D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Monster Mashups

[steeldragons]

I've been in your corner through most of this...but I'm gonna have to disagree with flinging academic papers around.

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.

What you seem to be missing...and no, I didn't read the article, but I have been reading the posts...or perhaps it's not so much "missing", but applying things where they needn't be/don't belong...is that a baseline, whether you call it "default/opt out" or "example/opt in" [which are both purely created from thin air semantic distinctions], is necessary.

I presented the paper to show that this distinction matters.

Disagree. It matters for organ donation? Fine. It's part of human psychology? Fine. That does not translate to "it is [somehow] applicable to RPG game design."

I find this whole position really unusual coming form the Kamikaze Midget who wants the Monster Manual all collected mini-adventures/ecologies/groupings of monsters. What if I look at that, which you would no doubt presume to be the "opt in" option...and all I see is "I don't want all of these things together! Opt me out!"

You are assuming an objective "in/out [...aw crap gonna have to use the word...] default" where one does not exist.

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.

How does that follow? The sentence should be "It follows that if this distinction matters in organ donation, it matter in organ donation. Humans think along these lines sometimes" [cuz let's face it, none of psychology is black/white 100% objectively "true"] That's all it does. The rest, yeah [I'm sorry!], is winging about semantics...and applying human psychology that matters in one area to another area where it is not as [if at all] relevant.

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.

As per usual. You generally assume that everyone is as widely read [and./or interested in being same] on lots of things [as you are obviously very well read and have come to greatly respect your various theories...but attribute nothing more to them than that. Well-written, -worded and thought out theories and preferences] and assuming that everyone holds that knowledge up to the same importance in D&D as you.

Try discussing what other people are and maybe you would not meet with as many disagreements on such a wide variety D&D-related topics. Try talking about D&D.

I'm all for looking at psychology, understanding motivations and the like...all good fun stuff. But because there's something in an academic paper [about anything! Psychology, marketing, philosophy, branding, business, merchandising, literature, etc...etc...ad infinitum] does not mean or immediately translate to "D&D must/should be doing this!"

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.

People are going to buy the book/system or they won't. Does this apply to the psychology of if they will buy the product? Cuz that's, whole hog, the only thing that matters from a production and sales standpoint. What they do or agree to/"opt in/out" or think after the product is bought matters not at all...other than "will they continue to buy more?"

Give me an example elf that I can opt into. Don't give me a default elf I need to opt out of.

Semantics. What makes the elf you can "opt into" the elf that needs to be there? Who's to say that's not the elf that will cause others to "opt out"? Your premise insists that your subjective preferences [and that's all they are, psychology academic papers or no] are the "opt in" option?

One matches how each table makes its own local RPG experience and encourages a diversity of experiences, the other does not.

Mayhaps WotC doesn't want people making their own RPG experiences? They need their product to be recognizable and copyright/trademarkable...so they can sic the Hasbro lawyers on those that infringe! Outside of certain reasonable parameters, of course. Obviously, they know you can make elves how you want. They know I can make orcs how I want. They know any of us can change all of their carefully crafted cosmology from table to table...But we're all buying and using [the bulk of] the actual D&D game system and a good chunk of their material [the stuff we have no problems with] without changes. Maybe they don't see...or want!...D&D to be as "local" a thing as you insist. Maybe? I certainly don't have any inside track or know...but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[steeldragons]

Man, I wish *that* happened! But more likely it's:

PC1: Dude, that spiderman was nasty.
DM: ettercap...
PC1: Yeah, yeah, that spiderman-thingie! And dude, enough with the spiders!
PC2: Tell me about it! Okay, I search for treasure.

I'd love that.

Ok...I have to ask...cuz I'm just not seeing it...Why?

 

[Klaus]

Ok...I have to ask...cuz I'm just not seeing it...Why?

What you posted showed that the players:

1) researched the game world;
2) acted upon it in character;
3) gave the DM plenty of story hooks to work on.

99.9% of the time, IME, the players know the extent of their character sheet, and any additional information, they wait for the DM to convey.

 

[steeldragons]

What you posted showed that the players:

1) researched the game world;
2) acted upon it in character;
3) gave the DM plenty of story hooks to work on.

99.9% of the time, IME, the players know the extent of their character sheet, and any additional information, they wait for the DM to convey.

Oh! Well..ok. I suppose all that's left for me to say to this is, I'm so sorry that's your experience!

 

[bogmad]

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.

What are your thoughts on the idea of having a certain baseline for the D&D "elf," "orc," etc for brand identity outside of the TTRPG? Steeldragons kinda brings up the same question above.

