What makes a monster?

[TwinBahamut]

And yet, many of the "Slayer's Guide to..." and "Ecology of..." are full of sales. I dare you to pick up the Monsternomicon, read through every monster entry, and not tell me that you at least found ONE that had an intriguing presentation (like the Trapperkin, a child-eater who cannot stand a mother's love; if a mother or woman with child hugs it, it withers away).

I don't think the statement that such books are popular has any relevance upon the fact that I would not touch them with a ten-foot pole. After all, I am speaking for myself in that particular statement, and as such I obviously am not the target audience for those books.

I am sorry, but I don't have the spare money or inclination to take you up on your bet.

That said, what is one man's trash is another man's treasure... and vice versa. I know a lot of people would like to see a lot more written "fluff" for monsters, but I simply consider it a waste of a Monster Manual's space and my money, and I don't think I am alone. A balance does need to be struck between people like me (who barely bother to read "fluff" or "Lore") and you (who are willing to buy whole books full of such stuff).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm kind of with you on this one.

To bring back a catchphrase from a few months ago, IMO, a monster should be able to fill three different roles in the game: Adversary, Anybody, and Ally.

#1 (most important): It should be an interesting encounter.
This means, good combat abilities used in unusual ways. This is good when you're fighting the monster.

#2 (very important): It should be an interesting being.
Monsters come from somewhere, they go somewhere. They need to have a place in the world. This is good when you're dealing with the monster, but not (necessarily) fighting it.

#3 (important to pay attention to): It should be an interesting ally.
PC's who recruit the monster, or who go through its territory, or who otherwise team up with it against the Greater Threat. This is key because it's going to happen and it can't unbalance the game when it does.

For the fluffier monsters, like githyanki and githzerai, I expect to see some more description. Not pages of it, but enough to hang some story on. For the monsters that are so iconic that everyone knows what they're like, or for monsters that don't have a deep roleplaying purpose (like griffons, gelatinous cubes, and so on), a few juicy tidbits are sufficient.

The problem will be when non-obvious monsters don't get the fluff they need.

When considering the importance of fluff to monsters, I think it's important to ask yourself the following question:

How many times have you used a phantom fungus in your games?

It's an interesting encounter. Invisibility, plant abilities, it requires innovative tactics (at a low level) to overcome.

It's colossally dull in fluff.

Now imagine 50% of the MM being filled with phantom fungi.

And we have a Slight Problem.

edit: as a corollary, think of why you might want to use a succubus in an encounter. Is it because of the combat that results from it, or the seduction and evil leading into the combat?

 

[Rechan]

Now imagine 50% of the MM being filled with phantom fungi.

If they're invisible... how would you know they fill the MM?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Many of your answers presume someone with experience in RPing/DMing - I'm talking about people like my 12 year old son. It isn't so easy to make up fluff when you are a kid. You can poo-poo it if you want, you can disagree with me if you want, but I can't see how anyone comes up with fluff based on the writeups we've seen so far (orcs, demons, angels....).

Actually, I am not presuming such a thing at all. A 12-year old child has an imagination, if nothing else, and an imagination is all you need. Also, I am hardly one to call myself an experienced role-player or DM, myself, and my opinion on this particularly matter has changed little since I first got the 3E books when I was 16 or so, with no one to play with other than myself and my brother. I can say that I had no trouble thinking up different ways to use creatures in the MM without bothering to buy "Monsternomicons" or large amounts of fluff text.

Actually, let me use a particular example of what I am talking about. I do not like the fluff text for Orcs in 4E. In fact, the statement "Chaotic Evil" is the first thing I am going to toss out the window. Why? I like the Orcs in Warcraft 3, and I want the Orcs in my campaign to feature orcs more like those. I have an inspiration for Orcs from sources outside of D&D itself, so any fluff in the D&D books is unnecessary.

