D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Monster Mashups

[1of3]

I like the Aranea thing.

 

[Tonguez]

hmm I agree an mm note on linking monster ecologies is a good thing but the specific examples should be appendices not in the core descriptions which ought to be more generalised.

 

[Klaus]

I do hope some [or even one] of the developers peruse this thread before things go to far. Since it seems a hands-down across-the-board agreement that the aranae transformation is a non-starter/highly disliked...a rare case of near-universal agreement among ANYthing D&D! lol...So, hope they see this and ditch it.

The trading with hags and jackalwere ideas seem to be in a second place for "no likey"...albeit with a dash of "that's cool for a single adventure idea", which definitely does not say to me "put it in the MM and make it a part of the jackalwere or hag story."

I'll throw out the "spider-herder" as my #3 stupid idea [from this article], though not many have commented on that aspect. Hanging with spiders? Hunting with spiders? Co-existing/communicating with spiders? Fine. Cool. Everyone knows this. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say "have some fey-charm ability to control/command spiders." That could work.

As someone said above, I think it was KM, nothing about ettercaps says "nurturing shepherd-treant-like protectors of their kind." Having "spider-herders" built into their MM entry is a baaaaaad idea...and totally unnecessary. They have [or like having] spiders around them/in the same vicinity. Great. Period. End. They go around their web-blanketed woods herding and protecting spiders?...uh why? Spiders are pretty damned self-sufficient critters...as are, apparently, ettercaps.

Oh, I loved the jackalwere angle. Gave me an actual reason for the existence of jackalweres (they've always been just another "gotcha!" monsters, alongside wolfweres... PCs prepared silver to battle a werewolf and suprise! it's not vulnerable to silver!), and the whole "must lie or feel pain" thing gives them a great roleplaying opportunity (they're simply incapable of giving a straight answer).

As for the araneas: I don't like ettercaps straight-up becoming araneas (as others said, araneas have a place in D&D -- specially Red Steel). I don't mind using the stats of an aranea as a shorthand for the types of powers a mutated ettercap gets. Maybe state it like this:

"Gorged in magic: ettercaps that maintain a steady diet of pixie flesh eventually warp into eldritch creatures themselves, gaining shapeshifting powers and illusion magic. These eldritch ettercaps use the statistics of an aranea."

 

[the Jester]

As for the araneas: I don't like ettercaps straight-up becoming araneas (as others said, araneas have a place in D&D -- specially Red Steel). I don't mind using the stats of an aranea as a shorthand for the types of powers a mutated ettercap gets. Maybe state it like this:

"Gorged in magic: ettercaps that maintain a steady diet of pixie flesh eventually warp into eldritch creatures themselves, gaining shapeshifting powers and illusion magic. These eldritch ettercaps use the statistics of an aranea."

Now this I can live with, and even really appreciate as a good, in-the-books example of how to reflavor monsters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

deleted post.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If someone says "orc," you know what they're talking about.

False. It depends on subjective context. Are we talking 2e militaristic humanoids? 3e tribal barbarians? Tolkeinesque corrupted elves? 1e swine-like, pig-headed humanoids? Warhammer hyper-violent nimrods? These are big, important differences.

But that's not what Default means. It means "If you (or WotC) don't use your own (thier own world-) specific orcs, these are the orcs we've created."

It actually doesn't. It means more "You're using these orcs we've created, unless you decide to use something different." The difference is subtle but important.

What's the difference, though?

There is NO DIFFERENCE between them except in one thing:

"Default" means you describe a monster one way, plus giving the caveat that the DM can change any of the stuff written as he sees fit for his game.

"Examples" means you describe a monster SEVERAL different ways, giving the caveat that the DM can change any of ALL that stuff as he sees fit for his game.

If you think this difference is trivial, I would direct you to the study of organ donations done by Columbia Business School psychologists Dan Goldstein and Eric Johnson. You can read the paper here: Bam.

A default is an opt-out. An example is an opt-in. It's a distinction that has ramifications for human lives, for data security and privacy, and, yes, for game design and branding. Opt-out doesn't accurately reflect the process of how this game is played, how our minds work to construct our imaginary worlds. Opt-in does. Having any kind of elf should be an opt-in process. Having a "default" elf makes it an opt-out process, and that's dissonant to the playing of the game because of reasons similar to those outlined in the academic paper.

 

[The Shadow]

A default is an opt-out. An example is an opt-in. It's a distinction that has ramifications for human lives, for data security and privacy, and, yes, for game design and branding. Opt-out doesn't accurately reflect the process of how this game is played, how our minds work to construct our imaginary worlds. Opt-in does. Having any kind of elf should be an opt-in process. Having a "default" elf makes it an opt-out process, and that's dissonant to the playing of the game because of reasons similar to those outlined in the academic paper.

Okay, I see what you're saying here... but are you really saying there shouldn't be elves and dwarves in the PH? Or that they should have no flavor text whatever? Aren't those just as 'opt-out' as the ettercap description? The game text in no edition whatever has reflected the (true) fact that 'having elves at all is opt-in'.

