now, I'll admit...it's a pretty boring monster even reading its ecology. It's sort of a slow moving familial hunter gatherer. However, some interesting points: 1. It's likely related to the cockroach. 2. They prefer to ambush their prey from above 3. They work together as a group. 4. They must molt. 5. Their exosleketon can be used as material for armor. Most interesting among my boring facts, but more interesting than those in the article, is #3. They work together as a group. That means, rather than approaching hook horror design from the perspective of "a monster" it needs to be addressed as "a family of the same type of monster" at a minimum. Their two primary motivations, it would seem, are protecting their eggs (which are in a central location during whatever egg-laying season they might have) and gaining food, particularly the more flavorful meat as an alternative to bland fungus. As a group, they either molt at the same time or separate times. If so, that would impact how they fight: do they all go into hiding when molting? Do they protect the one guy who is molting? Alternately, player motivation to intentionally interact with these guys could be to kill them for their carapaces, bargain with them for their molted carapaces, or steal some eggs to enslave for their molted carapaces.  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'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."   On thinking on it a bit more, I see the article's monster as "a crab that has a family and attacks with claws". I see, from the ecology article "a modestly intelligent group of opportunistic hunters who will callously add intelligent prey to their larder, so long as it helps, rather than endangers, their tribe of alien-thinking cockroach beings." Which of those two monsters would you want to use in an adventure?    Fundamentally, I want the following question(s) answered in every single monster manual entry: "1. What are the monster's main motivations (especially related to interacting with pcs)? and 2. What are the player character's motivations in interacting with this monster?" In no case should the answer be solely "1.To kill pcs. and 2. To kill monsters/survive monster attacks." These might be the inevitable results of the more relevant motivations (e.g. in this case "To eat meat" "To kill for its carapace".) However, it gives a different flavor to each monster, both making them more interesting, and also potentially giving non-combat potential for conflict resolution. (e.g. in this case...We'll bring you a cow if you let us pass. We'll pay you in cows for your molted carapaces.) 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).  When a monster's motivation is "kill pcs" how do you problem solve around that? How CAN you decided to bring it cows, for example? THIS is the importance of ecology and motivation. If monsters are, as the designers once said, "primarily just there for combat, so we'll focus on providing that" and are stripped of, say, out of combat spell like abilities and ecology then all you really have available to do with them is to kill them.   EDIT: Mea Culpa. Several posters have convinced me that I've overreacted about the article, in assuming that it meant an inattention to fluff/ecology. I'm convinced that while the article did not address fluff/ecology, that was intentional. It was pure numerical conversion based on priorities of stats and combat abilities. That's a great thing to hear about from WotC regarding how they're doing the maths. Even if that was not in the article does not mean it was unimportant. With that in mind, please feel free to contribute in any way you like to this thread, but I'd hope that the majority of contributions would be ways to incorporate fluff and ecology meaningfully (or at least to yell at me or disprove their importance). In any case, I'd like this thread to be about the title: "The need for monsters as beings rather than statblocks." and how that might be accomplished (or whether it should be accomplished if you think it's bad or unneccessary).</blockquote>

Verification