What are you a minority about?

[KidSnide]

I've been running (a series of three) campaigns in the Forgotten Realms since 1990, but I skipped everything since 2e comes out. (I find discussions of FR "canon" to be largely incomprehensible.)

I like the idea of a multi-planar universe, but really dislike the idea that PCs should adventure on other planes (outside of extremely rare circumstances).

I sometimes go a year before it occurs to me that I should give out some treasure.

I spend a lot of time describing how the local food changes when my players go from one city to another.

-KS

 

[Votan]

Brother, you're not alone. When I read about how people are playing half-demon bladewing chaos leprechauns or whatever, I honestly have to stop reading. What's the matter with orcs and goblins and zombies? For that matter, what's the problem with humans?

To me, it's the mark of a weak writer that instead of being able to give their foes actual characters, motivations, or backgrounds, they try to stun them with their newness. "Well, see, the half-demon bladewings are trying to take over the world because LOOK OVER THERE THEY BREATHE HALF-FIRE HALF-ACID AND THEY FLY A THOUSAND MILES AN HOUR WHOOSH ROLL INITIATIVE."

I also think that a limited number of races in the world makes it a lot easier to develop the culture and motivations of different creatures with a lot more depth. If you have 100 types of monsters in a campaign you need to have a lot more time than I do for each one to have a detailed set of cultures, motivations and place in the world. Plus, the players can only keep track of so many.

Norse mythology is rich and detailed but it has: elves, dwarves, giants, gods, men and a few unique monsters (Fenris, Midgard serpant -- both of which are arguably giants) plus a few enhanced creatures (Valkyries, for example). And yet they can weave a rich tapestry of stories focusing on the differences and depth of (of example) giants.

Or, in another example, Tolkien had humans, elves, dwarves, elves (3 kinds), dragons, Orcs/Goblins, worgs, were-bears, were-wolf (form taken by Sauron), vampires (form taken by Sauron), flying lizrds, giant spiders and wraiths/nazghul plus a few Maia (Gandalf, Balrogs). But it was still enough for interesting stories to be told.

Adding in dozens of new kinds of creatures forces caricature, after a while, to give them any distinguishing characteristics.

 

[Mallus]

To me, it's the mark of a weak writer that instead of being able to give their foes actual characters, motivations, or backgrounds, they try to stun them with their newness.

What do you think of writers who provide hypersonic acid-spitting blade devils with good characterization, motivation, and backgrounds?

I think the mark of a weak writer is weak writing. The relative wahoo level isn't relevant.

 

[Mallus]

But it was still enough for interesting stories to be told.

Because Tolkien was telling them. Don't forget that part.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You don't need 300 monsters to run a campaign, but it helps. Particularly in D&D.

Sure, culture and motivation and all that stuff, yeah. But sometimes you just want a weird new monster for the PCs to kick the crap out of.