D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: You Got Science in My Fantasy!

[Ed_Laprade]

James is heating up the D&D branding iron here.

What is up with all the Io references in the survey questions? (See first sentence of my post for an answer).

More codification of story elements for the uniform D&D Experience (tm). uke:

The fact that James cannot see any further into the literary roots of the game than Tolkien makes me a sad camper.

Thanks again Ryan Dancey! (Not sarcasm)

This.

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree. The science he mentions regarding Orc Babies is anthropology and psychology. In other words, standard fanatasy fare is that adventures go kill orcs, because that's what adventurers do. It shouldn't be too shocking to anyone that that is the main meme. It's the thought put towards "nature vs. nurture" and the morality of killing baby orcs that treads into anthropology and psychology. Then he gave a specific (erroneus?) example of a fantasy setting where they didn't even have babies. You can still have the basic meme even if orcs reproduce like any other race.

That's my point. It gives a vibe that 90% of the origins and drives for the things and major actions in D&D are boiled down to either "a wizard did it." or "a deity created something you oppose." because psychology and anthropology are not of fantasy. You kill orcs because a wizard or deity made orcs all evil. You kill all dragons because Io made them and his daughter Tiamat made all the colorful ones evil. Owlbears are crazy beasts because a wizard made them, chop them all down if you can. Evolving naturally or developing from evil or good societies are ideas from sciences D&D rarely touches for its major beings and iconics.

 

[Dausuul]

The authors of the game decide the list for the game, of course. And then, you can alter them, and add and subtract as you please. They're not even arguing "these other things cannot be in the game", but instead seem to be saying "these other things ARE OTHER THINGS, which doesn't mean you cannot use them in your game, just that when we refer to them, we know they are other things".

Why is there a list at all? What is the point of having a list, if it's just going to be a list of things James Wyatt felt like putting on a list today? Who cares if this thing is AN OTHER THING or THE SAME THING or THAT THING YOU DO?

 

[Imaro]

Wasn't Wyatt the same guy who made the "traipsing through fairy rings" comment a while back during the release of 4e?

 

[MarkB]

As for the larger question of "is it okay to kill orc babies?", surely that must be a campaign-specific decision? If I'm playing LotR, the answer would seem* to be 'yes'. If I'm playing Eberron, it's a fairly emphatic 'no'.

* Although, actually, even that is debateable - if the orcs were created by corrupting elves, what exactly is to say that they can't be un-corrupted with time and effort?

And the work itself includes such an example: Gollum, a creature once of a benign or even Good race, corrupted by constant exposure to Evil into something twisted, malign and vicious - and yet Gandalf, who knows a thing or two, believes that he still holds some hope of redemption, and counsels against killing him out of hand.


Overall, like others here, I really didn't like the article's tone. It seems to suggest that anything with a scientific - not even science-fictional, but any form of science - content is ineligible to be considered fantasy. And frankly, any fantasy world in which I can't just let the raw science fill in all the little details I don't want to think about is going to be hellishly tedious to design, and a chore to play in.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Wasn't Wyatt the same guy who made the "traipsing through fairy rings" comment a while back during the release of 4e?

In the "Worlds and Monsters" book, yeah. And he's also the guy who wrote the 4e DMG, with its unfortunate "an encounter with two guards at the gate isn't fun" quote.

Which is really what leads me to half-suspect this is just a problem Wyatt has sometimes when expressing ideas. In both of those instances, I can basically parse where he's coming from and distil the relatively unremarkable advice at the core ("Encounters shouldn't be boring" is basically the upthrust of all that), but he's got this tendency to frame his ideas as both definitional of thing he has no real authority to define, and ignorant of those who hold a different definition. D&D isn't X. Y isn't fun. Z is not fantasy.

 

[howandwhy99]

"These things are campaign dependent" is the default campaign setting of Dungeons & Dragons: Homebrew. So I'd rather nothing was printed as the "official" D&D brand version or "you're not playing the D&D orc" or whatever.

Every element of the Monster Manuals will be up for change. So, for the sake of providing more material also include genealogies, biology, and all the rest. Then point to a few alternative explanations. And point to a few alternative features. Dragons that don't use magic. One's that are all from an alien world. Ones that are all made of metal and non-intelligent. Sure, keep the basic D&D standards so the community can share a common language, but add variety to spur creativity as well.

Reptiles and Mammals aren't defined in the rules. You should define them if your dragon being a mix of the two is an issue. Magic can go a long way towards why these two animal types kingdoms which cannot procreate together have led to Dragons. Give some examples, but let's try and stay away from declaring canon for all D&D.

Original D&D includes a huge variety of weird and wonderful monsters. And some are in the playable range. But these monsters were almost never presented as one community like Mos Eisley. That cantina was considered a den of scum and villainy, hardly racial harmony. Diverse populations brought together breed to homogeneity. There needs to be an ongoing flux to keep it from not becoming so. Like species in our world most hang with others of their type. Getting past that barrier is part of D&D, but definitions / diversity is still a big part of the game too.

D&D's dungeon is The Multiverse. There is no outside it without being out of game. "Biological origin and a place in the world’s ecology" is to say these creatures originated from within the multiverse. They do not need to be from the Prime Material plane, but they have some origin and a place in the planar cosmos. Even Far Realm creatures are from the Far Realm. They have definition so players may gain some understanding of them for play.

 

[Remathilis]

One answer. Warhammer 40K.

Space elves, orcs, vampires (blood angels), werewolves (space wolves), undead (necrons), etc.

Bzzzt! I want a generic soup of sci-fi tropes, not fantasy tropes IN SPACE!!!!

 

[howandwhy99]

Bzzzt! I want a generic soup of sci-fi tropes, not fantasy tropes IN SPACE!!!!

I think we'd all be better off by rejecting tropes altogether.

 

[dd.stevenson]

But Tolkien's orcs don't have babies. His orcs were created by corrupting elves. They're not a "race" in a modern sense.

From the Silmarillion: "For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar."