I'll not have it said that I'm not a dragon that can admit when he likes what he sees. Generally speaking, I think a good deal of these Wndering Mosnter columns strike me as unnecessary changes...I'd even go so far as to let you in on a little secret...I've mentally renamed this column, "The Fixin' what Ain't Broke" column...but in this week's case, Wyatt gave us [mostly] exactly what he should...regurgitating the canon of thee creatures and getting it [again, mostly] right. Myconids that exist in hallucinogenic communes and can be allies...Shamblers grow [and are healed?] from lightning...Treants that are, what they've always been, [EDIT] direct ripoff of Tolkien's Ents. [/EDIT]
Granted the description is a bit toooo precise in that way, "treants make amazing seige engines against fortresses" might be taking it a bit too far/close. I mean, they certainly CAN be but do you need to cite a direct scene from the movies/books? But the "Legendary Treant" idea totally works for me. I personally would make this a singular/unique creature within the world...a demi-god of/amongst treants, as it were. But that's neither here nor there.
Albeit changing the alignment to Neutral, which I don't really mind...puts them more in line with Druids, afaiac. Though I might make them "Neutral [Good]". A creature that exists in...and, in fact,
is a green growing thing would/should have the understanding that [the bulk of] "Eeeevillll" is in the business of destruction would make them less disinterested/neutral when evil is within or in close proximity/threatening their woods. But that's a nit more than anything else.
I do see [and so will note
], however [and am not surprised] that the survey mentions, anyway, the couple of nonsensical changes they are throwing at the walls to see what sticks. i.e. Should we make myconids crazed invaders? Should there be evil treants?...feh. Or are so vague as to be meaningless. i.e. Does this look like a shambling mound to you? Response: "Yes. Yes it does. That's fine." a.k.a. "Don't do anything more to change/ruin it." And judging by the results from last week, their careful wording and limiting responses continues to give them the answers they desire...i.e. "Yes, that's great. Every idea you guys have is gold!"
Now, how much of that is a result of a lack of old schoolers/traditionalists either knowing the articles are there, being members of/having access to the articles (which I am not and would never gain access to these things if they weren't here!! So thanks to @
Plaguescarred to keep up with this!), or simply aren't interested enough to give the surveys input...I don't know.
But week after week, the results/percentages presented seem consistently, and I'd say disproportionately, skewed to "Yes that's great. Every idea you guys have is gold!" Last week's poll percentages are almost universally what I would not agree with/want/what I didn't answer. This could also be, of course, that I'm off my rocker and simply out of touch with what today's gamers desire...and I'm ok with that, actually.
As for running out of material, has he done "fantasy equines" yet? Seems he could have a cool article with "Unicorns, Centaurs, Pegusi" maybe Hippogriffs too. I know I definitely havent' read 47 of these jobbies so maybe he has. "Bulllywugs, Lizardmen, Troglodytes" seems a natrual combo also. Maybe with Sahuagin, though they might be a better fit for an "Aquatic races" article where he could go into the interactions of same with Mermen/Sea Elves/Locatha...but I
think I recall reading something about trog's already...
ANYwho, GOOOOOD MORNING ENworld! I concur and agree with pretty much everything in this week's article. A rare and unexpected pleasure to do so.
