The Gaming Den

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:52 am**

Whose Story Is It, Anyway?
Mike Mearls

. http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20140317 .

We want to add inspiring, interesting stories to our monsters. But at the same time, we want to make it so that you aren't forced to use the details we create unless they make sense for your game.

~~

This approach makes creatures more cohesive and grounds them in a distinct identity.

For instance, we expanded on hags to make them monstrous fey with a whole network of other creatures that serve or ally with them. They create animated scarecrows, use a horrid curse to turn those who betray them into redcaps, and hire mercenary yugoloths when dealing with truly formidable enemies.

So you aren't forcing people to use anything, but you are forcing them to deal with stupid ass connections that James Wyatt thinks are cute for his retarded bible-thumping children?

I love how they fail, or always take the wrong thing from something...

Taking a cue from the 4th Edition Monster Vault and the 2nd Edition Monstrous Compendium, we're providing more information on each monster's personality, ecology, goals, and place in the world.

How many monsters have a clusterfuck of things like hags, ettercaps, pixie parts, scarecrows, etc? I don't know shit dealing with the 4e product, but here is a reason things WORKED in 2E.

CLIMATE/TERRAIN defines where the creature is most often found. Climates include arctic, sub-arctic, temperate, and tropical. Typical terrain includes plain/scrub, forest, rough/hill, mountain, swamp, and desert. In some cases, a range is given; for instance, "cold" implies arctic, sub-arctic, and colder temperate regions.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

monsters have, even the not so smart ones; a certain habitat they live in. That is it, all you need. How they mingle with each other and shit should be either:

a) something the DM decides
b) something from a published setting or adventure

There is NO reason to give excess shit in the core generic game to get in the way or fuel the rules lawyers to force the game to say ettercaps are masturbating your hags with pixie parts. if there is no inspiration to use the ettercap without having it be a herder of giant spiders that fucks hags, then maybe the monster jsut isnt that interesting to begin with, not that you need to add shit to make it so. for those that already find it interesting, then adding the ettercap/spider/hag orgy is likely to uninspire them, unless it is the "D&D with porn stars" crowd.

yes, 2e had society, but it was how the orc society was made up, the orc entry didnt go nto detail about other races because that is the OPEN part of an RPG that allows DMs to be able to decide how their world works.

this "story" shit shouldn't exist in the core, but is what settings or special cases in published adventures are for.

As long as you fucking twats keep trying to BRAND D&D you will never be able to make it, because the point of it is so that is NOT Gary's Game, NOT Dave's game, NOT Zeb's game, NOT Steve's game, NOT Frank's game, NOT Tweet's game, NOT Noonan's game, NOT Mearls' game, Not Wyatt's game; but the people-in-that-small-group-that-are-playing-it's game. This story shit fails on the concept of "get older edition players back" as they want an OPEN game, not a WoD clone that is forced into one world view.

The reason WoD was never as big as D&D is because everyone didn't want the shitty story attached to it, same with Shadowrun, Rifts, etc. trying to emulate failures like these jsut to be "less generic and more branded" are only going to cause you to emulate their failure as well (see 4th edition D&D). When you finally embrace the strength that D&D had that was being open and allowing for ANY story from those who enjoy it, then you will again be able to understand D&D. Those people unable to be inspired by the fantasy genre and just having a little bit about orcs, without having anything about dragons or crocodiles mentioned in the orc monster entry will find something else to do, as the odds are they already are doing multiple game systems and not loyal to any ONE enough to design your market around them.

Whose story is it? HASBROs and they can keep it. summon scarecrows, really? D&D monsters have all turned into MtG thallids and just spawn more because it works in D&D? Seriously, go make a MtGRPG and get the fuck out of D&D since you don't understand it. EVERYTHING WotC has tried to do with D&D would have better served an MtGRPG anyway and those people would have enjoyed it more with the "story" of Phyrexia, Mishra, Urza, Jayce, etc.

Someone needs to take the HASBRO execs, WotC execs, WotC designers from the past decade al together bend them over and give them a taste of what they have done to D&D, by branding them with a hot iron with the D&D logo. See if then they could understand how this concept of "branding" probably isnt how to make a good game, or actually how to make ANYTHING because you have n reason to be making it other than just to use the logo.

DDN cross-stitch patterns and wood-burning kits coming this fall from HA$BRO and Wot¢!

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:05 am**

ITT: Shadzars gonna Shadzar

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:16 am**

shadzar wrote: The reason WoD was never as big as D&D is because everyone didn't want the shitty story attached to it, same with Shadowrun, Rifts, etc.

I'm pretty sure the sole reason the mentioned games sold at all was because of story and setting. The actual mechanics of WoD, Shadowrun and Rifts are barely playable.

