By "sameness," I'm referring to two or more types of monsters who fill highly similar niches and themes in Dungeons & Dragons.
An example: between differences in culture and physical appearance, goblins and kobolds fill the same niche in most campaigns. Small, weak monsters who rely upon superior numbers and guerrilla tactics to take on larger opponents. Trolls are similar to ogres in being melee-focused unintelligent brutes (except that the trolls can regenerate).
For D&D Next, the WotC designers are trying to depart from this. They're making Minotaurs into transformed, warped cultists of the demon lord Baphomet. Thus, Minotaurs in Next will be distinct, in that they're not a race unto themselves but a monster borne of unique circumstance and can possibly have a wider assortment of abilities from their "parent" race.
Do you think that this "sameness" should be preserved, or done away with?
Sameness needn't be an obstacle if its played right. I mean any game that only features humans is using just one species, but nobody is saying that has to be boring.
Wild hill goblins with stolen faerie dust in their pouches and gutter kobolds who gnaw at the stone roots of cities, only emerging to howl at the yellow moon, don't fill the same niche.
Quote from: Libertad;587275By "sameness," I'm referring to two or more types of monsters who fill highly similar niches and themes in Dungeons & Dragons.
I am an options guy, I like having multiple options available to me.
Quote from: Libertad;587275For D&D Next, the WotC designers are trying to depart from this. They're making Minotaurs into transformed, warped cultists of the demon lord Baphomet. Thus, Minotaurs in Next will be distinct, in that they're not a race unto themselves but a monster borne of unique circumstance and can possibly have a wider assortment of abilities from their "parent" race.
This, to me, is potentially problematic. Too much flavor can create preconceived notions in players, DMs, adventure writers, etc. as to how a monster should be used in a setting. It can act as a limiting factor on creativity. Once something has been defined as "X", it tends to stay defined as "X".
Now, I wouldn't object to WotC creating a basic Minotaur and a seperate Minotaur, Cultist of Baphomet. Just don't make all Minotaurs cultists of Baphomet.
D&D has always done exceptionally well at taking interesting monsters from folklore, bleeding all the uniqueness and weirdness out of them, and presenting them like alien races from ST: TNG (little variation beyond prosthetics and one or two exaggerated traits).
Sameness is not the problem. Wasting space in a product with full descriptions of what are, essentially, the same creature is a problem.
Thus: in the original game, goblins and kobolds were listed on the same line of the monster table, and the description for kobolds just says they are weaker goblins. In 1e, they need separate entries with full stat blocks, as do many other humanoids which are all basically just "like goblins, but with more hit dice, or better armor, or different behavior". You could do all that on your own. Just list a bunch of things you could tweak to get a unique goblinoid tribe.
It's even more of a problem with undead. Really, you have three kinds of undead: corpses, skeletal corpses, and spirits. Take one of those, set hit dice, and add some unique abilities and behavior. Only need three monster entries for that, maybe only two, since skeletal corpses are only mildly different from regular corpses. Maybe have separate entries for vampires and mummies, because they are so iconic and can serve as examples of highly elaborated versions of undead corpses.
The description you give of what D&D Next is doing to minotaurs makes it sound like WotC doesn't get that basic point.
Quote from: Libertad;587275An example: between differences in culture and physical appearance, goblins and kobolds fill the same niche in most campaigns. Small, weak monsters who rely upon superior numbers and guerrilla tactics to take on larger opponents. Trolls are similar to ogres in being melee-focused unintelligent brutes (except that the trolls can regenerate).
None of these seem the same in my games. This is probably because setting matters and in my setting they creatures are different in culture and in approach to life. As cannon fooder they might be similar, but my games don't always use monsters as cannon fodder.
QuoteFor D&D Next, the WotC designers are trying to depart from this. They're making Minotaurs into transformed, warped cultists of the demon lord Baphomet.
This a huge negative for me as minotaurs are not this in any of the three settings I am likely to use for a D&D game: the Judges Guild Wilderlands or my homebrews: Arn and the Hidden Valley. This is negative enough that if done for too many standard monsters, it will mean I will not buy or run the game. I'm not interested in running it D&D in the world of the game designers but in my worlds.
One of the best parts of AD&D DMG are the simple tables for creating creatures from the lower planes.
I would much prefer a chapter on monsters in the rule book that allows you to generate them either at random or using points. Then give some samples of some 'classic' monsters created using these templates.
Then in setting material if I choose to buy it provide more specific creatures.
D&D is plagued with monsters that are the same as the last one with an extra HD. Its kind of linked to the level mechanic you need a humanoid think for the PCs to fight at each level so you go Kobold, Goblin, Orc, Hobgoblin, Bugbear, Ogre etc etc ....
I like having creatures that occupy the same zone but have subtle mechanical differences (or even just cultural differences). Monster manuals are big enough to handle that kind of stuff. I am a lot less worried about their role in the game, and more concerned about their role in the settings.
I love having orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears and kobolds to choose from. Not sure I am feeling the minotaurs as warped cultists thing. That sounds like a fine monster; but why not leave minotaurs as is and include a new creature as well?