I think this particular preference of mine is related to the fact that I hate it when D&D designers make bizarre monsters that are hard to relate to. I like the Tarrasque because it reminds me of Godzilla and various mythic creatures like Jormungandr. I like Orcs because I played Warcraft II and read the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I like Gelatinous Cubes because slimes are common foes in videogame RPGs. I like these things because I can understand them in some way without reading chunks of flavor text.

Some other things I like in D&D are because of different aspects of the D&D fandom. I like Kobolds because of Meepo and Pun-Pun (I am not kidding). I like Piercers because they were featured in the first D&D adventure I ever played. I like Boneclaws because they were featured in a great battle I played in during an Eberron campaign. I like Null Shadows because they were pretty awesome in Sagiro's story hour.

Honestly, I think Lore and monster fluff belongs in adventures, not rulebooks. A monster can only become interesting and memorable if it is used well as part of a cool story, not if it is merely described. It is the basic rule of storyteling called "show, don't tell". Show the DM and players how they are awesome and how they can be used, don't just say they can be used for such and such. After all, isn't it the case that, 90% of the time someone speaks fondly of some kind of creature on ENWorld, they refer back to some old module that featured said monster? I have seen people praise the Calzone Golem of all things in such a manner... No amount of lore could possibly save the Calzone Golem, but a fond memory from an adventure can.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

When considering the importance of fluff to monsters, I think it's important to ask yourself the following question:

How many times have you used a phantom fungus in your games?

It's an interesting encounter. Invisibility, plant abilities, it requires innovative tactics (at a low level) to overcome.

It's colossally dull in fluff.

I've never DM's 3e. Too much preparation busywork.

IMO the problem with the phantom fungus isn't that it lacks "fluff", it's that it's a numpty creation. It's a mindless invisible fungus that eats people. Woo. No amount of background fluff could make that interesting roleplaying-wise.

edit: as a corollary, think of why you might want to use a succubus in an encounter. Is it because of the combat that results from it, or the seduction and evil leading into the combat?

What you're describing is what I meant by the distinction between monsters with a roleplaying purpose and ones that don't have that purpose. But what makes the succubus interesting can fit into a paragraph or two. We don't need an ecology article to say that succubi use their shapechanging and natural, um, 'charms', to seduce men and use them to corrupt their souls and societies.

 

[I'm A Banana]

IMO the problem with the phantom fungus isn't that it lacks "fluff", it's that it's a numpty creation. It's a mindless invisible fungus that eats people. Woo. No amount of background fluff could make that interesting roleplaying-wise.

Well, quality over quantity, always.

But if I knew a bit more about the phantom fungus -- why it evolved invisibility, what it preys on, if a certain people keep them as pets...then I'd have a reason to use them. Because, like I said, they ARE kind of interesting from an encounter perspective.

What you're describing is what I meant by the distinction between monsters with a roleplaying purpose and ones that don't have that purpose. But what makes the succubus interesting can fit into a paragraph or two. We don't need an ecology article to say that succubi use their shapechanging and natural, um, 'charms', to seduce men and use them to corrupt their souls and societies.

I largely agree. I think that the orcs have about the right amount of fluff, myself, for D&D. I'm more worried about things like the phane and the bodak and the new monsters. Things that don't already have a good grounding in our fantasy zeitgeist.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

I was talking to one of AEG's story writers for the L5R product line last night and she said "Inspiration is overrated in writting" and she was right.

Because inspiration is usually readily available, its the time it takes to turn that inspiration into something that is the hard part of writting.

Its the same for writting a module, setting up a game world etc. Its not getting inspired that is hard - read a stat block or three and chances are you will get some inspiration. Taking that inspiration and turning it into something cool and useable is the hard part.

Now I think WotC has hit the right balance; they have given us stat blocks (the hardest thing to get right due to mechanics) and the material in them can function as inspiration, and they have given some fluff to provide further inspiration. They have not defined the monsters to the nth degree.

By providing a reasonable skeleton of information on the monster you get plenty to be inspired by, and plenty of room to flex your own creativity. You can do as little or much work on fleshing the monsters out as you want.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't quite understand the premise. I thought the Lore section was informative.