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:22 am**

I've spent a lot more money on RIFTS books than D&D entirely because of the setting they have, the worldbooks are really enjoyable to read.

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:06 pm**

IIRC back in AD&D's day Dragon magazine ran a survey on what people liked most in the magazine and "The ecology of the _____" articles were one of the winners. Therefore what shadzar says has never been true.

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:10 pm**

Vampire beat D&D in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. WoD factually was "as big" as D&D. It was bigger for nearly half a decade.

-Username17

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:42 pm**

Around the time that 4e made dragon women with mammalian, dimorphic knockers a default setting assumption, was when I decided I would be pretty much not using WotC fluff in my games from that point forward.

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:28 pm**

OgreBattle wrote:I've spent a lot more money on RIFTS books than D&D entirely because of the setting they have, the worldbooks are really enjoyable to read.

Well, I could do without the rather random formatting. But, yeah Rifts is all about the setting!

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:40 am**

Previn Siembieda wrote: Well, I could do without the rather random formatting. But, yeah Rifts™ is all about the setting!

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:49 am**

Not enough exclamation marks to be Kev.

Anyway, one of the big complaints people gave for the 4E monsters actually was that you had a statblock of how the monster worked in a straight-up fight and then if you wanted anything else, fuck you. Oh sure, you also had the bear lore chart, which includes such gems as "Bears attack with their natural weapons" (in case you thought they were divine spellcasters) and "cave bears live in caves".

People complained that there wasn't "stuff this monster does out of combat" (note: nobody gives a fuck about the claw attacks of the Succubus, because what is actually relevant is that they can make themselves look like damsels in distress, can lie convincingly, can charm you and can then suck your dicklevels). There wasn't "What this monster wants/likes/hates" (do minotaurs and beholders hate each other like we were playing Doom? Nobody fucking knows. Apparently all monsters just hate all things that look like PCs and that's that). There wasn't even "Can I speak with this?" IIRC (and if you include a Sphinx, people are going to expect sitting down for some riddles, not just another random battle).

So in other words, they appear to have learned their lesson on that point. As much as we will agree on the wide overall statement of "5th edition is going to be terrible", you still manage to find ways to be wrong all the time. Congratulations.

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:46 am**

There surely must be a middle-ground balance to be struck between "3-inch block of #s" and the "2-pages of verbose (yet vacuous) bullshit" of late-3.x.

Cramming 300 random monsters in a book without providing any context is simply unacceptable. Sure, if you're in the "pro leagues", you can probably create context and stories from the monsters out of whole-cloth on the spot. But then your game is premised on some ivory tower bullshit, and you don't deserve to sell any copies.

If you want your game to be accessible to new players/MCs - or even ones that can't be bothered with that much work - then you have to have some sort of implied default setting in mind, and flesh-out your monsters accordingly (though you don't want to go too deep with it).

I thought this was already kinda fleshed out a little in the "how many monsters do you need" thread several months back.

Koumei wrote:As much as we will agree on the wide overall statement of "5th edition is going to be terrible", you still manage to find ways to be wrong all the time. Congratulations.

Aaaaand Koumei FTW.

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:55 am**

FrankTrollman wrote:Vampire beat D&D in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. WoD factually was "as big" as D&D. It was bigger for nearly half a decade.

-Username17

D&D wasn't being sold in those years, so what exactly is your point? Pathfinder beat D&D since the end of 4th edition product sales. what exactly does this prove? Guess what in 2013 Vampire beat D&D sales again because Vampire and WoD actually had products to sale!

Stop talking out of your idiotic and incompetent ass for once.

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:07 am**

wotmaniac wrote:If you want your game to be accessible to new players/MCs - or even ones that can't be bothered with that much work - then you have to have some sort of implied default setting in mind, and flesh-out your monsters accordingly (though you don't want to go too deep with it).

errors in posting and editing so.....

the problem is that when you flesh a monster out too much you end up with something that doesnt fit in many places and you end up with ONETRUEWAY to use a mosnter, like this grazzt shit stuck onto jackleweres. you know a lycanthropic type creature that is EASILY understood without whoever the fuck grazzt is because you can see werewolf, and wolf were, and then figure out what the fuck a jacklewere is if you know what a werewolf is.

likewise with ettercap masturbating hags or whatever James Wyatt dreams of at night.

the mosnters should be plug and play for the core game. if you want setting related material, then buy a fucking setting. if you as a DM cannot say why the monster is there with just the core, then you need a setting book. D&D is not one world it is a game that takes place on millions, so having one world and forxing this grazzt whatever the fuck into every game is fucking bullshit.