The game surely has to make some assumptions about the game you're going to be playing.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If you think this difference is trivial, I would direct you to the study of organ donations done by Columbia Business School psychologists Dan Goldstein and Eric Johnson. You can read the paper here: Bam.

A default is an opt-out. An example is an opt-in. It's a distinction that has ramifications for human lives, for data security and privacy, and, yes, for game design and branding. Opt-out doesn't accurately reflect the process of how this game is played, how our minds work to construct our imaginary worlds. Opt-in does. Having any kind of elf should be an opt-in process. Having a "default" elf makes it an opt-out process, and that's dissonant to the playing of the game because of reasons similar to those outlined in the academic paper.

You didn't even read the article you linked to! It describes both opt-in and opt-out as defaults. If you want to discuss whether WotC should take an Opt-In Default approach versus an Opt-Out Default approach, that's different than what we've been discussing.

"Over the course of the last two decades, a number of European countries have been running similar natural experiments with organ donation. Different countries have chosen different default options for the decision to become organ donors. Some countries require explicit consent and opting-in to become a donor, while others presume consent and require opting-out for those who do not want to be donors."

IMO, the Core books should be opt-out and setting materials should be opt-in.

 

[I'm A Banana]

but are you really saying there shouldn't be elves and dwarves in the PH? Or that they should have no flavor text whatever?

Nah, just that the game is designed with the idea that you won't necessarily be using elves and dwarves, and even if you do, you won't necessarily be using them as presented in the PH. A good example needs robust story and mechanics, but it also needs to be easy to ignore. That is, it needs to be not tightly tangled with other elements. Modular. Give me a good elf. Don't give me, say, 20 feats that hinge on a particular ability that this elf has and changes it. Don't give me 12 adventures all featuring the exact same kind of elf. Don't give me monster abilities that depend on this particular kind of elf to balance (AD&D ghoul paralysis, I'm looking at you!). Don't make it part of your assumed baseline.

You didn't even read the article you linked to! It describes both opt-in and opt-out as defaults.

I presented the paper to show that this distinction matters. It follows that if this distinction matters, this isn't just me winging over semantics, and we can have the conversation about how it matters in this particular context.

I mean, if you're going to accuse me of not reading my evidence, at least understand what I'm using it as evidence of, or else you come across as not even reading my post.

If you want to discuss whether WotC should take an Opt-In Default approach versus an Opt-Out Default approach, that's different than what we've been discussing.

No, it's what I've been discussing the entire time. I seem to have been guilty of assuming that everyone is as widely read on psychology as I am.

"Over the course of the last two decades, a number of European countries have been running similar natural experiments with organ donation. Different countries have chosen different default options for the decision to become organ donors. Some countries require explicit consent and opting-in to become a donor, while others presume consent and require opting-out for those who do not want to be donors."

Right. And this difference has caused different results in the rate of organ donation. Because this distinction isn't just semantics, it has a real effect on what people do.

Give me an example elf that I can opt into. Don't give me a default elf I need to opt out of. One matches how each table makes its own local RPG experience and encourages a diversity of experiences, the other does not.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Nah, just that the game is designed with the idea that you won't necessarily be using elves and dwarves, and even if you do, you won't necessarily be using them as presented in the PH. A good example needs robust story and mechanics, but it also needs to be easy to ignore. That is, it needs to be not tightly tangled with other elements. Modular. Give me a good elf. Don't give me, say, 20 feats that hinge on a particular ability that this elf has and changes it. Don't give me 12 adventures all featuring the exact same kind of elf. Don't give me monster abilities that depend on this particular kind of elf to balance (AD&D ghoul paralysis, I'm looking at you!). Don't make it part of your assumed baseline.

None of what they presented does this. As a warning of what not to do, you have a valid point and I agree with you. But it seemed you were complaining about what they've already done.

I mean, if you're going to accuse me of not reading my evidence, at least understand what I'm using it as evidence of, or else you come across as not even reading my post.

I understand now that you want to discuss opt-in vs. opt-out, but you presented your position as default vs. example, which are two different topics entirely.

Right. And this difference has caused different results in the rate of organ donation. Because this distinction isn't just semantics, it has a real effect on what people do.

Yes, it did. People donated at a higher rate (a good thing) when they were required to opt-out. So what's your point regarding the correlation to gaming?

Give me an example elf that I can opt into. Don't give me a default elf I need to opt out of. One matches how each table makes its own local RPG experience and encourages a diversity of experiences, the other does not.

See, you are still equating example = opt-in/default = opt-out, which is not the case. Examples, IMO, are bad for D&D because each example could be plucked from a myriad of different worlds. You'd have a FR elf next to a Tolkein orc, next to a Dark Sun halfling, next to a Dragonlance gnome. There'd be no pattern. And as a student of psychology I'm sure you know that people like patterns. Defaults would all originate from one default setting. As long as that is explicit in the material, anyone wishing to opt-out into their own campaign world or another published setting should get the support they need in the DMG or the published setting materials to do so.