Ladybird already covered this.
|
|
|
|
V
Fluff-wise, it's the DM's job to fill in the blanks in an interesting way. If you decide that the Elves of old were masters of cross-breeding monsters and were behind the creation of every true-breeding animal-hybrid monster out there, from chimaeras and owlbears to (new school, hyena-faced) gnolls and (old-school, boar-headed) orcs, that's very nice, but there should be some way for the PCs to discover and interact with this piece of setting lore in a meaningful way.
Crunch-wise, creating variation in D&D monsters is trivial, by reskinning, substituting old special abilities for new ones, and extrapolating from other monsters and PC classes. For a 11 HD ogre warlord, I'd extrapolate from both the baseline ogre, and the 11th-level fighter; done, and done.
Quote from: Libertad;587275For D&D Next, the WotC designers are trying to depart from this. They're making Minotaurs into transformed, warped cultists of the demon lord Baphomet. Thus, Minotaurs in Next will be distinct, in that they're not a race unto themselves but a monster borne of unique circumstance and can possibly have a wider assortment of abilities from their "parent" race.
Given that according to the attached poll, that idea went down like a bucket of warm vomit, hopefully it has been trashed.
Quote from: Libertad;587275For D&D Next, the WotC designers are trying to depart from this. They're making Minotaurs into transformed, warped cultists of the demon lord Baphomet. Thus, Minotaurs in Next will be distinct, in that they're not a race unto themselves but a monster borne of unique circumstance and can possibly have a wider assortment of abilities from their "parent" race
So, D&d Next is taking its cues from Warhammer ?
Quote from: TristramEvans;587387So, D&d Next is taking its cues from Warhammer ?
Damn, I was going to say that.
I was also going to say something about if you don't know the difference between goblins and kobolds, but I think the point would be lost.
You can run a campaign with nothing but humans and have endless variety. The sameness of monsters is about the imagination of the DM. I look at the various monster manuals as recipe books. Sometimes I follow the recipe to the letter, most of the time I tweak it so that it isn't the same and I always try to make the flavor suit the players' taste.
I think D&D should be careful just how much "implied setting" it imposes in particular on its game. That sort of thing is something I usually encourage, but when they get hardheaded about it, like what you saw with "points of light" it creates problems for the largest fantasy rpg (with its multiple setting products its supposed to be usable for) that you don't encounter with smaller less popular games that often are tailor-made for one specific setting.
RPGPundit
Hmm, I'm seeing a comparison to how people like their modules: not overly laden with setting assumptions, making it hard to port over into their own game. I agree with that sentiment. Similar but ultimately different monsters avoids "one cookie cutter with lots of backstory info frosting" issues.
It's also part of the reason that various "copycat" monsters makes sense because more than one creature may compete for the same niche. And yeah, the bleeding away of monsters into a more generalized template does seem to be necessary to avoid buying into a specific setting wholesale. That path of overly involved monster backstories might even end up with assumption of having to buy into a game's metaplot. ;)
Quote from: Libertad;587275For D&D Next, the WotC designers are trying to depart from this. They're making Minotaurs into transformed, warped cultists of the demon lord Baphomet. Thus, Minotaurs in Next will be distinct, in that they're not a race unto themselves but a monster borne of unique circumstance and can possibly have a wider assortment of abilities from their "parent" race.
First: There seems to be a mix-and-match in your approach. You start by talking about the mechanical sameness of goblins and kobolds, but then swap to talking about minotaurs being given new flavor text.
Your summary reads to me like: "Here's an apple and an orange. They're both fruits. What do you think about the sameness of fruitness? Over here, we have cottage cheese. WotC is making the cottage cheese taste like yogurt."
Second: Seriously? I really thought WotC had realized that 4E's lore changes were a significant source of dissatisfaction for a lot of the players they lost. But I guess not.
Third: In my current campaign world I have bled away the differences between various races, but I did so by conflating flavor text and maintaining mechanical differences. Thus goblins/orcs/hobgoblins/ogres are all members of the same race in my campaign world. And, similarly, kobolds/lizardmen/draconians are all members of the same race. I try to minimize the "kitchen sink full of humanoids" in my campaign world, but I like having a variety of mechanical flavors inhabiting roughly similar niches.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;588043Third: In my current campaign world I have bled away the differences between various races, but I did so by conflating flavor text and maintaining mechanical differences. Thus goblins/orcs/hobgoblins/ogres are all members of the same race in my campaign world. And, similarly, kobolds/lizardmen/draconians are all members of the same race. I try to minimize the "kitchen sink full of humanoids" in my campaign world, but I like having a variety of mechanical flavors inhabiting roughly similar niches.
This is very similar to how I handle things in my games. There is the General Goblinoid race, with subgroups.
If you are more into figuring out how the world actually works (ecosystem and such) then similar monsters in competing roles start to make sense.
Players know the MM, so the beasties listed should be flexible enough that ability-tweaking is quick 'n' easy. In super bold caps should be a notice that all monsters can be modified (qualitatively and quantitatively) to suit your setting.