Mike Mearls and James Wyatt are incapable of writing novels for D&D as they are not on Salvatore or Greenwood levels. So they force their shitty almost story into the core of the game.

do you really need a reason for elves to be in the game to use or remove them? the problem will be the unified D&D that they want there to be where everyone knows what to expect when they come from game to game. maybe the purpose is missed on these fucks and a lot of new players, that ALL the D&D games arent supposed to be identical, playing in Waterdeep and leaving it to go to Shadowdale to track down Elminster to ask him for help. Is that what you really want? Elminster in EVERY game there is because people get fanboy over him and want to inject him because he appears in a core book?

Elminster, Raistlin, the whatever king from Darksun, grazzt, these world and setting ideas do NOT bvelong in core.

anywhere this grazzt can be put into the game like with the jacklewere, then too Elminster should able to be jsut dropped in, or leave them ALL out.

that is the thing that many people dont get. WoD was about the camarilla on one world, etc...

RIFTs was about a post-apoc world with the tri-fucks doing this or that.

shadowrun is about some technobabble wanking or whatever.

D&D is about... well whatever the hell you make it about, because it can have robots, giant frogs, whatever. they need to leave the story shit to the story writers. dragonborn may jsut fit well in eberron, but them and warforged do NOT fit in core D&D because it takes so much to explain them to work, unless you just go gamist and say well the game says so so i accept it and turn off my SoD and just suck Bill S, Mearls, and Wyatt cock."

Replace grazzt in the article and MM entries with Elminster and see how well you like it then. or just tell me how well you think you would like that? or better still replace grazzt in this article with drizzt!

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:33 pm**

Let me know when you get to the part about anyone, anywhere, actually getting FORCED to do... anything.

Hello?

Tell me again about that awful day those WOTC thugs came to your house and put guns to your head to FORCE you to play D&D by their rules!

No? Didn't think so.

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:44 pm**

wotmaniac wrote:There surely must be a middle-ground balance to be struck between "3-inch block of #s" and the "2-pages of verbose (yet vacuous) bullshit" of late-3.x.

Exactly, I want a stat block that has all the relevant shit at a glance (not buried in an entry halfway down the page, like some dragon entries) and a concise entry of some cool shit to read. Like... a monster spotter's manual.

GiveNoFuxasaurus
Quick, fluffy, descriptive text GO!

A quick background, maybe some other nifty info! :
Unlike the RageBönadon, these guys give no fucks.
They don't hate, bro, but they will wreck your shit if you don't stop bothering them. Just nod and carry on, that's how they like it.

Combat: If it can't be resolved in one or two swings of their meaty paw-feet (and in their favor), they'll just leave. Fuck it.

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:19 pm**

wotmaniac wrote:There surely must be a middle-ground balance to be struck between "3-inch block of #s" and the "2-pages of verbose (yet vacuous) bullshit" of late-3.x.

You mean the 2e MM format? 1 page per creature, combat stats in a block at the top and a section below on the creatures ecology and society. Seriously, look up the 2e Monstrous Manual (it's online).

I never understood why they felt the need to fuck with that to be honest. It seemed to work perfectly well, and they even crammed a few related monsters together when they needed to conserve page count.

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:27 pm**

Neon Sequitur wrote:Let me know when you get to the part about anyone, anywhere, actually getting FORCED to do... anything.

Hello?

Tell me again about that awful day those WOTC thugs came to your house and put guns to your head to FORCE you to play D&D by their rules!

No? Didn't think so.

While partially accurate, you do realize that a social game requires other people, and the community's opinions are very commonly (rationally or not) directed by designers and their products? If you disagree with the industry's direction, you will have an objectively harder time finding players; whether it be house rules or even whole systems. Indirectly, WotC did force me to play by their rules, by making it harder to find players who hadn't drunk the Pathfinder or 4E kool-aid.

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:02 pm**

wotmaniac wrote:Cramming 300 random monsters in a book without providing any context is simply unacceptable. Sure, if you're in the "pro leagues", you can probably create context and stories from the monsters out of whole-cloth on the spot. But then your game is premised on some ivory tower bullshit, and you don't deserve to sell any copies.

I'd much rather have around 100ish monsters, with a couple pages dedicated to making them memorable and ways to either advance the monster or methods to present them as a high CR encounter than random 300 monsters.

I've been playing 3.x for over a decade (?) and if you were to ask me what a Destrachan is and does I'd just have to give you a blank look. If someone wanted to know what an Asperi or a Gravorg is... heck if I know.

