D&D 5E Wondering Monster- Once Upon A Time

[MarkB]

This one's a big 'meh' for me, I'm afraid. If I want to create a unique 'hook' or backstory for a monster in my campaign I'll do it - but it'll be a hook tailored to my setting, and probably of little use in anyone else's.

In a toolkit system like D&D, these story-based creature origins are close to useless - a DM may find, once in a long while, that the story meshes with his campaign to the extent that he can drop the creature in with minimal modification, but once he's done so, that's pretty much it for that creature. Given its unique origin, he can't drop others into the same campaign, nor can he use the same backstory when adding the creature into a new campaign for the same players.

And if the DM doesn't happen to agree that this should be a unique monster - if he wants whole groves of angst-free dryads, or families of redcaps preying upon passing travellers - then the write-up offers him nothing to build upon.

Giving a creature a specific, unique backstory is something best left for a module, not the Monster Manual.

 

[Kinak]

And if the DM doesn't happen to agree that this should be a unique monster - if he wants whole groves of angst-free dryads, or families of redcaps preying upon passing travellers - then the write-up offers him nothing to build upon.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Even if you don't agree with fluff and toss it, the disagreement itself can be the springboard to better things.

As an example from my youth, I didn't like how many high-level characters were running around in Forgotten Realms, so I decided avoid that. But to avoid that, I had to answer questions like "how many high-level characters are there?" and "what are they doing?"

If someone looks at the redcap story and says "ugh, I don't want redcaps to work like that!" they're already well on their way to saying how they want them to work. That's already more to build on than a write-up giving no story elements.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Weather Report]

I'm happy to see Titania mentioned, hopefully they bring back the Seelie Court (Oberon, Caomign, Emantiensien, Davh, etc).

 

[Quartz]

I wasn't exactly enthused by his stories, but as examples of what can be done to make a standard creature interesting, they're decidedly decent.

 

[the Jester]

Great for a story or novel, but not so good to force-fit over everyone else's stories and games.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

As a side note, they should definitely drop the pathetically useless polls... I mean, look at the results, they are pretty much invariably the same statistical curve, with "4" being always the most common vote, and only smaller variations on % results. It just shows that gamers (as a whole) who follow WotC articles invariably have the same reaction to anything they are proposed.

I vote honestly and assume others do too. It's not useless to know that you're designing in a direction that the majority is OK with. The polls often show that none of his ideas are a mega-hit either, as I've not seen many "5s" yet.

 

[steeldragons]

I get the impression that Mr. Wyatt might be a bit of a frustrated author...wanting to color things in D&D as defined for himself/own system. nothign wrong with that. I can certainly relate. However...

D&D can't be that.

The more they've tried to press that view over the years the more resistance they receive and fans they lose. Leave it alone James.

I mean the stories are all well and good. Perfectly fine stories. Should they be in the MM as a defining origin story? Uh, no...and...no. Nice that you can be creative. You have to let the rest of us be that too. [and by "you" I mean the game, itself, not so much Mr. Wyatt in particular. He's just trying to keep/do his job.] WotC needs to get out of their heads that its their job to tell us how/who's what in D&D. Give us the system. Give us a little flavor, a little color. A story that "could be" or that might be "rumored" to have happened or is what "local lore says..." That's fine. Everything in an MM certainly does not require this.

And, as an unrelated aside...for anyone who thinks the surveys and responses are "real" numbers...all one needs to do is see that the alleged highest percentage of responses from last week's column say they liked the Flumph and could imagine using one in their campaigns. Utter and complete hokum obviously fabricated and adjusted by WotC to give the impression they want the rest of us to believe. Flumphs...likable and usable? PFHAH! What kinda rubes do they think we are?!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I like it. Frankly, sometimes D&D is too self-referential; I think it periodically it needs to reach back to the stories that inspired it to be refreshed -- whether they be faerie tales, or Jack Vance, or Edgar Rice Burroughs.

They dryad's pretty cool, but the redcap doesn't work for me -- I prefer the original evil faerie creature legend to the one presented here.

 

[skinnydwarf]

I love this series of columns. I don't always agree with Wyatt's vision of the monster, but I like the idea of more flavor and world detail in monster entries. Here, I like the idea of having some monsters be "unique" in the world and giving a story about how that could have happened. Maybe in the MM entry, there is a "traditional" fantasy biology book write up (I love ecologies), and for some monsters an alternate write up for the monster as a unique (for those that are amenable to that- not every monster will be). Or maybe there is a link to a free web product, if space is an issue.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Stories like this would make great one-page Dragon or Dungeon articles. Even if I didn't use it, it's still soemthing to be inspired by.