I'm concerned with the sameness within the race/species. In a large world, why would all minotaurs worship the same god/dess or speak the same language or have the same traditions. That would be about as interesting as a world where every city has a McDonalds and Starbucks.....
I like having a variety of humanoid races, and have never been bothered by sameness. I don't have them living together in same region; goblins might inhabit the central region of the continent, for example, while the kobolds are remnants of a tribe that was driven into the barren hills of the south, and gnolls roam the grasslands to the west while hobgoblins are found on islands along the eastern coast, etc.
Like Justin and Stephen, I tend to treat them all as one "race," with each type being a regional variant on the main theme. A different culture.
Like many others in this thread, I feel that proposed change to minotaurs looks like ass.
Quote from: RPGPundit;588005I think D&D should be careful just how much "implied setting" it imposes in particular on its game. That sort of thing is something I usually encourage, but when they get hardheaded about it, like what you saw with "points of light" it creates problems for the largest fantasy rpg (with its multiple setting products its supposed to be usable for) that you don't encounter with smaller less popular games that often are tailor-made for one specific setting.
Pundit's got a point there. Part of the draw of D&D (for me anyway) has always been filling in the blanks (to quote Old Geezer, "imagine the hell out of it").
Too bad "IP building" seems to be the thing these days, but I still think they could do it via campaign settings, while the core books remain more open.
It would seem artificial to me if there were not a variety of monsters in any definable niche.
Quote from: RPGPundit;588005I think D&D should be careful just how much "implied setting" it imposes in particular on its game. That sort of thing is something I usually encourage, but when they get hardheaded about it, like what you saw with "points of light" it creates problems for the largest fantasy rpg (with its multiple setting products its supposed to be usable for) that you don't encounter with smaller less popular games that often are tailor-made for one specific setting.
RPGPundit
Really points of light is when I probably started sensing 4E wasn't for me. Just not the kind of setting I like for D&D and they seemed to be saying anything but points of light wasn't good for gaming.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587332...
D&D is plagued with monsters that are the same as the last one with an extra HD. Its kind of linked to the level mechanic you need a humanoid think for the PCs to fight at each level so you go Kobold, Goblin, Orc, Hobgoblin, Bugbear, Ogre etc etc ....
This is truth - and one of the problems I have with D&D style level based games.
In most skill based games a PC gets better but an "Orc/goblin/koblod" still remains a legit threat. The PC may be able to take on a few more at a time as thier skill gets better, but and "orc" can still kill if it gets in an unopposed hit.
But in D&D level based games PC's get exponentially better. With rising levels and hit points you keep needing bigger and badder enemies to even present a challenge.
Which leads to a kind of "Monster of the Week" Syndrome, in play.
Which I personally dislike - but lots seem to love.
Quote from: Jaeger;588993This is truth - and one of the problems I have with D&D style level based games.
In most skill based games a PC gets better but an "Orc/goblin/koblod" still remains a legit threat. The PC may be able to take on a few more at a time as thier skill gets better, but and "orc" can still kill if it gets in an unopposed hit.
But in D&D level based games PC's get exponentially better. With rising levels and hit points you keep needing bigger and badder enemies to even present a challenge.
Which leads to a kind of "Monster of the Week" Syndrome, in play.
Which I personally dislike - but lots seem to love.
This is one of the main reasons I made a point based D20 system without levels. Using the vitality rules is also a good thing to maintain threats from smaller monsters.
As for variants, I have been thinking about making a standard dragon and just differentiating between the different types by picking different feats and such.
Quote from: TristramEvans;587387So, D&d Next is taking its cues from Warhammer ?
Gah, it is so weird seeing my buddy Ray Snyder's face on your avatar. Plus it is in Tony Harris oranges!
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588992Really points of light is when I probably started sensing 4E wasn't for me. Just not the kind of setting I like for D&D and they seemed to be saying anything but points of light wasn't good for gaming.
Are you talking about "points of light" as a concept, or the specific "Points of Light" (Nentir Vale, Arkhosia, Nerath, etc.) setting?
There's something else to consider too: the more variety of monsters you introduce in your game, the less impressed your players are by variety.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;589323There's something else to consider too: the more variety of monsters you introduce in your game, the less impressed your players are by variety.
RPGPundit
For me this is also a big issue with standard D&D - the monsters are practically just as common as cows, and for me they lose thier novelty or shock value to a Player. "oh, just another ...."
Familiarity breeding contempt and all that.
This (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MorePredatorsThanPrey) is an interesting note on the discussion.
It's something I try to fix when I'm designing my own worlds.
Quote from: RPGPundit;589323There's something else to consider too: the more variety of monsters you introduce in your game, the less impressed your players are by variety.
Definitely - this is why I've never run
D&D 'kitchen-sink' style.
I generally prefer to have fewer monsters and present variations on those monsters, which creates the effect a lot of people are actually trying to achieve when they use bucketfuls of different monsters: a sense of novelty and of the unexpected.
RPGPundit