We know orcs are scavengers when it comes to thinks like tools and dwellings. They don't forge their own weapons or build their own huts, they take what they can and live in caves if they can't find anything else. That right there gives me several plot hooks and tells me some ways to fit orcs into my setting.

Orcs recognize those of their own tribe. This is an interesting tidbit. I could use it with some orc NPCs or maybe when they release the half-orc, work it into a plot with a PC. I could weave it into a plot where the PCs must help an orc find some particular tribesmen or risk war with orcs, and I could use it as something the PCs must stop from happening ("Oh no, if these two groups find out they're from the same tribe, they might unite!").

There's the whole elves vs. orcs things that can be used in there as well as well as the whole Gruumsh religion being about slaughter and such. They're orcs, they make great villains. They come in and slaughter people, take their things, and leave destruction in their wake.

Really, I can see people not liking that particular flavor for their orcs. But lack of description? Nope. That just isn't true.

 

[LFK]

The thing I see lacking is that the preamble to the Orcs doesn't talk enough about their signature move; they talk about what bands them together thematically but not mechanically. Though it doesn't take long to see that the non-minions all have Warrior's Surge they're missing a great sell by not bringing it up. Gnolls also miss the chance to sell Pack Attack, and Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins and the other Humanoids will probably miss that chance too with their signature moves.

 

[Rechan]

Well, quality over quantity, always.

But if I knew a bit more about the phantom fungus -- why it evolved invisibility, what it preys on, if a certain people keep them as pets...then I'd have a reason to use them. Because, like I said, they ARE kind of interesting from an encounter perspective.

Let's compare something:

A plant creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Low-light vision.
* Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
* Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, polymorph, and stunning.
* Not subject to critical hits.
* Proficient with its natural weapons only.
* Proficient with no armor.
* Plants breathe and eat, but do not sleep.


An elemental possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Darkvision out to 60 feet.
* Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, and stunning.
* Not subject to critical hits or flanking.
* Unlike most other living creatures, an elemental does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an elemental is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an elemental. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection, to restore it to life.
* Proficient with natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
* Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) that it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Elementals not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Elementals are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
* Elementals do not eat, sleep, or breathe.

A phantom fungus and an Invisible Stalker, then, are very very similar from an encounter perspective. But Invisible Stalkers are more interesting; they're assassins that are summoned, stalk people.

When was the last time you used an Invisible Stalker in an adventure?

But really, the thing that has made me ignore Phantom Fungus the most is because I thought the art of them looked utterly stupid. Not very inspiring.

On the flip side, I did like the LOOK of an Ethereal Marauder, but not the stats (I rarely ever touched planes, dealt with games that were high enough to deal with the Ethereal planes).

Compare that to the Ethereal Filcher, which I thought was both dumb looking and with unattractive stats.

I think "Where it goes, what it likes to do, how it acts" is nice several pages of fluff, the stuff that really get my juices flowing is the stuff you rarely see outside of either mythology texts or stuff out of Ravenloft. Little factoids like "The sight of a widow's tears paralyze this monster" "Only stalks left handed men" "Is held at bay by burying spoiled cabbage" "is summoned by burying a bag of chicken bones and personal keepsakes at the center of a crossroads". That stuff makes the monster unique in a non-ecological nature. It's not something you can get from a statblock. It's purely folklore, and part superstition, and very much "What a layman can do".

I think the most interesting of monsters are the ones that are one-of-a-kind or unique in their behavior origin, like Rumplestiltskin.

I mean, you can't look at a number of statblocks, and decide "Okay, this one likes to punish children by dragging them down a drainpipe and drowning them, then turning them into junk and leaving them to be thrown away by their parents (Rawhead and Bloody Bones), and "This creature stands at the edge of the woods, waiting to hear men int he fields say their names, and thus it beckons them to come in closer, and closer, deeper into the woods, until they are alone and it eats them" (Crocotta).

If I was playing a more mystery-based game (or something set in modern times), this stuff would be essential. Forget the stats, I need stuff to make the story.