It seems that it's a bigger question of just what works for us at our tables, but how WotC can capitalize and use the brand for other (more lucrative?) mediums, which in turn will actually keep the TTRPG alive. That seems what the "default" is really intended for. Does that policy homogenize and damage the game?

 

[steeldragons]

@Kamikaze Midget

Not to put too fine a point on it, but given time and interest I could probably find some academic paper or study that says the reverse is true.

Heck, given enough time and interest, I could use anthropology, religious studies and [yes, even] a bit of psychology to make up an academic paper to submit the opposite is true...that default is the opt in and example is the opt out.

Maybe even quote a few PhD's...footnotes n' the whole nine.

 

[steeldragons]

What are your thoughts on the idea of having a certain baseline for the D&D "elf," "orc," etc for brand identity outside of the TTRPG? Steeldragons kinda brings up the same question above.

It seems that it's a bigger question of just what works for us at our tables, but how WotC can capitalize and use the brand for other (more lucrative?) mediums, which in turn will actually keep the TTRPG alive. That seems what the "default" is really intended for. Does that policy homogenize and damage the game?

Yes, exactly! (Thank you for putting it more clearly, @bogmad ) They [Wyatt, Jon Schindehitte, and I think Mearls as well] have made no secret that their mechanizations, thoughts, ideas, creativity are geared not just at the TTRPG, but producing a coherent vision throughout their various media.

Whether you, KM, or I agree with that or not does not negate the reality of the [very much] business situation/decisions that need to be made. [and just for the record, I'm a staunch "not agree" on many things, but that doesn't change what WotC/Hasbro are after]

 

[I'm A Banana]

What are your thoughts on the idea of having a certain baseline for the D&D "elf," "orc," etc for brand identity outside of the TTRPG? Steeldragons kinda brings up the same question above.

It seems that it's a bigger question of just what works for us at our tables, but how WotC can capitalize and use the brand for other (more lucrative?) mediums, which in turn will actually keep the TTRPG alive. That seems what the "default" is really intended for. Does that policy homogenize and damage the game?

I think this works when you're talking about a specific D&D world. The Forgotten Realms has a particular orc. So the next Neverwinter-based game, when it uses orcs, should have FR orcs. And the comic book series set in Dragonlance should have DL orcs. And the videogame in Eberron should have an Eberron orc.

And something that's not branded with a specific world or setting gets to do whatever it wants, according to its own needs. Maybe Nentir Vale orcs are like this. Maybe World Of D&D Movies orcs are like that. Maybe they're even basically like the FR orcs or the DL orcs or the Eberron orcs with the serial numbers filed off. All well and good.

A particular D&D Orc (tm) that WotC tries desperately to make part of its brand identity is only going to ring hollow and inauthentic, because the idea of One True Orc is absurd in the context of the hyper-local nature of the games. Warhammer, Warcraft, Forgotten Realms, Lord of the Rings...these all have a specific setting they're taking place in, it makes sense to have one kind of orc for those specific settings, and so Warcraft orcs (for instance) become tightly branded, because they have a particular character and history that is unique to that setting. To have one particular orc that every D&D game is expected to play with unless the DM makes a special exception is basically nonsense. It's also asking to be crammed into places it might not belong just to cement the branding, which hurts the diversity and modularity of the game (a la the GSL's "You can't re-define elf" insanity).

 

[Blackbrrd]

...

*deep breath*

....

I do enjoy reading your rants!

 

[bogmad]

The variety of "generic fantasy orc" I think is pretty broad to the layman. Sure, a Warhammer orc might be a pretty specific thing, but you put it next to a Warcraft orc, FR, or a Dragonlance orc and most people will still look at it and say "look an orc." It's only us nerds who are going to look at an orc in one setting and think how frustrating it is that this orc is Chaotic Evil instead of Lawful or Neutral Evil, or whatever. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a Dragonlance and FR orc were you to put two in front of me, and I grew up playing the games and reading the books. I think you're overplaying the degree to which people will feel shoehorned into playing a certain type of orc if there's a detailed description of what an orc is in the MM.

It's kind of a weird argument to have with the details we have so far, really. All we've been told is that no default setting will be in place, but we will be getting Forgotten Realms before anything else. FR is a pretty generic, albeit detailed, fantasy setting, so I don't care if the "default" orc matches up with what an orc looks like in the realms. Now if you then give me a "non-generic" fantasy setting like Eberron and orcs are exactly the same I might get upset.

-Let me make a wild guess and imagine that Eberron orcs will be different than the default "culturally" but look anatomically a lot like orcs across the brand do, perhaps with a different art style. This won't really bug me or prevent me from putting it next to a warcraft or warhammer orc and still recognize them as the "same" thing.