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:08 pm**

Red_Rob wrote:
wotmaniac wrote:There surely must be a middle-ground balance to be struck between "3-inch block of #s" and the "2-pages of verbose (yet vacuous) bullshit" of late-3.x.
You mean the 2e MM format? 1 page per creature, combat stats in a block at the top and a section below on the creatures ecology and society. Seriously, look up the 2e Monstrous Manual (it's online).

I never understood why they felt the need to fuck with that to be honest. It seemed to work perfectly well, and they even crammed a few related monsters together when they needed to conserve page count.

Yeh, the 2e DnD format is the one that Paizo uses and they seem to be happy with it.

I kind of wonder if WotC is looking at Paizo and trying to figure out how they did things that WotC/TSR never accomplished like selling adventures for real profit and continuing to make content for successful editions for profit.

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:06 am**

You mean "quality"?
At least WotC has editing down. That does a long way.

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:01 am**

Red_Rob wrote:
wotmaniac wrote:There surely must be a middle-ground balance to be struck between "3-inch block of #s" and the "2-pages of verbose (yet vacuous) bullshit" of late-3.x.
You mean the 2e MM format? 1 page per creature, combat stats in a block at the top and a section below on the creatures ecology and society. Seriously, look up the 2e Monstrous Manual (it's online).

I never understood why they felt the need to fuck with that to be honest. It seemed to work perfectly well, and they even crammed a few related monsters together when they needed to conserve page count.

Um, yeah -- pretty much.
Apparently that's too "old school" and outdated.

May even throw in just a couple of pages worth of examples of integrated groups of monsters (I feel like the "Organization" line is oftentimes a bit lacking).
I don't know ... I'm just spit-balling at this point.

shadzar wrote: the problem is that when you flesh a monster out too much

wotmaniac wrote:(though you don't want to go too deep with it).

Though I admit that the thing about jackalweres was a bit odd and out of left field, it is amazingly easy to just drop that shit if you don't like it. Personally, I thought the bit about the hags was actually kinda cool.
And as already pointed out, I think you completely missed the point. As stupid as Mearls might be, even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And I think that about does it for anything even resembling relevance from that post.

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:02 am**

I like how Warhammer Bestiary split the descriptions into...

1) "Rumors about X": A peasant tells you that time he met a guy who fought a wight
2) "First hand encounter with X": A merc tells you what it was like to meet that wight
3) "From X's mouth": The Wight tells you why he does what he does
Basically like varying levels of knowledge checks

Then there is a voice of god description with the stat block at the end of the book. It was a fun read and made the Warhammer world feel more 'persistant' than any D&D monster manual ever did. It's not that space efficient though.

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:49 am**

shadzar wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Vampire beat D&D in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. WoD factually was "as big" as D&D. It was bigger for nearly half a decade.

-Username17
D&D wasn't being sold in those years, so what exactly is your point?

I know that Shadzar posts are always a window into madness, but can anyone sane actually explain what the hell he's going off about here? I know that D&D was physically being sold during those years. I've posted reviews of D&D books made during that period. By what possible "No True Scotsman" definition is Shadzar using that makes most of the Revised Edition of 2nd edition and the entire Players Option series not count as D&D at all?

I understand that certain flavors of grognards might hate the direction that D&D took during various periods, but it demonstrably existed in 1998. This current period of there actually not being a current edition and no current D&D books to buy is a new state of affairs that has no equal since the early seventies.

-Username17

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:24 pm**

FrankTrollman wrote:By what possible "No True Scotsman" definition is Shadzar using that makes most of the Revised Edition of 2nd edition and the entire Players Option series not count as D&D at all?

shadzar doesn't like the Player's Option series, so he revises history to somehow blame WotC for it two years early. You're not missing any faulty logic, he just sticks his fingers in his ears and ignores anybody who asks him about it.

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:48 pm**

OgreBattle wrote:I like how Warhammer Bestiary split the descriptions into...

1) "Rumors about X": A peasant tells you that time he met a guy who fought a wight
2) "First hand encounter with X": A merc tells you what it was like to meet that wight
3) "From X's mouth": The Wight tells you why he does what he does
Basically like varying levels of knowledge checks

Then there is a voice of god description with the stat block at the end of the book. It was a fun read and made the Warhammer world feel more 'persistant' than any D&D monster manual ever did. It's not that space efficient though.

Deadlands also did this in its player sections of the "monsters books" by having an in character description, by a guild of hunters, no less, describe the creature, with real or often false descriptions of weaknesses and behavior. It made mysteries a lot more fun, not to mention it gave me more of a choice in surprising my players or not, depending on whether the weakness they knew was false or real.

The Gaming Den

Mike "I won't force you, but i'm going to force you" Mearls

Mike "I won't force you, but i'm going to force you" Mearls

Re: Mike "I won't force you, but i'm going to force you" Mearls